Amnesty Hearings

GERHARDUS CORNELIUS BEESLAAR: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis, you may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, your amnesty application commences on page 114 and it stretches through to page 146, is that correct, or at least 147, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct. With my old application the page numbers differ.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but you have originally studied these pages?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you confirm the correctness thereof and you have confirmed this under oath?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, with the exception of the amendments that we are going to make during your evidence, this would then be the body of your documents?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Page 137 Madam Chair, would you please turn to that page, or at least 136. Do you have this before you, Mr Beeslaar? You are applying for accessory and murder, you also seek for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and then Mr Beeslaar, you have informed me that the reference to WO Schoeman in the list of persons who were involved, is not correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Now Mr Beeslaar, you were not available on Monday when this hearing commenced and there were some problems in tracing you. Could you tell the Committee very briefly what your position was and what your whereabouts were on Monday?

MR BEESLAAR: My step-mother was seriously ill in Potchefstroom. She had terminal cancer. I went to Potchefstroom.

MR DU PLESSIS: On the 16th October?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes. At least this was on the 6th of October, to assist my father who is elderly. I then returned after two weeks and spent a few more days here in Pretoria and then on the Monday I returned to Potchefstroom until they had managed to find me on Monday evening. I had no knowledge that I was required to be present at these proceedings.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you have no problem in participating in this process?

MR BEESLAAR: None whatsoever.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, you have already confirmed the nature and particulars of your application, I would just like to take you through a number of aspects. In the first paragraph on page 137, you state what your duties were. You state that it was administrative work. Could you elaborate somewhat more for the Committee with regard to what you did there, apart from the fact that you registered sources and that you also appointed askaris as members of the force?

MR BEESLAAR: Among others, I worked in the acquisition of food for the farm, I deal with claims and so forth.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. When you refer to the farm, do you refer to Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you resided directly beneath Mr de Kock?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, directly below him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then in the second paragraph on that page, is that also intended to serve as a paragraph for general background?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You stated that you often had to make appointments of persons, that is why you were in the division where the sections operated, do you mean Vlakplaas sections?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And we have heard much evidence that Vlakplaas units operated throughout the country within various divisions and areas.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also stated that you had to make appointments there, what do you mean by that?

MR BEESLAAR: After a returning terrorist had offered satisfactory evidence in court, he would then subsequently be appointed as a full member of the Force. In order to do so there were certain procedures which had to be observed, certain forms which had to be filled out and he had to undergo a medical examination by the local or district physician, among others that was the procedure of appointments to become a member of the force.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you responsible for that at Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I was the responsible member for attesting to these appointments.

MR DU PLESSIS: And these persons that you had to attest to, were they askaris?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, they were askaris or terrorists that had been turned.

MR DU PLESSIS: In the second last sentence you use the word "hier". You say

"Sometimes I would patrol with some of the other members who were also stationed here."

Is the use of the word "here" correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Here or there would have to do with the various divisions. At that stage it was Western Cape or Eastern Cape.

M DU PLESSIS: You are not referring specifically to Piet Retief?

MR BEESLAAR: No not specifically.

MR DU PLESSIS: You intended to refer here to the divisions in which you would normally be deployed?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, the various divisions, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And what do you mean with "patrolling"?

MR BEESLAAR: It would be observation and reconnaissance such as that done by the members of the unit who were stationed there, what their tasks were. I would sometimes simply fall in with them and work with them.

MR DU PLESSIS: And sometimes when you were away from Vlakplaas, were you ever used in some or other capacity during operations?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And this would also then be of application to interrogations, if I have it correctly?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, partially for interrogations. I did assist with such activities.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then in the next paragraph, that would be paragraph 3, we refer in the second last sentence that you were instructed by Col de Kock to go to Piet Retief and to attest to an informer. Is the choice of the word informer correct?

MR BEESLAAR: No it is not really correct, it would be an askari or as I have already stated, a returning terrorist who had been rehabilitated, because an informer was something quite different.

MR DU PLESSIS: And can you recall who this askari was that you had to attest to?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I can unfortunately not remember who he was.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was it intended to be Mngomezulu?

MR BEESLAAR: Negative.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you say that as far as you can recall, you were instructed by Col de Kock. Can you recall this specifically, or are you uncertain about this?

MR BEESLAAR: I am certain because I received instructions from him. Sometimes I received orders from Mr Baker who was second in command at Vlakplaas.

MR DU PLESSIS: In the final paragraph you state that on the Saturday afternoon you arrived at the place where the section lived, where was that?

MR BEESLAAR: It was outside Piet Retief, it was called Moolman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then on the following page if you would turn over, you state in the last sentence

"As far as I can recall, he was not tortured or seriously assaulted. He had been slapped."

You refer in that sentence to the interrogation that very same evening of his arrival.

MR BEESLAAR: I'm referring to the same evening that I arrived there which was the Saturday evening, that is when I was present there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether you participated in the assault?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I also slapped him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And then you state in the following paragraph that you participated in the interrogation.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In the third paragraph, second last sentence, you refer and state, this is now when Mr Mngomezulu was taken to the Josini dam and further interrogated there, you state that in the meantime you continued with your work, what do you mean by that?

MR BEESLAAR: Simply paper work relating to the appointments.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. In the last paragraph Mr Beeslaar, you have heard the evidence here today of Mr Schoon and Mr Pienaar and also Mr van Dyk whose evidence you did not hear. You said there that you patrolled and that you tested army missiles in a forbidden area. Can you explain to the Committee what you recall?

MR BEESLAAR: Upon a day we went in a vehicle, it was Lieut van Dyk's vehicle. We went to this specific place. It was Gert Schoon, van Dyk, me, Doe Willemse, I'm not certain whether Mr Pienaar accompanied us. It was a place where the army tested missiles and there was no road running through that area, we drove quite difficulty and we reached a point, I don't know how many kilometres far we had travelled at that point. There was some form of a plantation or a forest and there were cement floors which had remained, I don't know whether these were the floors of a former army camp, but we drove to that point and spent some time there. Then later we returned.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what were you told was the purpose of the journey at that stage?

MR BEESLAAR: It was simply to undertake observation as to whether or not there were inhabitants or not in that area, or anything, whether it was populated or not populated, we just wanted to determine that everything was safe.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you told why you had to determine whether or not everything was safe and whether or not there were inhabitants?

MR BEESLAAR: The discussion that we had there indicated that if he had to be blown up, there would not be any noise or sound that could be detected towards the inland side of that area.

MR DU PLESSIS: On the next page, page 139, you state that one day the terrorist or activist was loaded onto the back of Gert Schoon's bakkie. Can you recall in what condition he was at that stage?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall he walked to the bakkie. Whether he climbed on himself or whether he was assisted in climbing onto the bakkie is something that I'm not certain about, because as far as I can recall, there was a drum, a 44 gallon petrol drum, one of the old sort, which had been cut open and he was placed into the drum head first and then a piece of canvass was placed over the back of the bakkie.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this bakkie, can you recall whether it was a single or double cabin bakkie?

MR BEESLAAR: I'm not certain.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the other vehicle, what sort of a vehicle was this?

MR BEESLAAR: It was a Nissan Safari.

MR DU PLESSIS: And can you recall who drove away in the Nissan Safari once you had loaded him onto the bakkie and when you departed?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall the vehicle driver was van Dyk and there was me and Doe Willemse, we were in the Nissan Safari.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well and in the last sentence you say

"I then knew that the terrorist would be eliminated."

Can you explain to the Committee why you say that?

MR BEESLAAR: When we undertook observation it was discussed as such, that is why we undertook the observation inland.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then you state that you drove to Sodwana. Is that how you recall it?

MR BEESLAAR: After we had departed from the farm? Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now there was evidence previously which you have also heard that you stopped at Mr Schoon's home at Josini. Can you recall anything about that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I don't know if we stopped at his house because I wasn't with him in the vehicle, but that he turned off in the direction of Josini is something that I wouldn't doubt and we drove ahead and waited at a point.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then you state in the fourth paragraph, you say

"Van Dyk, Schoon and Pienaar also departed from there with the terrorist."

That is when you arrived at Sodwana. Can you tell the Committee or explain to the Committee what you can recall of that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, Willemse and I remained behind and number three departed from there with the terrorist.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did he walk? Can you recall?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, as far as I can recall he walked.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And did you hear anything subsequently?

MR BEESLAAR: No I did not hear the sound of any explosion.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then what I want to ask you is about the evening that you spent there. What did you do after the others had returned, after van Dyk, Schoon and Pienaar returned? You say in the last sentence that you spent the night there, what do you mean by that?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know whether we had a braai or whether we had taken food with us, but we had a meal and we also had a few drinks.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Allegations have been made in the evidence that you were drunk when you arrived at Sodwana. What do you say about that?

MR BEESLAAR: I can only state that I was not inebriated because Col de Kock's instructions were that no liquor should be consumed before or during an operation. My share was remote but due to my minor share, I nonetheless respected the instructions of Mr de Kock and obeyed them as such.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then on page 140 you state that later you were informed that the terrorist had been blown up. Can you recall who told you this?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot recall precisely.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well and then at the end you state that you were under the command of W/O van Dyk, it was actually Lieut van Dyk..

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then Col de Kock has testified that he, at a certain stage subsequently heard that you had something to do with a fence when it came o the interrogation of the terrorist.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I don't know anything about that.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you were not involved in anything like that?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I was not.

