Amnesty Hearings

GABOUTLWELWE CHRISTOPHER MOSIANE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Greyling you may proceed.

MR GREYLING: Thank you Madam Chair.

EXAMINATION BY MR GREYLING: Mr Mosiane you have applied for amnesty in connection with an incident which took place in Mamelodi with regard to a person by the name of Pat Mahlangu. Is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR GREYLING: And you have submitted an application which was signed on the 20th of November 1998 in Pretoria.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR GREYLING: And that application was accompanied by an affidavit which was deposed of by you?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, yes, Sir.

MR GREYLING: And that application of yours appears on pages 223 to 237 of bundle 2 in the documents which have been placed before this Committee, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR GREYLING: You have had the opportunity to study your application before giving evidence today?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Sir.

MR GREYLING: Do you confirm the content thereof as correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Sir.

MR GREYLING: Now at a certain stage, you went to Soutpan? I beg your pardon Madam Chair.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Sir.

MR GREYLING: At which stage did you receive the order to go to Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: I cannot recall the exact date.

MR GREYLING: Who gave you that order?

MR MOSIANE: The order to go to Soutpan I got from Simon Radebe.

MR GREYLING: Where there any other askaris who also went to Soutpan with you?

MR MOSIANE: I cannot recall clearly, Your Honour.

MR GREYLING: Can you recall the names Moses Nzimande and Colin Khumalo?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, I recall those two names.

MR GREYLING: They were at Vlakplaas with you?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Sir.

MR GREYLING: Do you know whether they were also at Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, that is correct Sir.

MR GREYLING: Very well. And after you had arrived at Soutpan, did you receive an order at any stage to go to the house of Connie, where Pat Mahlangu was also residing?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Sir.

MR GREYLING: Can you recall who issued that order to you?

MR MOSIANE: It's Col Prinsloo, he was a colonel at that time, Chairperson.

MR GREYLING: What was the order? What were you supposed to do there at Connie's house?

MR MOSIANE: We were supposed to deliver a letter and hand it to Pat Mahlangu's parents and to also notify them that we have come from Botswana and there we have met Pat Mahlangu and he is in a satisfactory condition, he is still alive.

MR GREYLING: Who gave you the letter?

MR MOSIANE: This letter was handed to me by Mr Prinsloo.

MR GREYLING: Do you know who wrote the letter?

MR MOSIANE: This letter was written by Patrick Mahlangu.

MR GREYLING: Do you know under which circumstances the letter was written?

MR MOSIANE: In brief, I would say this letter was written by Patrick Mahlangu under duress. It was dictated by Mr Prinsloo.

INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon, Chairperson, could the speaker please repeat his statement, I could not catch him quickly enough.

MR GREYLING: Did you see when this took place?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, Sir.

MR GREYLING: Did you then take the letter and go to the residence of Connie?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct Sir.

MR GREYLING: And who was with you at that stage?

MR MOSIANE: At that time Colin Khumalo was chosen to accompany me.

MR GREYLING: Was it only the two of you who went there?

MR MOSIANE: I was only the two of us, Chairperson.

MR GREYLING: Could you describe briefly what took place once you arrived there?

MR MOSIANE: On our arrival there, we pretended that we were MK members, who had just arrived from Botswana. The purpose of us going there was to leave that letter and we would request for some accommodation, overnight accommodation.

MR GREYLING: Did you spend the night there?

MR MOSIANE: No, Sir.

MR GREYLING: Where did you spend the night?

MR MOSIANE: Constance Mahlangu, she arranged an alternate accommodation in Mamelodi, a place called Sibayeni. We were accommodated at Sibayeni, where we over-nighted.

MR GREYLING: Were any items of clothing ever given to you that you were supposed to take to Pat Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Sir.

MR GREYLING: Can you recall where you received the clothing?

MR MOSIANE: We were given these clothes at Patrick's home so that when we go back to Botswana we should hand them to him.

MR GREYLING: Can you recall whether you had any weapons on you at that stage?

MR MOSIANE: At that time we were armed with MK rifles and hand grenades and Makarov pistols.

MR GREYLING: How long did you stay there before returning to Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: We spent the night there and the following day we went back to Soutpan.

MR GREYLING: To whom did you deliver the clothing at Soutpan that you had received for Pat Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: These clothes, I showed them to Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras and I handed them to them.

MR GREYLING: What was the purpose with your visit to the home of Constance Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: The Special Branch in Pretoria was under the command of Mr Prinsloo and they suspected that there was an MK Unit that was operating here and again Mr Prinsloo also suspected that Constance Mahlangu had knowledge about this MK Unit that was operating underground here. The purpose of us going there was because there was a possibility that Constance Mahlangu could enlighten us about this unit that was operating in Pretoria.

MR GREYLING: From your evidence I deduce that you went to the home of Connie and that at that stage Pat Mahlangu had already been abducted, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: When we went to Patrick Mahlangu's home, we left him at Soutpan and he was an abductee of Mr Prinsloo, or rather a detainee of Mr Prinsloo.

MR GREYLING: Did you have anything to do with the incident during which Pat Mahlangu was indeed abducted and taken to Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: No, Sir.

MR GREYLING: You request amnesty purely for the fact that after the incident you attempted to conceal the abduction, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Sir.

MR GREYLING: And do you stand by that?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Sir.

MR GREYLING: Did you ever see Pat Mahlangu again?

MR MOSIANE: No, Sir.

MR GREYLING: Do you know what happened to him subsequently?

MR MOSIANE: I do not know Sir.

MR GREYLING: The evidence is that later he would have been blown up. Do you know anything about that?

MR MOSIANE: He was killed thereafter but that is something that I learned at a later stage when I was giving my statement to one of the members of the Special Investigating Unit which was Maj de Lange. That was the first time of learning about that, when I was writing this application of amnesty, that the result of this kidnapping and the abduction of Pat Mahlangu resulted in his killing through explosives. (end of tape)

CHAIRPERSON: ...is hearsay evidence that we are not interested in. Do you have personal knowledge of whatever happened to Pat Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: No, Sir.

MR GREYLING: Thank you Madam Chair, I've got nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR GREYLING

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Greyling. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, no fortunately I do not have questions for Mr Mosiane.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Mr Mosiane I just want to make sure that I understand your version correctly. It is your evidence that you were not part of the physical, the actual abduction of Mr Patrick Mahlangu.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now, can you remember who gave you instructions to go to the farm at Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Who was that?

MR MOSIANE: That is Simon Radebe.

MR JANSEN: Did Simon Radebe also go to the farm at Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Which of the other askaris can you remember being present at Soutpan at that stage?

INTERPRETER: Will you please repeat your question, we had a disturbance?

MR JANSEN: Sorry ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Which other askaris do you recall as having been present a Soutpan during that stage?

MR MOSIANE: There were many Chairperson. Among them I remember Mfalapitsa, Jeffrey Bosigo. Let me say it is possible that there were many, which means half of the askaris from Vlakplaas were in Soutpan.

MR JANSEN: Okay. So you're aware of the fact that Mr Ras testified that you were part of a group of askaris that he asked to go to Mamelodi to pretend to be askaris and that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: To be MK Mr Jansen.

MR JANSEN: Oh sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you imagine if they pretended to be askaris?

MR JANSEN: I wasn't thinking. To pretend to be MK members. This is now prior to Mr Mahlangu's abduction, right. Now what is your comment on that part of his evidence?

MR MOSIANE: That is not correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And were you either, were you part of any group of askaris either infiltrating anywhere in Mamelodi at that stage, or driving around in a kombi?

MR MOSIANE: May I request to clarify when, Chairperson? Do you mean what time?

MR JANSEN: Yes, let's try, if possible, to talk about the period before, just tell me this, when you arrived at Soutpan, was Patrick Mahlangu already there?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: So are you saying that Ras is mistaken if he says that you were part of a group of askaris that were working in Mamelodi prior to Mahlangu's abduction?

MR MOSIANE: He is not mistaken, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Do you mean he is mistaken, or he's not mistaken? I didn't hear.

CHAIRPERSON: He isn't mistaken.

MR MOSIANE: He is not mistaken Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Let me see if I understand this correctly. Before you went to the farm at Soutpan, were you working in the Mamelodi area?

MR MOSIANE: On many occasions, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Well can you specifically remember working on the case of Patrick Mahlangu prior to the time you went to Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now you further said in your evidence that you were present when Mr Prinsloo dictated to Patrick Mahlangu the content of the letter that he had to write to his family.

MR MOSIANE: I remember Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Where did that happen?

MR MOSIANE: It happened at Soutpan.

MR JANSEN: Who was present? Who else other than Prinsloo was present at that stage?

MR MOSIANE: There were people in the room where Patrick was put. I saw Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras was there and Simon Radebe was there and Eric Sefadi. I don't remember others and again I was present, I witnessed that when it happened.

MR JANSEN: Right, just for the record Madam Chair, page 299 of I think, bundle 2.

CHAIRPERSON: Bundle 1.

MR JANSEN: Sorry, Bundle 2, that's the Ras application.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes. 289?

MR JANSEN: 299.

CHAIRPERSON: 299.

MR JANSEN: Yes, the third paragraph. Ras' evidence was that he was the person who gave the piece of paper to Mahlangu and who told Mahlangu what to write in that letter. Do you have any comment on that?

MR MOSIANE: No Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: You don't have any person or are you saying that is not what happened?

MR MOSIANE: I have no comment, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mosiane, your evidence is that you actually witnessed Mr Prinsloo dictating the letter to Mr Mahlangu, that it was Mr Prinsloo who was involved in having to give the paper to Mr Mahlangu and it was Mr Prinsloo who was involved in dictating the content of the letter to Mr Mahlangu. Now what is being put to you is that your version is different from the version given by Mr Ras. Mr Ras says he is the one who gave Mr Mahlangu a piece of paper on which to write the letter that you subsequently took to his family. You must have a comment. Are you saying Mr Ras would be mistaken, he would be lying when he says that, because his version stands in stark contrast to the version given by you.

MR MOSIANE: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, I just wanted to comment shortly that I was not in that room up to the point when the letter which was dictated to Mr Mahlangu was completed, so I did not see a lot. I only arrived then I peeped through then at that time I saw that the letter which Patrick Mahlangu wrote was a dictated letter, then again I saw Patrick writing, then I saw that Ras and Mr Prinsloo were responsible, both of them, who compelled that Patrick Mahlangu should write the letter. I did not stay in that room up to the point where the letter was completed, I only peeped through.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know who gave Mr Mahlangu a piece of paper on which this letter was subsequently written?

MR MOSIANE: No Chairperson, I did not see the person responsible for issuing the paper, I only arrived when he was busy writing.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how are you able to say in your evidence in chief that the letter was written under duress and that Mr Prinsloo dictated what had to be on that letter?

MR MOSIANE: I'm able to see if a person was compelled to write the letter under the situation which Patrick Mahlangu was and again I'm able to observe when a person is writing freely.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed Mr Jansen, so what are you saying Mr Mosiane, are you saying that you wouldn't therefore disagree with what Mr Ras is saying if Mr Ras says he is the one who gave Mr Mahlangu a piece of paper and he's the one who actually told him what to write on that piece of paper?

MR MOSIANE: I would not dispute that Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair. Mr Mosiane I just want to briefly return to the issues I was canvassing with you just now in respect of the abduction of Mr Mahlangu. Were you ever told by any of the other askaris, or other police members, about the abduction of Mr Mahlangu at that time?

MR MOSIANE: Which time, Chairperson?

MR JANSEN: At the time that you were at Soutpan. did any of them tell you who was involved in his abduction and under what circumstances he was abducted?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: So you're saying Mr Ras is making a mistake if he either says or implies that you were involved in the abduction? Correct?

MR MOSIANE: If Mr Ras says I was present during the abduction of Patrick Mahlangu, he's making a mistake.

MR JANSEN: Yes, I don't think he put it that strongly, but he certainly remembers you better than the other askaris being there prior to the abduction of Mr Mahlangu.

MR MOSIANE: Should I make a comment, or is it just a statement which doesn't need a reply?

