MARTINUS D RAS: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Ras, your application about this incident starts on page 10 and further supplemented by further particulars, which is contained in the last bundle, page 12, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: In the run-up to this application you re-read your application and your further particulars, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR JANSEN: Do you confirm the contents of these documents?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR JANSEN: As with your other applications you also request the Commission to also incorporate the evidence relating to Vlakplaas in general and relating to all the de Kock clusters, that that be incorporated into your application.
MR RAS: Correct.
MR JANSEN: You've also listened to the evidence of Mr de Kock, relating to this incident and you are aware of certain differences relating to what exactly was said at the initial function for Brig Schoon's farewell and who exactly and at what stage the order was given thereafter.
MR RAS: Correct.
MR JANSEN: Just before we get to that, at that stage you were a Warrant Officer, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR JANSEN: Mr Baker at that stage was a Captain.
MR RAS: Yes.
MR JANSEN: And he was second-in-command of Vlakplaas at that stage.
MR RAS: Yes.
MR JANSEN: So that which was said to you, wherever it was said, you regarded that as orders which you had to carry out in the interests of the security of the country.
MR RAS: Correct.
MR JANSEN: You received no other benefit or remuneration for this, apart from the normal.
MR RAS: No, I received no remuneration for this.
MR JANSEN: Then as far as the differences are concerned, let us start with this farewell party or function at Boputhatswana. Please tell the Committee to what extent - when your application was drafted, were you assisted by other applicants or other people who had knowledge of the incident?
MR RAS: No, I was the first person to make this statement.
MR JANSEN: As far as the later course of events is concerned, is your application as it is before the Committee, is that your best recollection of the events?
MR RAS: No, at a later stage, after I had spoken to Mr Baker, I remembered that it was a PAC member which we killed.
MR JANSEN: So after you'd had the benefit of speaking to Mr Baker and refreshing your memory, your recollection in that respect was also incorporated in your answer to the request for further particulars, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR JANSEN: Is that not a misleading question you're putting to him?
MR JANSEN: Yes, I realise I'm in the dog box about this, I'll try my best. Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: That's the best decision. Mr Hattingh.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chair.
Mr Ras, if I understand your evidence correctly you are not really disputing any of the substantial facts reflected in Mr de Kock's statement, is that correct?
MR RAS: That's correct, in the respect that to the best of my recollection I was never part of, or present where Brig Loots had a discussion with him. What was the case was that Brig Schoon and Mr de Kock came to me and mentioned to me that a person was to be transferred to us and that they would discuss the matter later. What happened later that evening I don't know.
MR HATTINGH: Can I just get a bit of background from you, you did not testify against Mr de Kock in his criminal case as is distinct from many other previous members or ex-members of Vlakplaas.
MR RAS: Correct.
MR HATTINGH: But whilst his trial was under way, his criminal trial, you were also arraigned on charges of murder and that was in Port Elizabeth, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And the case against you there was finalised as far as the evidence was concerned, except for argument the case was virtually finalised.
MR RAS: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: The State had closed its case, your case had been closed and argument was all that was left.
MR RAS: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: And then Mr de Kock was approached by, I think it was the Attorney-General, Mr Les Roberts, who prosecuted in your case, correct?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock was then persuaded to testify against you and your co-accused.
MR RAS: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: And it is therefore understandable that you were very bitter about the fact that he did that.
MR RAS: Yes, that was the reason why we were convicted.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, and all the expectations were that you would be acquitted, that you would be found not guilty if it hadn't been for Mr de Kock's evidence.
MR RAS: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: Am I correct in saying that, and once again I say I have full understanding for that, I say that you were very bitter towards him.
MR RAS: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: Am I correct in saying the following, if I look at the documents before us, that there's a statement included and which forms part of the criminal docket in the case of Mr de Kock, is that correct? It's a statement which you made in the case against him.
MR RAS: No, I didn't make a statement in the case against him. Afterwards I went to the special investigating team and said I would make a full disclosure but in his case I didn't testify.
MR HATTINGH: No, I beg your pardon, my mistake, I didn't formulate it properly, let me rephrase that. After the finalisation of your criminal case you went to the investigating team in his case and you made a statement.
MR RAS: That's correct.
MR HATTINGH: And in that statement you gave your version of the events upon which this application relates.