MR DU PLESSIS: With regard to this incident, did you ever make any statement to the Attorney-General?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I did not make any statement before the Attorney-General.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then finally can you recall whether Mr de Kock was ever at any one of these places about which you have just testified?

MR BEESLAAR: While I was present, he was not present. I don't know whether or not he was present before or after, but I know that when I was there he was definitely not present at the scene.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then one final point Mr Beeslaar. Mr Mogoai states in his affidavit that he drove with you from Vlakplaas to Piet Retief.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall I drove alone, but I would concede that it is possible that someone may have travelled with me.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Beeslaar. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Beeslaar, when you departed for Piet Retief, did you depart from Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson no, it was on the Saturday and I departed from my home.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall when, with regard to the Saturday, you received the instruction to go to Piet Retief?

MR BEESLAAR: If I recall correctly it was during the week that Col de Kock or Mr Baker or whoever told me to go there.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether they told you to take a member or other members from Vlakplaas with you?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall. As far as I know, I travelled alone.

MR HATTINGH: Are you aware that Mr Mogoai at a certain stage, worked at Head Office?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And at that stage were you still with Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, the administrative office was formally at hear office, Security head Office when I worked there and this office with which I was involved later, was transferred to Vlakplaas so I don't now about the period in time, but first I was a Head Office and then later I was transferred to facilities at Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: And when this incident took place, were you still at Head Office, or had you already been stationed at Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot say with certainty because it was quite a long time ago. I would imagine that I was already at Vlakplaas but I'm not completely certain about that.

MR HATTINGH: If anybody had travelled with you, would he have travelled with you to assist you or simply to travel there in order to join the other members?

MR BEESLAAR: It would only have been for him to join the other members because he would not have been involved with my tasks.

MR HATTINGH: And you were the only person who fulfilled your tasks?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, at that stage I was the only person involved in this.

MR HATTINGH: And you went to Piet Retief, not to participate in the operations there, but to undertake the administrative task for which you had received the instruction.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: During the assault on Mr Mngomezulu there at Moolman still, were any of the black members of Vlakplaas also involved in the assault?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, Chairperson, because I believe that the four of us who were there, could not speak any black language, there had to be one or two black members who could serve as interpreters.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall which of them participated?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Did they also participate in the assault on Mr Mngomezulu?

MR BEESLAAR: It is possible.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall the nature of the assault on Mr Mngomezulu?

MR BEESLAAR: It wasn't serious, he was not tortured, he was slapped a few times.

MR HATTINGH: Was he kicked?

MR BEESLAAR: No, not as far as I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: Where on his body was he kicked?

MR BEESLAAR: No, he was not kicked.

MR HATTINGH: Oh, I beg your pardon, I thought you said that he had been kicked. So what you say is that as far as you can recall he was not kicked. I misheard you. This is now at Moolman. Were you also involved in the interrogation at Josini?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall I did not participate in the interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: Were you present during his interrogation?

MR BEESLAAR: I was not, I cannot recall that I was present during his interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore you wouldn't know anything about any possible assault on him and if so, who was responsible for this assault?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr Williams?

MR WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, I've got no questions, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR WILLIAMS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Beeslaar, Mr Mogoai's recollection is that he, before he went down to Piet Retief, was at head office and at that stage he was working there under Brig McIntyre and that he was requested by Brig McIntyre to accompany you and that he accompanied you in a vehicle to Piet Retief. Is it possible that he travelled with you, but that this may an aspect which you cannot recall?

MR BEESLAAR: I've already said so, I would not dispute that he travelled with me, I simply cannot recall.

MR LAMEY: And then he states furthermore that upon your arrival at Piet Retief you went into the Security Offices there and he waited for you in the vehicle. Can you recall that you visited the Security Police offices there?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, I beg your pardon, I've interpreted it as such. The Saturday afternoon we arrived at Piet Retief, it was approximately 3 o'clock that afternoon and I think that the offices were closed and I went to W/O Pienaar's house. On that afternoon he went with me to the home of friends which was situated before one reached Piet Retief and we watched rugby there, I think it was Northern Transvaal against Western Province, we watched the rugby match there. From that point onwards, after the match, we went through to Moolman ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Try and be short, Mr Beeslaar. The question which was put to you was whether you stopped at the offices of the Security Branch in Piet Retief.

MR BEESLAAR: I beg your pardon. As far as I can recall we did not stop there because the offices were closed, it was during the afternoon.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, may I just ask something on this point.

Were the offices not situated at Mr Pienaar's house?

MR BEESLAAR: No, the offices were in the main street running through the town, but Mr Pienaar's house was not near there.

MR MALAN: It was a distance away?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes. I cannot say precisely, it was about two or three street blocks away. I'm quite unfamiliar with the layout of the town.

MR MALAN: So you cannot recall that his home and the office were situated close to each other?

MR BEESLAAR: No, they were not.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore, I want to put it to you that my instructions from Mr Mogoai are also that the Security Police offices and the police station in Piet Retief were situated next to each other. Is it possible that you may have visited the police station?

MR BEESLAAR: No, the offices were in the main street and the police station was way to the other side as far as I can recall.

MR LAMEY: Can you possibly be mistaken in your recollection of visiting the offices?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall I did not visit the offices. If we did, it would just be to see if there was a member there, but I can recall that we did not stop there.

MR LAMEY: So what you would concede too is that you may have stopped there to see if anybody was there?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is possible.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mogoai's recollection furthermore is that when you came out you requested him to go with other black members, among others Moses Nzimande Mgade and Mbelo in a minibus and they then followed you to a caravan house of sorts outside Piet Retief. Can you recall anything like that?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible, but you simply cannot recall it?

MR BEESLAAR: No, it is improbable. I cannot recall it at all.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Were you there - at which stage did you see Mngomezulu for the first time?

MR BEESLAAR: It was after we had arrived at the house. It was already dark at that stage and we were seated in the lounge, when some of the black members arrived there with a black man.

MR LAMEY: And your evidence is that there was an interrogation of this person.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, there was an interrogation.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall how long the interrogation lasted?

MR BEESLAAR: I would be speaking under correction, but it was quite brief, I would say approximately half an hour.

MR LAMEY: Could it have been shorter than that?

MR BEESLAAR: It is possible. As I've stated, I cannot recall precisely.

MR LAMEY: And your recollection is from your evidence, I don't know whether you are definitely certain about this, but you recall that he was simply slapped upon that occasion.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that he may also have been assaulted in other manners, such as kicking?

MR BEESLAAR: Not during that time that I was present.

MR LAMEY: Were you present at all times?

MR BEESLAAR: While he was there I was present all the time.

MR LAMEY: Because Mr Mogoai's recollection is that he was slapped and kicked.

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know anything about that, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst you are going through your notes, Mr Lamey, may I just make a follow-up to the question that you posed to Mr Beeslaar.

Mr Beeslaar, you say that whilst you were in this house some black officers arrived with the deceased, do you know the names of the black officers who arrived with the deceased?

MR BEESLAAR: Unfortunately not, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you identify some of them in this room?

MR BEESLAAR: No, positively not.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not? Why is that so?

MR BEESLAAR: It is quite a long time ago and if I recall their names I would recall their faces, but unfortunately I cannot bring them into relation with anything, unfortunately not, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Some of the members here are persons, or some of the applicants here are persons who also worked at Vlakplaas, is that correct, and that served for quite some time there.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Can you recall at which stage Mr Mngomezulu was then transported to the place near the Josini dam?

MR BEESLAAR: If I recall correctly it was approximately two days later. The following day was a Sunday, and I don't know whether it was on the Monday afternoon or the Tuesday morning that we went there.

MR LAMEY: Could that lapse of time also perhaps be faulty, due to your recollection?

MR BEESLAAR: It would definitely not have been later that the Tuesday.

MR LAMEY: Because Mr Mogoai's recollection is that the interrogation didn't last very long and on that very same evening he was taken to Josini dam.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot recall that.

MR LAMEY: Mr Beeslaar, as part of your application - I beg your pardon, I just want to get to the relevant page. Can you recall - you already testified that you cannot recall where you were when Mr de Kock - and you say that it is possibly also Mr de Kock, but you are not certain, but this request was given to you to go down to Piet Retief, you cannot recall where this request was issued to you.

MR BEESLAAR: It must have been on the farm if I was in my office on the farm at that stage, or it was at head office if that is where my office was. I cannot recall where my office was at that stage, but it was during the week because he wouldn't have told me this on a Saturday morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this request conveyed to you telephonically or was it conveyed to you personally?

MR BEESLAAR: It was personal.

MR LAMEY: If you could look to page 144, where you are questioned with regard to the order, you say the order was given to you by your immediate Commander and that would refer to the deeds or offences which were committed in the execution of an order. Now which order did you have from Mr de Kock?

MR BEESLAAR: Is that with regard to this matter?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR BEESLAAR: Well he gave me the order, I don't whether it was at head office where he heard that the man was ready for arrest, but he gave me the order to go to Piet Retief in order to complete the necessary documentation there.

MR LAMEY: But he didn't give you any order with regard to any interrogation or abduction?

MR BEESLAAR: None whatsoever.

MR LAMEY: If I may refer you to page 144, and that question, the section (a) of that is about whether the acts, omissions or offences were committed in the execution of an order, the answer is "Yes", and then you state furthermore

"An order was given to me by my immediate Commander, Lt-Col de Kock. Whether he received an order from his Commander is unknown to me."

I don't really understand your response in the light of your evidence which you gave earlier, but when you received the order, there could have been no talk of an offence ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, is my learned friend disputing this issue?