MR JANSEN: No I just want to put to you in fairness what I understand Ras’ evidence to be. I think your comment on this issue is clear, so you don't need to comment. I mean, I'm not going to be arguing that you are untruthful on this aspect. I want to go further, to the next issue, which relates to your application on page 237 of bundle 2. There is the next incident that you deal with, in other words the kidnapping of Bomber and I just want to tell you why I believe this may be relevant for this Hearing in respect of Mr Mahlangu's matter. Am I correct in saying that after the Patrick Mahlangu incident, askaris including yourself were still deployed in the Mamelodi area?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And at that stage you seem to have been acting directly under the instructions of Prinsloo, this is now after the Mahlangu incident.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Where do you glean that information from Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Well from paragraph 2 on that page 237, paragraph 2, only the name of Mr Prinsloo is mentioned. The name of other Vlakplaas officers are no longer mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is your information that he was acting under Mr Prinsloo's instruction in relation to this incident?

MR JANSEN: Well maybe I should clear that up with him.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not here. When I read this he seems to have been acting under the command of Mr Radebe.

MR JANSEN: Alright, let me try and - yes that unit that you were working with, right, that was under the command of Mr Radebe at that stage?

MR MOSIANE: Which stage are you referring to because are we not talking about Bomber, not about Mahlangu?

MR JANSEN: Yes, we're talking about the Bomber case, in other words the period after Pat Mahlangu.

MR MOSIANE: So what about Bomber?

MR JANSEN: The unit of askaris was functioning under the direct orders, it would seem, of Mr Radebe, at that stage. Am I correct in saying that?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Do you know from whom he was getting his instructions?

MR MOSIANE: In regard to Bomber's operation, the instructions came from Mr Prinsloo.

MR JANSEN: Yes. Now can you remember how long after the Patrick Mahlangu incident, were you still deployed and patrolling in Mamelodi?

MR MOSIANE: I don't remember Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Can you remember whether the abduction of any individuals were discussed in that period, other than Bomber now?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen. Mr Cornelius?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Mosiane, you say that you went to Soutpan. Do I understand your evidence correctly that when you arrived at Soutpan, Patrick Mahlangu was already there, or am I incorrect?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What were you instructions? What did you have to do there?

MR MOSIANE: We took this letter that was written by Patrick and we handed it to his parents and we were to pretend that we were from Botswana and we were seeking overnight accommodation and we had to calm them down and to give them guarantee that Patrick is still alive in Botswana and he's in a good condition, we have seen him since we have just come back from Botswana, and that is how we got the letter from him.

MS VAN DER WALT: So that was your instruction. Where did you receive this instruction from, was it at Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: We got this instruction at Soutpan.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. But I would like to know, you arrived at Soutpan when Patrick Mahlangu was already there, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Sir.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now were you at Vlakplaas before you went to Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: I think so, Your Honour.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then receive your instruction at Vlakplaas as to what you had to do at Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: No, Sir.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you go to Soutpan? What was told to you at Vlakplaas? What did you have to go and do at Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: There are rules that are very difficult for people who were not involved that they would understand the need-to-know rule applied if you were given instructions that you were supposed to go to Soutpan, you would not question anything but you'll only get further instructions on your arrival there at Soutpan.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you or were you not advised why you had to go to Soutpan when you were instructed to do so by Mr Simon Radebe?

MR MOSIANE: No, Sir.

MS VAN DER WALT: How many people were given instructions at that stage when you went to Soutpan, who were all there when you received that instruction to go to Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: I cannot recall how many of us were there when we were going to Soutpan. Further that I can recall that Simon Radebe came to fetch us with a kombi. he was accompanied by Eric Sefadi.

MS VAN DER WALT: All the askaris at that stage, did they all go to Soutpan at that stage?

MR MOSIANE: No, Sir.

MS VAN DER WALT: Your evidence is that half of the operatives at Vlakplaas, meaning the askaris, were at Soutpan when you arrived, is that not so?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now I want to know from you, how many accompanied you and who was at Soutpan when you went to Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: On our arrival at Soutpan we found Mr Prinsloo's unit there and a part of the operatives of Vlakplaas already there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who were they?

MR MOSIANE: I found Mfalapitsa, Jeffrey Bosigo, Eric Sefadi, Simon Radebe and others that I cannot recall clearly, that they were already present on my arrival at Soutpan.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to Mr Ras’ evidence, there were between 5 and 7 askaris at Soutpan, what do you say about that?

MR MOSIANE: That is possible, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I ask you then how many askaris were there then in total at Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: There were many.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you are saying it is possible that there would only be 5 to 7 at Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: There were more than that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Are you saying Mr Ras' evidence is incorrect?

MR MOSIANE: Yes at that point he is definitely making a mistake.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you arrived at Soutpan, who then gave you instructions there?

MR MOSIANE: What instructions?

MS VAN DER WALT: The instructions that you had to execute according to your evidence with regard to the letter.

MR MOSIANE: It's Mr Prinsloo who gave me the instructions.

MS VAN DER WALT: And at that stage you were under the command of Mr Ras because he was from Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: The way you put it might confuse us because the institution that I was working for under police had a certain chain of command and when the command flowed down but the way you put it now when you want to say that these two played no role here but when I was given these instructions Mr Ras was with Mr Prinsloo, so he cannot say he had no role in it and this operation was Mr Prinsloo's.

MS VAN DER WALT: I put it to you that Mr Ras testified that he was in command of the operation there with regard to the askaris and that Mr Prinsloo did not directly give instructions to the askaris.

MR MOSIANE: I think there is a mistake in that regard, or it might be a deliberate mistake. Mr Prinsloo, he was in charge of the abduction of Mr Pat Mahlangu. If you say that I was under the command of Mr Ras that doesn't carry much weight.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Ms van der Walt? Did you understand the situation to be that you were under Mr Prinsloo's command at the time when you were given instructions by Mr Simon Radebe to go to Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: At the time, whilst I was still in Vlakplaas, I was not under the command of Mr Prinsloo, but I only fell under his command on my arrival at Soutpan.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you believe that you were under the command of Mr Prinsloo and not Mr Ras whilst you were at Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: In the police when commands are given by senior officers to junior officers, Mr Ras in this operation was subordinated to Mr Prinsloo, in this operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it customary in operations such as these, where you were transferred from Vlakplaas, to do an operation outside the confines of Vlakplaas, that once you got into a particular operation, you would cease to be under the command of somebody from Vlakplaas and you would then act under the command of the most senior in the place in which you were doing your operations?

MR MOSIANE: Madam Chair, it was not only customary, it was a tradition.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Prinsloo known to you prior to this incident?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you knew him to be much senior than Mr Ras?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: You are saying that Mr Prinsloo, it was his operation to abduct Patrick Mahlangu.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why do you say that?

MR MOSIANE: You should understand that Mr Prinsloo, he was the Commander of the Special Branch under the Northern Transvaal region and also he was in charge of all the operations that fell in the region of Pretoria. There was no way that Mr Ras as a junior officer, could be in charge in the jurisdiction that was overseen by Mr Prinsloo.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Mosiane, please listen carefully to my question. I ask you, following on what you testified, do you say that Mr Prinsloo was in command of the operation to abduct Patrick Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: Let's get this very clear. I found Patrick already there in Soutpan, already abducted. As to how was he abducted and who gave the orders, that I do not know.

MS VAN DER WALT: But this follows on an answer that you gave when the Honourable Chairperson asked you and you said Mr Prinsloo was in command of the operation to abduct Patrick Mahlangu. Do you recall that you answered in that manner?

MR MOSIANE: I do not recall that. Not at all. It's not like that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because I want to put it to you that the evidence before this Honourable Committee is that when Mr Prinsloo arrived at the farm, he was very dissatisfied with the fact that Patrick Mahlangu had been abducted. Can you comment?

MR MOSIANE: I do not have proof that the feelings of Mr Mahlangu, how his feelings were because when I arrived in Soutpan, Patrick Mahlangu was already abducted.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you ask your fellow askaris who were there at Soutpan, under which circumstances Patrick Mahlangu had arrived there?

MR MOSIANE: There was no need for me to ask them such a question because it was quite clear that he was abducted, Patrick Mahlangu.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did not one of your fellow askaris tell you that they had infiltrated there at Patrick Mahlangu and that as a result of information which had been received by Patrick Mahlangu, they were then exposed as persons who were possibly involved with the police?

MR MOSIANE: Please explain your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't there something wrong with the translation?

MR MOTATA: Probably something wrong with the translation.

MR MOSIANE: Please rephrase your question, Ms van der Walt, or repeat your question rather.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did not one of your fellow askaris tell you, when you arrived at Soutpan, that they had infiltrated Patrick Mahlangu and that after Patrick Mahlangu had received certain information from Botswana, they had been confronted, they would be the persons who had infiltrated and it then appeared that Patrick Mahlangu realised that they were involved with the police?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mosiane, what is it that you do not understand?

INTERPRETER: Please let me repeat the question to Mr Mahlangu.

CHAIRPERSON: To Mr Mosiane. Are you translating?

INTERPRETER: I'm translating. Can I repeat the question to him?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he seems to be having a problem in understanding the question.

MR MOSIANE: That is not correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now do you understand the question?

MR MOSIANE: Very clear, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And your response is?

MR MOSIANE: I was never given such information, that is my answer.

MS VAN DER WALT: However, before the Honourable Chairperson put this question to you, you stated that it was not correct. Is that correct? Did I hear you correctly? Was the interpretation correct?

MR MOTATA: Ms van der Walt, I think the mistake emanated from the interpreters.

CHAIRPERSON: Translation.

MR MOTATA: From the translation. I understood it in Sotho and it's precisely what he said later, you can accept that from me.

MS VAN DER WALT: So did nobody convey any information to you indicating that they or that their cover-up in Mamelodi had been discovered?

CHAIRPERSON: He's already responded to that Ms van der Walt. He says he was not given such information.

MS VAN DER WALT: So if there would be any such evidence indicating that this would be the reason why Mr Mahlangu was abducted, you would also not be able to comment on that?

MR MOSIANE: No comment on that Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You stated that you knew Mr Prinsloo before this incident and that he was also aware that you had participated in certain operations, particularly regarding infiltrations, is that correct? Did you hear the question?

INTERPRETER: There is a technical problem. You may continue.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish the question to be put to you again Mr Mosiane? You may put the question again Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have already admitted that you knew Mr Prinsloo before this particular incident, is that correct? Do you still have a problem with the interpretation?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you experiencing some problems in getting the translation, Mr Mosiane? Mr Mosiane?

INTERPRETER: I think that the problem is solved, you can continue. Ms van der Walt, please repeat your question, he can hear now.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Ms van der Walt going too fast?

INTERPRETER: No she is not going too fast there was just a technical problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

INTERPRETER: Ms van der Walt, you can repeat your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Greyling, are you experiencing some problems on behalf of your client. If you are, won't you please just direct them to the Chair instead of speaking to Mr Mosiane, whilst he is still under cross-examination.

MR GREYLING: Yes, Madam Chair he just told me that there's some ...(indistinct) in his head phones.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mosiane if you have a problem, won't you please direct your problem to me and not speak to your attorney, that is not allowed. If you have a problem, just give me an indication and I will try and assist you.

MR MOSIANE: I understand that Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is Mr Mosiane's problem sorted out now?

MR MOSIANE: My problem is solved, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you wish the question to be put to you again?

MR MOSIANE: Please Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The question was, in your evidence you've testified that Mr Prinsloo was known to your prior to this incident.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Ms van der Walt.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MS VAN DER WALT: And is it correct that Mr Prinsloo was aware of the fact that before this incident you had been involved with infiltrations?

MR MOSIANE: That might be possible.

MS VAN DER WALT: In your evidence in chief, you testified very pertinently that you received an order to go to Connie Mahlangu and furthermore you stated that you were to convey a letter to Connie Mahlangu. The letter was written by Patrick Mahlangu under duress upon the instructions of Mr Prinsloo and you saw that he wrote the letter. Do you recall that aspect of the evidence which you gave?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is it correct? (end of tape)

MR MOSIANE: It is correct, it is the truth.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you present all the time?

MR MOSIANE: No, not all the time.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now can you tell the Honourable Committee from precisely which point in time you were present when the letter was being written and what exactly took place during that period of time?

MR MOSIANE: Whilst this letter was being written, I was shown Pat Mahlangu. He was busy writing and Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras were present. It became very clear that the letter that he was writing, it was being dictated to him by these two people, which is Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you are saying that it was very clear that this letter was being dictated by Prinsloo and Ras. What were they saying, Messrs Prinsloo and Ras?