MR RAS: Yes. At that stage when our other case was under way it wasn't possible for me to testify before the Truth Commission because the Truth Commission wasn't yet in place. We were convicted in the criminal case and I thought the opportunity was given to us to make a full disclosure, to make it before the Truth Commission and that's what I did at that stage. I was one of the first people who made a statement before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
MR HATTINGH: The point I'm trying to make Mr Ras, is the statement which you made to that investigating team, you made - well it was signed and attested to on the 10th of September 1996, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, it was two months after my conviction.
MR HATTINGH: And your application for amnesty, when was that handed in?
MR RAS: It was directly afterwards.
MR HATTINGH: Are you saying it was the same day?
MR RAS: It was all one ongoing process, a continuous process. There's a date here my legal representative shows me, it's 7.11.98. That is the date on which everything was typed, before that date I had already made handwritten statements and handed that in to the Truth Commission and then that was typed later.
MR HATTINGH: What is the date of the handwritten statement?
MR RAS: There's no date there.
MR HATTINGH: In that handwritten document which you have in front of you, you also refer to all the other matters for which you requested amnesty.
MR RAS: In what I have in front of me, yes, most of them but not all of them.
MR HATTINGH: You heard Mr de Kock testifying that as far as he was concerned it wasn't an askari who had to be brought to Vlakplaas for re-orientating purposes as Brig Schoon put it.
MR RAS: I never saw that it was a person to be transferred to Vlakplaas and I never got the impression that a person would come to Vlakplaas.
MR HATTINGH: Before that discussion at Vlakplaas, had you had that impression?
MR RAS: No, I'd no idea at that stage, all I was told was that a person would be given to me and that we would discuss the matter later. The first such occasion when we discussed it was when de Kock told me that a person would be handed over to me, I had to kill him, I had to make a plan with him. It wasn't strange to me because I had been present at discussions where Schoon and de Kock were present and as a result of the discussion which they had, I thought the matter had been cleared with them.
MR HATTINGH: What was the content of the discussion where you were present?
MR RAS: In the first discussion where I was present, what was said was - well, it was at this function, we were having a - it was a social affair and Brig Schoon and Mr de Kock called me to one side and said that a person would be handed over to me and that we would talk about the matter later. We didn't go into the matter at that stage any further, we didn't discuss the matter any further, it was after all a party.
MR HATTINGH: Did you form any impression of the purpose for which this person would be handed to you?
MR RAS: Not initially, no. I didn't ask any questions, it was a party. I worked in the Western Transvaal, Baker and I worked in the Western Transvaal area, at that stage I was in Boputhatswana and Mr Knowles was the Commanding Officer of the Intelligence Unit with Esterhuizen and J P Corrier who also worked there.
MR HATTINGH: There's just one question which I forgot to ask you, in your written statement which you handed in, did you refer to the incident of Moses Ntehlang, to whom you referred to as "die geeletjie", the person who had been killed in the canteen at Vlakplaas.
MR RAS: Chairperson, I think so and I can go and look it up just to verify that.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, that was one of the charges against Mr de Kock.
MR RAS: That's correct, and I'm quite prepared to hand it in so that we can have a look at it. It wasn't as if I had any kind of feeling against Mr de Kock and I wasn't exaggerating in my evidence against him. I simply told the truth as far as possible, I just told everything that I could remember and I gave it to the Truth Commission.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Ras, you were involved in numerous operations as a member of Vlakplaas.
MR RAS: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: These operations were sometimes legal and lawful and sometimes not lawful, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes.
MR HATTINGH: And these events took place a long time ago, is that correct?
MR RAS: Yes, from '85 onwards.
MR HATTINGH: And it is a fact that a person's memory is fallible and it's possible that certain things which were done or said have not been recollected properly.
MR RAS: That's quite possible.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, no questions thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Mr Ras.
You stated after you had a discussion with Mr Baker, that your memory was then refreshed and you were certain then that it was an ex-PAC member who was in fact killed, now what about the discussion led you then to reconsider your position on whether he was an ANC or a PAC person?
MR RAS: Because I hadn't been sure as from day one, whether it was ANC or PAC, I had doubt about it. When he said it was a PAC man, then it occurred to me yes, it's possible and I believed that was the case.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, are we in a agreement that the deceased was either an ANC person or a PAC person?
MS PATEL: I have no evidence before me to make such a concession, Honourable Chairperson. You know, I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON: Then aren't we stuck with that they say?