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you allow Mr Lamey to finish. Mr Lamey, you may proceed.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't understand your question.

MR LAMEY: Let me just repeat it, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: At the stage - or let me put it like this first, you state in paragraph 9 or 11(b) on page 144, that an order was given to you by your immediate Commander, Lt-Col de Kock. To which order are you referring?

MR BEESLAAR: He ordered me to go to Piet Retief to attest to a black member, to attest to a black askari and to appoint him as a policeman.

MR LAMEY: But certainly that wouldn't be an offence?

MR BEESLAAR: No, it is not an offence within itself.

MR LAMEY: And in paragraph 11(b) you are very certain, you do not qualify it by saying that you cannot recall precisely, you state quite clearly that it was Col de Kock, whereas previously you stated that you were not entirely certain, that it could also have been Mr Baker.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct, I stated that previously.

CHAIRPERSON: You are however now sure that the order that you should go to Piet Retief in order to complete some documentation, was given to you by Col de Kock.

MR BEESLAAR: I believe that it was Col de Kock who issued the order to me. Sometimes Maj Baker would also give orders if Mr de Kock wasn't present and in this particular case I believe that it was de Kock who gave me the order.

MR LAMEY: If I could just take you to page 116, as part of your general background you explained that, as I understand it from within the context, that you underwent treatment from a psychologist known as Dr Verster, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope this is leading to something that is relevant to issues that we have to decide, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Yes, it is relevant, Chairperson, it is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance thereof?

MR LAMEY: It is - I am exploring the witness's memory in relating also to the version of my clients that I will come back to later.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance of referring to that aspect of the background evidence in order to explore the version of your client?

MR LAMEY: Well it is clearly from the background that Mr Beeslaar has testified about memory problems and in this regard I would like to further question on this aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but his evidence today is about events that we have not been given any evidence about him having problems in recollecting properly.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson no, but this portion is part of his total amnesty application ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and we have taken note thereof, we have read the documents.

MR LAMEY: But I gather that it is also in the light of particulars that he relates about events must seen also against that background and the history of his medical problem and memory problems that he has.

CHAIRPERSON: Can't you do that without having to refer us to this background, by putting it to him that he might be mistaken because of the problems that he has alluded to in his application?

MR LAMEY: I can sooner to the point, Chairperson, I just wanted to, as an introduction, refer him to what I'm getting at.

Mr Beeslaar, let me just get to the point then. I would accept that there are certain aspects which you can recall, but if one has this problem which you have mentioned in your background evidence within your statement, then it can be expected that there would be certain gaps in your memory, and I want to put it to you that Mr Mogoai recalls very clearly, according to my instructions, that - and let me just get to his version, that Mr de Kock at a stage joined - this is after or during Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation - I beg your pardon, Chairperson?

MR MALAN: I wonder, Mr Lamey, I just want to ask you this question and I think my colleagues will share my sentiments, what is the greater significance of your allusion to Mr de Kock's presence or not? Because only two of the applicants have stated this, there is no motive for them implicating him. Is this material to the dispute and are your clients implicated to their disadvantage in any other way by Mr Beeslaar?

MR LAMEY: No, indeed not, they are not implicated by Mr Beeslaar.

MR MALAN: But I think that you can accept, and you can put this to him, but I really don't think that it is necessary for you to go into in-depth cross-examination about this because nothing will really emanate from it.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. I will then just put it to him.

My instructions from Mr Mogoai are that Mr de Kock joined you at a certain point where the first interrogation took place and that Mr de Kock was later also present during the interrogation upon the occasion at the Josini dam.

MR BEESLAAR: He was not present there.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Then I want to put it to you just to round matters off, that the fact that you exclude this is probably ascribable to your faulty recollection, particularly when it comes to the other members from Vlakplaas. I'm putting that statement to you upon that basis.

MR BEESLAAR: You see this took place quite a long time ago. As I've stated, anyone with a clear recollection wouldn't be able to recall all the details. As I've stated, I cannot recall everything as you have put it.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Then I would just like to put the final statement to you and that is, due to the nature of the function that you fulfilled there with regard to administrative tasks and the fact that you were not really a member of the operational group as such, would it then be correct to accept that you would not be the person who would subsequently have to report anything back to Mr de Kock?

MR BEESLAAR: What I would report back would be with regard to the task that I was sent there with, that would be the attestation of the askari. I would confirm that the paperwork was in order, but with regard to the interrogation and what happened to the black man, I had nothing to report back, it was not part of my duties.

MR LAMEY: Therefore with regard to the events during the interrogation, you would not report these back to him either.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Beeslaar, I see that you applied for amnesty in May 1997 and that in your application you also say that this had happened quite some time back. If we have regard that this was in 1986, that it was 11 years back from the time that it happened to the time of your application, and you say that your memory is poor and you do not hear properly any longer, you do not recall any longer, is that summarised well, Mr Beeslaar?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it was.

MR PRINSLOO: And these events, Mr Beeslaar, were events that were kept secret, you worked in the Security Branch and this was an aspect which was dealt with in secret, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And I assume that you did not keep any notes according to which you could refresh your memory in order to recall these events.

MR BEESLAAR: This is how I recall it, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And when these events occurred, Mr Beeslaar, I assume that you never thought that this matter would be discussed in open, at the stage when it happened.

MR BEESLAAR: That's correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And because of the secrecy thereof, you never discussed this matter with anyone else afterwards.

MR BEESLAAR: I did not discuss it with anyone afterwards.

MR PRINSLOO: And as we have heard from previous applications, these events happened on a need-to-know basis and on that basis things were kept secret, am I correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, at the stage in May 1997, when you had to lodge an application, you had to rely on your memory, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And in all fairness towards you, at that stage your memory was apparently already poor because you state so in your application. Is that summarised correctly?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, my memory is poor but there are certain things that one does recall.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, were you involved in incidents where persons were interrogated in the past and where violence was possibly used during these interrogations?

MR BEESLAAR: No, not while I was in the Security Forces.

MR PRINSLOO: Up to and including the elimination of this person, just during interrogation, before according to your evidence, that this person would be eliminated, nothing extraordinary took place or did there?

MR BEESLAAR: I'm not following you.

MR PRINSLOO: Did anything specific, extraordinary take place that would give you a reason to recall it later, up to the time that this person was eliminated?

MR BEESLAAR: There are certain things which are prominent in my memory. If someone spoke or had said, I cannot recall that, but there are certain things that I do recall.

MR PRINSLOO: You, according to your evidence, played a very minor role in this matter, do you agree?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I played a very minor role with regard to this incident.

MR PRINSLOO: And for that reason you are today saying you can recall certain things today.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is so.

MR PRINSLOO: You cannot recall whether you questioned him and what you questioned him about, can you?

MR BEESLAAR: I must have put one or two questions to him, but as I have said, I cannot elaborate on the questions that were asked because I was not an operational person and I could only have asked a question as a policeman.

MR PRINSLOO: With all respect towards you, Mr Beeslaar, what question could you have asked him in this regard? You didn't have any dealings with the man, you did not abduct him, you arrived there, you have another function, what would you have questioned him about?

MR BEESLAAR: Whether he was involved, and the other members asked questions and I would just have repeated the question.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, I am not trying to ask you a trick question, are you speculating or did you ask him?

MR BEESLAAR: I did not intensely interrogate him, that I never did.

MR PRINSLOO: If you did not have any information about him except for vague information, you could not have questioned him in-depth, but in regard to what did you question him that you had seen a necessity to slap him?

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't he responded to this, Mr Prinsloo? His response is that he actually repeated the questions which had been put by others to Mr Mngomezulu. Can you take it any further than that?

MR BEESLAAR: Well I'll leave it for argument, Madam Chair, as far as his memory is concerned and his involvement.

Mr Beeslaar, you have heard the evidence of Mr Schoon.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you agree with his evidence with regard to when he arrived at the farm, do you agree?

MR BEESLAAR: I agree with certain things. As I've said, I know he was there and I don't believe that he was there permanently because he did not live far from there and while we were at this old farmhouse we were not there all the time, so he could have arrived there when we were not there or something to that effect.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, let us get to the point. You heard Mr Schoon say that he arrived there in the evening at the homestead, did you hear that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you agree with that?

MR BEESLAAR: It could be, I do not dispute it.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you agree that that evening he questioned him by using Zulu?

MR BEESLAAR: It could be, I was not there.

MR PRINSLOO: And the following day, did you heard that Mr Schoon had questioned him again? Do you agree with that?

MR BEESLAAR: If he was there, he could have questioned him. I don't know whether we were there that day.

MR PRINSLOO: Where would you have been - if Mr Schoon was interrogating him, where were you?

MR BEESLAAR: I could have been outside, outside the building, it was not that all of us were present while he questioned him, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have heard what Mr Schoon said with regard to his interrogation, that he did not assault the man.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is what I heard.

MR PRINSLOO: You have told the Committee that you arrived in Piet Retief and had watched rugby at Mr Pienaar's house, did I understand you correctly?

MR BEESLAAR: Not at Mr Pienaar's house, but at a friend's house as you enter Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you recall it vividly in spite of your poor memory?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I recall it quite clearly.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you recall it? It's not mentioned in your application.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot mention all the particulars here, but that is what I did.

MR PRINSLOO: You have heard the evidence ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: May I just ask you, Mr Prinsloo, are your instructions that this is being disputed?

MR BEESLAAR: Mr Pienaar is not here and this is the first time that I have heard of it, so I have to take this point up. I would just like to hear from him. It was never put to Pienaar and I am entirely in the dark about this.