MR MOSIANE: I cannot recall what exactly were they saying, or what they were saying, because I did not stay long in there. I just peeped in, I saw what was happening.

MS VAN DER WALT: But I want to know. You were there and I want to know who was speaking. Who did the talking while you were there?

MR MOSIANE: These people were talking and they were not giving each other a chance.

MS VAN DER WALT: The interpretation was that they did not give each other the opportunity, is that correct? What do you mean by that?

MR MOSIANE: It was quite clear that, or it seemed that most of the things had to come from both of them simultaneously, like they were talking simultaneously.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Mosiane, do not testify that it appeared to be as such. I want to know from you precisely what took place there. Who spoke, because one cannot dictate a letter to someone if two persons are speaking simultaneously, that is impossible. I don't want to know how things appeared to be, I want to know precisely what happened.

MR MOSIANE: I saw Patrick who was writing a letter and it was being dictated to him and he was writing this letter under duress. I cannot explain this any further or any other way.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Ms van der Walt? Is it now your evidence that the person who was dictating the letter was not only Mr Prinsloo, as you have previously alleged, so you are now saying it was both Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it also your evidence that you could not hear what was being dictated to Mr Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: On what basis then did you form an opinion that the letter was being written under duress by Mr Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: In terms of my observations it was Patrick Mahlangu. There's no way I would say that he was writing that letter freely. There is no way I can conclude that that guy was writing that letter free will, out of his own volition, when it is very clear and it was very evident that this letter was dictated to him by Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras. There is no way I cannot make such a conclusion and there is no way that I can say that guy was writing that letter out of his own free will.

CHAIRPERSON: So what you are saying Mr Mosiane is that the evidence that you are putting forward is as a result of what you were able to deduce from the factors surrounding a person you already knew to have been abducted?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson. This person has been abducted and has been put there and he is forced to write a letter by Mr Ras and Mr Prinsloo.

CHAIRPERSON: And this is your own deduction?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: You are very well spoken, is that correct, Mr Mosiane? You speak quite easily.

CHAIRPERSON: We didn't get the translation of Mr Mosiane's response.

MR MOSIANE: Do you know me better?

MS VAN DER WALT: I'm observing you as such.

MR MOSIANE: I'm saying, you know me better.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mosiane, Ms van der Walt is making a comment about you. She's asking if you are well spoken, meaning in English, Ms van der Walt. Do you understand what she is asking?

MR MOSIANE: Ms van der Walt knows me. She knows me, it's not for the first time that I met her, for the first time here.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you responding by saying she knows you better? Oh I thought you were asking a question if she knew you better? There is a response, Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see Mr Mosiane, I put it to you that the evidence of Mr Prinsloo was that the fact that an operation was going to be carried out, when this was discussed with Mr Ras, Mr Prinsloo wanted to know which askaris he would bring with and your name was mentioned, that is with regard to the infiltration and Mr Prinsloo expressed his satisfaction because he said that you were the sort of person who could be easily infiltrated because you were easily conversant with people. You could communicate quite easily with people. What do you say about that evidence by Mr Prinsloo?

MR MOSIANE: I'm saying again that Mr Prinsloo, it was not for the first time I worked with Mr Prinsloo. I worked with Mr Prinsloo in many instances. Therefore I would not question his assessment about me.

MS VAN DER WALT: I also want to put it to you that it is Mr Prinsloo's evidence that when he arrived on the farm and noticed that Patrick Mahlangu had been abducted, he also came to you and said to you: "What happened here? Why was this man abducted?" and you then said to him that you had been exposed as policemen and that that was the reason, that your lives were in danger.

MR MOSIANE: It is very preposterous to think that Mr Prinsloo can send me on a preliminary mission to Patrick Mahlangu's place and again send me for the second time to infiltrate at the very same place and pretend to be from Botswana and a freedom fighter. That's not the way it goes, so it is very clear that Mr Prinsloo had sent some people previously to Mr Pat Mahlangu's house and sent me together with Moses Nzimande later, otherwise Mr Prinsloo might be a former police Security person who ...(indistinct) and subject some freedom fighters to abuse, but he was not an idiot. He couldn't have done that, that's not how it works.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see Mr Ras’ evidence is and this also appears in his application, his evidence is that the letter which was written by Patrick Mahlangu was posted to the family from Botswana.

MR MOSIANE: Then it is very clear that we are talking about several letters here. I'm talking about the letter I gave to Patrick Mahlangu's family personally and he is referring to a letter that I don't know of.

MR JANSEN: Sorry Madam Chair, maybe just in fairness I think Ras’ evidence wasn't quite as categoric as that. On page 15 Ras says as follows

"It is possible that I may have thought about posting the letter in Botswana and that I did not do so and that I gave the letter to Mosiane and requested clothing."

So I think Ras’ evidence was not categoric that he sent it to Botswana.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen, for bringing that to our attention. Ms van der Walt you have to rephrase your question because it seems to suggest that it was Mr Ras’ evidence that the letter was sent from Botswana and that Mr Mosiane was never sent to the Mahlangu family with the letter that was dictated or written by Mr Mahlangu.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Ras conceded that there is a possibility that he may be mistaken, is that correct?

Then in either of the events, we have heard the following from Mr Mosiane. I will leave it at that however, it is not of complete relevance at the moment.

MR JANSEN: May I just refer to the previous question that Ms van der Walt asked the applicant? She referred to that Mr Prinsloo asked the applicant about the circumstances in which Mr Mahlangu was abducted. She said that Mr Prinsloo testified that they were in danger. As far as I read the evidence of Mr Prinsloo, that was indeed not his testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The danger posed was that...

MR GREYLING: As far as I see it, he said that and I refer to page 224 of the record that was supplied to me, in the middle of the page, Mr Prinsloo

"As far as I can recall, I did not ask him pertinently whether or not he was involved. I simply asked him what they had taken the man and then he explained to me. He did not deny it. He didn't say that he wasn't involved."

So that question that was put to the applicant is indeed not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: If you would look at page 150 at the bottom of the page, that is what I am referring to and then it goes over onto page 151 and continues.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Greyling have you had an occasion?

MR GREYLING: Yes, Madam Chair, I've seen the page which Ms van der Walt referred me to. I just want to put on record that although that is more pertinent, the version was changed in cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You are not sitting with an issue that's crystal clear.

MR GREYLING: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: You are treading on slightly turbulent waters.

MR GREYLING: Indeed. But it was put to my client that it was indeed crystal clear and that's not a fact.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Mosiane, Mr Ras testified that he gave Patrick Mahlangu an order to compose a letter to his family and that Mr Prinsloo was not at all present.

MR MOSIANE: It is possible, but it's clear that Ms van der Walt is talking about two letters, that is the letter which Ras says he posted and there is a letter which was given to me to take it to Mahlangu's place.

MS VAN DER WALT: We are only referring to one letter. Mr Jansen has indicated that Mr Ras stated that it is possible that he may have given the letter to you and not posted it. Did you hear that? Therefore we are only referring to one letter and that is the letter which you have testified about which, according to you, you took to the family. That letter, I put it to you, according to Mr Ras in his evidence was written under his order and Mr Prinsloo was not present during this. Did you get the interpretation?

MR MOSIANE: I have no problem with the ear phones.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is so Mr Mosiane, we will appreciate if you could respond to what is being put to you. You are expected to make some comment.

MR MOSIANE: What I would comment, that even if Ras would take responsibility, that he's the one who dictated the letter, but Mr Prinsloo was present when the letter was written.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Prinsloo as well as Mr Ras testified that he was not present.

MR MOSIANE: Perhaps he was not present in my absence, but when I was there I saw Mr Prinsloo, that he was present during the writing of the letter.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms van der Walt. Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Chairperson I have no questions to this applicant, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Just a few issues Madam Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Mr Mosiane you indicate on page 234 of the application that the letter was to be handed to any member of Mr Mahlangu's family. It's at the beginning of paragraph 2. Is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Was the instruction not to hand it to the parents of Mr Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: That was not important Chairperson, if they were not there and I found the sister, what could have happened?

CHAIRPERSON: But what were you told specifically? To whom was the letter to be handed over?

MR JOUBERT: The letter was supposed to be delivered to members of the Mahlangu's family. It was supposed to be delivered to Mahlangu's family, as to whether I gave it to the uncle or to the father or to anybody, that was not important, but I had to make sure that the letter arrived or was delivered at Mahlangu's place.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue Mr Joubert.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you Madam Chair. Further on in that same paragraph, you indicate that you were taken by Pat Mahlangu's sister, that would now be Connie Mahlangu, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And she took you to a hiding place in Sibayeni?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Did you at that stage already have the clothing which was provided to you?

MR MOSIANE: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall when you obtained the clothing?

MR MOSIANE: I don't remember because I went there on two occasions but I think it was on the first occasion. Yes, it was at the first occasion.

CHAIRPERSON: ...refer to paragraph 2, Mr Mosiane, that's page 234, the paragraph you've already been referred to by Mr Joubert and the last four lines, at the bottom of that paragraph you say you spent the night there and in the morning Pat Mahlangu's sister arrived with a bag containing pat's clothes.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Are you quite sure that it was indeed Connie Mahlangu that handed you the clothing and took you to the hiding place?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Couldn't it have been Queen, the wife of Pat Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: You see, I'd like to refer you to bundle 3, page 60 thereof. The statement by Constance Busisiwe Mahlangu, paragraph 19 on that page, and I quote

"Queen took them to Sister Bongi who also lived in Mamelodi. They also took some of Pat's clothing with them which Queen had given to them."

Do you have any comment to that?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, this thing is in this way. Connie Mahlangu took us to Sibayeni and at that place that is where Patrick Mahlangu's wife was staying, that is Queen. That is where we found the clothes there. I don't remember as to whether it was handed to us by Connie or Queen.

MR JOUBERT: Then with reference to the letter that has been discussed quite considerably, on the same page 60 of bundle 3, at paragraph 18 thereof or paragraph 17 and 18, it is stated that, and I quote

"Approximately a month after Patrick's disappearance another letter arrived."

Paragraph 18:

"A short while after Pat's letter arrived, two men arrived there.'

If I understand this correctly, it indicates that this letter was received either by post or by somebody else prior to you arriving there. Do you have any comments on that?

MR MOSIANE: It is clear therefore that we are now talking about more than one letter.

MR JOUBERT: Well at no stage does she refer to any letter handed to her by people who approached her.

MR MOSIANE: How many letters are we talking about, because the letter which I was given, I handed over to Patrick's family. Now it seems there is another letter after a month which was delivered there and I don't know about that one.

MR JOUBERT: May I also refer you to page 45 of bundle 3? It's a statement by Queen Kene, the wife of Patrick Mahlangu, on paragraph 8 thereof where she refers to this letter and she indicates in the middle of that paragraph, and I quote

"The letter had been posted in Botswana but there was no address of the sender."

Do you have any comment on this?

MR MOSIANE: I would say the letter which I received from Soutpan was hand post.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair, no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Greyling do you mind it, before you re-examine, I give the opportunity to the Panel to examine. Your re-examination will then take into account any issues that would have been raised by the Panel in their examination.

MR GREYLING: Madam Chair, I've got no problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, do you have any questions for Mr Mosiane?

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I've got none, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mosiane, in your evidence in chief and during cross-examination, you were not able to say clearly how many askaris were present at Soutpan on your arrival. Now you mentioned that half of the Vlakplaas operatives were there. Now we don't know what is the full extent of the operatives in Vlakplaas. Can you estimate for us? When you say half of the askaris were already at Soutpan on your arrival, what approximate number are you talking of?

MR MOSIANE: I request an apology Chairperson. I made a mistake when I mentioned that the askaris who were at Soutpan were half of the total number of the askaris at Vlakplaas. That was a mistake. I was trying to estimate, that I found those people, they were many, it is true that they were many, but to say it was half of the total number, I was not correct, it was not a precise estimation. That is not correct, but there were many when I arrived there at Soutpan.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you able to estimate in terms of numbers, how many these people were?

MR MOSIANE: Approximately more than 10. Those who were from Vlakplaas and together with those from Compol, which is the total number of those people who were there would be more than 30.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I am interested in the Vlakplaas operatives, the askaris.