MS PATEL: Except that Mr de Kock says it was an ANC as far as he recollects, so maybe in the discussion between Mr Ras and Mr Baker there was more information ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: At the end of the day this Committee, if necessary, is going to have to find that that deceased was either an ANC member or a PAC member. Whatever we find, does it matter then that the one disagrees from the other on that score?
MS PATEL: The only difference it makes, Honourable Chairperson, and I will concede that it's not really a material difference, but it's a question of what information was available to the parties present here at the time.
CHAIRPERSON: I accept that and maybe hone in on that then, rather than trying to jog a person's memory as to whether the person was a PAC or an ANC member, when in fact at the end of the day we can find that he belonged to a political party, just strengthens the political aspect.
MS PATEL: Certainly, Honourable Chairperson.
MR RAS: Chairperson, I'd just like to add something. If we can really find out whether the person was PAC or ANC, well I don't know whether we ever looked at whether a person was an askari at that stage and at Boputhatswana Intelligence Unit, and that people who could still be alive today could perhaps be approached and asked whether a member of theirs had been detained as an askari.
MS PATEL: Well unfortunately like I say, or like the Honourable Chairperson has stated at the commencement of the hearing, that we've tried to ascertain and we haven't been successful, so we're stuck with what we've got, unfortunately, Mr Ras.
You stated in your application - the information that you had about the deceased, as you've stated in your application on page 17, where did you get that information from?
MR RAS: That is what Mr de Kock gave to me on the farm before I went there, he said the person would be handed over to me, he wasn't going to come to the farm and the person had to be killed. It was he who had told me that the information at their disposal was that the person had turned against Boputhatswana. And I want to add that at that stage we cooperated with the Boputhatswana Intelligence directly, we worked with the people outside and we tried to identify jointly with them people who infiltrated the country, we were jointly involved in arrests in which they then took over the people and sometimes these people were later transferred to the RSA.
MS PATEL: Okay. You state specifically in paragraph 2 that de Kock had told you that the deceased had information with regard to safe houses and you also had specific information on certain members of the Bop Intelligence Service.
MR RAS: Chairperson, that's how I recollect it. The way I remember the person was an askari, he worked for Bop Intelligence, that he had done something and he'd been detained and then it was logical for me, that which de Kock told me, namely that the person had certain information and that he'd fed information back. I thought at that stage PAC/ANC.
MS PATEL: Did you have a discussion with Crause at the party regarding what Mr de Kock had told you?
MR RAS: I can't recall who was there, but I know Loots was there, Nick Knowles, JP. I can't specifically recall Mr Crause ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, please listen to the question. The question is whether you had a discussion with Crause regarding this event, not whether he was there.
MR RAS: No.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
So when you planned the operation, how did you know who to speak to at the Bop Intelligence Service?
MR RAS: We spoke to Mr Esterhuizen who was second-in-command of the Boputhatswana Intelligence.
CHAIRPERSON: But that's not the question, the question is how did you know who to speak to.
MR RAS: Chairperson, I worked on a permanent basis for the Boputhatswana Intelligence and Mr de Kock on this side sent me there and I spoke to Mr Esterhuizen who through J P Corrier handed the person to us that evening.
MS PATEL: Okay. But how did you know that Mr Esterhuizen was aware of your instructions? How did you decide that he was the person that you needed to liaise with?
MR RAS: As far as I can remember, Mr de Kock told me to speak to Mr Esterhuizen. I never spoke - that's how I can remember it. I fell just directly under Mr Esterhuizen, as far as Boputhatswana is concerned. I just want to rectify something. Mr Loots and Mr Crause did not work for Boputhatswana at that stage, they were at Zeerust. Crause was at Zeerust, Loots was at Potchefstroom and Esterhuizen and Knowles were stationed at Mafikeng, Mmabatho at Head Office, at Intelligence Services. And this person was detained and they had special cells at the Intelligence Service.
MS PATEL: Is it your evidence then that Crause would not have known about what was going on at the Bop Intelligence because he was based at Zeerust, or what are you trying to say in regard to his placement at Zeerust?
MR RAS: No, all I'm trying to say is that he was working at Zeerust and they worked very closely with Esterhuizen and I can't say what he knew and what he didn't know.
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, I just want to point out something to you, Exhibit B, Mr Crause's meeting, page 2, paragraph 2.2 in which he said from the start of '89 he'd been seconded to Boputhatswana and was in Mafikeng until '83. Which meant that he wasn't in Zeerust at that stage, he was in Mafikeng.