CHAIRPERSON: What wasn't put to Mr Pienaar, Mr Prinsloo?

MR BEESLAAR: It was never put to Mr Pienaar that rugby was watched, Chairperson. It was never put to him that they were watching a rugby match at a friend's place, as Mr Beeslaar is now testifying about.

CHAIRPERSON: But that's not his evidence. He, on arrival, went to a friend's house in Piet Retief to watch rugby with somebody he cannot remember. Were you specific with regard to Pienaar?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Madam Chair, he said he went with Pienaar. I never put it to Pienaar because I don't regard the fact that you went to watch a rugby game five hours before you arrive at a place where an interrogation takes place, as a relevant fact in respect of these proceedings. Similarly, I never put to Mr Pienaar various other things like, when did they eat, when did they sleep, when did they drink beer, when did they have tea. I mean, how far do we have to go? Why is a rugby game relevant, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, is it sufficiently relevant to the issues that we ultimately have to decide?

MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, with respect, I will leave that, it's not relevant to the issues in this matter. I will leave that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Beeslaar, are you able to tell the Committee with regard to this patrol that you referred to, where was with and when?

MR BEESLAAR: When I speak of the no-go area?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR BEESLAAR: That had to be a day or two before the elimination. I cannot recall on which day the man was eliminated.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, who went along on this patrol with you?

MR BEESLAAR: Mr Schoon, because he was familiar with the area, then van Dyk, myself and Willemse, because we were there in a group.

MR PRINSLOO: This was a day before the elimination did you say, or two days before the elimination?

MR BEESLAAR: It could have been a day or two before the elimination because everything happened in a matter of a week.

MR PRINSLOO: You have heard the evidence of Mr Schoon, that the evening before the so-called elimination, he had arrived the evening before the so-called elimination. Did you hear that?

MR BEESLAAR: Was it before the elimination that night?

MR PRINSLOO: Did you hear that evidence?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I heard it.

MR PRINSLOO: You agree with it and it was never disputed by your legal representative, do you agree?

MR BEESLAAR: I agree, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you agree that it is correct as you have already said, that Mr Schoon had arrived there that evening before the elimination?

MR BEESLAAR: I beg your pardon, I need to correct myself. He arrived the afternoon of the elimination because if it was the evening it was too late to go into Sodwana, so he arrived there that evening of the farm. If this was the Thursday afternoon, then we reconnoitred the area the previous evening.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you saying now, Mr Beeslaar, that Mr Schoon arrived there in daylight and had already gone on patrol before he had questioned the man? Is that your evidence?

MR BEESLAAR: Not the same day, we didn't ride out the same day, we undertook reconnaissance. If it was the Thursday, then we rode out the Wednesday.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, do you know that Mr Schoon questioned the man the evening and the following day? When did you go out on the patrol, please tell the Honourable Committee.

MR BEESLAAR: It had to be a day before we went through to Sodwana.

MR PRINSLOO: In other words, this would mean that Mr Schoon went on a patrol before he questioned the man, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: It could be that we went out that day and after we returned that evening he could have questioned him again.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the purpose of that patrol? What did you say?

MR BEESLAAR: It was to reconnoitre whether there were any persons there.

MR PRINSLOO: For what purpose, Mr Beeslaar?

MR BEESLAAR: I believe that as they had decided to eliminate him by means of explosives, that there are no people inside who could have heard the explosion.

MR PRINSLOO: So in other words, Mr Beeslaar, you are saying it was decided to eliminate him before Mr Schoon had seen or questioned this man? That is the only logical inference, because the evening Schoon arrives he questions him, he gives him a rest and the following day he questions him.

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know how it works.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, you were there, we were not there. MR BEESLAAR: I am saying this is how I recall it happened, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: It would seem as if your memory is very poor, Mr Beeslaar.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it is poor, but not very poor. As I said, we went out to reconnoitre the place and we returned that afternoon and that evening he questioned him and the following day he again arrived there. That is what I can recall.

MR PRINSLOO: Then it would seem that he was there twice, Mr Beeslaar.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it is possible that he was there twice. We both went out on observation because he knew the area and after we returned he could have questioned the man again and the following day, the afternoon he was taken away.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, why would Mr Schoon go out on patrol if he knew the place? He worked there for 10 to 15 years.

MR BEESLAAR: That's correct, that is why we used him, he knew the area.

MR PRINSLOO: And he wanted to eliminate a man whom he seriously wanted to question and he wanted to eliminate this man.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot answer that question.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are taken along and taken into his confidence with a patrol, there where it is already suggested that this man be eliminated.

MR BEESLAAR: I have said that I'm a Security Policeman, and I have taken an oath of secrecy.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, there are many others, but there is still a need-to-know principle and you are not even involved in the questioning and you heard Mr Schoon said you were a passenger.

MR BEESLAAR: I have heard, Chairperson, they took me along. I cannot comment any further.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I would just like to take instruction about this patrol business.

Can you be specific about this place which you say - if I heard you correctly you spoke of cement surfaces. Where is this area?

MR BEESLAAR: It's in this no-go area.

MR PRINSLOO: But as I understood it this area is quite large, where is that area located? Tell the Honourable Committee.

MR BEESLAAR: As I have said, it's unknown, but it is quite a large area. I do not dispute it. And we drove quite a way, there was no road and if I recall correctly it was marsh area and I don't know - we drove in a southerly direction, I don't know how far.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you saying that area is the place where the missiles are tested?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So there could be no people where missiles are tested.

MR BEESLAAR: At that stage I don't know whether the Army had ceased or whether arrangements had been made or whether they only tested them on certain days, I am not able to say, but I know we drove in that area.

MR PRINSLOO: Now how far is that place from Messina, these cement surfaces that you refer to?

MR BEESLAAR: It is quite far because it is close to Sodwana. From Sodwana one drives in a southerly direction.

MR PRINSLOO: How far from Messina do you say approximately?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know, 40 kilometres. I don't know how far Sodwana is from Messina, but it is not far from Sodwana that one turns off.

MR PRINSLOO: And how long did you take to drive to this place where the cement surfaces were?

MR BEESLAAR: It could have been two hours, 2½ hours. There is no road.

MR PRINSLOO: And then 2½ hours back?

MR BEESLAAR: More-or-less.

MR PRINSLOO: So it's five hours more-or-less?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And what time did you leave from where, to that place?

MR BEESLAAR: We went early that morning. After Mr Schoon went along with us we went away.

MR PRINSLOO: Was this before the other people had arrived at the farm, or after they had arrived at the farmhouse?

MR BEESLAAR: No, we were all there, all the whites drove out.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this including Mr Willemse?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Pienaar?

MR BEESLAAR: I am not certain of him.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you drive with?

MR BEESLAAR: In the safari.

MR PRINSLOO: And who drove the vehicle?

MR BEESLAAR: I suspect it was van Dyk.

MR PRINSLOO: And who gave directions?

MR BEESLAAR: Schoon. And here one looks - I will sit behind and say "Drive like this", or he will say "drive like that".

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you look at then?

MR BEESLAAR: What do you mean what did I look at?

MR PRINSLOO: What did you look at? You've driving on patrol and you have to look at something while you're on patrol.

MR BEESLAAR: One looks for houses in the vicinity and if there's any form of life there.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you look for houses or did Mr Schoon look for the houses?

MR BEESLAAR: Sir, it's a open field, you are not blindfolded, anybody can look at. It's an open field ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, you said you were looking for houses. Mr Schoon knew the area, why would he want to look at houses in a missile environment? Would there be houses?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know. That is why we went and reconnoitred the place to see if it was safe inland. I cannot specifically recall now.

MR PRINSLOO: Let us take this point further to see what we can find in this regard. Where did you go to the evening when the man was blown up?

MR BEESLAAR: The evening when he was blown up?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR BEESLAAR: We went to Sodwana.

MR PRINSLOO: You went to Sodwana.

MR BEESLAAR: And through Sodwana, through the entrance, when one gets to the beach there, there we moved in a southerly direction. I don't know how many kilometres, but quite a way.

MR PRINSLOO: And where did you stop?

MR BEESLAAR: On the beach.

MR PRINSLOO: Right next to the beach?

MR BEESLAAR: Well it depends how you want to say it. On the sand surface there next to the sea.

MR PRINSLOO: How far from the beach did you stop?

MR BEESLAAR: Where the water ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, I think he said "on the beach".

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Madam Chair, the evidence of Mr Schoon is clear that at the point, 1½ kilometres away they left the other vehicle and they moved from there - and that's a crucial point, according to Mr du Plessis, and he said that they walked that distance. So I'd like to know, why would they leave the vehicles and walk 1½ kilometres from there.

MR DU PLESSIS: But Madam Chair, the question was, "How far away from the beach did you stop?" And he kept on testifying that they were driving on the beach and they stopped on the beach ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They stopped along the beach.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. And the question was "How far away from the beach did you stop?" And that is an unfair question, with respect.

MR PRINSLOO: I will rephrase that question.

Mr Beeslaar, how far from the sea level did you stop? I know ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Was it high tide or low tide, Mr Prinsloo. He said on the beach, on the sand, next to the sea.

MR PRINSLOO: I will formulate the question otherwise then.

Mr Beeslaar, how far did these people walk with the man from where they stopped?

MR BEESLAAR: I am not able to say, but the following day we walked along with them and it was quite a way that we walked. Because when one walks next to the sea, distance is not a problem, one just walks and walks and walks. I am not sure how far, but I recall that when we walked along with them we saw that they had walked quite a distance.