MR MOSIANE: There would be approximately 10.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were initially instructed by Simon Radebe to go to Soutpan, were you all alone or were instructions that you must go to Soutpan given to you whilst you were in the company of other askaris?

MR MOSIANE: It came to me alone.

CHAIRPERSON: On your arrival, was Colin Khumalo and Moses Nzimande already at Soutpan?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, I don't remember as to whether we left with them at Vlakplaas or we found them at Soutpan.

CHAIRPERSON: On your arrival at Soutpan, what did you do? Did you get briefing from any of the white officers?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And from whom did you receive your briefing?

MR MOSIANE: I received briefings from Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you recall what those briefings entailed?

MR MOSIANE: I remember Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us?

MR MOSIANE: The briefings entailed that I was supposed to take the letter, the letter which I've already mentioned about, to take it to Patrick Mahlangu's place and then lie that I met Patrick Mahlangu in Botswana. He is still alive and then myself and the person who I was with, that is Colin Khumalo, we are MK operatives from Botswana. I've brought a letter. Then again we're looking for an accommodation.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you receive your briefing immediately upon your arrival at Soutpan, or did you stay a few days before you were briefed by both Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras?

MR MOSIANE: I received the briefings the following day after we had slept at Soutpan.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it your evidence that you were briefed by both Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras and the briefings occurred in one session? Is that your evidence?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you resist the idea that you could have acted under the command of Mr Ras?

MR MOSIANE: That would be something which was wrong, that I was under Ras, that would be wrong. I was under Ras but that does not mean that I'm not under Prinsloo.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Ras gave you a briefing, he instructed you on what to do with the letter. You acted in accordance with those instructions. Doesn't that make him to be a Commander of some sort?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct. He was my Commander but that does not mean that Mr Prinsloo had no role in the command.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand what you are saying. Mr Ras gave you instructions in the presence of Mr Prinsloo?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were being instructed by both, did they both tell you what you had to do about the letter? Did they speak to you, both of them, in that session?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It is obviously a long time ago and one cannot expect you to recall what was said by each of them, I'm just trying my luck. Are you in a position to remember what was said by Mr Prinsloo and what was said by Mr Ras during that briefing session?

MR MOSIANE: No Chairperson, I am unable to quote them verbatim.

CHAIRPERSON: We would however, comprehending your evidence correctly, if I were to encapsulate the saying you received instructions from both Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In connection with the letter that had to be delivered to the Mahlangu family.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were given such instructions, did you know Connie Mahlangu by sight?

MR MOSIANE: No Chairperson, I did not know her.

CHAIRPERSON: You came to know of her upon delivery of the letter?

MR MOSIANE: Yes. At the time when I arrived at her place, that was for the first time I saw her.

CHAIRPERSON: Did she identify herself to you as Connie Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And later on when you were taken to Sibayeni, did Queen identify herself as Pat Mahlangu's wife?

MR MOSIANE: I don't remember as to whether she introduced herself to us or it's Constance who introduced Queen to us.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were later brought up to speed with regard to the fact that the person that you had over-nighted on was Mrs Mahlangu, meaning Pat Mahlangu's wife?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In your affidavit at page 235 you state that at paragraph 5, third line

"Pat Mahlangu's wife told us that she would be leaving for Swaziland soon and instructed us to hand the house keys to her sister-in-law when we leave."

Are you referring to the place where you spent a night after having been taken by Connie Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mosiane, you have already agreed with me that I would be understanding your evidence correctly if I summarised it as follows: That you received instructions with regard to the delivery of the letter to the Mahlangu family from both Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras and these instructions were given to you a day after your arrival at Soutpan.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you witness the writing of the letter by Pat Mahlangu? At which stage?

MR MOSIANE: The day before.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the letter was written on the day of your arrival in Soutpan, is that your evidence?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: By that time, had you been instructed to do anything about the letter by both Mr Ras and Mr Prinsloo?

MR MOSIANE: No we hadn't got the instructions yet.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say "we", who else are you referring to?

MR MOSIANE: I'm referring to Colin Khumalo who accompanied me to Patrick Mahlangu's place for the first time when we delivered the letter.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Colin Khumalo present during the briefing session you referred to?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So on the day of your arrival, you had not yet been instructed by Mr Ras and Mr Prinsloo in connection with the delivery of the letter?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Mr Mosiane, I'm sorry that I'm coming in late now on this. If I understood you correctly you arrived during a specific day. For some reason you peeped in where Khumalo was being, not Khumalo, where Mahlangu was being dictated a letter to, you saw Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras there, they were both speaking. In understood your evidence that that was for a moment. That you did not overhear the trend or the actual words, but that you assumed because he was in captivity, that he was not writing the letter freely. Is that summary correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Now what - where was Mahlangu at that stage, when he was being dictated the letter to? Where did you find him?

MR MOSIANE: He was inside a room that was just on the adjacent side, where he was held captive and he was being guarded.

MR MALAN: Where was he held captive?

MR MOSIANE: In one isolated separate room.

MR MALAN: I'm not getting the translation here. Let me try another channel.

INTERPRETER: It is on 2. Afrikaans is on 1.

MR MALAN: Can I just get that answer again? Where was he being held captive, sorry Mr Mosiane?

MR MOSIANE: He was kept in an isolated room.

MR MALAN: Was this in a house?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: How did it come about that you went into this house, into this isolated room?

MR MOSIANE: Eric took me there and he showed me Patrick Mahlangu and he was writing the letter in question at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say Eric, are you referring to Eric Sefadi?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson, I'm referring to Eric Sefadi.

MR MALAN: Therefore Eric Sefadi took you into this isolated room while Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras were busy with Pat Mahlangu?

MR MOSIANE: At that stage when he was showing me this room where there was Mr Patrick Mahlangu inside, yes, he had already started writing the letter when he showed me the room.

MR MALAN: Yes, in other words when he showed the room to you that was the same opportunity that Prinsloo and Ras were busy dictating what Mahlangu had to write, it was not at another opportunity, if I understand you correctly?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And you told us that you just quickly peeped inside?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did Eric Sefadi remain there?

MR MOSIANE: No Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did he walk with you?

MR MOSIANE: I think so, Sir.

MR MALAN: Can you give us an indication as to how long, how much time had lapsed when you say you peeped him there, you opened the door, Eric said: "There's Mahlangu" and you saw that they were busy with him and closed the door and left. Did you stand there listening for a while? How much time had lapsed? Was it a few seconds, half a minute, five minutes, how long were you there?

MR MOSIANE: We did not stay there for long in that room. I entered in and I was being shown a person who was sitting in a corner and he was busy writing...(end of tape) I left them there inside.

MR MALAN: While Prinsloo and Ras were dictating a letter and you walked into this isolating room, did they not tell you: "Listen here, we are busy, go out now"? Is it accepted factors that while officers are busy that anyone can just walk in and hang around for three minutes and then just walk out again without saying anything and without invitation at that?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, this was a different situation. I myself, I was supposed to be part of this operation and therefore it was not surprising, the fact that I walked in there and I was being shown Patrick Mahlangu, there was nothing irregular about that.

MR MALAN: But with great respect, I understand your evidence and I put it to you, when you walked in there you did not have any instruction. You did not know that you were to be part of this operation because you were only briefed the following morning. That is what you told us. So therefore you would not have walked in there because you knew you were part of the operation. You didn't even know that you were to be part of the operation.

MR MOSIANE: It happened the way it happened, Sir, as I've already explained.

MR MALAN: And then I would just like to ascertain in answer to a question. You said it was improbable, it does not work in that manner, that both of you would be sent to infiltrate Pat Mahlangu or that you would be sent to infiltrate and became involved in the abduction of Mahlangu and then be sent back to take a letter. It sounds to me that is a good argument that you're using but do I understand you correctly, is that your argument?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That's your response not an argument.

MR MALAN: That was the answer. You said in answer to a question that: "It does not work that I would be sent in to infiltrate and then Pat Mahlangu be abducted and then I myself be sent afterwards with a letter to deliver it." That's how I understood you. That's what you answered to a question.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I would just like to ask you because we really don't know who executed the abduction and we want to have more information as to who was involved with the abduction because nobody here knows who executed the abduction and it was asked of you earlier: "Do you have no idea whatsoever who was involved in the abduction of Pat Mahlangu?" Do you not get the interpretation?

MR MOSIANE: I do not know who abducted Pat Mahlangu.

MR MALAN: Eric Sefadi took you that evening and showed Pat Mahlangu to you, apparently for no reason whatsoever, we cannot surmise why he showed him to you. Did he not tell you why he showed this person to you?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, at that stage there was unrest at that time, during that period. There were a lot of suspicions that Patrick Mahlangu's sister and Patrick Mahlangu, they are involved in those unrest that was in Mamelodi.

MR MALAN: I do not want that information again. Let me make myself clear. I put myself in the position of the next of kin of Mr Patrick Mahlangu, his spouse, his sister, his parents, his whole family and they came and sat here for quite some time and I don't know if they know anything more than what they knew before we started with this hearing. I think what is of importance, if I was in their position, is how was he abducted and who was involved, can you not assist us at all in this regard?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, unfortunately this question of yours is directed to the wrong person. I cannot be of any assistance in giving information as to who abducted him and when because I was not there when this happened.

MR MALAN: Do you know who the person is I should put that question to?

MR MOSIANE: He is in here, the person appropriate, the person you can direct the question to, it's Mr Prinsloo. He's here, he's present. Mr Prinsloo is the appropriate person who can respond to your question, who abducted Mr Patrick Mahlangu to Soutpan, otherwise we'll be very incorrect and very inconsistent that Mr Prinsloo does not know about this operation.

MR MALAN: Yes, Mr Mosiane, you did not initially attend these proceedings and you are making comments without knowing what Mr Prinsloo has testified and I do not want you to become aggressive towards Mr Prinsloo. Mr Prinsloo has tried to tell us, he's implicated you according to the best of his knowledge and he conceded that he could not recall whether he specifically spoke to you about the nature of the involvement or that you spoke of it, but the closest that he could assist us was to say that when he arrived there, Patrick had already been abducted and that is also Mr Ras’ evidence and Mr Prinsloo also says that he was angry and he received the information as you know and your attorney would have discussed that with you, that you were involved, but you are saying you don't know. You are saying that because Mr Prinsloo was in command, we have to ask him. Is that what you're telling us? Because we have asked him and he said you did it. Can you comment?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, Mr Prinsloo is here in front of us. He is the head of the North West Transvaal Special Branch. He, there is an operation and he finds Pat Mahlangu there being abducted, he doesn't ask who brought him there, what should be his response, but instead he's angry about the whole thing. He's not even inquired. He knows who are the people who abducted Mr Mahlangu.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me bring you under my protection. I think you've already responded to the question posed to you by Mr Malan and I don't think you need to go any further. You don't know who abducted, you don't know how the abduction was done, you can be of no help to the family of Mr Mahlangu. I think your response was because of what was put to you, that the family is in no better position than it was prior to these proceedings and your short response is: it is unfortunate, you are not the right person to be able to provide information that would have shed more light about the abduction. That should be sufficient.

m MALAN: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Greyling, do you wish to re-examine?

MR GREYLING: I've got no re-examination, Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR GREYLING

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

MR MOSIANE: Thank you, Chairperson. I would like to ask Chairperson whether, will there be a need for me to stay on about this matter or can I be excused? Is my evidence complete? Is there a need for me to stay any longer?

CHAIRPERSON: I think so, subject of course to what your legal representative is going to say. As far as we are concerned I don't think we will need your attendance anymore.

MR MOSIANE: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But you are being legally represented and I don't want to overstep my bounds, you have to clear it with your own lawyer.

MR MOSIANE: Thank you Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Van Heerden, what is the position with regard to the victims?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Madam Chair, no evidence will be led.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That being the case, this bring us to the time for legal argument. We have earlier on arranged that after viva voce evidence has been led the legal representatives will be ready and able to address us.

Is that still the position, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Chairperson, we are ready to proceed. Madam, may I request a brief adjournment before I commence my argument?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I just wanted to ascertain if everyone was ready, if everyone is ready. We'll take a tea adjournment so that your argument can be more pointed after you have had a little bit of a break. We'll take a 15 minute adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Before we proceed to hear legal argument, we are going to give Mr van Heerden, who has since been given further instructions by the relatives of the late Mr Mahlangu, to lead evidence on their behalf. Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair. Witness Constance Busisiwe Mahlangu will testify under oath and then the second witness, Sipho Gladwyn Mahlangu to express the sentiments of the family which will not be done under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: After I took further instructions, thank you, Madam Chair.