MR RAS: I must differ, that that '89 was the stage in which the person was killed, he was killed before that and it was a stage, Ntehlang was killed just after that, because I buried both these people in the same place. At that stage he was not yet in Mafikeng, and the reason why I remember that specifically is this, after Crause had been transferred to Mafikeng we, our relationship went a bit sour because he didn't want us to work in Boputhatswana any longer. While Mr Esterhuizen was there we had a free hand to work there.
MR MALAN: When this incident take place?
MR RAS: I'm not exactly sure, but what I do know is the Ntehlang's incident took place seven or eight months after this incident. Maybe we can just see when the Ntehlang incident took place, seven or eight months before that this incident took place.
MR MALAN: You see that could perhaps create the problem that Crause can say "I wasn't at the function, the party I '89", and then perhaps that wasn't the farewell function. If you say it was the end of '88, then it couldn't have been at the same time as Schoon's retirement party at the end of '89.
MR RAS: Chairperson, what I can recall is that - well I don't know whether it was only one or two cases, perhaps other cases, or whether there was another retirement party for him somewhere else, I know this incident, the retirement party at Molopo Oog and I don't know whether it was Schoon's retirement party. I just know that eight months - I don't want to bind myself to a time, but after Ntehlang was killed - eight months before he was killed this incident took place and this person was killed. When I pointed out where he was buried I said that I buried this person first, killed him and buried him first and then the "geeletjie" was killed and we went to the same place and I buried him just a little distance away from the other body.
MR MALAN: I think we must leave the matter there, but I think that can be the reason for the confusion as to why we can't ascertain the identity, because we're working with the end of '89, with Schoon's retirement and you say it's the end of '88. That's what you say in your application, end of '88.
MR RAS: Chairperson, I haven't looked at the date again now when Ntehlang was killed, perhaps if I can just look at that, then I can specify the date.
MR MALAN: Did each branch have an end of year function just before Xmas or something like that, that Mr de Kock is perhaps confusing this retirement party or farewell party with some other function?
MR RAS: I don't know, there were quite a few functions, frequent functions, and we often got together with Bop's people, but I think this incident took at Molopo Oog, Mr de Kock was there, Brig Schoon was there. Perhaps it wasn't the retirement or farewell function, maybe it was just an ordinary party and that the retirement came later. Perhaps that is the confusion. But I'm certain that at specific function all these people were at Molopo Oog and there was only the one function at the Molopo Oog.
MR MALAN: You see, you say the people who spoke to you were Loots and Crause.
MR RAS: No, no, Chairperson, ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, I said Schoon and Loots.
MR RAS: No, Chairperson, Mr de Kock and Schoon spoke to me.
MR MALAN: Very well. Thank you, Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chair.
Just to go back, you say that you liaised - just to refresh my memory, am I correct that you say you liaised with Esterhuizen and Corrier at the Bop Intelligence Service when you were planning this operation?
MR RAS: No, I didn't say I planned it with them, we just spoke about the person who was to be handed over to us, and that I discussed with Esterhuizen and it was arranged that Corrier took him to the safe house on the farm outside Mafikeng that night.
MS PATEL: And when you had made the arrangement with Esterhuizen for Corrier to hand the deceased over to you, was there a discussion between the two of you as to what was to happen with ...
MR RAS: No, Chairperson.
MS PATEL: Okay. When Mr Esterhuizen at some time after the operation - I'm sorry, let me just check my notes, was it you or Baker who had had the - no, it was you, when Mr Esterhuizen approached you and asked you how the deceased was, why would he have done that?
MR RAS: I actually got a fright because I didn't know whether he knew or whether he didn't know, whether he was testing me. I didn't know what his reason was, whether he thought the person was still alive or whether he knew the person was dead, or what the reason was for his question. I don't know, maybe he was just trying to fish out about what had happened, and I just answered "No, everything's fine" and I didn't elaborate any further.
MS PATEL: Did you take this up with Mr de Kock afterwards, as to this conversation that you had with Mr Esterhuizen? Because clearly as you say, you were shocked by his question.
MR RAS: It may have happened that I've forgotten it, I can't specifically remember that I did that.
MS PATEL: Okay. When Corrier handed the deceased over to you, did you have a discussion with him, did he know what was happening?
MR RAS: No, I can't say whether he knew the person was handcuffed. I put the person in a room and Corrier left.
MS PATEL: Okay, and was the deceased taken from that room to the point where he was eventually murdered?
MR RAS: That's correct.