MR PRINSLOO: And this distance, was this a kilometre-and-a-half? Would you agree?

MR BEESLAAR: I am not able to dispute it.

MR PRINSLOO: You are saying that according to your evidence this person was taken to where your vehicle was and from there they walked with him, is that your evidence?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Was this person tied up, handcuffed, what is the position?

MR BEESLAAR: While he was on the vehicle I believe he was cuffed, I don't know whether they removed his leg-irons afterwards or whether he has cuffed to one of the white members.

MR PRINSLOO: But you were saying he was in a drum, how was he in a drum?

MR BEESLAAR: He was placed in a drum on the farm at Josini and on the beach he was taken out of the drum.

MR PRINSLOO: So who placed him into the drum?

MR BEESLAAR: On the farm where he was put in we helped him in. It was the white members who were there.

MR PRINSLOO: Who are these "us", does this include yourself?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I could have helped.

MR PRINSLOO: You could have helped. Did you help?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot say. All of us assisted. I don't recall whether - I cannot say whether I picked up his feet and helped him in, I'm not certain. As far as I recall we all helped him. Who specifically took hold where, I do not know.

MR PRINSLOO: But if you performed a function in that regard, you would recall that you had lifted him up because you say he was placed into a drum.

CHAIRPERSON: He could have assisted, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chair

You say you assisted the people, what was your role?

MR BEESLAAR: I helped to lift him up at the rear of the bakkie and helped him get into the drum with his head first.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you now recall that you physically helped with your hands or are you speculating?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall I did assist.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say in many places "as far as you recall", but did you help? Do you recall it as a fact.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot say with certainty. I would accept that I assisted in loading him.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he handcuffed when he was loaded into the drum, his hands?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall, but I think his feet were shackled, but his hands could also have been cuffed and that is why we had to assist him in putting him in.

MR PRINSLOO: So when you were on the beach, what happened then, please tell the Committee. He's now on the beach, this person, the vehicles are there, what happens then?

MR BEESLAAR: He was then taken out.

MR PRINSLOO: By whom?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall. It had to be one of us who was there, one of our members who were there, who unloaded him.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you assist him?

MR BEESLAAR: I could have helped, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Once again Sir, you are saying "I could have". Did you help?

MR BEESLAAR: If it pleases the Committee, then I did help him.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you do?

MR BEESLAAR: I basically took him by his feet and lifted him out.

MR PRINSLOO: And who else?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot - I don't know whether all four or five us assisted, but it was not difficult to take him out because it was just a matter of shifting him out. So not much assistance was needed to unload him.

MR PRINSLOO: The man was then taken out, what happened then?

MR BEESLAAR: And then his leg-irons must have been removed, I cannot recall, and the three of them went away from there.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, you recall this thing you said, you say his ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: No, he said his leg-irons were removed, but he could not remember.

Now with respect, Madam Chair, my learned friend shouldn't then put to him that he definitely said "dat die voetboeie losgemaak is", because he qualified it.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Madam Chair, the witness explicitly said in Afrikaans "Die voetboeie is seker losgemaak". That leaves doubt, with respect, Madam Chair, in Afrikaans. Unless Mr du Plessis can give us some other translation.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, I think that's exactly Mr du Plessis's point, that there is doubt.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well, Mr Beeslaar, what is the fact of the matter, were the leg-irons removed or not?

MR BEESLAAR: To walk on the beach, I believe his leg-irons were removed so that he could walk comfortably and as I have said, I don't know whether he was attached to one of the members' arms so that he could not escape.

MR PRINSLOO: Were his hands loose?

MR BEESLAAR: I am saying that his hands were loose but he might have been cuffed to the arm of one of the members so that he could not escape.

MR PRINSLOO: You are saying "possibly".

MR BEESLAAR: I did not see, but if his leg-irons were removed and he can run away he would have been attached to one of the members so that he could not run away.

MR PRINSLOO: Why are you saying "he must have been attached"? Why "must have"?

MR BEESLAAR: So that he could not escape.

MR PRINSLOO: How was he going to escape? Why would he want to escape?

MR BEESLAAR: I think for what he was detained he had reason to escape.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall it as a fact that he was cuffed to one of the members?

MR BEESLAAR: As I have said, I believed he was cuffed to one of the other persons. It was already reasonably dark when they left there with him.

MR PRINSLOO: Did he willingly walk away?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, he did not resist.

MR PRINSLOO: Now did they take anything with them?

MR BEESLAAR: I couldn't see. As I've already stated, it was already dark and at a stage I was also seated in the vehicle. I don't know whether they unpacked all the things on the side of the bakkie where they were, I couldn't see anything.

MR PRINSLOO: So you were there and according to your version you knew that they were going to eliminate him.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes

MR PRINSLOO: So you must have at least have been quite interested in how this elimination was going to take place, correct? A living man, and you say that he was taken away from there, what do you say, how do you think this elimination was to have taken place?

MR BEESLAAR: As it already been discussed previously that he was going to be blown up.

MR PRINSLOO: So according to you this man would then have been blown up while he was still alive?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know according to which methods such an elimination would take place as I have never been present previously with such an elimination and I don't know how such an elimination would have taken place.

MR PRINSLOO: So it is not an everyday thing to kill somebody, and you say that he would have been blown up. How did you think this man would be blown up?

MR BEESLAAR: With explosives.

MR PRINSLOO: And how was it going to take place, how would it be done?

MR BEESLAAR: As I've already stated, I didn't know how these things were done. By the nature of my work I had not been involved in such an incident during which a person had been blown up. I cannot describe to you how this would take place. I'm very sorry, with respect, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: But you would agree one cannot attach explosives to a living person and then expect of this person to remain quiet and blow the person up.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot comment on that.

MR PRINSLOO: But you would agree that it is logical.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I suppose so, but I cannot comment.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you expect to place explosives on a living person and then walk away and blow the person up?

MR BEESLAAR: I wouldn't be able to say, I had never participated in any such exercise previously, I wouldn't know whether the person would be shot first and then be exploded, I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: You heard the evidence from Mr Schoon as to what he used to explode the person, the sort of explosives, the size of the explosives, he gave a thorough description of the cartridge of the explosives and indicated the size of the explosives. Did you see that any such explosives were carried by any of the members?

MR BEESLAAR: I couldn't see.

MR PRINSLOO: Why wouldn't you have seen it from your departure?

MR BEESLAAR: As I've already stated, Chairperson, these things could have been packed on the other side of the vehicle where I would not have been able to see them because I was not on that side of the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: But you saw them walking away, how do you get beyond that?

MR BEESLAAR: They were above the bakkie, one could see them walking away but it was dark. One could see people walking away, but I couldn't surmise what they were carrying.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, he's still busy answering that question, he's still busy.

MR PRINSLOO: ...(indistinct - no microphone) vehicle passed here, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Allow him time to answer the question. I think you seem to be also asking questions at a pace which is a little faster than one could expect counsel to ask a witness.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair, I'll do so. Thank you, Madam Chair, I apologise.

Mr Beeslaar, have you finished, because I interrupted you?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I don't know where we were, it was about walking away with the explosives. As I said, the explosives that they used may have been stored on the other side of the vehicle and have been loaded off from that side of the vehicle. It was dark and I don't know whether it was due to moonlight, but one could surmise that there were people walking away, but one couldn't see what they were carrying.

MR PRINSLOO: But you were with them when they departed, you helped them to unload the man.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, he was unloaded, but they did not depart immediately after they unloaded him. There may have been a five to ten minute period before they decided that they were going to walk with him.

MR PRINSLOO: So was there a discussion, was the decision taken to walk with him, or is that your inference or speculation?

MR BEESLAAR: This is not an inference, I saw them walk away in a southerly direction and that the black man was with them, but who carried what is unknown to me.

MR PRINSLOO: So when they walked away, you saw them walk away?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say that these three members, Mr Schoon, van Dyk and Pienaar, walked away together?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you heard that there was a 24 kilogram charge of explosives which had to be carried across sand. You must have seen if someone was carrying something which weighed 24 kilograms.

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know what the weight of such a container would have been and they were three persons who assisted in carrying the item.

MR PRINSLOO: But the man was tied up, he had to be guarded.

MR BEESLAAR: Well I'm sure that one could carry something with the one hand, I don't know how the electrical cable would have looked. I don't know whether the black man also helped to carry any of the items. I couldn't see who was carrying what.

MR PRINSLOO: But this unfortunate man must have known then that he was being led like a lamb to the slaughter, that he had to walk with them some distance away, to a point where he was going to be blown up.

MR BEESLAAR: I'm sure that he was like a lamb being led to the slaughter.

MR PRINSLOO: And then he would have assisted in carrying the goods, he didn't offer any kind of resistance. Didn't he struggle, did he follow them voluntarily?

MR BEESLAAR: Well he wasn't struggling when they departed, I don't know whether he struggled on the way.

MR PRINSLOO: And they had at their disposal a 4X4 vehicle which could drive on sandy terrain, why didn't they just drive with the vehicle?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot respond to that because the vehicle remained there, the two vehicles remained there.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you offer any reason to the Committee as to why they did not take the vehicle with them and why they left the vehicle there and carried the items as they were walking across the beach?

MR BEESLAAR: That was their decision, I cannot explain their decision.

MR PRINSLOO: But you were with them when the decision was taken.