CONSTANCE BUSISIWE MAHLANGU: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Would you please tell the Committee what your relationship is with the deceased, Mr Patrick Mahlangu?

MS MAHLANGU: I am his sister. I come after my brother, he was the last born of the males in the household.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you live with the deceased?

MS MAHLANGU: Yes, we were staying with our parents.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And where did you live?

MS MAHLANGU: In Mamelodi.

MR VAN HEERDEN: When did you see Patrick Mahlangu for the last time?

MS MAHLANGU: In 1986, that was for the last time I saw him.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall the date and month?

MS MAHLANGU: No.

MR VAN HEERDEN: If I may place it in context, was it the 18th of March 1986?

MS MAHLANGU: I could have been round March, but I cannot recall the date.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you recall what happened that particular evening at about 7 o'clock?

MR MAHLANGU: There was a knock at the sitting room round about 7 in the evening. I went out and three males came in, after I had opened the door. All of them were wearing leathers. They had come in a blue car and they started by saying: "We are looking for Patrick Mahlangu" and I went out to call him. He came in and when he came, they started asking the whereabouts of Constance and I identified myself as Constance and then went out, actually Pat went out with them and I accompanied them outside and they identified themselves as member of the ANC from Swaziland and they had come here looking for an overnight accommodation. Pat then said to them that we did not have accommodation at home and he offered that he was going to look for an overnight accommodation for them at ...(indistinct) at his friend's place. This blue car was parked on the road, I could not identify the figures who were inside the vehicle. They then said we should all go along, then Pat pushed me and he started inquiring as to why I should come along and he suggested that I should remain behind and one of these people then said I should remain behind. They then left with Pat. That was the last time we saw him, we never saw him again.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you recognise any of the persons who were there?

MS MAHLANGU: It has been a long time since. You see we went to the verandah, it was a little bit dark, I could not make them out quite well.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Is it any of the applicants here before the Committee today?

MS MAHLANGU: Yes, that is Chris. Chris was not there that evening, I only saw him when he came for the second time to pick up the clothes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Is that Chris Mosiane? He was just there to collect the clothing? Can you explain?

MS MAHLANGU: That was after he'd been abducted. It could have been two to three weeks if I'm not mistaken and we received a letter through the mail to the effect that two people were going to come from Botswana and they would seek accommodation and we should help them out. Indeed Chris as well as another person, I think his name is Ipimbi, that's how he identified himself and when they came, they introduced themselves and they said they wanted Pat's clothing. I indicated to them that we had received the letter and they asked for his clothing. I, however, cannot recall what the exact contents of the letter were but I think mention was made of his boots and an old T-shirt and I went to inform his wife about these people who wanted clothing. She gave me the clothing and they then said they were asking for an overnight accommodation because they were proceeding. Myself, as well as Pat's wife, then went to her sister in D4 at the shacks, that is where we accommodated them. Then Pat's wife left. I remained behind with them for a while and left them later that evening. That is where they put up.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I've got no further questions, thank you Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Heerden. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Just one question thank you Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Ms Mahlangu, can you remember what type of a car it was?

MS MAHLANGU: Type of what?

MR JANSEN: The car, the blue car that you saw, can you remember what ...?

MS MAHLANGU: No, it was dark. I could make out that the car was blue but it was dark. It was a small vehicle.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chair, I've got no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: I have no questions, Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

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

NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Greyling?

MR GREYLING: Singular aspects, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GREYLING: Madam you have seen Chris Mosiane here at these proceedings today.

MS MAHLANGU: That is correct.

MR GREYLING: And you recognise him as the person who came to your house the second time to collect the clothing?

MS MAHLANGU: That is correct.

MR GREYLING: And if I understand your statement that you made to the police correctly, he was not the person, when Pat disappeared, he was not the person who came there the first time?

MS MAHLANGU: No, he's not the one.

MR GREYLING: Thank you Chairperson, nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR GREYLING

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose Mr van Heerden, there is no re-examination?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No re-examination thank you Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mahlangu, you are excused as a witness. Thank you for attending. Mr van Heerden, who is the next person that we must now give an opportunity to express the sentiments of the family?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair. It is Sipho Gladwyn Mahlangu.

SIPHO GLADWYN MAHLANGU:

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mahlangu would you be expressing the sentiments in English or in Zulu?

MR MAHLANGU: I will express myself in English so as to save time, even though I'm not quite conversant in English, but I'm gong to express myself in that language.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed.

MR MAHLANGU: Okay. I'm happy to be here at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, precisely for the reason that we want to find out what really happened to our brother and I was happy that now the proceedings, I expected them to go smoothly, but anyway highly and slightly disappointed by the applicants because now most of them who did not show as to whether they realise that what they were saying was to the benefit, was going to benefit them in any way, but they merely said things that they did not even think they would say. When asked questions they mostly forgot about more important issues like who delivered the letter, who gave instruction and one other thing, there is this one that is so central to the whole issue, as to who abducted Pat. They don't remember who abducted Pat, more especially the guys who are the officials, most of them tried to pass the buck. And then the family, along these lines, is very disturbed but we are not here to judge because now what we are here to listen to, is as to how Pat was abducted and how he died and then we would have sort of found ourselves in a better position, a forgiving position but sorry to say that now the family is not here to give it's sentiments as to whether it forgives of it does not, we are here to listen.

But when coming to the issue of forgiving, that, I am sorry to say, we are not forgiving anyone and we would like the Committee and the Attorney-General to take that matter and decide as to whether these guys get amnesty or not. But as for myself, I'm sorry to say that now the applicants will know of their fate as soon as the Attorney-General has learned their evidence, has gone through their evidence, because we are not here to judge as we are, as a family, we are here to listen. I'm sorry, I'm about to repeat myself. But thank you very much. We have stayed here for quite some time. In fact this amnesty hearing is long overdue. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mahlangu. You may step down now. Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair, there's no further evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We shall now proceed to hear legal argument. Mr Hattingh, will you be the first to start?

MR HATTINGH IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson, I'm going to be very brief. Chairperson, we submit that Mr de Kock, his version was not discredited, nor was it contradicted by any of the witnesses, in fact it was corroborated to a large extent by the evidence of Mr Vermeulen. Nobody controverted his version and we submit therefore that there is no reason why this Committee should not accept his evidence as testified by himself.

If you are prepared to accept his version, then we submit that he's made out a clear case for amnesty, Chairperson. His evidence is to the effect that he received a request from the Commander of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch to send some of the askaris and members of Vlakplaas to assist with the identification and apprehension of so-called terrorists. In order to enable him to decide how many men he had to send and which men he had to send, he was given documents from which it appeared that there were several so-called terrorists active in the area and e then sent a certain number of people under the command of Mr Ras, to assist the Northern Transvaal branch in this regard.

He testified that he was satisfied that they were going to assist with the combating of terrorism. He also testified Chairperson, that any interrogations that were going to take place, as far as he was concerned, would have been aimed at eliciting information about so-called terrorist activities and that was the reason why he wasn't prepared to accede to the request to send some of his men to render assistance to the Northern Transvaal Branch. Clearly therefore, he had a political motive in sending these men to assist the Northern Transvaal branch.

He was thereupon approached by one of the men who was sent to Soutpan and informed, this is Mr Vermeulen, and informed that a person had died under interrogation and that they needed some explosives to get rid of the body.

At first he was not prepared to accede to the request but on reconsideration and upon reflection, he decided that it was in the interest of the Security Police and the police in general that assistance should be given in this regard otherwise it would have caused great embarrassment to the Security Police and more particularly the Northern Transvaal branch. He then gave permission to Mr Vermeulen to take the necessary explosives in order to destroy the body of Mr Mahlangu. He didn't even know the identity of the person who had been interrogated and who died as a result of the torture upon him, he merely accepted that the man had been interrogated in connection with his alleged terrorist activities.

He was later informed that the body had been destroyed by Mr Vermeulen. He was not in a position to recall that Mr Ras showed him a newspaper clipping about the incident, but he conceded that it is possible and that he may have forgotten about that. Clearly therefore, Chairperson, Mr de Kock has made out a case for amnesty.

We submit that he has made a full disclosure. He was hardly cross-examined at all by any of the other applicants and he had no - he did not receive any compensation or remuneration for the role that he played and we submit therefore that amnesty should be granted to Mr de Kock for all offences and delicts arising from the abduction and killing and then the destruction of Mr Mahlangu's body. Thank you, Chairperson, that is all that I have to say.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Madam Chair. I will confine myself to deal with the facts of the matter. Those facts which were controversial or was to some extent in dispute in this matter. Firstly I believe Madam Chair, the Committee must consider the context of this incident at the time, both the context of what was happening in Pretoria and specifically Mamelodi as

far as the Security situation is concerned there and secondly the context of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch and it's methods of dealing more specifically with the Mamelodi situation.

Now, it would appear that this incident took place in March 1986. That was if you look at the reported case of State versus Masinga, it would seem to be a few months before the main individuals were arrested in that very active MK cell in Mamelodi, being Mr Masinga, Mr Masango and Ting-ting Masango and Mr Masinga. I don't have that case unfortunately with me today but I remember that that date of arrest was in June 1986 and all these incidents that you have been hearing in this cluster seem to start more or less at this stage in 1986 and they follow through in 1987 and 88 with quite a few abductions of various other activists and they all follow a very similar pattern. There's an abduction, there's an interrogation and then there's a killing and disposal of the body and I believe the strongest, as it were, underpinning of the arguments in favour of amnesty in this case, is that this case in a certain sense, falls in that pattern.

And to then turn to the various aspects of this case. The issue of the abduction, I don't believe that who was involved in the abduction is pivotal to the amnesty applications of Mr Ras or of any of the other applicants. It is so that it is an important aspect for the family and it's an important aspect of the incident, but for some or other reason we seen to be in a situation that we can't throw conclusive light on that. As far as Mr Ras’ allegation is concerned, that it was Mr Mosiane that was involved there, Ras’ evidence, I think it's page 9 in the middle of the typed evidence, he says:

"I can recall Mosiane, who I tasked"

and then it goes on to talk about the infiltration etc. So he seems to have a clear recollection that it was Mosiane. The same with Prinsloo. Prinsloo also has a clear recollection that it was Mosiane.

Now I agree that there will be a lot of criticism against, or a lot of criticism can be levelled against the evidence in general of Mr Prinsloo and to some extent maybe even of Ras, but on this important aspect Madam Chair, they are also supported by Mathebula in his application, that's page 142 bundle 1 paragraph 3. That was that evidence where he clearly places Mosiane as part of the group that was sent to Mamelodi and returned with Patrick Mahlangu a day or two later.

Now it is so that that was the part or one of the parts of Mathebula's evidence where he, in my respectful submission, made a half-hearted attempt to make a concession during hearing his evidence. I don't have a problem with that concession, it's made the concession fairly made, but unfortunately we do have that context that it was happening under circumstances where on the one hand it was important for some of the applicants that they be corroborated on this aspect, but on the other hand, it happened in a context where the conflict that they had with Mosiane - would happen in the context where the attorney had a clear conflict of interest and it's unfortunate that it happened there because obviously the suggestion may be levelled that the reason why Mathebula makes the concession is to protect Mosiane, but it may not be. There may be a valid reason for the concession and I will myself concede that there are pointers in favour of Mosiane although there is criticism in respect of Mosiane's evidence, he clearly, the way he approaches all his amnesty applications, he clearly wants to sort of distance himself as much as possible from these deeds, but it is so that it would appear to be maybe more probable that he was only sent on one occasion, then on two occasions. It would - there's no apparent reason why he would want to deny his involvement there, or certainly no patent reason, to say for this and that specific reason he's denying his involvement there. It could simply be that on this aspect they were wrong or that the other people that were - the other askaris that were in the kombi were responsible for the abduction. I don't know and I don't believe a definitive finding on that is needed. The fact of the matter is, Mahlangu was abducted. The next controversy is then whether he was abducted on the orders of Ras and/or Prinsloo, either/or, or both, or whether he was abducted contrary to the initial instructions.