MS PATEL: Okay. You stated in your application that he was shot, how many times was he shot? You don't state in your application.
MR RAS: I don't know, I'm not sure, three, four or five times. It's something which I actually want to forget. It's probably the most unpleasant moment of my life.
MS PATEL: Okay. So you would concede the post-mortem report that refers to four bullet wounds in the head and one bullet wound in the heart region?
MR RAS: It's possible.
MS PATEL: Okay. Where did you get the weapons from that you planted?
MR RAS: I always carried weapons with me.
MS PATEL: No, the weapons that you planted, the extra weapons.
MR RAS: That's correct, I always carried a Makarov pistol or handgrenades.
MS PATEL: And what would the purpose of that be generally, for you to hold onto such weapons?
MR RAS: Sometimes it was necessary to, in respect of some of the askaris who were with me, to use it as an alibi if they wanted to infiltrate a place to try and prove the identity that they were ANC or PAC members. For that purpose it was used.
MS PATEL: Alright. You state in the last paragraph on page 18 of the bundle that you didn't know who the person was and you don't know if Schoon knows who he was and you state further that many persons were handed over to you over a period, for what purpose would those persons have been handed over?
MR RAS: Some of the people who were handed over were taken to Vlakplaas to go and work there. As far as I can remember some of the people came from there. For instance, Mfalapitsa, he was caught by Boputhatswana, transferred to the RSA and he came to work on the farm.
MS PATEL: So what would the procedure have been when somebody is handed over to you to work at Vlakplaas, as apposed to what had happened in this incident?
MR RAS: Chairperson, some people were transferred and then at a later stage they came to work with us or with me. They were not specifically handed to me, some of them were handed over on the farm. As I now mentioned, Mfalapitsa, it's not as if the people were handed to me and I took them back to the farm or to Pretoria. As I said, Boputhatswana had their own askari unit as well.
MS PATEL: Regarding informing Mr Baker about what was to be done on the operation, you did the planning and on the way to Bop you told him what was to be done in respect of the deceased, is that correct?
MR RAS: That's correct, that's how I remember it.
MS PATEL: Okay. And your impression at the time, was that the first time that Mr Baker had become aware of what was to be done, or did he have prior knowledge of -did he expect what was to happen?
MR RAS: If I remember correctly I had already explained and then he just continued. I don't know whether he knew anything about it or not. I didn't think he knew, that's why I told him what we were about to do, but it didn't seem that it was a surprise to him or something like that.
MS PATEL: Did you have any discussions with the deceased?
MR RAS: The minimum. It was difficult for me to go and kill him and I knew that the more I spoke to a person the more difficult it would become, so I tried not to talk to him.
MS PATEL: Okay. Honourable Chairperson, if you would just grant me a moment.
MR MALAN: Whilst Ms Patel is looking at her notes, if you thought that the person was going to come and work at Vlakplaas, just suppose that you were going to come and fetch him to go and work at Vlakplaas, would you have been surprised to find him in handcuffs?
MR RAS: No, he would not then have been in handcuffs.
MR MALAN: If it was just a transfer of an askari who was perhaps, you know, who had lost the way a bit, that re-orientation was to take place, would he have been handcuffed?
MR RAS: No, a person who was about to come and work for you has already declared his cooperation. And the person was handcuffed that night and I never was of the opinion that he was to come and work on the farm, I didn't give it any further thought.
MR MALAN: So it would have been logical that Corrier would also not have thought that he was going to be transferred to come and work on the farm.
MR RAS: I don't think so.
MR MALAN: Did Esterhuizen or any of the others see him there that night, as far as you know?
MR RAS: No, Chairperson, not as far as I know. The safe house where we stayed was quite far away from Mafikeng, it was on a farm, somebody must have booked him out. Mr Esterhuizen knew about all these people because it was - at the Intelligence Unit there were cells where these people were detained, so he must have known, he must have asked for instance "Where is this person, where has he gone?"
MR MALAN: And you said you received him at the safe house.
MR RAS: Yes, on the farm.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen.
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, no re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN
ADV BOSMAN: Mr Ras, did you think at all that this person affected the interests of the Western Transvaal Security Police?
MR RAS: Yes, definitely, not only Western Transvaal, the whole country's and that's the reason why on a permanent basis, we worked in Mmabatho, Mafikeng, Boputhatswana area to try and prevent people from that area coming back to this side and committing acts of terror.
ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chair, we're going to use one microphone. Mr Baker.