MR BEESLAAR: Well as I said, I wasn't there with every single moment, because as they were unloading the goods I was on the other side of the vehicle. They may have discussed among each other what they were going to do and I wouldn't have heard what the reason for their decision to walk would have been, but the vehicle remained there.

MR PRINSLOO: And while they were walking away, what were you doing?

MR BEESLAAR: After they left I waited in the vehicle for van Dyk because the wind was very strong and it was very cold.

MR PRINSLOO: So you waited in the vehicle.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you didn't hear any explosion or see anything?

MR BEESLAAR: I didn't see or hear anything.

MR PRINSLOO: You didn't hear any loud noise? There were 25 kilograms of explosives.

MR BEESLAAR: The sea was loud, the wind was blowing strongly and I didn't hear anything. Perhaps my hearing is also not 100%, but all I know is that I didn't hear anything.

MR PRINSLOO: And when the others returned, didn't they say anything? The others would be the three members, when they returned without this man.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I don't know whether they said that they had blown him up or what had become of him. I don't know whether they said what had become of him.

MR PRINSLOO: So you cannot say that they said anything, or what are you saying?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know because there would be conversation, but I was seated in the vehicle and they may have said something to me, I don't know. I am not clear on that point.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, at that point, according to your recollection, you associated yourself with three other members who had killed a man and blown up his body, a murder had taken place and you didn't even find out - they didn't tell you whether the man was dead or alive, is that what you are saying?

MR BEESLAAR: As I've already stated, I was not an operational man, I was an administrative man and I did not share their activities.

MR PRINSLOO: But you were an administrative man who had participated in a murder, you had associated yourself with it, didn't you ask any questions about it, such as what did you do with the man, how did you do it?

MR BEESLAAR: I did not ask them any questions.

MR PRINSLOO: Why not, Mr Beeslaar?

MR BEESLAAR: Because I did not regard it as necessary at that point.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. And subsequently no-one said anything about it, anything in connection with the killing of this man and the explosion of his body?

MR BEESLAAR: Not as far as it went with my presence. I cannot recall that anybody said anything in my presence. I don't believe that anybody would have boasted about it.

MR PRINSLOO: So you wouldn't even have known if he had died in an explosion?

MR BEESLAAR: I couldn't say how he died.

MR PRINSLOO: So you ...(intervention)

MR BEESLAAR: I - then continue with your question.

MR PRINSLOO: No, please continue with your response, I apologise for interrupting. What else did you want to say?

MR BEESLAAR: If he had been killed, I would not have been able to say how he had been killed because I didn't see him subsequently and never again heard anything about him.

MR PRINSLOO: So you also had no reason to refer to an explosion in your application because you didn't know how the man had died.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. Just a moment's indulgence, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Beeslaar, you have heard the evidence that this man was seriously assaulted.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And are you capable of disputing this?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have heard the evidence of Messrs Schoon and Pienaar, and their relation of these events.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Well I will not reiterate this to you in a statement. And you have also heard that the whole purpose was initially to obtain information from this deceased, Mr Mngomezulu.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is what I heard.

MR PRINSLOO: And your evidence was that the person who had all the knowledge about him was Mr Schoon.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I believe so, either he or Mr Pienaar. I don't know in whose ward he fell or who was primarily involved with Swaziland and so forth.

MR PRINSLOO: You also refer in your application that in Mr Schoon's office there were certain discussions which were held, which discussions are those?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, I cannot say, it may be with regard to this matter or it may have been regarding other matters which had to do with the Josini area. I wasn't present, I don't know whether they were discussions or what exactly they discussed. I have referred to discussions here, but I don't know whether that was just them talking among one another or whether they specifically discussed this matter or any other matter.

MR PRINSLOO: Now when were these so-called discussions supposed to have taken place?

MR BEESLAAR: In Josini, in Mr Schoon's office. It may also have been on the morning before we went out on the patrol.

MR PRINSLOO: So it would have been on the morning, before you interrogated the man?

MR BEESLAAR: That is possible because we would go there periodically.

MR PRINSLOO: You heard Mr Schoon testify that he denied any form of patrolling.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I've heard so.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence, Chairperson.

Mr Beeslaar, you have also heard what Messrs Schoon and Pienaar testified with regard to the liquor situation.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I heard so, Madam Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you have to say about that?

MR BEESLAAR: I have already stated that the Colonel's instructions were very clear in this regard. I was not inebriated. His instructions were never to consume any liquor before or during operations and I respected and observed his instructions.

MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I've put to the witness that he's heard the evidence of Mr Pienaar as well as Mr Schoon, I'm not going to repeat their versions and it stands.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms van der Walt?

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

Mr Beeslaar, I would just like to take you back to the observation which you referred to in your evidence-in-chief. You recall that aspect of evidence which began with the fact that you drove in the vehicle belonging to van Dyk, that it was you, Schoon, Willemse and van Dyk. Do you recall that aspect of your evidence?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is the aspect regarding the time when we entered the no-go area. Yes, I recall that. I'm not certain whether Freek Pienaar accompanied us.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes. Your evidence now is that the purpose behind your excursion there was to undertake observation.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it was necessary for the operational personnel to determine that everything was secure.

MS VAN DER WALT: Secure for what?

MR BEESLAAR: That everything was secure on the inland side, that there would be no inhabitants in the area because they already knew that he was going to blown up.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you knew at that stage already that he was going to be blown up.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I've stated that previously as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now precisely when? Because you see just with regard to the period of time, I would like to know precisely when before you undertook this observation, was there already a discussion that the person was going to be blown up.

MR BEESLAAR: It may have been on the farm, and as I've stated, there must have been a day before he would have been blown up.

MS VAN DER WALT: That would have been when you undertook the observation?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, the day before, when we undertook the observation. Let's say if we wanted to blow him up on the Thursday, we would have to observe on the Wednesday.

MS VAN DER WALT: So then it was definitely before the observation was held, that there was a discussion regarding the explosion of this person.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now Mr Beeslaar, from which point onwards did your evidence alter from patrolling to observation?

MR BEESLAAR: I would remain with patrolling. There isn't really a tremendous difference between patrolling and observation. If one patrolled, one would undertake observation as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you would say that you were also patrolling?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I defined it as such in my application.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Let us take your application, Sir, and I would like to refer you to page 138, the final paragraph

"While the black members of the police remained behind with the terrorist activist, I went with the white members on patrol. Among others, also in the no-go area where the Army was testing missiles."

Is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you also patrol in other places?

MR BEESLAAR: In this division, or what are you referring to?

MS VAN DER WALT: No, I am referring to what you have written here. It is about this incident.

MR BEESLAAR: What I mean by patrol is that from that farmhouse we drove out to Josini and I don't know whether we went back to Piet Retief for that one day as well, but the patrol would actually just be something that I have included to indicate that we moved around in the vehicle from that point onwards.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just listen carefully, I'm asking with reference to what you have written here, that among others you also patrolled in the place where the missiles were tested. Were there any other places where you patrolled as well? That this would indicate another place.

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know whether we went to Sodwana previously or beforehand to look at the entrance there, but there wasn't a lot of time to undertake patrolling because it was just for that one day and on that one day we departed from Piet Retief for the farmhouse.

M VAN DER WALT: But that wasn't patrolling, that was travelling from one point to the next.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, you are correct, I would conceded to that. The word "patrol" is actually incorrect here.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you just mention with regard to the fact that you don't know whether you went to Sodwana for the one day to go to the entrance? What do you mean by that?

MR BEESLAAR: No, that would be to examine the entrance from the inland area towards the seaboard.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you actually do that?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall specifically, but it is a possibility, because if one undertook such planning one would have to take all factors into consideration.

MS VAN DER WALT: But then why didn't you mention that you have a vague recollection that you may have travelled there because the planning was rather extensive?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot respond to that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Or are you simply just attaching tales to your version?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I'm not doing that, it is simply a possibility of what could have taken place.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you see, you are assisted by a very experienced advocate and attorney and during this session of this Committee, several statements have been submitted by your legal team for other applicants which provide further information for their statements which they made initially, but in your case there was not even anything which was put to any of the other applicants or Mr Schoon who testified this morning, that you undertook observation in order to determine whether or not it would be safe if explosions were going to take place from the seaboard side. Can you explain that?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot explain it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then why, during Mr Schoon's evidence, didn't you instruct your advocate to put this very significant point to him?

MR BEESLAAR: I didn't do so.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you really cannot explain to the Committee?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it was also not put to Mr van Dyk, not to Mr Pienaar.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot comment on that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I just for purposes of the record say that when Mr van Dyk testified I was not here, firstly, and secondly, I had no instructions of Mr Beeslaar because he wasn't available at that stage. I couldn't consult with him beforehand and I did not know at that stage what my position was pertaining to his application. Just for purposes of the record.

CHAIRPERSON: And when Mr Schoon testified you were here and you didn't take the matter up.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, well what I - as far as I can recall, what I put to Mr Schoon was what was in the amnesty application on the last paragraph, page 138.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I'm sorry, I'm the last person to barge in, if you'll excuse me. There's a request from the interpreters to take a five minute adjournment if it's possible. Just five minutes, Madam Chair, if possible.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a five minute adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

GERHARDUS CORNELIUS BEESLAAR: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Ms van der Walt.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I perhaps just clarify what I did put as far as I can remember and what I didn't put? As far as I can remember I put the last paragraph on page 138, and together with that I said he knew at that stage because it was discussed that there would be an elimination. I did not put that they rode around there or drove around there looking to see if there were people "in die binneland", that as far as I recall I didn't put, and what I also didn't put - and I don't know if my learned friend is still going to come to that, is the fact that there was a discussion already before they drove in that area, about the elimination. I also didn't put that. Just to put the record straight.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: (cont) Honourable Chairperson, that is the reason for cross-examination, now the cart is being drawn before the horses and now I can conclude my cross-examination. I think Mr du Plessis and I are trying to let this flow, but I think one could follow the normal procedure, that I can follow with my cross-examination if you would allow me, please.