Now, Ras’ evidence, apart from it being difficult to see why Ras would want to hide an order to abduct the person, if that was their intention, there are enough other abductions or certainly as far as Prinsloo is concerned, there were enough other abductions in this cluster to show they would not necessarily try to hide from this abduction. There is no apparent reason why this abduction is not justified in the sense of their modus, or the way that they did their work in those days, so on the face of it, there's nothing to question what Ras says about that. Secondly, he's supported by Prinsloo and the fact that Prinsloo was unhappy and that there was no such order. Thirdly, it also seems to be probable at that stage, being in the beginning periods, or the early stages of investigating these activities of the ANC in Mamelodi, that they would, as Ras said, they would first have wanted to infiltrate, get a little bit more information and then have a larger scale operation, other than just simply identifying the first person that they had a contact with or an informer with and as it were, pounce on that individual. So there's an inherent probability that that supports Ras’ version there.

And finally on this aspect, there is nothing - because we don't know who the abductors were, because they have not come forward, they can't throw any light on this and as far as that is concerned, I therefore submit that there is nothing on record which can lead you not to find that the abduction as it were, was not strictly speaking in terms of - the order wasn't initially given for the abduction to take place at least at that stage but in any event, it was certainly condoned afterwards and as it were, ratified but what it does show to some extent is, it did place Ras and Prinsloo in a somewhat difficult position. It placed them in a situation where, I believe, that evidence that de Kock at some stage gave that in certain circumstances, one must leave room for operational discretions. It did, to some extent place them in a situation like that and that explains the evidence why the operation probably wasn't discussed in detail with de Kock beforehand because the initial intention was that it was more of a routine kind of, do observation, make an infiltration, see what information you can get up with, we will plan operations at a later stage. Something like that. So the operation, as it were, fell on them. It is therefore my submission that you should in fairness deal with this incident, taking proper cognisance of, or giving a fair amount of leeway for this problem that they faced at the time.

In any event as far as the order of Ras is concerned, it's clear he was under the command of Prinsloo. That is confirmed by Prinsloo. It was also confirmed by their general practice that when the Vlakplaas people operated with other units, they fell under that senior Commander's command. That, of course one must immediately also add, it seems as far as operational decisions are concerned, Ras took the decisions. Ras almost, without it being discussed, makes the important decisions, takes the lead. Ras does not hide away from that, he testifies quite bluntly that he took a lot of these decisions, that de Kock didn't know about it before and I'm just trying to find the exact place in the record, but on page 21 it starts with what he says about what de Kock knew and what he didn't know. At the top of page 21 and further. At page 23 there's some important, at the top, there's also some important evidence in this regard where he's asked whether he had the capacity and the authorisation to kill people without instructions from his seniors etc. Again on page 24, it really goes from page 21, it seems, to about 24,25. Madam Chair, I can't find the exact reference now but there's a portion of Ras’ evidence where he says: "I took these decisions on my own", obviously referring to those decisions from which, the record speaks for itself, he took by himself.

The abduction itself, not only was it, although Prinsloo was very unhappy, it was quite clearly also ratified by Prinsloo because he was, I mean he led the whole operation continued from there and the same with the death. The order to kill came from Prinsloo, so I respectfully submit that Ras is covered in both those aspects.

There is the issue of Cronje's involvement although that doesn't affect Ras directly. To some extent the issue was canvassed with Ras, but what did de Kock know and what did de Kock tell you, what must you go and do at Mr Prinsloo? Firstly Ras would not normally, or a person in the position of Ras would not ordinarily know what is discussed between his Commander and the Commander of the other unit. There's nothing wrong, in my respectful submission, in de Kock telling Ras: "Go to Mr Prinsloo, he'll tell you what's going to happen." Under those circumstances where it was initially probably only intended to be fairly routine work, it's even more probable, but even if there had been a specific operation in mind, if I make reference to some of the other incidents, it seems to appear, or it seems to be, at least from time to time, and quite plausible, that de Kock would tell his operatives: "Report to Mr so-and-so of that unit, there's going to be an operation. You'll get your instructions and the details from that person" without any specifics of the operation being discussed. What I do find a bit strange of Cronje's attitude in this specific incident is that he has it placed on record in quite strong terms, that Prinsloo is talking nonsense but in the very same cluster he admits to a whole long list of incidents that he must have given the orders, but that he simply cannot remember, so again, I believe that even a finding that Cronje may have known, is not unjustified.

MR MALAN: Sorry to interrupt you, may I just ask on this score, did Cronje not explain that it was on the basis of that, in that specific period there was this ill blood between Head Office and Vlakplaas and that he would not have consented and that wasn't challenged as far as I remember.

MR JANSEN: Yes, I think you're correct there. There was that, he said that, I think he also explained because he has the recollection of it being mentioned at a later stage or somewhere, I'm not exactly sure, I'm also starting to confuse the different incidents with each other as far as Cronje is concerned, but I ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I really don't want to interrupt you, but you said we should - I understood from you that you would request us to make a finding that Cronje did know, but you haven't substantiated that.

MR JANSEN: Well on the basis that there is the direct evidence of Prinsloo in that regard.

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may continue.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair. The next issue which was canvassed to some extent with Ras was the chronology of the events from the point where Mahlangu was abducted and brought to the farm up to the point where he was killed and his body was disposed of. There was obviously some uncertainty about whether the initial people that infiltrated Mamelodi, whether they went there once or twice, whether they came back within 24 hours and then sent again, or whether they only came back after a few days. My simple and single submission on this is that that part of the evidence does, to some extent, enter detail which one cannot expect people to be very clear on at this stage. I don't think it affects, in any way, the main points and the main issues in this case and that, with respect, brings me to what I regard as probably the main issue that you have to decide in this case and that is whether the decision to kill Mahlangu was justified in the sense that it complies with the provisions of Section 20 (iii).

Now again, it is obviously on this score where Ras is in the following position. His statement in his written application which is clearly just an ordinary narration, chronological narration from the beginning to the end, it's, as far as these kind of written applications are concerned, fairly substantial. It's certainly not as short and telegraph style as some of the other applicants' applications. It was done independently of any other applicant. Ras at that stage having gone to the TRC investigative unit and giving his statement to Mr McAdam. in that statement, he has a very simple, he makes a very simple allegation in respect of the justification for the killing. Mahlangu had verbalised his knowledge of the informer. He repeats that in his evidence. Now, the same, Prinsloo says the same in his and Ras is not challenged on that. Prinsloo says the same in his statement, his written statement, but what happens is, Prinsloo comes and tells a completely different story, although a completely different story but this aspect of Prinsloo's evidence, it would be foolhardy to try and, as it were, wash it down. He certainly had a lot of problems on this crucial aspect and my submissions on this point are the following: Firstly, if one has to choose between the evidence of Prinsloo and that of Ras, one clearly has to prefer Ras’ evidence. Although Ras certainly at times seemed to be a witness that tried to tender unnecessary detail, that he was a bit unclear on certain aspects, there's no doubt that in general his evidence is reasonably cogent. He could explain all the questions that were asked about why certain operational decisions were made, why did they drive out so far, why did they blow up the body, why did he strangle the body. It's clear that he has a relatively good recollection of what happened there and in general, one can rely on his evidence. Prinsloo on the other hand, with respect, and I'm not submitting that he's untruthful, but he's certainly a bad witness, he does very strange things for a person who was an investigative officer that must have testified in a number of trials and if I could refer to, I'm at the moment looking at page 178 of the typed record where I'm just putting a few things to Prinsloo but I'm saying, or I'm trying to canvass the difference between his oral evidence and his written statement and it goes as follows:

"Now based"

it's sort of to the last third of the page.

"Now based on your own version that there was no corroboration between you and Ras, the second explanation should be acceptable as the true explanation.

"In other words it is highly improbable that independently of each other, you could make this mistake?

"Yes, that is correct."

But then he goes on and he keeps on insisting that both his written statement and his oral statement are both correct and for some or other reason he doesn't seem to realise the strange dilemma he is in and instead of just making an ordinary and a natural and a fairly simple concession, he continues in this path of what then becomes an extremely convoluted story about how he came to realise that Mahlangu had to be killed and who was in danger, etc. etc.

Now, my personal submission is that I get the impression that Prinsloo tried to give some kind of a colour or some kind of an angle on his evidence, that got him into trouble, confused himself and confused everybody else, instead of just sticking to what was the obvious case. if it was so that Mahlangu wasn't endangering an informer's life, then the issue was simple, or they could simply have said: "But you know we killed him because he was an ANC operative, we couldn't have released him, we didn't know whether we had a case against him or not, we got a certain amount of information out of him and his usefulness has been spent." There are examples of that as well. There are examples like that in Ras’ other amnesty applications as well. So, what I finally submit in this respect, Madam Chair is the only possible reason or possible not criticism, but speculation that one can make against Ras in this respect is saying: "Well they sort of concocted up this story to create a motive or a plausible motive about an informer's life that is in danger and well now - and that the real reason was something else that they do not want to disclose at this stage. Now the probabilities that militate against that Madam Chair is the fact that it cannot be found at all that there was at any stage any collusions between Ras and Prinsloo. In fact the contrary would appear to be the truth.

Secondly, because of the general weak quality or bad quality of Prinsloo's evidence, one should not use his evidence to reject Ras’ evidence and for that reason, Madam Chair, I submit that Ras’ evidence should be accepted.

CHAIRPERSON: Even though Mr Prinsloo was in command.

MR JANSEN: Madam Chair, I'm not sure I understand your question correctly, I think Ras’ evidence should be accepted as what happened at the time, what was the real decision or how he remembers the reason for the decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Which relates to the identity of the informer?

MR JANSEN: Yes. I don't believe, even though and I concede that at the beginning, even though Prinsloo's evidence and the quality of his evidence, raises a lot of question marks over this issue, those question marks should be Prinsloo's problem at the best, but it should not be used as a basis...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: To discredit the version given by Ras, yes.

MR JANSEN: Again one can probably go into a long and detailed analysis of the evidence and try knit-pick here and there and I'm not asking you to speculate about motives or what were the reasons, etc., but there is nothing to suggest, if there had been another reason, why Ras would not testify about what that reason was. It's very clear that Mahlangu was an ANC supporter or that he was active in the ANC activities in Mamelodi at the time. So he was certainly a person that was going to attract the attention of the Security Police, so his abduction was in that sort of perverted sense, justified and to come back to my initial argument, once one is abducted in that context, it often leads to the death of that person for whatever reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Or that the identity of the informer would be disclosed, or not.

MR JANSEN: Yes. Certainly that's a plausible reason under many circumstances and my argument is that that was in fact the reason and that that reason does, in terms of the Act and in terms of how other applications have been dealt with, that again I use it in inverted commas "justifies" the killing or at least makes it qualify for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We've previously had evidence where once a person was classified as a high profile activist, that person qualified for elimination.

MR JANSEN: Yes, exactly and unfortunately I don't have Ras’ whole application here but there is certainly one incident where there is just a pure and simple assassination, so what I'm trying to bring home to you Madam Chair is that, if one can accept it as justified, as simply killing somebody because he's active, he's a high profile activist, then there's no reason for Ras to lie about the reason here, because obviously Ras didn't say: "We killed him because he was an activist or we killed him because it was convenient, we didn't want to release him and create those risks, Ras said that that was the reason, so I just don't want the situation to arise that one finds, well there must have been another reason, Ras didn't say that, therefore he wasn't being truthful about the motivation. I think that would be unfair towards Ras and to the extent that he could be mistaken on that score, I believe even that itself shouldn't from an objective point of view necessarily lead to the conclusion that he hasn't made a full disclosure.

I believe and I submit that the only cogent and reasonably believable evidence before you as to why Mahlangu was killed, was because of a perceived danger to an informer and on that basis it should be accepted for purposes of granting amnesty to Ras. That's the crucial aspect. Here the rest almost follows just chronologically after that decision. There's nothing in the actual killing or the disposal of the body, which I believe is so gross or so questionable that it can detract from the fact that this incident qualifies for amnesty. I believe the incident involved the kidnapping of Mr Mahlangu, it involved a series of assaults, which I suppose one would describe as assault with intention to do grievous bodily harm over a period of time and then the killing and the destruction of his body and I would ask you to grant Mr Ras amnesty in respect of all, again the wording, I know there's a far amount of uncertainty as to the wording of it, but you have the categorisation of the offences. If you believe they must be listed then they must be listed as the abduction, torture and killing and both the criminal and the civil liability aspects are ...

I don't know if there's anything else that you want to hear me on specifically. Those are my submissions. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we've heard you in respect of all that you needed to be heard.

MR JANSEN: Yes, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius, before going to you, I'm going to request that I hear Ms van der Walt and thereafter resort to you.

MR CORNELIUS: As you please.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT IN ARGUMENT: Honourable Chairperson, I have listened to Mr Jansen's argument and I wish

to point out the problems and I think that is what you want to hear me on. I agree with Mr Jansen that with regard to the reason as to why Mr Mahlangu was killed was definitely not clear from Mr Prinsloo's evidence. I also wish to argue that Mr Prinsloo had a notion during his examination and I think several times he was returned to the point by Mr Malan where he tremendously elaborated and had lost the point as to what it was all about with regard to the aspect which appears on page 330 of his application in the first bundle, the top paragraph. That is the reason that he submits in his application that he has already handed in before the cut-off date and I agree there with Mr Jansen that I cannot say word for word, but there is no difference in his application than the application of Mr Ras.

Mr Ras drew up his application under entirely different circumstances and this was also with the member of the Amnesty Committee's investigative unit, whereas Mr Prinsloo went to another place and completed his with other legal representatives. I know during the questioning of Mr Prinsloo, Mr Malan specifically pointed out that paragraph to him and told him that his written statement agrees with the evidence that Mr Ras had delivered. However Mr Prinsloo conveyed his evidence differently and with respect I would submit that if one and, if there is criticism about his evidence, but if one has regard in depth for his evidence with regard to this point, there are differences as to how he heard of this informer and how this informer had been exposed and with respect I would submit that you cannot reject his evidence on that point just because he, in his verbal evidence, had submitted that he had read it from documents and it was not verbally conveyed to him or in the manner that Mr Ras had testified and I would request of you that you judge his application as it appears on page 330 and that you do not penalise him because in his oral evidence, he diverted from exactly how he heard that this informer had been exposed with regard to the fact in his evidence and in his application, as Mr Ras has testified, it was that the reason for killing Mr Mahlangu was the danger to the informant. This is what is prominent, although I concede that there is some criticism to his evidence and I would submit that one could not say that he has not made a full disclosure with regard to the fact as to why Mr Mahlangu was killed.

Then I would take it further with regard to another aspect which was not addressed by Mr Jansen. This is not applicable to his client but this is criticism that can be brought in against Mr Prinsloo's evidence and that is with regard to after Mr Mahlangu was loaded into the mini bus when Mr Prinsloo was the driver of the mini bus. It is indeed so that Mr Prinsloo in his evidence initially, or he told the Committee that he did not know what was going on in the back of the mini bus. It is correct that he drove and if one has regard for his evidence, it would appear as if he wanted to distance himself from what had happened in the back of the mini bus. But at the end of this aspect, Mr Prinsloo said he associates himself and he also takes responsibility for what happened in the back of the mini bus, that Mr Mahlangu was there strangled by Mr Ras and I would argue on this point that although there could be criticism levelled at him he did not try to cover it up. He told you that he, as Commander, takes responsibility for the death of Mr Mahlangu, that he had indeed been strangled.

And then if I may return to the abduction. Once again Mr Prinsloo had taken the responsibility after the abduction of Mr Mahlangu. It is unfortunate that Mr Prinsloo cannot assist the family with what had happened there and the evidence and there is no other evidence contrary to this, that definitely there was no planning that Mr Mahlangu had to be abducted. Everybody agreed who testified, that Mr Prinsloo was deeply dissatisfied because this defeated the whole purpose. They wanted to know much more of the groups who were involved in acts of terror in the Pretoria vicinity, but after Mahlangu had been abducted, Mr Prinsloo summarised the situation and further instructions were then issued.

What concerns me somewhat is the affidavit of Mr Cronje which I would submit to you, was handed to us on the 22nd of October, after the applicants had already given evidence. Mr Cronje was not represented and he was not present himself. There was an aspect which was addressed by one of the Committee Members that the aspect of bad blood between the two divisions was not disputed, but it is mentioned in here, that there was no opportunity for the applicant to answer to this, but there is the evidence of Mr de Kock and of Mr Ras, that contradicts the affidavit of Mr Cronje and Mr Ras, Mr de Kock and Mr Prinsloo. Evidence with regard to the affidavit of Mr Cronje was not challenged that Mr Prinsloo had indeed received permission from Mr Cronje for the operation and that Mr Cronje had requested Mr de Kock to be of assistance and furthermore, Mr Prinsloo's evidence is that after Mr Mahlangu had been abducted and he had been assaulted, that Mr Prinsloo once again went back to Mr Cronje and had requested from him that Mr Mahlangu be eliminated. That evidence was also not challenged.

Furthermore, on the relevant facts I would submit to you that Mr Prinsloo had made a full disclosure. I have pointed out the two problems to you and he also told the Committee that he takes full responsibility for the persons who were under his command in this operation but I would submit to you that he had permission from Mr Cronje, who was his Commander, to continue with the operation.

Under these circumstances I would submit to you that he does meet the requirements of the Act and that he has satisfied or convinced you that he has made a full disclosure and that under the circumstances amnesty should be granted to him indeed for the abduction because it was done in that operation as well as the killing and the destruction of Mr Mahlangu's corpse and any offence which might emanate from this as well as any delict which might flow from this.

If there is anything else which I need to address you on, then I will do so. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson. I shall be brief.

MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT: Basically I concur with the argument as tendered by my learned colleague Adv Hattingh. My client, Vermeulen, submitted an application as prescribed and formatting Section 18 and complies with all the formalities of the law and regulations. He is an employee as envisaged in Section 20 (ii) (b) and Section 20 (ii) (f) as far as implied authority is concerned, of the same Act. There's very, very intensive evidence tendered as far as the operation between Vlakplaas and the different Security Branches are concerned and requests for the

operation and intervention of Vlakplaas as well as the control that should be then taken and responsibility by the different heads of the Security Branches.

It is furthermore clear, it is my submission, that the acts and omissions and offences in this application relate to political objectives where were sought by my client, which he committed in the course of the conflicts of the past. My client, it is also furthermore my submission, complied with the requirements laid down in Section 29 (iii) as far as proximity is concerned and motive and so forth.

It is furthermore my submission that my client, Mr Vermeulen, was a foot soldier in this specific instance, that although there was confusion initially, if he was a leader of the group, it became very clear in the evidence of Ras that he was in fact longer in services and more senior and he in fact took the responsibility of this operation.

My client, as far as he was implicated, worked on a need-to-know basis in certain instances. My client has also clearly received no reward as envisaged above his normal remuneration in terms of Section 20 (iii) (f) (i). Furthermore my client did not act out of ill will or spite against the victim and at all times acted bona fide. If I refer you, with respect Chairperson, to the record on page 302, I ask him the following question:

Mr Cornelius: "Very well. Did you trust the discretion and judgement of Col Prinsloo"

Answer: "Yes, I did."

"Did you believe that you were acting against the enemy of the national government at that time?"

"Yes, Chairperson."

And on page 303:

"Did you believe that you acted within the scope of your duties and in the interest of the country?"

"Yes, Chairperson."

Now I think that very clearly displays the attitude of our client as well as his subjective thoughts regarding this incident.

He was a credible witness. There was virtually no cross-examination and Mr Hattingh cleared up one point as far as the requests for the T N T was concerned and there was a little incident regarding the landmine which was obviously T N T which was used to blow up the body.

As far as full disclosure is concerned, it is my submission he made an absolute full disclosure. There was no indication whatsoever that this cannot be accepted, although we do find that, if we look at relevant facts, they do not need to correspond in every minute detail. It is clear that the applicant associated himself with the commission of this operation and obviously with common purpose so I think there can be no doubt about that. That is clearly an indication of his full disclosure.

I therefore apply for amnesty for the murder of Mr Mahlangu, secondly for the desecration of the body, thirdly for illegal possession of explosives, fourthly for the illegal transportation of the explosives, which we should not forget. I have gone through the Explosives Act and I can make a virtual endless of offences.

CHAIRPERSON: Of the various offences, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: And then obviously all delicts applied and flowing from the acts and omissions he associated himself with. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, my client Adriaan Rosley committed a most horrific crime. He killed a man in a gruesome way and he gave vivid evidence in this regard. Chairperson had this been a criminal court of law, no-one would hesitate in convicting him on his own evidence. Yet, this is an Amnesty Hearing and the question remains whether Rosley has satisfied you of the requirements of Section 20 (i) of your Act, that is Act 34 of 1995, because if so, the same section further says you "shall grant him amnesty as applied for".

In respect of the first requirement, that is Section 29 (i) (a), Chairperson, I do not intend addressing you. I think the facts speak for themselves. I do intend however to address you on the other two issues, namely sub sub-sections (b) and (c).

The question and I'm now dealing with (c), the question of full disclosure, we have an applicant here who has a bad memory. I have heard the testimony by the family. The unsatisfactory nature of evidence of this nature, where an applicant says: "I can't remember." Does that mean that no full disclosure has been made or not? Chairperson, Rosley has tendered evidence of his severe psychiatric condition. He testified to this effect last year in Durban, you will find that in Exhibit B handed up to you in this Hearing. You will also find it in the present record, I think it was page 318, where he told you about his problems in this regard and how over the last number of years, he has positively tried to expunge certain facts and incidents from his memory, incidents like this.

Therefore, Chairperson, I would submit that he made mistakes, yes, in his written application, what he could remember at the time when the application was drawn in 96. Possibly he made mistakes again at this hearing but my submission is that regarding a full disclosure, he tried his best and on this score, I would like to remind you Chairperson, for what it's worth, that we have had an instance previously where an applicant came before you and said: "I can remember absolutely nothing." You, Chairperson would remember that Jaap Hechter before your Committee, or the full Committee, in one of his incidents, maybe I can refer you to it, it was his schedule 9 of his written Judgement, where he said: "I can remember absolutely nothing about this incident, yet he was granted amnesty on the basis of evidence by other applicants, on the basis of his own psychiatric problems and that it was found that he could do not better than that, in his condition and he was granted amnesty, amongst others, for certain murders. Therefore, Chairperson, my submission is that in the present instance, Mr Rosley tried his best. He told you what he can remember, he said to you while he can't remember all the facts, I submit he has complied with the provisions of Section 20 (i) (c).

In respect of Section 20 (i) (b), that is the question whether his act is to be regarded as associated with a political objective and committed during the conflict of the past, I would firstly like to refer you to Exhibit A, Chairperson. That is the document dealing with general background and which was incorporated into the evidence of Rosley, specifically I would like to request you before finally deciding in this matter, again read pages 1 to 17 thereof and perhaps also the last two pages dealing with the question of informers, the importance of informers and the importance to protect them, even at all costs, even if it would mean killing someone.

While I'm on this last point, Chairperson, I would also like to refer you to a previous Judgment even though we do not work on a system of precedent but for mere consistency to the Judgment in the matter of Siswe Kondile, where five people applied for amnesty, I can give the full particulars to Mr Steenkamp afterwards if you haven't got the Judgment, but briefly there a detainee who was also brutally murdered by the Security Branch for the one reason and that was that certain informers had become compromised and therefore he was killed. Those applicants all received amnesty for that crime.

I would also wish to refer you again, Chairperson, to Exhibit D, which was handed up to you in this matter where, during a previous hearing, Rosley gave evidence about his own personal background, his own personal experiences of the conflict of the past, about his psychiatric situation and most importantly where I will refer you only to one page, Chairperson, and that is page 178 of the typed document before you, where he was asked for comment on an act, a crime that he committed in that matter and where he said, in the middle of the page: "We refer to evidence given by Gen van der Merwe" and I would like to quote you only this one part:

"My understanding is that Gen van der Merwe said that we were practically being in a war situation and it was understandable that members of the Security Branch, that the distinction between what is legal and illegal, would become a very grey area and he could understand how members who were involved in this political war, could well believe or have bona fide belief, that if they did something," that's now including himself, "illegal for the government, it fell within the parameters of our duties because we were doing what was expected of us."