CHAIRPERSON: You are allowed, Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Mr Beeslaar, this piece of evidence that you have given here now, and I wish to read to you what you had testified in-chief. "With a vehicle of van Dyk, Schoon, I and Willemse and van Dyk, but I am not certain of Pienaar, whether he was there, drove to a place that looked like a plantation. There were cement surfaces that had remained there, we stayed there and we undertook some observation there". Then the explanation was given - "The observation was held to determine whether if anything was blown up on the sea's side, that no-one would be able to hear it". Is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is the inference I drew from the discussion in the vehicle, that the inland be safe to do something to this effect.

MS VAN DER WALT: So your evidence is also furthermore that before you were busy with this observation you knew that he would be blown up, this person.

MR BEESLAAR: As the other people have said, they had already speculated as to what to do with him and the last that I can recall is that he would be eliminated.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Beeslaar, could you please listen to the question. And there was no evidence from any of the other applicants that they had decided to blow him up, that there was discussion about that. Please listen to my question, I am telling you that your evidence here in-chief today was that before you went on this tour to undertake observation there was already a discussion that this person would be blown up, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. And who was involved in this discussion?

MR BEESLAAR: The white members who were present there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Therefore at that stage, at that early stage you already knew what the fate of Mr Mngomezulu would be. Now I wish to take you back to your written application, to page 139, top of the page -top paragraph, I beg your pardon, Chairperson, the final sentence

"I knew that the terrorist activist would be eliminated".

Is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You give no description whatsoever as to what had happened there as to how he would be eliminated.

MR BEESLAAR: I did not give any description there, that's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in your whole application it does not appear that there was a discussion that this person would be blown up.

MR BEESLAAR: In my written application, no. As far as I can see it would be appear that there's nothing like that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, if we have regard to your application in the final paragraph you say

"As far as I can recall I did not hear any explosion, but I knew that the activist would be killed."

Once again you bring it in yourself into your application, but you do not say in your application that there was a discussion by these people, why did you not do this?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot explain that statement, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your advocate also did not put it to the applicant, do you know why not?

MR BEESLAAR: No comment, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Or did you not tell him?

MR BEESLAAR: I did not mention anything like that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Never, not at all?

MR BEESLAAR: No, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: So now you have decided when you sat here, that you will just dish up this story to the Committee.

MR BEESLAAR: What stories are these?

MS VAN DER WALT: This that there was a discussion that the person would be blown up and that observation would be undertaken so that one could determine whether it was safe if an explosion would take place.

MR BEESLAAR: It is as I have - the observation had already been undertaken to ascertain, and then I said - I cannot recall if I said so in my evidence, but it was discussed in the vehicle why it was observation, to make sure that it was safe inland.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, but Sir, you have heard the evidence of Mr Schoon that he knew that area quite well and this was a no-go area because missiles were fired there, there would be no people and Mr Schoon would know that.

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know what it is, but we visited that no-go area and I am not entirely certain whether the Army had ceased at that stage or whether blacks could have moved in there of not, I don't know. They probably do not understand all the instructions that are issued. We undertook observation, we drove there to that certain point and we returned from there. And I believe Mr Schoon is familiar with the area, but that is the incident that had happened, that we drove there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you see, you were not afraid to drive in the field there with a vehicle, that you could have possibly have driven over one of these explosive devices that had not gone off. That is why they keep the people away from there, that it was a dangerous area.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct. Whether we took a chance and whether they had ceased, but we did visit that area and there we drove in that no-go area.

MS VAN DER WALT: And I wish to take you back. You now arrive in Piet Retief on a Saturday afternoon, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you watched rugby?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what happened then that you went to this place where this unknown person was?

MR BEESLAAR: That was the general accommodation for security persons in Piet Retief and that is where I also went home when I came along with the members of the operational unit.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is this at the caravan?

MR BEESLAAR: If it was a caravan or whether it was a small house, but it was very small. It could have been a caravan, I am not sure.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then go there? With whom?

MR BEESLAAR: Along with Mr Pienaar.

MS VAN DER WALT: So this should have been after Mr van Dyk informed him that he had to come there.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I cannot say, I only arrived there that afternoon and this was about 6 or 7 o'clock when I arrived at Moolman.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when you arrived there was this unknown person already there?

MR BEESLAAR: Not inside, not inside the place. I did not see him before the time and he must have been outside where the blacks had stayed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know that such a person was there?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I did not.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did no-one tell you?

MR BEESLAAR: Nobody.

MS VAN DER WALT: Not Mr Pienaar?

MR BEESLAAR: No, no-one. I had no knowledge that such a person was there.

MS VAN DER WALT: What is the reason, why did you then go there?

MR BEESLAAR: As I have already said I went to the division under instruction from Col de Kock that a black returning terrorist - I think that is why he sent me there.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you are not even certain about it?

MR BEESLAAR: Listen, this is a long time ago and I cannot recall if I had to do something else there, but I think it was such an incident, that is why I went there.

MS VAN DER WALT: I want to know why you specifically after the rugby, went to that specific place.

MR BEESLAAR: Because I had stayed there that evening.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Pienaar did not tell you anything.

MR BEESLAAR: Of the person? No, he did not tell me anything.

MS VAN DER WALT: I wish to put it to you that the period when this operation had taken place was only three days, that was the evidence of Mr van Dyk. What do you say about that?

MR BEESLAAR: It depends what he means, from when three days?

MS VAN DER WALT: Saturday the person was abducted and he was taken to Piet Retief, Sunday afternoon he went to the old homestead next to the dam and the Monday, late afternoon, they left from there.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I do not agree.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you are saying two days, if I understand your evidence correctly, or a day or two before the elimination, Mr Schoon and Mr van Dyk, you went on this patrol. Is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: After we arrived at this old place?

MS VAN DER WALT: How long had you already been there then?

MR BEESLAAR: I speak under correction, the Sunday as far as I can recall, we went through to Josini on the Monday, then the place was arranged at the dam and whether - if it was a Monday, whether we went the afternoon or the following day, we went to this old house next to Josini dam.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where - I beg your pardon, I interrupted you. Where did you stay at Josini?

MR BEESLAAR: At this old house. We did not stay in Josini itself, we slept in Piet Retief and then the Monday, if I recall correctly, we went through to Josini and there it was probably arranged for the old house where he was further interrogated and then either the Monday afternoon or the Tuesday morning we went through to this old house.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is what I want to know because you said the following day you went to the old house and that is why I asked you where did you stay in Josini.

MR BEESLAAR: If we left the following day we must have returned to Piet Retief. As I have said, I am not entirely certain whether it was the afternoon - if we arrived the afternoon at the old house, then we stayed at the old house that afternoon - the evening. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know how many days and what exactly had happened there, Mr Beeslaar?

MR BEESLAAR: If we arrived there the Tuesday, we there one day, we spent the evening there and the one day we went out on our observation and the following day he was taken to the beach and the following morning we returned and that afternoon I went back to Pretoria.

MS VAN DER WALT: So now you have said that the one day you undertook the observation and the following day the person was taken to the beach.

MR BEESLAAR: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So this observation, was it undertaken in the morning?

MR BEESLAAR: I would say it was during the early afternoon.

MR BEESLAAR: Because it took you five hours approximately.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And that evening Mr Schoon arrived at the farm to interrogate the person.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it could be, I cannot dispute that. That is my recollection of the whole matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now let us arrive at the day when he was taken away from there, from the farm, that is Mr Mngomezulu. You are saying that you assisted in loading the person onto the bakkie.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are saying that he had leg-irons.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, as far as I can recall his legs were cuffed, his hands were loose. I cannot say, I cannot recall.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you say he was placed into a drum.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: If I may call it as such, this 44 gallon drum?

MR BEESLAAR: As I have said yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: I don't know what this is in new measurements. If you say that he shifted him in, the drum had to be on its side?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it did.

MS VAN DER WALT: And how far was he pushed into the drum?

MR BEESLAAR: From approximately his shoulders to his middle.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well then. Did they tie him up furthermore, or what is the situation?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall he was not tied up again, but he was in cuffs and it could be that his hands were also cuffed so that he could not pull himself out or move out of the drum.

MS VAN DER WALT: And was he covered with a canvass?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, a tarpaulin was put over the back of the van which also covered this 44 gallon drum.

MS VAN DER WALT: This is also a very important aspect which was never put to any of the applicants. It was never put to the applicants that Mr Mngomezulu was placed into a drum on the back of the van. Why not?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot explain why it was not done.

MS VAN DER WALT: There is also no additional statement taken from you with regard to these points which do not appear in your statement.

MR BEESLAAR: None, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Schoon testified this morning, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you heard that this was also not put to him.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: One moment, Chairperson.

You arrived at the beach this particular evening and you say that you drove up to a certain point and the vehicle stopped and you climbed out and you helped to unload the person from the bakkie.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are saying that it was dark, that is your evidence, the moon had just come up.

MR BEESLAAR: That is as far as I can recall. I don't know how many years back it is.

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon?

MR BEESLAAR: I say it is many years ago. The sun had already set quite some time ago and the moon was just peeking over the horizon.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the moon rises on the eastern side and you were on the eastern side of the country.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you want to tell this Honourable Committee that under those circumstances on the beach, where there is an open sea to the east, you could not see that these persons carried anything, as Mr Schoon had testified, this large object.

MR BEESLAAR: I did not see it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you explain why?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot explain why because I did not see it. As I have said, the things were placed on the other side of the vehicle and I sat in the vehicle after I unloaded him from the vehicle because the wind was quite strong and it was cold.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you were outside the vehicle, you gave that evidence in your evidence-in-chief.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I was outside. I said I unloaded him, I helped with unloading him and they stayed a while before they departed from the vehicle, but I climbed back into the vehicle because it was so cold and the wind was blowing tremendously.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, you did not see that these objects were carried by these persons or removed from the vehicle because it did not happen. That is why you did not see it.

MR BEESLAAR: I am not saying that I did not see it, if they left there with explosives I did not see it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you see in your written application on page 139, you do not make any mention whatsoever in the last paragraph

"Because it was tremendously cold and the wind was blowing, I remained in the vehicle."

If your written application is read, then there is no indication that you had climbed out of the vehicle, that you had assisted in unloading the person from the drum, none whatsoever. Do you agree?

MR BEESLAAR: According to this sentence it is so, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And this was also not put to the applicants. Is that also correct?

MR BEESLAAR: If it was not put to them, I agree with you.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also do not know why it was not put to them.

MR BEESLAAR: I have no comment, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also do not know why it was not stated in a supplementary statement.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot comment, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, you were present, but a statement was made to Mr Pienaar, I think, that you had attempted to reach Mr van Dyk and Pienaar before you had drawn up your application, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do exactly?

MR BEESLAAR: To try and find Mr van Dyk, I contacted a person who was his friend and who is also known to me, a Mr Flip de Beer, I asked him to tell Paul that I would apply for amnesty with regard to this incident and after a few days I found Flip and he said Mr van Dyk was not interested in applying for amnesty for this matter. And Mr Pienaar, I traced Mr Pienaar by means of his son. He was no longer a policeman, Mr Pienaar at that stage and I went through a lot of trouble and I found his son who was a policeman. I think he works with Murder and Robbery Unit at Piet Retief or one of the divisions and he gave me his father's telephone number and at that stage, if I recall correctly, he was working at the sawmills at Piet Retief and I contacted him there and told him that I shall apply for amnesty with regard to this matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you never spoke to Mr van Dyk yourself.

MR BEESLAAR: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Pienaar, what did he tell you?

MR BEESLAAR: If I recall correctly he said he could not recall this matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then afterwards you applied for amnesty.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I applied for amnesty. And Mr Schoon, his brother who was in Pretoria, a Brigadier, I informed him and I personally told him that I would apply for amnesty for this matter, but I never received any feedback from him.

MS VAN DER WALT: What would you tell the Committee, were these persons not interested in applying for amnesty?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know. If I draw the inference from the comment, from the one I did not hear anything, the one said he could not recall, so I cannot say with certainty, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you see I would just like to point out to you on page 146 of your application, your application was signed on the 6th of May 1997, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: 6th of May 1997, correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And if you look at Mr van Dyk's application on page 84, his was signed on the 13th of December 1996.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot explain it. He then did so without informing me that he was to apply. I cannot explain that.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like to put it to you that the impression that you are trying to create before this Honourable Committee is that these applicants were not interested in applying is incorrect because they handed up applications before you. Months before you they applied for this incident.

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, what I tried to find I did try and if they did these things before me, they were false because they did not inform me that they were to apply for amnesty.

MS VAN DER WALT: But it's not necessary to inform you, how can you say they are false?

MR BEESLAAR: That was the procedure, where we mention somebody we inform them that a person shall apply for amnesty and that I would implicate him there, and that is the case, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: I wish to refer you back to your evidence where you say that Mr Schoon at a stage when you moved away from the house, from the old homestead, he turned away to his house. That is your evidence.

MR BEESLAAR: If I'm correct I said that it is possible that he did turn away because we were in two vehicles. I cannot recall, but if he said he turned away to his house, I will conceded that.

MS VAN DER WALT: And I shall put it furthermore to you that Mr van Dyk said that he drove with Mr Schoon and Mr Pienaar to go to his house to check messages.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall the two of us were in a vehicle, but as I have said, I concede that he was with them and that they had discussed further matters. I cannot comment any further, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And I shall furthermore put it to you that Mr Mngomezulu was dead by the time they arrived at the house and that Mr van Dyk, along with Mr Pienaar and Schoon, drove with a 4X4 van on the beach to the point where the body was blown up.

MR BEESLAAR: That is not how I recall it.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

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

MR NEL: I've got nothing, thank you, Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele?

MR RAMAWELE: I've got no questions, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR RAMAWELE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Beeslaar, when did you know that Mr Mngomezulu was to be eliminated?

MR BEESLAAR: It was definitely not on the Monday, it may have been on the Tuesday or the Wednesday, after we had been on observation.

MR KGASI: Alright. And that discussion to eliminate him was taken by the white members who were present at that time.

MR BEESLAAR: The operational persons must have taken the decision, I wasn't present. They may have told me at a later stage that this was their decision.

MR KGASI: Alright. And Mr Beeslaar, it was your testimony that you have obeyed Mr de Kock's instructions that at no stage before the operation liquor should be taken, is that so?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR KGASI: So I take it that at all stages during these proceedings you were sober, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: I was sober at all times.

MR KGASI: Thank you. Let me take you a little bit further, to the time when Mr Mngomezulu was loaded onto that bakkie. Was he walking or what was happening?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall he walked to the bakkie and there we helped him onto the bakkie, onto the back of the bakkie into the drum which was on the back of the bakkie.

MR KGASI: Alright. And now at Sodwana, how was Mr Mngomezulu, was he walking or what was happening at the beach?

MR BEESLAAR: As I have already explained, after he was helped off, he walked by himself.

MR KGASI: Alright. And further, Mr Beeslaar, is that your testimony that you did not know how Mr Mngomezulu was killed, but that you know that the last time you saw him he was alive.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR KGASI: And that further it is your testimony that when you went to Sodwana in the first place for that reconnaissance, the following day that was the time when you took him there, is that so?

MR BEESLAAR: If I recall it was on the following the day. The previous day was observation and the next day we took him there.

MR KGASI: Ja, that was my question, whether you reconnoitred the are first and the following day you took him there.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR KGASI: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, I don't think I have any further questions for the witness.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KGASI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: There is just one question that I have for you. It is my impression that Brig Schoon wasn't actually at Leeupoort, that he went back to his home on a daily basis.

MR BEESLAAR: Not Brig Schoon, Lt Schoon.

MR MALAN: Yes, sorry, that is what I mean.

MR BEESLAAR: No, he didn't stay there with us, he didn't stay at Leeupoort.

MR MALAN: He didn't stay at Leeupoort, he drove back every day to Josini.

MR BEESLAAR: Well I don't know if he was there every day, he was there for two days, so he must have been there everyday and every time he returned.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: Just one clarification.

Mr Beeslaar, you said you arrived on a Saturday, more-or-less how many days did it take before Mr Mngomezulu was eventually eliminated?

MR BEESLAAR: I arrived at Moolman on the Saturday evening, and if I am correct it was on the Thursday that he met his demise. It was approximately a week which I had in which to perform my tasks. I had to get the letter from the district physician for the appointment and I returned again to Pretoria on the Saturday.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Mr Beeslaar. Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Motata.

Mr Beeslaar, when Mr van Dyk gave testimony he stated that he left for Piet Retief with you from the beginning, is it your testimony today that you left Pretoria for Piet Retief on your own and that you were not in the company of Mr van Dyk?

MR BEESLAAR: Madam Chair, that is positively so. If Mogoai had travelled with me, we would have left on the Saturday. I did not travel with the initial group to Piet Retief.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was of the opinion that even though you were an administrative officer you accompanied the group, the investigative group, because there was a shortage of personnel at that stage. Was it your understanding that you were going to Piet Retief to make up for the shortfall in terms of human resources which was needed in Piet Retief, under the command of Mr van Dyk?

MR BEESLAAR: Madam Chair, let me explain it to you as follows. In some instances it did happen that way, but in this particular event the man had already been abducted before I arrived there and it is obvious that I was only there for four days or so. But if he regards this as me filling in a quota, then it was something completely different than what I thought I was there for.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, just one or two aspects.

Mr Beeslaar, I just want certainty. When you were there at Piet Retief, whose command were you under?

MR BEESLAAR: Lt van Dyk. I cannot recall exactly what his rank was.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And were you ever told in which way Mr Mngomezulu would be eliminated?

MR BEESLAAR: It may have been mentioned, but I cannot recall this specifically, but I believe that it was mentioned because that was actually the procedure at that stage, to blow up the person in eliminating him.

MR DU PLESSIS: You wanted to say something to the family. You may proceed.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

MR BEESLAAR: Madam Chair, would you please grant me the opportunity. I would like to know whether there are any next-of-kin of the deceased present here today because I would like to express my utmost sympathy with them with regard to this matter and I pray that they have God's strength with them for the future. I thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. There are indeed relatives of Mr Mngomezulu present in our midst and I hope they have been able to listen to the translation and heard the message expressed by you to them. You are excused as a witness.

MR BEESLAAR: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is next in line?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, Mr Mogoai.