Also, Chairperson, I would like to refer you to only one sentence in the Judgment of Jack Cronje, that is the Judgment of the full Committee of February this year.

CHAIRPERSON: Last year. February last year.

MR WAGENER: This year, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it this year?

MR WAGENER: Yes, 1999. Time is flying.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not flying if it's this year, Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: The only quotation I would like to read to you is on page 6 of the typed Judgment of Cronje, the second paragraph, which I think is very much applicable to this very case and to all the applicants here.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the second cluster of the Cronje applications?

MR WAGENER: Chairperson, this was the first cluster, the judgment handed down on the 17th of February 1999 by the full Committee, I think that was the initial first cluster of Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if it's the full Committee.

MR WAGENER: Yes. The quote goes as follows

"The Committee is of the opinion, after hearing all the evidence about the total onslaught, the words used to convey instructions or suggestions to counter the tacit condonation of illegal methods and subsequent praise and declarations extended, that the ordinary lower rank policeman, ..."

and if I may interject there Chairperson, I would submit that Rosley can be seen as one and even the other applicants in this matter as well,

"that the ordinary lower rank policemen bona fide believed that any act, even illegal ones, could be carried out if the purpose was to frustrate the revolution and to keep the government in power."

This is to address the legal question whether the applicant was acting within the course and scope of his duties and with his authority or if he could reasonably have believed in terms of subsection (f) of 20 (ii) that he was doing so.

CHAIRPERSON: You must be relying though, Mr Wagener, on Section 20 (ii) (d) are you not?

MR WAGENER: Sorry, I didn't hear Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You must be relying specifically on Section 29 (ii) (b) and sub section 20 (iii) (e) with regard to Mr Rosley?

MR WAGENER: Well slightly more than that, Chairperson. It would be sub section 20 (ii) (b) read with (f) thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Should the question arise about the authority.

CHAIRPERSON: As well as Section 20 (iii)(e).

MR WAGENER: That's correct, Chairperson.

Regarding the facts of this incident Chairperson, we have here a constable, the most junior person around, working with his or accompanying his senior, Mr Prinsloo. In this process what he heard was, or what he came to know was that there was a detainee, one Mahlangu, suspected of being a member of MK, a trained member or at least, of the ANC and most importantly Chairperson, this is on page 323 of the record before us, the record of the previous Hearing, of the previous part of this Hearing, he says very bluntly:

"My recollection is that an informer or informers had been comprised or were about to be compromised and that there was a fear that the deceased also again recognised some of the askaris."

He also heard, Chairperson, that because of that, the detainees had to be eliminated and he says on the bottom of the same page over to the next page, he fully associated himself with that idea. He says, on the top of 324:

"I supported the idea that he should be eliminated for the reasons we were given."

Furthermore Chairperson, in view of his junior position, he was hardly in a position to dispute these suggestions or instructions but he goes further. He frankly tells you: "I associated myself, I went along, I was not unhappy."

Chairperson, he saw Ras strangling the deceased in the vehicle. Obviously this was in the process of killing the man, when he was removed from the vehicle near the railway line. You heard his evidence. Without anyone telling him, without anyone specifically instructing him, he went over to where the deceased was. Although Ras was of the opinion that he'd already died, Rosley tells you he was still alive and he killed him there. He saw that as part of the initial instruction that this man had to be eliminated and he was aware that the body was to be destroyed by explosives.

Chairperson, there are certain disputes of fact, or there seem to be certain disputes, I haven't tried to note them all but I've noted basically four issues. The question of who abducted the deceased. In the second instance, did Cronje authorise the operation or the elimination or not? Thirdly, to what extent was the informer compromised? And fourthly, the whole issue of the letter sent to the family afterwards. My submission is, Chairperson, that all of this has got nothing to do with the merits of the application of my client. Whatever you find on any of these issues, has no impact on the result of his application.

In view of what I've said, I submit to you and I argue to you that Mr Rosley has in fact complied also with the provisions of Section 20 (i) (b), that is him satisfying you in respect of the detail of the crime committed and that he should therefore be granted amnesty.

I will ask ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, for which acts?

MR WAGENER: I would ask, Chairperson, that should you agree that Rosley be granted amnesty for, in the sense that he may have been an accessory to the abduction and detention, which must have been unlawful, for that, for the murder of Mr Mahlangu, for his part in the destroying of the body, I am not sure whether it can be said that he committed any crimes, he himself, in terms of the Explosives Act of 1956, to me this has always been a tricky question, whether it can or can't be said, but for purposes of this hearing I would also request that should that be applicable, that he would also be granted amnesty therefore, obviously for defeating the ends of justice, in the sense that he never came forward and reported the matter to the police and also for all other offences based upon his evidence before you in this Hearing and also for all delicts on the same basis. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wagener. When you commenced your argument and compared Mr Rosley to Mr Hechter, I was a little disturbed because if I recollect Mr Rosley's evidence, I think he was far much more vivid in his explanation of his own involvement in how Mr Mahlangu was killed.

MR WAGENER: Chairperson, yes. The only reason why I raised that point is the question is being asked often whether an applicant has made a full disclosure or not and yes, I accept that Rosley was quite vivid on certain issues, but on some others, he was quite unsatisfactory and the question of whether a full disclosure has been made or not, is obviously for you to decide. I merely thought it correct to bring to your attention that it has even occurred in the past where someone has received amnesty for remembering absolutely nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR WAGENER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Thank you Madam Chair.

MR JOUBERT IN ARGUMENT: Madam Chair I will submit that the issues pertaining to Section 20 (i) (a) and (b) have been dealt with extensively and I will merely confine myself to the issues pertaining to full disclosure and the credibility that will come under the spotlight pertaining to Mr Mathebula. I will also submit that Section 20 (ii) (b) and (f) have been complied with.

As to the issue of credibility, it is sad to say that a problem did arise at the previous hearing where Mr Mathebula was represented by a different legal representative but notwithstanding this, I would submit that even though, conceding that there may be some criticism pertaining to parts of his evidence, the problems that did arise were sufficiently dealt with by Mr Mathebula and proper explanations were provided for the issues or the disputes that arose pertaining to his application and the verbal viva voce evidence that he gave.

I respectfully submit that explanations were provided pertaining to a possible problem that may have arisen as to a language problem, although he did concede that he was fluent in Afrikaans. The issue was also canvassed during cross-examination and certain amount of leeway would have to be given to the applicant in this regard. I submit that even at the outcome or at the start of his evidence, he did indicate that he would be amending certain issues of his written application.

Be that as it may, I submit that the discrepancy pertaining to whether Mr Mosiane had been involved in the being sent for the abduction and returned with Mr Mahlangu, has been sufficiently clarified in the sense that Mr Mathebula indicated that he could not take the matter one way or the other. There was indeed no collusion between Mr Mathebula or Mr Mosiane in this regard. Mr Mathebula merely indicated that as far as his memory was and his recollection, he could not say in all certainty and in all fairness, whether Mr Mosiane had been sent or had been involved in this abduction, or not. He did not attempt to provide any protection or corroboration to Mr Mosiane, or any of the other applicants. He indicated that he might as well have been sent and might as well have been involved in the abduction. He could not take the matter one way or the other.

Be that as it may, I submit that these discrepancies can be attributed to poor memory, possible poor recollection and then obviously the possible language problem. In conclusion, with relation to these discrepancies, I submit that they have been sufficiently dealt with and I would request the Committee to accept the explanation provided in this regard by Mr Mathebula.

I would also request the Committee to find that there has indeed been full disclosure by Mr Mathebula pertaining to his involvement in this incident. He has given a clear indication of his involvement pertaining to the questioning and interrogation of Mr Mahlangu and also the fact that he partook in an assault during this interrogation.

Pertaining to the issues regarding whether Connie Mahlangu or Patrick Mahlangu were to be abducted and what he overheard during the discussion by Mr Prinsloo and other members, I think there has been sufficient corroboration from the evidence of all the applicants as a whole, that Connie Mahlangu was also a person who was to be, or who was being investigated by the Security Branch at that stage. The uncontested evidence is that the letter to which was referred, that will be the initial letter received from Swaziland, made mention of Connie Mahlangu as well as Patrick Mahlangu. It may very well be that the issue could have been raised, or the discussion could have related to Connie and thereafter further decisions could have been made regarding Patrick Mahlangu in the absence of Mr Mathebula. He was however, non-committal in this regard and he indicates that he cannot remember or have a clear recollection of the detail and also indicates that the detail of any operation or action that had to be taken would not have been discussed with him. It is to be borne in mind that he was really a constable at that stage and that these decisions were taken by superior officers and he was in no position to question this at all.

Be that as it may, I submit that there has been a full disclosure by Mr Mathebula and the evidence has, to the best of his ability, been placed before this Committee. In the light thereof I would request that amnesty be granted to Mr Mathebula for any possible crime relating to abduction or kidnapping, unlawful detention and assault upon Mr Mahlangu, defeating the ends of justice and I'm not quite sure whether this would be applicable, but in so far as it may be found that he may be charged as an accessory after the fact, to murder, that this also be granted to him, as well as for any other offence which may be apparent from the facts and any delictual liability which may arise therefrom.

If there's anything specific that you would like to hear me on, I'd be prepared to address you thereon, otherwise this would be the totality of my argument. Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Joubert. Mr Greyling.

MR GREYLING IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, on this I would wish to work rapidly with the record.

I submit that the applicant, Chris Mosiane, has made a case in terms of the relevant Acts, or relevant sections of the Act and certain questions with regard to him need to be answered, is whether he has disclosed the full facts to you and I would submit that his evidence follows from behind in chronological order and is quite clear that the only objective piece of evidence that there is against which Mr Mosiane's evidence can be evaluated, is the evidence of Connie Mahlangu. She has, a long time ago, made a police statement and as she has said today that Chris Mosiane was not present at the stage when the three men arrived there and that he had indeed on the second occasion been present when they approached her for accommodation and clothing and I would submit that his evidence fits in and concurs with those events.

The other evidence that could water down Chris Mosiane's evidence or place it in a bad light, is the evidence of Prinsloo and Ras and Mr Mathebula. That evidence is however vague. Mr Prinsloo testified that although he had known of Mr Mosiane and had worked previously with him, and the fact that he participated in the operation, he does not know whether Ras sent Mosiane at this stage when the abduction had taken place and the evidence of Mr Ras in that regard is also unclear. He does not know. Apparently no-one observed the three persons at the stage when they brought Pat Mahlangu there. Nobody can give any clear evidence with regard to that, so I would submit that Chris Mosiane's version before you could be objectively evaluated with regard to the evidence of Connie Mahlangu and that there is no contradictory evidence that breaks down his evidence and because of this, that he has made a complete submission and without omitting any facts, has presented his case to you.

The evidence that he has given today was a simple version and that is basically that in the light of the position that he occupied at Vlakplaas as an askari, he only received information to go to Soutpan, he would receive his further instructions there. When he arrived there he received further instructions and executed them in the light of the fact that he took a letter to the Mahlangu house and had taken clothes back to Soutpan. I cannot think that there is any version that would water down this version, that you could not accept his word, so I would submit that the applicant has presented a proper case before you and he should receive amnesty for the following offences: abduction, accessory, defeating the ends of justice, and then any offence in terms of the Act which might emanate from the offences and then any civil or delictual prosecution which might follow.

If there's anything else you would like me to address you upon, those are my submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden?

MR HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do you wish to say anything?

MR HEERDEN: Madam Chair, I have no specific instructions to oppose any application. The family will abide by the decision by the Committee. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, do you wish to address the Committee on any issues?

MR STEENKAMP: No. Madam Chair, maybe just to confirm that there was a question raised regarding the reference to a Mr Khumalo and the other askari. I've gone through certain steps to confirm and I can confirm that those two people were indeed killed and they are actually deceased. Exactly when and under what circumstances I could not find out, but they were implicated and they actually are deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's Colin Khumalo and Moses Nzimande.

MR STEENKAMP: Yes, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We thank you for the assistance that you, the legal representatives, have rendered to the Committee. Our decision in respect of these applications is reserved. Hopefully you'll be advised thereof before the end of next year. Thank you. For tomorrow we shall be commencing at 9.30.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS