Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Who is next? Mr Hurwitz?

MR HURWITZ: Yes, I believe it's Mr Olifant who is next.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Is he present?

MR HURWITZ: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In which language is Mr Olifant going to testify, Mr Hurwitz?

MR HURWITZ: English, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Olifant, could you again for the purposes of the record give us your full names?

MANUEL ANTONIO OLIFANT: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR HURWITZ: Mr Olifant, you're currently a Sergeant in the South African Police Services, Diamond and Gold Branch, Johannesburg Central?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Can you sketch briefly for the Committee your background and how you were recruited to the South African Police Services?

MR OLIFANT: June 1980s - 1970's, I was recruited from inside the country but taken to former Vlakplaas where I was taken to South West Africa and thereon I spent about plus minus two and a half years working of a member of Koevoet and at a later stage I was transferred from South West Africa to Soweto where I worked under Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius.

MR HURWITZ: I see. Now are you Mozambican by birth?

MR OLIFANT: Well I will say that yes I'm Mozambican by birth but by naturalisation I'm South African.

MR HURWITZ: And what is your home language, your mother tongue?

MR OLIFANT: My mother tongue is Portuguese.

MR HURWITZ: Now you were approached at some stage by investigators of the Attorney General's offices for a statement, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: I see. Now, according to your knowledge, were there more than one investigators who took statements from you?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: I see. Now there is a statement in the bundle, bundle 2, a statement by yourself, that's pages 11 to 13 of bundle 2. Now this statement before us is in Afrikaans. What is your reading knowledge and understanding of Afrikaans?

MR OLIFANT: Very poor.

MR HURWITZ: I see. Do you recall having a consultation, an interview with Detective Sergeant Andre Louis Groenewald?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Okay, now can you tell the Committee what transpired during the consultation?

MR OLIFANT: During this particular consultation we had a problem of language. The Sergeant could not write English and I had told him that look, I've got a problem with Afrikaans, that I could not really go on with the Afrikaans, the best - well, let's write English. He said well it's not a problem, we can go on with Afrikaans, it's not a problem because at that stage I will try to explain to you what I was writing about.

MR HURWITZ: Now as a result of the consultation were you presented with a statement to sign?

MR OLIFANT: No, no I wasn't at that stage.

MR HURWITZ: Do you recall having signed a statement given to you by Detective Sergeant Groenewald?

MR OLIFANT: Well the written one by hand, I may have signed it but I'm not sure whether I have signed it or not but I do have an idea that I might have signed it.

MR HURWITZ: Now there's another statement which was handed in on Monday as Exhibit A. This was a statement comprising approximately 34 pages. Do you have it before you?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I do have it, Mr Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Do you recall having an interview with Captain Liesk?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: And can you explain to the Committee what happened during the consultation?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Liesk, he approached me and he actually asked me about various incidents, whether I knew about those, will I recall by then because some of the incidents were correct, some of the incidents were not correct. So he asked me whether I knew about those allegations or not. Those which I knew ...(indistinct) no, I know about these allegations. Those I did not know, I said no these were all not known to me.

MR HURWITZ: Just as a bit of a background, you have personally applied for certain - you have submitted certain amnesty applications, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: So that was also one of the reasons why Liesk consulted with you?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: I see. Now the statements largely are ad idem in certain respects but in certain critical respects they are different. Paragraph 9 on page 12 of bundle 2 says as follows - if you don't understand perhaps you could tell me or well, I'll try and interpret it roughly to you.

"Capt Pretorius contacted me and told me that we've got a lot of problems because Strongman was arrested and had escaped and that I have to go and look for him and kill him. He would get everybody in trouble if he talked about the operations that he was involved in."

I just want to read you page 6 of Exhibit A, the second last paragraph:

"I was approached by Pretorius and requested to keep an ear out for him. I was to pass the information on to them. Pretorius told me that if he was caught he would have to be killed as he would talk like others were busy doing."

So whereas in the case of the Afrikaans paragraph there was an instruction to you to murder him and in this English paragraph there was an instruction that he would have to be killed. Can you comment on what the actual conversation was between yourself, Pretorius and Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: Well, Mr Pretorius at no stage instructed me to kill Strongman. The only thing is this. A certain day when Mr Pretorius came from the office he called me to his office asking me whether I knew anything about Strongman. I said well, I know nothing about Strongman. He asked me whether I had seen the newspaper of that particular day when he called me. I said yes, well I have heard on that people that know he is on the run. He said that to me, okay fine. Well it is now a problem because Strongman is on the run and I believe that he has been involved in various armed robberies and things like that and that would have been a danger to people who have been ...(indistinct) with him because since he's now a criminal and he may end up in jail and you know, the subject maybe to be face a ...(indistinct), something like that and before that he may be talking like others who are these talking.

MR HURWITZ: I see. And your conversation with Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: Well Mr Coetzee actually requested me whether I could get hold of Strongman in order to talk to Strongman so that Strongman should come back to work because Strongman is was also, I mean he was involved in armed robbery and things like that which wasn't good for a former member of Intelligence being in such a disarray. So if I could get hold of him I should try to talk to him in order to come back, you know and sort out the difference which prevailed which made him actually sort of like leaving the force and go commit armed robberies.

MR HURWITZ: I see. Can you describe to the Committee your relationship with Strongman, why you were approached?

MR OLIFANT: Well at that particular moment or are you talking about the particular moment or do you ...(intervention)

MR HURWITZ: No, you sketch your relationship with Strongman. What type of relationship was it?

MR OLIFANT: Well I'll say that he was bosom friend to me.

MR HURWITZ: Yes and why do you think they may have asked you to speak to him?

MR OLIFANT: Well they knew for a fact that all these years ever since they knew me and Strongman, what happened is this, I will talk in particular about Mr Coetzee. Strongman and myself when we were in South West Africa we actually worked under Mr Coetzee as a second commander in our unit. Now Mr Coetzee, you know, he sort of like he really looked after us since he knew that we were from actually headquarters. So when again we came to his section, his unit in Soweto, he also looked after us and we had been working for many years. In that aspect, you know, Mr Coetzee and most them believed that me and Strongman were brothers.

MR HURWITZ: Now in Mr Coetzee's statement to the Committee, he denies ever having had such a conversation with you. Let me just get the exact paragraph. Bundle 3, page 9, paragraph 3.2, he denies ever having had such a conversation with you which you mentioned. Can you comment on any reason why this might be the case?

MR OLIFANT: Well first of all there's been long time and secondly, we can see the situation where we are today. I mean he can deny the fact that he never spoke anything to me but I know for a fact that he spoke something to me.

MR HURWITZ: What was the relationship between Coetzee and Strongman like at the time that he left the Security Services as an informer?

MR OLIFANT: I should think that Strongman he might have taken very harsh, you know, because Mr Coetzee, one thing for sure, he was a rigid commander I will say, you know, he wanted these things to really work on its path. Now Strongman, he was a jolly person who didn't worry about anything. I will say instead that at some stage he always wanted to be a free man, you know, and Mr Coetzee would really, you know, keep his order always on the track so somewhere, somehow, he might have not liked him although he has been working over a decade with Mr Coetzee, but Mr Coetzee never changed him to whatever he was.

MR HURWITZ: Okay, so in summary how would you describe the relationship in a few words.

MR OLIFANT: Very, very, very good. Very good.

MR HURWITZ: With Strongman?

MR OLIFANT: With Strongman.

MR HURWITZ: I see. Now Mr Pretorius also denies having had such a conversation with you. Can you comment on that?

MR OLIFANT: Well if he denies I'll say the same thing what I say about Mr Coetzee because it's a difficult situation.

MR HURWITZ: No but what possible reason could he have to deny it?

MR OLIFANT: Well it has been a long time, he could not recollect it but I know for a fact that he spoke something about it, about myself. I won't have just went and look for the words in order to incriminate him, I don't see a reason why I should incriminate him because I don't have anything against him at the end of the day.

MR HURWITZ: I see. Now how did it come about that either Groenewald or Liesk wanted this information from you or did you volunteer it?

MR OLIFANT: No, no. It has been a tough time those days, I'll say, because first of all when they managed to destroy our unit which was led by Mr Pretorius then Mr Liesk he saw a very big gap that no, now we'll go for us and he did so.

MR HURWITZ: So you told him everything you knew about the ...(intervention)

MR HURWITZ: Well I had to tell them, I had no choice otherwise Mr Liesk was really trapping me to put him in jail. They had already suspended Mr Pretorius who was my commanding officer and they had dismantled the whole unit, they had reshuffled everything so I found myself to be the only person at the unit and I was even temporarily transferred to Diamond and Gold unnecessarily. I mean everything was arranged by Brigadier Thompson.

MR HURWITZ: I see, so you gave your full co-operation?

MR OLIFANT: I gave my full co-operation.

MR HURWITZ: And you were not suspended?

MR OLIFANT: I wasn't suspended for it, no.

MR HURWITZ: The relationship between Pretorius and Strongman?

MR OLIFANT: Well it was a normal relationship.

MR HURWITZ: Nothing unusual?

MR OLIFANT: Nothing unusual.

MR HURWITZ: So just for the sake of clarity, there was never an instruction given to you by either Pretorius or Coetzee to eliminate Strongman?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR HURWITZ: Thank you. No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HURWITZ

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hurwitz. Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Olifant, I'm going to refer you to certain incidents which you speak about in the various statements which form part of Exhibit A. I'm not going to go into the details of each incident, I would merely like you to identify the incident to tell us whether you and Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius or either of them were involved with you in that particular incident and also to confirm the dates on which those incidents occurred. Do you understand what I'm getting at?

MR OLIFANT: I do understand, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Alright, now can I refer you to Exhibit A, the very first statement and in paragraph 2 thereof you say

"In 1986 our sources had infiltrated the students at Vista University, Seluwane, Soweto. There was a councillor who was giving the students problems, there were students working hand in hand with the ANC. At this stage my commander was Coetzee."

Is that Willem Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Second commander, Pretorius. Mr Pretorius was also here today?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And the above commanding officer was De Jager?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then in the next paragraph you say

"Our source, Big Boy, took Manuel, Peter, Selemolela and Oscar and also Adrian."

Now that Adrian, is that Adrian Bambo?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: "...to the Chancellor's house"

and you continue in paragraph:

"to the Chancellor's house where Big Boy threw a handgrenade into the yard."

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now as Mr Coetzee present when this happened?

MR OLIFANT: No he wasn't present.

MR HATTINGH: But did he give you the instructions to carry out the operation?

MR OLIFANT: He gave the instruction to ...(indistinct)

MR HATTINGH: And was Mr Pretorius aware of this as well?

MR OLIFANT: He was aware of this.

MR HATTINGH: Have you asked for amnesty in respect of this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Yes Chairperson, I did ask for amnesty, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And has your application been heard yet?

MR OLIFANT: Not on this particular matter.

MR HATTINGH: Not on that particular one?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether either or both of Messrs Pretorius and Coetzee applied for amnesty in respect of this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Well I wouldn't know.

MR HATTINGH: Alright, let's leave it at that.

Then we come to another incident, on the same page, the last paragraph, you say, the second one:

"We had people who would go and visit the ANC in exile. These people were our sources. In this case Coetzee assigned two explosives experts from headquarters. This was in 1987. The instruction from the ANC to our sources was to have them deal with the Dukata of Natal. Coetzee, De Jager, Pretorius, Strongman, Adriano ..."

And that's Bambo again?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: "...and myself went into the Mtsimshlope Hostel where we found some people sleeping in a kombi. We put a limpet mine on the kombi and left. We went to other hostels, that was Dube Hostel where we put a limpet mine on a kombi. Strongman did the actual placing of the limpets. I wish to state that I think the date was 1986, during June. At both places that night people were injured during the explosions."

Did you apply for amnesty in respect of that incident?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Has that matter been heard?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And at that hearing did Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius also apply for amnesty?

MR OLIFANT: They never applied for amnesty.

MR HATTINGH: Do you confirm that they gave the instructions which you carried out in respect of this particular incident?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you.

Then we come to the third one.

"Another incident also took place during 1986. Coetzee and Pretorius summoned military intelligence to come to Johannesburg. This was Norval and his senior, a Lieutenant Colonel, another white guy and two blacks. I have forgotten their names. We met that night at the house at Vlakfontein Farm. We went to the amphitheatre at Jabulani in Soweto where this unit from Pretoria planted limpet mines. Also there was De Jager, Van Wyngaard, Gustav, myself, Adriano."

Adriano was Bambo again?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: "There was a very big explosion in the early hours of the morning. This explosion was just before June 16 as there was to be a large rally."

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you apply for amnesty in respect of that incident?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I did, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And has that matter been heard yet?

MR OLIFANT: If recollect, I don't think it has been heard yet.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know whether Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius applied for amnesty in respect of this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Well I don't know whether they have applied for amnesty for this particular matter or not.

MR HATTINGH: But you confirm that you acted under their instructions?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And so did Adriano Bambo?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The fourth one, appears in the next paragraph, another incident of which the same people excluding Gustav and Van Wyngaard were there. We went to Jabavu, White City, we had with us 25 litres of diesel and igniting card. We poured diesel into the Ipeleng offices and set it alight with the card. Norval of M1 lit the card but we did not stay to see what happened."

Did you act under the instructions of Coetzee and Pretorius in respect of this incident?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you apply for amnesty in respect of this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I did, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Has it been dealt with here by the Amnesty Committee?

MR OLIFANT: Not yet.

MR HATTINGH: Not yet. I assume you don't know whether Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius applied for this one?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The next one that I would like you to deal with, it appears on page 4 of Exhibit A. You say in the second paragraph there

"In 1986 myself, Strongman and Adriano Bambo..."

is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Every time we come across the name Strongman or Adriano, that's Mr Bambo.

MR OLIFANT: That's Mr Bambo.

MR HATTINGH: Okay.

"In 1986 myself, Strongman, Coetzee and Chris Hlatswayo had to go and check a bus"

and then there seems to be some typing errors. I assume it must be:

"check a house in Dalridge, Mbaba in Swaziland."

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: "We went through the border. Coetzee used the name William Smit and Pretorius used the name Anton Prinsloo. Chris showed us a place where the ANC held its meetings. We returned the same night. This was during May/June 1986. After returning we had made arrangements with the Vlakplaas people and they went in with arrangements ..."

Sorry:

"...they went in with Chris de Jager, Coetzee and Pretorius. Coetzee had a Makarov and after killing the people they all returned across the border."

Was Strongman aware of this operation?

MR OLIFANT: Well he wasn't in this operation. He never went to Swaziland when they went into this operation, for this operation.

MR HATTINGH: No, I accept that but he went with you on a reconnaissance?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And he knew what the purpose of that reconnaissance operation was for.

MR OLIFANT: Well at the end of the day when he read from a newspaper he concluded that he'd know what will have taken place and so on.

MR HATTINGH: Right and he knew that Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius that they were both involved?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Would you please turn to page - it's not numbered, but it's headed - should be 7, I think "Mobkeki Case", page just before page 8. Have you got it Mr Olifant?

CHAIRPERSON: It would be immediately after the page 6 which you have been read to by Mr Hurwitz.

MR HATTINGH: Yes that is correct, Mr Chairperson.

Do you have it in front of your Mr Olifant?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I do Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, the first paragraph or paragraph 3 there reads as follows

"During 1986 I was attached to the Intelligence Unit in Soweto working under the command of Captain Willem Coetzee as the first commander and Lieutenant Anthony Pretorius as the second commander."

Then in paragraph 6 you say:

"One day in the middle of the year Capt Coetzee elected Lazarus Selemolela, Peter Lengeni, myself, Adriano Bambo and Oscar or Mandla, I cannot remember who was present in between them. Mandla's surname is Jabalala and I cannot remember Oscar's surname. Capt Coetzee elected us to back up big boy to attack and bomb the Professor's house in Rockville."

Do you recall that incident?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I do recall.

MR HATTINGH: Was the attack actually carried out?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you report back - or rather let me first ask you, was Mr Coetzee present during the attack?

MR OLIFANT: No he was not.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: No he wasn't.

MR HATTINGH: Did you report back to them?

MR OLIFANT: We only report back to Mr Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Have you applied for amnesty in respect of this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I did apply.

MR HATTINGH: Has it been dealt with yet?

MR OLIFANT: Not yet Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And once again I assume you don't know whether they've applied for amnesty?

MR OLIFANT: No I don't know, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The next page

"Ipeleng Sentrum Soweto"

You start off in paragraph 10 to say - I'm going to translate to the best of my ability:

"During June 1986 whilst I was attached to the Criminal Intelligence Unit in Soweto and under the command of Lt. Coetzee and Lt. Pretorius we set alight the Ipeleng Community Centre in Jabuvu."

Is that the same incident that we've already dealt with previously or is this another incident?

MR OLIFANT: No, the same incident which we've dealt with, yes.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon?

MR OLIFANT: It is the same incident.

MR HATTINGH: Same incident, very well. In paragraph 12 you mention that you got together at the farm Vlakplaas. Is that a typing error? Should it be the farm Vlakfontein because previously in your statements you refer to a farm by the name of Vlakfontein.

MR OLIFANT: Yes it is an error, it's Vlakfontein.

MR HATTINGH: Is it Vlakfontein? Where was this farm Mr Olifant?

MR OLIFANT: Towards Roodepoort.

MR HATTINGH: Roodepoort?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was that a sort of a safe house for the Security Police?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Where you operated from?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: On page 25 under the heading "Swaziland" in paragraph 92 you say

"In about October or November 1986 then Lt. Coetzee instructed me and my late brother Adriaan Bambo to put person Christo in my State vehicle, a Toyota Corolla 1.6 and go to Swaziland. Chris was a suspect ANC member who we arrested and Coetzee used to force him to give information. I was never present when it happened."

Do you recall this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Chairperson, if I'm not mistaken this is the same incident which you spoke about, the Swaziland incident.

MR HATTINGH: This is the attack on the late Mr Pantso, is that correct? A matter where Mr de Kock also applied for?

MR OLIFANT: Yes that's the same incident.

MR HATTINGH: And you were acting under the instructions or on the instructions of Mr Coetzee.

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Pretorius, was he also aware of this?

MR OLIFANT: No, he wasn't there.

MR HATTINGH: He wasn't there?

MR OLIFANT: He wasn't.

MR HATTINGH: And somebody, at least one person was killed in Swaziland as a result of this operation, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: Well I learned later that ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: You learned later, yes. Yes. Now these were the only incidents that you deal with in your lengthy statement or statements where I could pick up the name of Mr Bambo. Was he also involved in other operations with you apart from these that I've just dealt with now?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, Mr Chairperson. He was also involved in the guarding Nokatulas.

MR HATTINGH: In?

MR OLIFANT: Nokatula Simelane.

MR HATTINGH: Simelane is Nokatula Simelane?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What happened in that particular incident?

MR OLIFANT: Well I know for a fact that he was looking after her for some time.

MR HATTINGH: Who was looking after her?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Bambo.

MR HATTINGH: And when you say he was looking after her what do you mean by that?

MR OLIFANT: He was looking after her while she was detained somewhere North West Province. Presently North West actually.

MR HATTINGH: Was she abducted from some place?

MR OLIFANT: Well I understand that she was abducted from Johannesburg and from Johannesburg she was taken to some safe houses somewhere in ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Somewhere in the Northern Province?

MR OLIFANT: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Yes and do you know what eventually happened to her?

MR OLIFANT: Well if we may go according to who made these reports and things like that she was abducted and thereon she was sort of like - she disappeared.

MR HATTINGH: She disappeared?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Were you involved in that operation?

MR OLIFANT: No, I wasn't involved in this Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: How is it that you know about it?

MR OLIFANT: Well we all shared ideas.

MR HATTINGH: So Mr Bambo told you about it?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know under whose instructions he carried out or under whose instructions he acted in this particular matter?

MR OLIFANT: Under Mr Coetzee, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Under Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now all these incidents that I've dealt with appeared to have occurred after 1985, perhaps with one of them in 1985 but let me explain to you why I'm referring to that date. This was after Mr Bambo had come out of prison in respect of the matter where he was sentenced to imprisonment, is that correct? Mr Bambo served a term of imprisonment and I think he was sentenced during 1984 if my memory serves me correct. Are you aware of that?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And these incidents that you and I have now dealt with, they all occurred after he'd come out of prison?

MR OLIFANT: In 1986, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Chairperson, sorry to interrupt here but is Mr Hattingh going to present evidence on this statement he put to the witness that all the incidents occurred after 1985? ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: Your mike is not on but in any event he has just led it through Mr Olifant and it's documented as Exhibit A.

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: I was put to the witness that all the incidents took place after 1985. Now all I would like to now from Mr Hattingh is he going to lead evidence on that because my instructions are the contrary?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, you look at the document before you respond to that. Look at Exhibit A. All that has been asked this far is that it's 1986/87. It's clear from the document.

MR HATTINGH: ...(audible) confirmed the dates which appears in the statement, Mr Chairperson and that's why I say these incidents go according to his statement and to his evidence after 1985.

LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Sorry to interrupt, Chairperson, but where in Exhibit A does it state that the Simelane incident took place after 1985?

MR HATTINGH: That one doesn't appear in his statement.

CHAIRPERSON: No, not definitely.

MR HATTINGH: So perhaps I should ask him that. Do you know when the Simelane incident occurred Mr Olifant?

MR OLIFANT: Plus minus it was 1982.

MR HATTINGH: 1982, so that one was before he went to prison?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But the ones that I've dealt with in your statement, you've given the dates there, do you confirm those dates?

MR OLIFANT: That would be after 1986.

MR HATTINGH: Now let me just deal with your evidence regarding the paragraph on page 6 of your statement. You went rather quick in your evidence and I wasn't able to take it all down and I'm not sure that I understand you correctly. I'd just like you to clarify for my understanding please? You say there

"Strongman had left the force."

Do you know when that was?

MR OLIFANT: That was late in 1989, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you say he was then allegedly involved in robberies and later arrested on the East Rand?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: That is what you heard?

MR OLIFANT: That is what I heard, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now do you know why he left the force?

MR OLIFANT: Precisely why he left the force, really I do not know but I know for a fact that he was unhappy.

MR HATTINGH: That he was what?

MR OLIFANT: He was unhappy.

MR HATTINGH: He was unhappy?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, yes.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, are you able to tell us what made him unhappy, why was he unhappy there?

MR OLIFANT: Maybe the money, his salary was too low than his request, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Was he making requests for salary increase?

MR OLIFANT: Well I wouldn't really go deep into his - why he left the force because I know for a fact he was unhappy. In fact he might have approached Mr Coetzee for that matter in order to solve problems. I do not know about it.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

I would like to refer you to page 9 of bundle 3, that is the statement of Mr Coetzee. He says:

"At about the end of 1989, beginning of 1990, Strongman once again committed certain irregularities and he after giving the matter some thorough consideration decided to break all ties with Strongman."

So from this it would appear that Mr Coetzee decided that Strongman was no longer going to work for him. Were you aware of that?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now can I come back to page 6? You continue,

in the paragraph you say:

"I was approached by Pretorius and requested to keep an ear out for him."

Is that a correct statement?

MR OLIFANT: Well the concept of statements, it's plus minus ...(indistinct) you know, it's not correct, correct, as I have told the investigating officer what had transpired, what Mr Pretorius told me about.

MR HATTINGH: What did Mr Pretorius want you to do? Something in connection with Mr Bambo?

MR OLIFANT: Not do something but to know whereabouts Strongman and what is he busy doing since Strongman was on the newspaper at that particular day when he approached me.

MR HATTINGH: So did he ask you to find out where Strongman was and what he was about?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Did he tell you why he wanted that information?

MR OLIFANT: Well he said to me that at the office we were actually worrying him because Strongman's name was on the papers saying that a former Koevoet member and a Soweto Security Branch informer is at large and is being sought for the numerous armed robberies.

MR HATTINGH: Right and Mr Pretorius was worried about this?

MR OLIFANT: Well he approached me so he was concerned about Strongman being at large.

MR HATTINGH: And what was the reason for his concern, was he afraid that Mr Bambo might tell about his experiences with the Security Police?

MR OLIFANT: Although after he asked me about the matter he commented that he may also talk like others had talked.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, well that's what I wanted you to explain. He may also talk like others are talking.

MR OLIFANT: Who are talking.

MR HATTINGH: Are talking. Now what others was he referring to?

MR OLIFANT: Well at that particular time we had Nofomela talking, we had Dirk Coetzee talking, more people want to come forward in order to disclose all the atrocities which had ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Precisely and he was concerned that Mr Bambo might do the same, that he might also start telling about his experiences like Mr Nofomela was doing, like Mr Coetzee was doing?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes and that's why he approached you and asked you to find out where he was and what he was about?

MR OLIFANT: Well I would say that that's why he approached me.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Very well, then you continue

"I was to pass the information onto them."

That was now what you were able to find out about Mr Bambo's whereabouts and what he was busy doing?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, he'd know about Strongman as well.

MR HATTINGH: Then you say, according to the statement

"Pretorius told me that if he was caught he would have to be killed as he would talk like others were busy doing."

Is that a correct statement?

MR OLIFANT: No, it's a wrong statement, Mr Chairperson. Not he had to be killed. He may be killed because Mr Pretorius, he knew for a fact that Strongman, he had a military experience and any clash he'd have with the Police who'll resist arrest. There he really focused on that.

MR HATTINGH: So what was Mr Pretorius worried about, was he worried about the fact that Mr Bambo might tell about his experiences with the Security Police or was he worried that he might be killed in a clash with the Police?

MR OLIFANT: Well I know for a fact that he said that he was worried that if he's caught, maybe killed because he may try to resist arrest and we fight back, that is it.

MR HATTINGH: Did you manage to find out where Mr Bambo was?

MR OLIFANT: Well when Mr Coetzee sent me to sort of like talk to him in order to come back to work, you know, through the brothers and things like that, I managed to get hold of him and I tried to convince him that look, Mr Coetzee, he wants you back and you know, he says please come back to work because what you are trying to do - I mean, what you are doing presently, it's not really, you know, conducive for a member from Intelligence and things like that, the best was just to come back and you know, he would work again.

MR HATTINGH: And what was his reaction?

MR OLIFANT: He was negative towards that.

MR HATTINGH: He wasn't prepared to come back?

MR OLIFANT: No he wasn't.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you why he didn't want to come back?

MR OLIFANT: Well he never said, he never elaborated why he didn't want to come back.

MR HATTINGH: But in your own mind you were convinced at that time that Mr Bambo was involved in criminal activities, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And so was Mr Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And yet they wanted him to come back and be a member of the Security Police?

MR OLIFANT: Well, that was their request, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: That was their request?

MR OLIFANT: That's right.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, do you know why they wanted to have him back with them?

MR OLIFANT: Well I don't know if I'd be lying on this. You know, a member who had been involved with the, you know, so many - how certain codes work, not easily will go and maybe go and join the Security company, join or something like that, you know? They'll always so that okay, fine, if you don't have anything to do, you know, particularly a person like Strongman who was a foreigner, it wouldn't have been easy for him to be really left, you know, on his own.

MR HATTINGH: Why I'm asking you this, Mr Olifant, we've heard evidence in other Committees that at the time when the Harms Commission was appointed, people who had been attached to Vlakplaas and had in the meantime been transferred - I can remember one person in particular or whether I don't recall his name, before the appointment of the Harms Commission was announced, he'd been transferred to Bloemfontein and when the Harms Commission was announced, he was brought back to Vlakplaas and the reason for that was so that they could exercise control over him. Do you know if this was the reason why Mr Coetzee or Mr Pretorius wanted Mr Bambo to come back?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Chairperson, I won't really say that, no. That was the reason why they wanted him back but there is - maybe that was the reason why they wanted him to be.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, did they have any reason to think, suspect that Mr Bambo was in desperate straits, that he would want to be employed by them again?

MR OLIFANT: That I won't really know, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you report back to them after you managed to find him and requested him to come back. Did you report back to Mr Pretorius that Mr Bambo was not prepared to come back?

MR OLIFANT: Not Mr Pretorius, but Mr Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So he was also aware of the request that you were - that was put to you by Mr Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you explained to him that you found Bambo, Bambo was not prepared to come back?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What was his reaction to that?

MR OLIFANT: Well he just left it as is, nothing happened.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, didn't he ask you where you found him? Was he not interested to know where he was available?

MR OLIFANT: I cannot recollect, Mr Chairperson, whether they asked me that or not.

ADV SANDI: And where did you find him, by the way?

MR OLIFANT: I think I got him in the area, in our area in Ermelo Park, Mr Chairperson, if I'm not mistaken.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Did you, after you contacted Mr Bambo, did you then hear or read somewhere that he'd been arrested?

MR OLIFANT: Well they never disclosed anything, Mr Chairperson, because to be quite honest with you, he didn't trust me.

MR HATTINGH: Yes but I mean ...(intervention)

MR OLIFANT: He knew that Mr Coetzee had sent him to him, he didn't trust me. Immediately, wherever he was leading him, he changed from that place to any other undisclosed place.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know why he acted in that manner?

MR OLIFANT: Well he knew, he knew. He knew because - he knew that the Police was behind him and the next thing I came with a message from Mr Coetzee saying that, you know, he wanted to see him and things like that and he said no, he was not prepared and was on his own and that is it.

MR HATTINGH: Did you get the impression that he was afraid of Mr Coetzee or Mr Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: Well not precisely that I got the impression that maybe he wanted to kill him or he wanted to sort of like put him in jail or something like that. I got the impression that he didn't want to meet him and that was it.

MR HATTINGH: And he didn't want Mr Coetzee to know where he was?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And but after, after you managed to speak to him did you then find out that he'd been arrested? Because we know at the time when he died he was in prison?

MR OLIFANT: After some time, plus minus four to five months I learned that no, he was arrested and he was actually sort of lucky. He was is an entrapment somewhere in Johannesburg hotel and things like that and including the person who he was involved in the entrapment with, he came to me and disclosed about the whole entrapment and how it happened.

MR HATTINGH: Yes and did you know that he was in the Modderbee Prison?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MR OLIFANT: I learned from the brother when they came to give me the report about the brother.

MR HATTINGH: Where were you stationed at that time?

MR OLIFANT: At that time we had been already a certain unit consisting of Mr Pretorius and other junior members who had been transferred from Soweto to Braamfontein.

MR HATTINGH: To Braamfontein?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Coetzee was now - no, actually if I'm mistaken actually - yes, I'm right, Mr Coetzee was in East Rand.

MR HATTINGH: In the East Rand?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, he was based in the East Rand.

MR HATTINGH: Still attached to the Security Police?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: When, what date are we talking about now, Mr Olifant? When were you transferred to Braamfontein?

MR OLIFANT: Plus minus early '90s.

MR HATTINGH: Early '90's?

MR OLIFANT: I'm talking about late 1990 or 1991.

MR HATTINGH: Right. Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Just one or two, Chairperson.

Mr Olifant, did I understand your evidence correctly that at the stage when you joined the Police when you became a member of Koevoet that you were in fact a refugee from Mozambique?

MR OLIFANT: No, I've never been a refugee, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you a person who could freely come and go to Mozambique?

MR OLIFANT: No, no. No, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So it was not possible for you to go and see what family you still had in Mozambique? You couldn't do that?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But you still had contact with them? With your family in Mozambique?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the second aspect, this Exhibit A, it was noted I see in part, if you look at page 34 thereof, by Captain Andrew Gordon Liesk?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you discuss the death of Adriano Bambo with Captain Liesk?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, when he asked me about it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And was Captain Liesk investigating?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And that was during 1996?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, I have no other questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van den Berg. Mr Jonker?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONKER: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Olifant, you've testified at the first statement you've made, you didn't understand the investigating officer, Mr Groenewald, at that stage because due to the language problem. Do you remember that?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir and the second statement, Exhibit A, do you understand the statement, this lengthy statement you've made?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson, I do understand it.

MR JONKER: Do you understand the whole statement, Sir?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson. There are a few errors but I understand it, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Was there no problem of language in this statement?

MR OLIFANT: Well Mr Chairperson, considering the English, it was no problem at all, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: What about the Afrikaans part, Sir? It seems to me that the majority of the statement was done in Afrikaans?

MR OLIFANT: Well the team consisting of Capt Liesk and others, Capt Liesk could fluently speak English but the other investigating officers, they had a problem with English.

MR JONKER: Sir, did you read through this whole statement? This Exhibit A?

MR OLIFANT: Where it's written in English, yes I read it, but words in Afrikaans, well I can't say that I have read it. I read it although I had some other part which I could not understand.

MR JONKER: Did you at any stage discuss the issues which you didn't understand with your legal representative?

MR OLIFANT: Well not the whole bundle Mr Chairperson, but the particular matter which we are dealing with presently we have discussed.

MR JONKER: Was this the statement that you used for your amnesty application, Sir? Exhibit A, was this the document you used for your amnesty application?

MR OLIFANT: No, Mr Chairperson, we do have a ...(indistinct) one which we have submitted to the TRC.

MR JONKER: Was that statement done in English or Afrikaans?

MR OLIFANT: English, Mr Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, you've testified that you and Mr Bambo were like brothers, is that correct?

MR OLIFANT: No, it is a mistake there Chairperson. My closest friend in the life, indeed a friend.

MR JONKER: Now you've testified in evidence-in-chief that you said that you and Strongman worked in South West Africa, Mr Coetzee looked after you and then further you testified, you went on? Then you said that you were like brothers?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, like brothers, that's right, yes.

MR JONKER: Yes Sir, also further in your statement, I'm actually looking for the specific page ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think he said he was a bosom friend.

MR JONKER: Indeed so, Your Worship, I'll leave it like that then.

In the statement you've made, this Exhibit A. Mr Chairperson, if the Committee can just bear with me for a second, I'm just looking for the correct part?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, Mr Jonker.

MR JONKER: I'll look for it later.

Sir, Mr Bambo and you really trusted each other and you could discuss issues between the two of you?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And he never told you why there was a problem with him and the Police, why he left the Police?

MR OLIFANT: Well he just said to me that no, he was unhappy about, you know, the salary and that he was leaving.

MR JONKER: No other reason was supplied by that?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR JONKER: Sir, when Mr Bambo was in prison the first time, can you recall what he was arrested for?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I do recall. It was for armed robbery.

MR JONKER: While he was in prison did you go to see him at prison?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I was the only family then, you know, so he had no family so I had to go and sort of like give him bread, whatever I had to give him, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: So if I understand you correctly then - well, let me rephrase the question, did the Security Police look after for him for the period that he was in prison?

MR OLIFANT: For the first time?

MR JONKER: Yes the first time.

MR OLIFANT: No, not at all, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: So apart from you who was his only friend in the country, no one else gave any attention to him while he was in prison the first time?

MR OLIFANT: Well it was myself and the girlfriend and the daughter was still a little one.

MR JONKER: But no one else from the office went to see him, from the Security Police side?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR JONKER: Wasn't he upset about that, Sir?

MR OLIFANT: No, he wasn't upset about it.

MR JONKER: Not at all?

MR OLIFANT: Not at all because he knew for a fact that he had committed an error so ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: Yes but sorry, did Coetzee and Pretorius know that you were visiting him whilst he was in prison?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, yes, sometimes I used to say that no, last week I went to see Strongman, how was he and he was fine, so actually they didn't even have a problem with him being in jail and things like that.

MR JONKER: Sir, I asked you a little bit earlier the question of that you were like brothers, I would like to refer you to page 25, paragraph 92, Exhibit A. I see you said here in this statement

"In about October or November 1986, Lt. Coetzee instructed me and my late brother, Adriano Bambo"

Why did you refer to him as your late brother, Sir? He was a colleague of yours?

MR OLIFANT: He was actually more than a brother to me.

MR JONKER: More than a brother?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: So you were more than just bosom friends, he was more like a brother, he was part of your life?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Chairperson, if I can really tell you about Strongman, when I say he's my brother. For the first time when he went to jail I looked after his wife - I mean I looked after his girlfriend and a daughter. Even today he is late. There is the daughter standing over there, I am looking after her. She's staying at my place. I do buy, like I do buy anything of my kid.

MR JONKER: Sir, to come back to the question of the prison. Sir, you went to prison and then you reported back to Pretorius and Coetzee about what Strongman is doing inside the prison?

MR OLIFANT: No, I never reported back to them. Should they ask me about - eventually ask me about him, I would also say that no, I saw him last month, I saw him last week or something like that.

MR JONKER: Mr Bambo, I believe, was convicted in the early '80s. Did you and Mr Bambo, were the two of your involved in operations prior to 1984?

MR OLIFANT: Well ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: At least they knew about Simelane. '82.

MR OLIFANT: Well not serious operations but we were working together as a colleague and we were performing the normal intelligence work.

MR JONKER: And while you were there in South West Africa, did everything you did there, was that above board, Sir?

MR OLIFANT: Well in South West Africa, I mean ...(intervention)

MR HURWITZ: Chairperson, I object to this line of questioning. The ruling is quite clear, the second ruling of the judgment that the cross-examination must relate to the incident. I don't think we have to delve into what happened in South West Africa.

MR JONKER: Mr Chairperson, the point I tried to make here is that there is an issue now that Mr Bambo was a security risk for the people only in 1990 what, he became a security risk. He was arrested and convicted in 1984. Wasn't he perhaps a security risk at that stage?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

MR JONKER: That's what I'm trying to establish?

CHAIRPERSON: He was not because he was subsequently taken under their arm again.

MR JONKER: Exactly.

CHAIRPERSON: And it's only in 1990 when - 1991, when he was rearrested, that's the issue.

MR JONKER: That's indeed so, Mr Chairperson, but also in late '70s, early '80s, there were also operations done country wide, there was also the - Security Forces were also involved in other matters. What I tried to establish is why only in 1990 did he become a security risk? If I read through this statement I don't see Mr Bambo's name featured ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He was a security risk as he has testified, that people like Nofomela and Dirk Coetzee were now talking but then there was no question of talking.

ADV SANDI: And there was no Harms Commission at that stage?

MR JONKER: I'll leave it then at that.

Mr Olifant, at how many incidents was Mr Bambo involved what you know of?

MR OLIFANT: Some of these incidents, Mapiko incident, precisely I cannot recall them.

MR JONKER: Can you recall any incident where someone was killed?

MR OLIFANT: No, I cannot recall any incident where someone was killed.

MR JONKER: Do you know ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Placing of the bombs at Dube and Mzimshlope under the kombis? Were people killed there?

MR OLIFANT: Maybe at a later stage people might have been killed but during that time I knew for a fact that there were only serious injured.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may proceed Mr Jonker.

MR JONKER: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Sir, that incident at Dube Hostel, I'm quite sure you must be in a position to know if someone died because you applied for amnesty in that? Did you apply for amnesty for the planting of bombs or for the killing of the people?

MR OLIFANT: For the placing of the bombs.

MR JONKER: So will you agree with me that you would have by now established or been informed that someone was killed there?

MR OLIFANT: Well, we were not able to establish whether after a while a person would die or still be alive.

MR JONKER: Sir, do you agree with me that the incidents where Mr Bambo then was involved, the planting of bombs, it is indeed serious but that it's extremely serious in that it's indeed a security risk? So he planted a bomb, someone got injured, no one got killed? It's not that serious, do you agree with me Sir?

CHAIRPERSON: That's a human rights violation.

MR JONKER: Mr Chairperson, it is indeed so. At that stage -I don't want to give evidence here but I think that as Mr Olifant testified, they wanted to go and scare someone, scaring by throwing a handgrenade at him. They scared someone while planting a limpet mine. If they really wanted to go and kill someone I'm quite sure that they would have to, to the extent to make sure instead of just throwing a hand grenade at a ...(indistinct), they could plant a limpet or put a bomb at his front door?

CHAIRPERSON: The limpet mine in Mzimshlope where there were people in the cars, is it not that they were probably lucky if they got just injured there? What would the intention have been? I mean if you plant a land mind or attached it to a kombi and there are people in there, you could be charged for murder?

MR JONKER: That is indeed so, Mr Chairperson. I'll just rephrase my question.

Mr Olifant, the people in the vehicles at the hostels, did you know them?

MR OLIFANT: No Mr Chairperson.

MR JONKER: So what was the purpose of these bombs being planted at the hostels, this limpet?

MR OLIFANT: Well it was to give credibility to one of our sources.

MR OLIFANT: To give credibility? So there was no political motive to that?

MR OLIFANT: It was a political motive, it was to give credibility to our source so that whenever he would meet the other MK members they would really trusted and trust more about the MK ...(indistinct).

MR JONKER: And that was done by instruction or on instruction of Mr Pretorius and Mr Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, do you perhaps know the reason why Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius would deny that they wanted Mr Bambo out of the way?

MR OLIFANT: Well I wouldn't know, Mr Chairperson, ...(inaudible)

MR JONKER: Sir, you've worked with Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius for quite a lengthy period of time, I don't know exactly from when you were working under them but so by now you must know them, do you agree with me?

MR OLIFANT: Well I'll ...(indistinct) to know a person but not to the extent where you really have to know a person, whether a person had denied or whether you can accept it.

MR JONKER: Sir, do you agree with me that if Mr Coetzee told you ten years ago that you must go - that's now on your own evidence, if you must go to Swaziland and go and kill someone you would have done that for him?

MR OLIFANT: Under his instructions yes, I would have done that.

MR JONKER: Yes, so you really trusted each other?

MR OLIFANT: No, I abided to his instructions, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: But surely you would have made sure that you would have known that his instruction was the right thing to do. I don't say it was legitimate, it was the right thing to do, you felt in your heart was the right thing to do.

CHAIRPERSON: What would an underling do if given instructions.

MR JONKER: Mr Chairperson, I think it's ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: A foot soldier. You do acts, would you ask why?

MR JONKER: Mr Chairperson yes, I think when you are instructed to go and murder someone, that is also a member of the Police Force, go to a training college and he's been instructed - you get trained to know what is the difference between right and wrong. So ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That's legally because all the operations or matters we hear before us are illegal in the true sense because those were committed because of a conflict within the same community in South Africa, that they did not see eye to eye.

MR JONKER: Mr Chairperson, that is indeed so but ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And again we listened to De Kock, Messrs De Kock and when he gave instructions to Messrs Snyman and Britz, they never questioned why he should probably give those weaponry, land mines and hand grenades. "They couldn't tell us, they said we couldn't question, we trusted him that he wouldn't give us an instruction which we could not carry out and we were not in a position to ask." That's the tenor I'm paraphrasing, the tenor of the evidence thus far. Why would it be different with Mr Olifant when given instructions that he would question his superiors.

MR JONKER: Mr Chairperson, that is indeed so. I don't want to get involved in an argument here but I think maybe I think that's why some people were sent to the Security Police where they - I don't want to say brainwashed but we can put it in a term of brainwashed to go and comply to some certain instructions. But I will argue it at a later stage about that. I will rephrase my question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly you may do so.

MR JONKER: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Olifant, so you don't know any reason why Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius would change their evidence?

MR OLIFANT: No Mr Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Did you at any stage have any problems with Mr Coetzee?

CHAIRPERSON: But I think we should correct that again, that they haven't testified so there's no evidence changed. There's a document before us where they simply say we know nothing.

MR JONKER: Let me rephrase the question, Sir.

Mr Olifant, you've seen the document of, I refer to the statement of Mr Pretorius, I think it is and Mr Coetzee, page 9, bundle 3. If you look at paragraph 3.2 where Mr Coetzee says as follows, I'll translate it to you:

"I note in the statement of Mr Olifant, bundle 2, page 11 - 13, that I was scared that in the event of Strongman being arrested, he will inform the people what we were involved in. I deny that I at any stage consulted with Mr Olifant to that extent."

So it seems to me that Mr Coetzee will come and deny at any stage he informed you that you must get hold of Mr Bambo for the purpose to remove him because he was a security risk. In any event, to come back to my question, can you see any reason why they would come and deny that now?

MR OLIFANT: Well the reason I don't know why he'd have to deny about this ...(inaudible).

MR JONKER: Did you at any stage have any personal problems with Mr Coetzee or Mr Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: No, I have never had any personal problems with them, even now we're still laughing, so I don't have problems.

CHAIRPERSON: And they look well after him and Strongman.

MR JONKER: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JONKER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We would take a tea adjournment and come back within ten minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jonker, you indicated that you are finished. I don't know if something cropped into your mind during tea, just to be absolutely certain?

MR JONKER: I'm finished, thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jonker. Mr Wagener?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Olifant, whenever I refer to Coetzee and Pretorius, I will mean Willem Coetzee next to me and Anton Pretorius on my other side.

CHAIRPERSON: Right hand side.

MR OLIFANT: That's correct.

MR WAGENER: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: You might be referring to Mr Cornelius.

MR WAGENER: I'll say nothing.

Mr Olifant, you have known Coetzee now for nearly 20 years?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And for Pretorius not much shorter? Also ...(intervention)

MR OLIFANT: Also same thing, yes. 17 to 18 years, that is correct.

MR WAGENER: And you worked with Coetzee in the then South West Africa?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Was that where you first met him?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And at the time, that's now South West Africa, was Strongman also there?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And did you work under the command of Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: He was the second-in-command, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Thereafter, Coetzee was transferred back to South Africa, to Soweto?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And you and Strongman and certain other people were also transferred back to South Africa?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And also to Soweto?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And again you worked under the command of Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Was it there that you met Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And is it correct that Coetzee and Pretorius, and I'm now at Soweto, the two of them, they worked close together?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And you and Strongman, you also worked close together with the two of them?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: What was your - that's now you and Strongman, in what capacity did you work with Coetzee and Pretorius at Soweto?

MR OLIFANT: If you may repeat your question?

MR WAGENER: Were you - maybe I can help you, were you informers, were you colleagues, were you policemen?

MR OLIFANT: At that particular time when we joined Soweto, we have been stripped off of being a Koevoet member and we had not - we sort of like being integrated into South African Police so there was a verge where we had to wait for a while before we could become a full member of South African Police.

MR WAGENER: So is it fair to say that you were working as informers, is that fair?

MR OLIFANT: Well although it was an assertion, was stating that I was informed but I was practising a full work of any member of Intelligence.

MR WAGENER: Yes, because we know afterwards, some years later you became a full policeman?

MR OLIFANT: Yes that is correct.

MR WAGENER: Which you are still today?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Now at Soweto, well maybe you can help us there, until when were you at Soweto?

MR OLIFANT: If I'm not mistaken I think it was 1990, somewhere in 1990. 1990, 1991.

MR WAGENER: And where did you go from there?

MR OLIFANT: Me and Mr Pretorius we left for - we first came to Pretoria and from Pretoria they sent us back to Johannesburg, that was in Braamfontein, during that year.

MR WAGENER: So you remained working with Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And what happened to Strongman?

MR OLIFANT: Well Strongman, as the unit became divisible, Mr Coetzee went to East Rand and Mr Pretorius came to Pretoria so Mr Coetzee preferred to take Strongman with and I remained with Mr Pretorius.

MR WAGENER: Now during the time when all of you, that's now Coetzee, Pretorius, you, Strongman and certain others at Soweto, you worked together for a number of years?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: In many situations?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Many operations?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Even been referred to earlier today as incidents?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: I'm not sure what is meant by incidents but let's call it incidents. During those years, what was your relationship with Coetzee and Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: Well it was normal as a colleague, I always considered them to be my seniors and that was it.

MR WAGENER: Any hard feelings?

MR OLIFANT: Hard feelings as in hatred?

MR WAGENER: Yes.

MR OLIFANT: Well I may be getting - I could have got angry just for maybe five minutes, you know. Not really serious matters, that was it.

MR WAGENER: And today as we sit here in the year 2000, what is your relationship now with the two of them?

MR OLIFANT: Well we don't meet regularly, we only meet when we come here but I should think that - I'm sorry to say that they were traitors to me because when days were dark they sort of like vanished from me whereas they'd promised me that now when things will change we'll always be together as they'd been all along.

CHAIRPERSON: During dark days friends are few?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Wasn't that because you went to cooperate with the investigative team of the Attorney General?

MR OLIFANT: Not I went, Mr Chairperson, I never went to cooperate. Mr Pretorius knows for a fact I was approached and I had nowhere to go. I even reported this matter to Mr Pretorius, I'm in this situation. He said to me there's nothing what I can do because me too, I'm on the verge of being suspended so look after yourself and I'll look after myself. So I said no, the best well, I'll look after myself of which I did so.

MR WAGENER: Were you approached by this Capt Liesk or the person who took this long statement?

MR OLIFANT: Yes that is correct, Mr Chairperson. He said to me look, if I don't cooperate I will go and polish Mr Coetzee's shoes in jail so I avoided such an incident.

MR WAGENER: Is what you're saying that you were threatened by this Mr Liesk that you should cooperate or else go to prison?

MR OLIFANT: Well, there's nobody who loves the prison, Mr Chairperson, so as a result of that I accepted to cooperate.

MR WAGENER: Are you a South African citizen?

MR OLIFANT: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Are you not a Mozambican citizen?

MR OLIFANT: No, not at all. I've never been one. Even my father, he is not a Mozambican citizen.

MR WAGENER: Did Liesk threaten to have you deported if you don't cooperate?

MR OLIFANT: Well, that wasn't really threatening me but what was threatening me it was to fool others who had already been, you know, like in that instance, Mr de Kock was being already jailed and I conceded no, if a giants are already being in, so to me as a fish, to be very stupid to be taken off ...(indistinct) and put in water.

MR WAGENER: As we sit here today, have you ever been threatened by the two of them?

MR OLIFANT: No, I won't lie about it, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Have they ever instructed you to hide the truth?

MR OLIFANT: No, it has never happened that way, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Have they ever told you you should keep silent or else?

MR OLIFANT: No, it has never happened.

MR WAGENER: And you were involved in a number of operations with the two of them?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Including operations where people were killed?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: If I may come back to this long statement and I hope you have a copy of it with you, that's Exhibit A. Was this the result of an interview with Mr Liesk?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And where did this take place?

MR OLIFANT: The first day he surprised me at my place and I was not co-operating. The second day he then called me to his office. There I met Mr Thomson.

MR WAGENER: Toms, I think his surname is Toms.

MR OLIFANT: Oh, well it's Toms, yes sorry. Brig B Toms. Brig Toms said well, you either play the cards or you lose the game.

MR WAGENER: Was it then one long interview?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, it has been long interview. I just gave him the headings of the incident actually, as it appears here. Here it's not in detail. It's only sort of like an introduction to the matter.

MR WAGENER: Did you mention the incidents yourself or were they mentioned to you by them?

MR WAGENER: Other incidents yes, they were mentioned to me but other incidents I was sort of like volunteering after I've seen that no, the freedom is better than ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Well, just to take any one as an example, this

must be page 7, at the top there's Mapeka's Case. So would you

tell them:

"I am now going to address you on an incident to which I will refer as Mapeka's Case"

and then you mention certain particulars?

MR OLIFANT: Well, we first had a discussion of the incident, then he was sort of like taking notes but the day of the statement he then said okay, tell me about Mapeka's case, tell me about this other incident, you know?

MR WAGENER: And was someone taking notes?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: The day when this interview took place were you scared?

MR OLIFANT: Well I wasn't comfortable, that's one thing for sure, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Now during this interview you referred to a number of incidents if I look at this long statement and you gave certain detail regarding each one?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: At the time of the interview were you sure of your facts regarding each specific incident?

MR OLIFANT: Well, yes I was sure because I knew for a fact that after the matter has been typed and things like that, will always come back to me and being reviewed in order to sign and ratify whatever wasn't correct.

MR WAGENER: Are you sure that - were you sure at the time when you made the statement that for instance when you referred to a specific incident that the individuals involved, according to you, were you sure of that, regarding each and every individual involved in each and every individual incident?

MR OLIFANT: Well, some other incidents, it wasn't really easy to, you know, quickly recollect you know. It had to take me some time, you know, in order to ratify and come back and whatever, all those things, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Could you have made mistakes regarding this very issue namely who was present at which incident?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I do agree with you, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Were you then at a later stage given this typed statement?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And were you asked to sign it?

MR OLIFANT: Well, not all of the incidents I signed, you know, some others I signed, some I didn't sign.

MR WAGENER: I'm not sure, this is one statement, actually it seems to be an affidavit because at the top it says

"Manuel Antonio Olifant states under oath"?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And then it goes from page 1 to 34 and at the end there is where you should have signed the statement. Is that what happened here?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct but what happens is, after the matter has been typed like I've said earlier on, after the statements have been typed, I was ought to be called into Mr Liesk's office in order to assess whether what is written is correct or not but you know, due to lack of time, things like that, he never called me. So what I did is was just to apply for the incidents, just to apply to the TRC, to the Commission, about the incidents in which I was involved in.

MR WAGENER: I want to be sure that I understand you correctly. Is this Exhibit A? Is it not an affidavit?

MR OLIFANT: Well, since I did not sign it, it's not under oath.

MR WAGENER: It's not even a statement, is that what you say?

MR OLIFANT: It's not actually literally a statement, it's just an introduction, like I've said, Chairperson. It's just an introduction which Mr Liesk, you know, while he was asking about the incident which had occurred, you always write down, you know?

MR WAGENER: Is it fair to describe this as consultation notes by Mr Liesk, in respect of a consultation he had with you?

MR OLIFANT: Well it was a part of the consultation, that's right, yes.

MR WAGENER: And substantial parts of this is in Afrikaans?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: And you've already told us you don't understand it?

MR OLIFANT: Well I told the Investigating Officer, look I'm not that much good in Afrikaans so he said no, we will explain to you the day of, you know, signing it and things like that.

MR WAGENER: Okay, now we know that this is not a statement, it's not even an affidavit?

MR OLIFANT: Well I will have really to say that it's not an affidavit, it's not a statement but ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: No?

CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Wagener, what would you make of that? If at the end I say

"Ek sertifeer dat bostaande verklaring by my afgeneem is en dat die verklarer erken dat ...(indistinct) hierdie verklaring en dat dit begryp. Hierdie verklaring is voor my beedig deur die verklarers se handtekening en my teenwoordigheid daarop aangebring is"

Would we say, strictly speaking, we would end an affidavit in that fashion?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairperson, I've sat through a number of previous amnesty hearings where we had documents like this by the same Mr Liesk where witnesses and applicants denied ever having signed it, even having seen it. So I will argue ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: My question is specific that from what I've read to you, you and I being lawyers, will we say that's how an affidavit for instance would end?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairperson, that is a proforma, my argument will be this is nothing, it's notes by a person after a consultation. That will be my argument. On the evidence of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just - you proceed and let's not go into it. I didn't get your drift at first. Let me leave it to you.

MR WAGENER: But on the basis of this being an affidavit or a statement or whatever, I will ask you certain questions on this anyway.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Wagener, I think that the witness may not follow you. Would it not be better to explain to him that you do not regard this legally as a valid affidavit? I don't want to interfere with your cross-examination but I think there may be some misunderstanding there. I mean you - in answer to the Chairperson you said that this is just a proforma but I don't think the witness may understand that. That it looks like an affidavit but it's not a legal document, it's not signed. Is this what you're putting to him?

MR WAGENER: Yes, this is all really argument now but I've asked the witness whether he ever signed this whether under oath or not and he said he never.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes but what I'm getting at is that the witness does not understand when you say this is nothing?

MR WAGENER: What I tried to say is, this is not a statement, it's not an affidavit and that is on his own evidence.

ADV BOSMAN: You may continue.

MR WAGENER: On the first page of Exhibit A, under the heading "Introduction", you firstly refer to a matter of Simelane. My instructions are that this took place in September 1983. You were not involved?

MR OLIFANT: No, I wasn't involved.

MR WAGENER: Can you deny the date?

MR OLIFANT: Well I wouldn't deny it.

MR WAGENER: Both Coetzee and Pretorius, they were involved and they've applied for amnesty for this. Do you know about that?

MR OLIFANT: Yes, I've heard about it.

MR WAGENER: And they will give evidence that Strongman was in fact involved in this incident in a sense. There was an abduction and afterwards an unlawful detention and he was part of the unlawful detention in that he guarded the person. Strongman. Can you deny that?

MR OLIFANT: Like I said I wasn't involved, so.

MR WAGENER: Yes and as a matter of interest Strongman went to prison after this, I think in 1984?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: So during that period in prison, if he wanted to divulge any information on this incident he could have?

MR OLIFANT: Well that always depended entirely on him so I wouldn't like to comment on that.

MR WAGENER: On the same page you refer to an incident, two paragraphs later, that you referred - that I may refer to as the Chancellor's house, do you see that? There was an incident with a hand grenade at a Chancellor's house. Was Pretorius involved in this?

MR OLIFANT: Well I can't recollect it but I know for a fact that he was a member of the unit and that ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Was he involved in this incident at all? Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: No, physically he wasn't involved.

MR WAGENER: In any way?

MR OLIFANT: Nor was Coetzee involved, physically.

MR WAGENER: Alright but I'm asking you about Pretorius. Was he involved in this incident? Was he involved in this incident, whether physically or otherwise?

MR OLIFANT: I will say no.

MR WAGENER: Yes. Was Coetzee involved?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, yes. He was the person who gave instructions for us to go there.

MR WAGENER: That is correct and are you aware that Mr Coetzee has filed an application for amnesty in respect of this incident?

MR OLIFANT: Well I don't know about it.

MR WAGENER: Well I can tell you he did and he will testify to that. Are you sure that Strongman was in fact involved in this one?

MR OLIFANT: In which matter, Mr Chairperson?

MR WAGENER: In this incident that we're referring to now?

MR OLIFANT: Definitely sure, definitely sure.

MR WAGENER: Because Mr Coetzee tells me that you are confused. He was not involved in this incident. You were, yes. You were and certain other members but not Strongman. That's why I ask you the question.

MR OLIFANT: Strongman was involved.

MR WAGENER: You then refer to an incident, at the bottom of the same page over to the next page of the - I'm not sure how you pronounce it? Mzimshlope?

CHAIRPERSON: Mzimshlope.

MR WAGENER: It's a difficult word for me Chairperson. Hostel, the incident of the kombi and the Dube Hostel. Both Coetzee and Pretorius deny that they were involved in this incident at all and they have filled affidavits to this effect. You will remember this was already a matter before the Amnesty Committee and they have filed their affidavits to that effect. I'm sure you must have seen it or you must have heard about it?

MR OLIFANT: Well I heard on the ...(indistinct) Commission.

MR WAGENER: Yes. You agree that had they been involved they could have asked for amnesty for that as well?

MR OLIFANT: Mr Chairperson, Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius, they had so much things to do and I just wonder why they didn't apply for this amnesty because they were involved. I'm not fabricating any story, they were involved.

MR WAGENER: But you heard my question that I said that had they been involved they could easily have asked for amnesty for this as well?

MR OLIFANT: Well they might have forgotten about the incident because some of the incidents here, I had to remind Mr Pretorius.

MR WAGENER: On the second page you refer to an incident at an amphitheatre a Jabulani. Now I can tell you that both Coetzee and Pretorius have filed amnesty applications for this so I assume you would accept that?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I do, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And my instructions are that you were in fact involved as you state here?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson, I was involved.

MR WAGENER: But again they say you're making a mistake about Strongman, he was not involved in this incident at all?

MR OLIFANT: Strongman was involved. He's the person who was, how can I say, he was helping the person who was, you know, who was placing the land mines whereas me and others, myself and others, we actually sort of, you know, outside from the ...(indistinct).

MR WAGENER: No this will still be the subject matter of amnesty hearings so I do not intend going into detail here, Chairperson, all I'm doing is I'm putting my instructions to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't know even whether I would be on the Panel, I wouldn't want to hear that. I would be prejudiced.

MR WAGENER: I would hope not, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Either for or against.

MR WAGENER: The same, Mr Olifant, goes for the next paragraph on page 2 where you refer to the Pilegeng offices incident. Both Coetzee, Pretorius, have applied for amnesty here and again I assume you can't deny that, you will accept that?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And again they say Strongman's functions were something else, he was not involved in this, you are confused and that the hearing of this matter, they will testify to that effect. Do you want to comment?

MR OLIFANT: He was involved, he is the person who carried up the 25 litres of diesel, he is the person who broke out the window in order to pour the diesel into the Pilegeng.

MR WAGENER: Then on page 4 of Exhibit A you refer to an incident in Swaziland where you say that some of you went into Swaziland for intelligence gathering operation. That is on page 4 of Exhibit A, do you remember that?

MR OLIFANT: Yes I do remember, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Now my instructions are that Coetzee and Pretorius say they think they can remember something like this but it was no offence, it was the normal duties of the intelligence unit of the Security Branch at the time. Can you deny that?

MR OLIFANT: I don't deny the fact that we went to Swaziland.

MR WAGENER: And this in fact ties up with, if I may jump to page 25 of the same document there, you will see at the top under the heading "Swaziland", you refer to an incident in Swaziland. Now I assume what you mean here is when at a later state certain police members went into Swaziland and there was a shoot out and certain people there were killed?

MR OLIFANT: I do agree with you, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: You were not involved in that?

MR OLIFANT: No, I wasn't involved in the shooting.

MR WAGENER: Strongman was not involved?

MR OLIFANT: He wasn't involved as well.

MR WAGENER: That is the incident that's been referred to earlier today as the Sponsu Smith incident?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And there was an amnesty hearing on this already?

MR OLIFANT: That was, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And all the applicants have already received amnesty for this?

MR OLIFANT: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Including Coetzee and Pretorius?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Then on page 7, you will see at the top there's the heading that I read to you, I'm not sure of the pronunciation. Is that Mafeke or Mapeke?

MR OLIFANT: Mapeke.

MR WAGENER: Mafeke?

CHAIRPERSON: Mapeke.

MR WAGENER: Mapeke, sorry. Thank you Chairperson. You will see there in paragraph 6 of that page you refer to an incident to bomb the professor's house. Now I'm not sure, is that the same incident that you refer to on page 1?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Yes, it's the same one?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Yes it's the same one, not a different one?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR WAGENER: So you remember what I've put to you in respect of the incident on the first page so the same will apply here, it's the same incident?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Then on the next page under the heading "Ipeleng Gemeenskap Sentrum, Soweto", do you see that? Again is that the same incident referred to on page 2 in the third paragraph, that's the same incident?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: It's not another one?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MR WAGENER: So I think I've dealt with all the incidents in Exhibit A involving Strongman?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: The bottom line, Mr Olifant, is that Coetzee and Pretorius instructed me that all these incidents where they were involved in and for which they apply for amnesty, only one, that is the Simelane incident, the only one where Strongman was involved in and they will testify to that effect. What do you say about that?

MR OLIFANT: Well if they deny the fact that Strongman wasn't involved, that's entirely up to them. I should think we're here to talk the truth so if they're not prepared to talk the truth it's up to them.

MR WAGENER: Yes but you also said a short while ago that you're not sure about all the individuals involved in each and every specific incident?

MR OLIFANT: No, I know. I know why I made a mistake. I know what I'm talking about. You know the only place during that Demapiek case, it's either - if I may go back?

MR WAGENER: It's page 7.

MR OLIFANT: I know Mila or Oscar, these are the two people who are ...(indistinct) but the rest of the people, I'm quite correct about it.

MR WAGENER: So now you say you're quite sure about all the individuals ...(intervention)

MR OLIFANT: That's right.

MR WAGENER: Involved in each area of the incident, is that the evidence now?

MR OLIFANT: Except ...(indistinct) ...(intervention) Excuse me ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Sorry, I was rude to you but can I rephrase please? Is it now your evidence that apart from this one incident that you referred me to now you are quite sure about your facts regarding individuals involved and present?

MR OLIFANT: About all these things that's right.

MR WAGENER: You're quite sure?

MR OLIFANT: Quite sure.

MR WAGENER: After all these years?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: So when you said earlier, a short while ago, you could have made mistakes you didn't refer to this at all?

MR OLIFANT: I only referred about Oscar and Mandla specifically.

MR WAGENER: Now if I may turn to Exhibit A page 6, that is the part where you deal with I would imagine what we're here for today. You will see there the two paragraphs. Is it correct that it was in the newspaper that Strongman had escaped from custody?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And that you and Pretorius had a discussion about this report in the newspaper?

MR OLIFANT: Not about what has been reported.

MR WAGENER: Or as a result of the report in the newspaper?

MR OLIFANT: Well he never said so that as a result of the report in the newspaper but as a matter of concern.

MR WAGENER: Yes. Now you've testified that you knew Strongman very well?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: He was like a brother to you?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Actually more than a brother, Mr Wagener, he said later.

MR WAGENER: Thank you.

Where does the name Strongman come from?

MR OLIFANT: The name Strongman, what happened is this. After a month of being in South West Africa, what happens is we had a contact, you know for the first time being in the bush, you know, you come across a serious fight. So Strongman was able to take out the MGM from the Casspir, you know, from the Hippo and jump outside and fire effectively up to ...(indistinct) where he could stabilise the enemy and Mr Coetzee, when he saw him carrying that MGM, firing seriously, he said you are a strong guy and the name generated from there, Strongman.

MR WAGENER: Was he known as an aggressive and violent person?

MR OLIFANT: Not really aggressive but you know, let me just put it this way, he was a good fighter.

MR WAGENER: Could he react violently if cornered?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: And was that the concern of Pretorius when the two of you discussed the fact that he had escaped from custody?

MR OLIFANT: What I understood from Mr Pretorius is this, he was accosted by senior member officers, Soweto Offices and asked what is taking place now, where is this man because we know this man working with you people, now what will have gone wrong?

MR WAGENER: And was the concern also that would he have been accosted by the Police, there could have been a violent reaction or situation?

MR OLIFANT: Well maybe the senior members were really concerned about that matter because at the time when everything was okay he used to give a good recommendation about Strongman, Strongman is good in this, whatever and all those things but at the end of the day Strongman was now a criminal, no longer a good person as been ...(indistinct) all along.

MR WAGENER: But you testified earlier today about the concern of Pretorius and I would like to make very sure that I understand this correctly, was his concern that there may be a violent situation should the Police rearrest or try to rearrest Strongman.

MR OLIFANT: Why he approached me, yes, that was the reason. Why he approached me, it was to know whereabouts Strongman was and what Strongman was busy doing and where is he.

MR WAGENER: Now I can put it to you that Mr Pretorius doesn't deny this conversation. I want to make it perfectly clear, he doesn't deny this conversation between the two of you regarding Strongman. That's not denied, but he denies that any part of this conversation was that you or they, the Police, the Security Branch, had to kill Strongman?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no. In his oral evidence he says it's not written correctly. What he meant or tried to convey was that Strongman, as he was military trained, might react and a killing could ensue from that. Not the other way round that the police would kill Strongman, no.

MR WAGENER: And Mr Pretorius - or you testified that Pretorius also expressed his concern because of the fact that other policemen were talking, busy talking and I think you refer to Almond Nofomela and Mr Dirk Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: Now that part of your evidence, that is denied by Mr Pretorius. He said there were no such discussions and he will give evidence to that effect. So are you sure about that part?

MR OLIFANT: I'm definitely sure that he spoke about it.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Wagener, are you going to ask you a question on a different aspect because I just want to ask him something on this particular issue.

MR WAGENER: Chairperson, yes, I would like to go over to the alleged discussion with Coetzee so you're welcome.

ADV SANDI: Yes, just on this conversation between yourself and did you say Mr Pretorius? Mr Pretorius, yes. I didn't quite follow you, did he say to you he had been accosted by senior members from the head office? Can you just repeat that?

MR OLIFANT: He said to me well I'm being asked about - okay fine, let me just recap, he said that he is being asked, by whom he never said about Strongman. Now he wanted to know from me whether I had any knowledge about Strongman or not.

ADV SANDI: Did he say he was being asked by people from the head office or did I misunderstand?

MR OLIFANT: Well it appeared to me that people from the head office but he said he is being asked about Strongman.

ADV SANDI: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are merely talking about the impression he created on you?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson, maybe I should just follow up on that.

Are you sure that this reference to head office was not at a much earlier stage, that is after the first imprisonment of Strongman in '84?

MR OLIFANT: No it had nothing - it was non-related to the previous imprisonment but we're talking about, you know, that time when Strongman now had actually begun by making armed robberies.

CHAIRPERSON: No, Mr Olifant, understand Mr Wagener perfectly. He says are you not saying that conversation took place when he was arrested the first time. Am I hearing you correctly Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Maybe I can try again, Mr Chairperson.

By putting to you my instructions that after his first imprisonment, that was in the early '80s, 1984, 1985, he spent time in prison. You are aware of that?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And immediately after that he was again employed by the Security Branch?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: By Intelligence Unit?

MR OLIFANT: Yes.

MR WAGENER: The same people here?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Now at that stage, I'm going back in time now?

MR OLIFANT: That's right.

MR WAGENER: My instructions are that the matter was discussed at head office. There was head office involvement whether he should again be employed or not?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: That's why I asked the question are you sure that you've just testified here that shortly before his death you had a discussion with Pretorius and you got certain impressions of head office or the involvement of head office. Now I'm asking you are you sure about that. Aren't you making a mistake? Didn't this happen ...(intervention)

MR OLIFANT: No I'm not making any mistake about it. ...(inaudible).

MR WAGENER: Anyway, for completeness sake Mr Pretorius will say there was no such discussion. This must have been the end of 1990 or round about there. The discussion you testified about that you had with Mr Coetzee, that is Volume 2, that's the other statement now, page 11. Do you see that? Paragraph 4, page 11, Volume 2 - bundle 2, sorry. Bundle 2.

There you refer to a conversation you had with Coetzee, do you see that?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: When did this conversation take place in terms of the matter that we're here for?

MR OLIFANT: The precise date and the year, it was during let's say 1991 somewhere there.

MR WAGENER: Was this - maybe I can be more clear, was this the stage after he had escaped from custody?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, yes, after he escaped from custody.

MR WAGENER: I've seen somewhere an affidavit, I think by Grimbeek or someone saying he escaped on the 21st October 1990 and he was again arrested somewhere in December 1990?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: So was this conversation ...(intervention)

MR OLIFANT: Well between that ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Are you sure about that?

MR OLIFANT: I'm definitely sure about that Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Because Mr Coetzee will testify that he can remember a conversation he had with you regarding Strongman but that was earlier, that was before he was again detained?

So that's why I'm asking you, are you sure it was in this short period that I've just referred to?

MR OLIFANT: Well about dates I'm not quite you know certain.

MR WAGENER: And Mr Coetzee will also say that he told you that he, Coetzee, had obtained information that Strongman was involved in criminal acts?

MR OLIFANT: That he told me, yes I do agree.

MR WAGENER: And that he requested you to try and approach Strongman and to bring him for a conversation with Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Because Coetzee wanted to warn him, to stop his criminal activities?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Yes. So again Coetzee won't deny a conversation between you and him regarding Strongman but he will deny that he ever said that he was afraid that Strongman may start speaking out about previous Security Branch operations as is stated here in paragraph 4. Can you comment on that?

MR OLIFANT: Well I have no comment, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So he would be right if you don't have comments? That is Mr Coetzee?

MR OLIFANT: I know for a fact that he spoke to me about it.

But if he denies there's nothing what I can say why he has to deny. He's denying because he knows why he denies it.

CHAIRPERSON: But are you steadfast in what you are saying, that's the question?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct, I'm quite clear of what I'm saying that he said so to me.

CHAIRPERSON: You may continue Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: Are you sure you don't know the reason why Coetzee decided to break all ties with Strongman?

MR OLIFANT: Well Mr Coetzee never broke ties with Strongman. Strongman broke ties with Mr Coetzee, if I may ...(indistinct).

MR WAGENER: Immediately I have to put it to you that you're wrong. Coetzee will clearly testify that he decided he has had enough of Strongman and he decided to break the ties. You don't even know that?

MR OLIFANT: There's no such - I know for a fact that a person of Strongman's calibre to Mr Coetzee meant a lot.

MR WAGENER: And Mr Coetzee will also testify that it had nothing to do with salary or money?

MR OLIFANT: Well concerning about salaries and money, Strongman told me that Mr Coetzee, he was not prepared to help him on that particular matter.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, just about the salaries. Do you know how much - sorry Mr Wagener, if I may just come in? Do you know how much he was earning per month?

MR OLIFANT: No I can't recollect although I knew that time but now I cannot recall how much he was earning but I know plus minus R400 and something to R500.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR WAGENER: Then another matter, Mr Olifant, it's not directly relevant to my clients but we heard evidence earlier here in this hearing by Mr de Kock regarding three policemen -sorry, three Portuguese people sent back to Mozambique to be killed. You heard that evidence?

MR OLIFANT: Well that was often problems with the people who worked with Security Branch inside, whenever they had a problem, even Strongman was once tried to be deported by Dirk Coetzee.

MR WAGENER: Yes.

MR OLIFANT: It was in 1981.

MR WAGENER: That was what I wanted to ask you. Wasn't Strongman one of these people that Mr de Kock referred to?

MR OLIFANT: No, not on this what I call - well I think those are two different what you call it, I know for a fact that it was a time where Strongman and plus other two, you know where were caught by Dirk Coetzee, Nofomela and Chakarango - Nakaranga, something like that. Chikalanga, yes - put in a bakkie and carved everything and taken straight to Komatipoort.

MR WAGENER: Was there a person called Amaro with them?

MR WAGENER: Amartoba da Silva yes, that was Amartoba da Silva and at the hand they would phone the Mozambican Intelligence because they knew for a fact that being South African and being a member of the intelligence this side he will always face the death penalty the other side so whenever they didn't want to deal with you this side, they will keep you, they will sort of like kidnap you and take you straight to Mozambique and you will be facing all the consequences.

MR WAGENER: And how did Strongman survive.

MR OLIFANT: Strongman, how he survived is this. At the end of the day Strongman was not wrong because when this thing happened I wasn't here I was in South West Africa. But now according to what someone said to me, he said how he survived was this. Someone approached Dirk Coetzee and told Dirk Coetzee fine, but now what are you doing to these boys? He said no, these boys don't have discipline. But okay, fine, you know Strongman, how is Strongman, he is a good person, he has been doing well all along but now what is the problem? He said okay, fine, what I'll do is this, I'll take something out from these three and I'll sent Amartaba da Silva and I'll send this Nicholas Criminolas. I gave them to the Mozambican Government. Well the Mozambican Government said well thanks a lot, long we have been looking for Amartaba da Silva, he's been one of the most wanted elements in Mozambican and thereafter he was sentenced to death. Strongman was put into the next border, that was Swaziland and eventually he managed to come back and he reported the matter and Dirk Coetzee was forced out from Vlakplaas.

MR WAGENER: Thank you. The last point. You refer to the imprisonment of Strongman, that is the earlier imprisonment in 1984. Now I'm not sure whether I understand your evidence correctly, you said that the Security Branch did not look after him in prison. Was that your evidence?

MR OLIFANT: That is correct yes, according to the family's questions.

MR WAGENER: But you also said that Coetzee and Pretorius visited him in prison. Or I'm not sure on this one?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no. He then reported to them.

MR OLIFANT: That's right.

MR WAGENER: Okay, thank you Chairperson because I wasn't sure because they say they did not visit him in prison. You could have, they don't know. Thank you Chairperson, the rest is basically argument. Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wagener. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Mr Olifant, given your long standing relationship with Strongman, do you believe that at the time when he was involved in his criminal activities after he had left the employ of Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius, that he would have revealed the information that he had had about his work as an informer?

MR OLIFANT: Well I don't think he would have done so because he feared one thing. He knew, he was actually trying to hide identity of being a policeman, he was only covered by, you know, one of the members, if I'm not mistaken, from a former policeman who was at one stage at Vlakplaas who ...(indistinct) he once worked with us in Vlakplaas.

MS PATEL: And when did this occur?

MR OLIFANT: During that verge of you know, when he was ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Was he still working as an informer at the time that he was discovered by the Vlakplaas members?

MR OLIFANT: No, no, he was no longer working, he was no longer working.

MS PATEL: Okay and did he inform you of this?

MR OLIFANT: No, no, he always told what about the brother about it, so the brother used to tell me all this.

MS PATEL: Okay, fine. Do you know whether Strongman had any liaison with Vlakplaas and Mr de Kock specifically?

MR OLIFANT: No, not that I know of.

MS PATEL: Or with Brigadier Engelbrecht?

MR OLIFANT: No.

MS PATEL: Alright. Do you know whether he knew Mr Koekemoer who testified here yesterday?

MR OLIFANT: No, he never knew Mr Koekemoer. That I know for a fact that he never knew Mr Koekemoer. He would know Mr de Kock yes because we were together in South West Africa but Mr Engelbrecht and Koekemoer he ...(indistinct).

MS PATEL: Okay. You've heard Mr Koekemoer's testimony yesterday regarding Strongman's desire to point out the arms cache. Do you care to express an opinion on how this was done?

MR OLIFANT: Well I will say that Strongman wasn't that type of person who would go by, you know, taking land mines and go making DLB and things like that but would go for a ...(indistinct) pistol and things like that because I mean he was making robberies.

MS PATEL: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Koekemoer said initially what Strongman told him was that he has hidden handguns and only to discover that it was land mines.

MR OLIFANT: First of all Strongman never even knew, you know, where was Kanyamasani. Okay, although he used sometimes to go by ...(indistinct) sent by Mr Coetzee to go to Nelspruit, you know, and do something else but when you talk about Kanyamasani places like that I doubt that Strongman will have known about such a place.

MS PATEL: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: But Kanyamasani was next to Nelspruit?

MR OLIFANT: Well it's a bit of distance, Chairperson, but Strongman once or twice went to Nelspruit if I may recollect, Mr Chairperson. Once or twice went to Nelspruit. Strongman will have any linking with anybody from Mozambique or will go to Mozambique to go collect guns. I wouldn't have gone to Mozambique because Mozambique at that stage was a hot spot.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: No, that is all, thank you Honourable Chairperson. I believe he has answered the questions that I would have asked.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry to have just jumped in like that.

MS PATEL: No, no, that's fine. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: I've got no questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR HURWITZ: No re-examination.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR HURWITZ

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Olifant. You are excused.

MR OLIFANT: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: I see we are fast approaching 1 o'clock, would it serve any purpose for anybody to start his testimony now and break for lunch? Shouldn't we rather take our lunch and come back at 1.30. Is that inconvenient? We'll adjourn for lunch and come back at one-thirty.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: We have completed Mr Olifant. Mr Wagener, with whom are you starting?

MR WAGENER: Chairperson yes, the next witness will be Mr Coetzee. You will find his affidavit in bundle 3 from page 7 onwards. As the result of this he has been subpoenaed to give evidence before you today.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR WAGENER: He is next to me and wishes to testify in Afrikaans please.

CHAIRPERSON: On which side of you?

MR WAGENER: My right hand side.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WILHELM JOHANNES COETZEE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Coetzee, as I have mentioned, you have made this statement in bundle 3 from page 7 up until page 11, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Concerning paragraph 1.3 of this affidavit on page 7 you informed me that there's a typing error where there is reference made to eleven incidents and then it's wrong and that it should read thirteen incidents, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: You then ask that we will then amend this affidavit as such? Mr Chairperson, I think this is an objective fact. The application is with me, the eleven should be thirteen.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think there would be an objection to that. Would there be any?

MR HATTINGH: I have no objection Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The amendments are agreed on.

MR WAGENER: It was the attorney who could not count.

Mr Coetzee, apart from what we've just referred to do you once again confirm the correctness of this statement?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: I will shortly refer you to certain aspects that I see as being important. Do you confirm and I'm referring to paragraph 1.2, the terms that you served at the various stations?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: I can ask you now, the deceased in this case, Strongman, if I can refer to him in that way, where and when did you meet him for the first time?

MR COETZEE: In Namibia, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: During which time or period?

MR COETZEE: It was in the years of '80/'81.

MR WAGENER: Did you serve together in Koevoet?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Were you his commander?

MR COETZEE: Second in command.

MR WAGENER: Who was the commander?

MR COETZEE: It was Captain du Plessis, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: From April 1981 you were transferred to the Republic to Soweto?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: We've already heard evidence from the other colleagues from Koevoet who followed you to Soweto?

MR COETZEE: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: And we heard from Mr Olifant, that it included him and Strongman as well as others?

MR COETZEE: Yes as well as others.

MR WAGENER: You say in paragraph 2 of your affidavit that in the period in Soweto Strongman functioned as an informer with Mr Pretorius and yourself as his handlers?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Does this mean that he was not a fully fledged member of the Police at that stage?

MR COETZEE: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: If you in short can say what his tasks were during this period?

MR COETZEE: He was supporting all operational activities.

MR WAGENER: What do you mean by that?

MR COETZEE: To secure a scene and the co-handling of handlers, the picking up and dropping of them which was then mainly his functions. Supporting certain information systems from time to time when it was necessary, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Mr Olifant testified that at a certain stage you left Soweto and that Strongman followed you?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Exactly where did you go?

MR COETZEE: We went to head office in Pretoria.

MR WAGENER: He was still his immediate commander?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Now we know that Strongman was found guilty at one stage of robbery and that he served a sentence. It seems amongst others - Mr Chairperson, bundle 2 page 37 you will find the SAP-69.

CHAIRPERSON: Just bear with us, Mr Wagener? Page 69 you said?

MR WAGENER: No, it is the police form called SAP-69, that is the criminal record of previous convictions. It's in bundle 2, page 37.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed.

MR WAGENER: Briefly, do you know what the circumstances were that led to this sentence?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Can you just tell us?

MR COETZEE: It was a robbery that was committed and I'm talking under correction, it was in Lenasia at a bank.

MR WAGENER: And according to the SAP-69 there was a firearm involved?

MR COETZEE: That is correct, yes. A firearm was stolen from the Soweto Security Branch offices, under what circumstances I cannot really comment on.

MR WAGENER: Does that mean that Strongman committed this crime with a police weapon?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: After he served his sentence can you recall how long he was in jail?

MR COETZEE: It was approximately a year or two years or maybe even three years, I'm not quite sure.

MR WAGENER: After he was released from jail what happened to him then?

MR COETZEE: We took him back on the request of Brigadier van Rensburg from head office in Pretoria.

MR WAGENER: So that was apart from the fact that he committed a robbery with a stolen police weapon?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Before he committed this specific crime, how would you describe your relationship with him?

MR COETZEE: It was very good.

MR WAGENER: Was there any discomfort or arguments between the two of you?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR WAGENER: We've heard evidence that you look after him?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson, not just him but physically all of them. All the members of the unit.

MR WAGENER: Can you maybe give us details in this regard? What do you mean that you looked after them or cared for them?

MR COETZEE: We assisted them in terms of clothing, buying them clothes, knowing that they did not earn a proper salary at that stage and they also did not have academic documents and they served only as informers, they were not members of the force. In other words they did not receive good salaries on a monthly basis.

MR WAGENER: In this period while he was in jail and I'm still at that first sentence, jail sentence, did you go and visit him?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Very well, you have testified that after he was released on request of headquarters he was then again employed?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Strongman, was he a very good worker?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson up until later problems.

MR WAGENER: Can you tell us about this?

MR COETZEE: Our physical break with them was he was one of various co-handlers employed by the office under my command and control. In '89/'90 there was an incident, Mr Chairperson, that led to a break between myself and him with instructions that his further involvement in the Intelligent Service, because of his disciplinary problems, would be terminated. His criminal background and his disciplinary problems led to this. He went to a house where there were various agents, were accommodated in office hours and after office hours he was responsible for providing the people with food after hours, to care for them, look after their needs. These agents were not supposed to know each other. He would then leave this place in the evenings that then led to the fact that agents met each other during training in this safe house and one of the agents worked on a need to know basis and he would then be managed according to the name that was given to him. He had very bad discipline, was irresponsible and this led to agents meeting each other, knew each other's identities and that these people had to be withdrawn from the operational field. At various opportunities he also misused some of the State vehicles. There was a very clear change in his involvement and the chances that he took. At times when he left knowing that he was not at the safe house when he was supposed to serve there.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Wagener, can I just come in here? I can hear that the interpreter finds it difficult to follow, if you can just slow down a bit? I'm sorry for the interruption.

MR WAGENER: What you've just referred to, Mr Coetzee, was this now the irregularities to which you referred to in paragraph 2 of your statement?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And on these grounds you say that you decided to break all ties with them?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Earlier today there was a suggestion that he left your employment out of free will?

MR COETZEE: I deny this.

MR WAGENER: There was also a suggestion that it was about unhappiness concerning salaries?

MR COETZEE: We all got a small salary.

MR WAGENER: But according to you it was not the reason?

MR COETZEE: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: You now say also in paragraph 2.4 that you were satisfied that he did not hold any risks for the department. What exactly do you mean?

MR COETZEE: That by letting him go, meaning that he was already channelised in this programme and because of his actions in the operational field and the fact that the agents disclosed the identities to each other. He was also on a co-handling level. In other words, Mr Chairperson, he was not clued up concerning the operational tasks of the agents who were placed on an operational level whether internally or abroad.

MR WAGENER: You're saying now that you and your colleague, Mr Pretorius, were guilty of various offences, well in Soweto. This is now you and Mr Pretorius, you now apply for amnesty for them?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Were you not worried that Strongman can be a risk in that regard?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Why not?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, he was involved in such actions or such operations before his first arrest.

MR WAGENER: To what actions are you referring to now?

MR COETZEE: I'm talking about the Simelane incident for which we applied for amnesty.

MR WAGENER: That is where you refer to in paragraph 2.2 in your affidavit. When did this incident take place?

MR COETZEE: It was in the years '82, '83.

MR WAGENER: Mr Pretorius says it was in September, August or September in 1983?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson, that is correct.

MR WAGENER: Briefly, what did this incident entail?

MR COETZEE: It was the arrest, it was an abduction of a female MK member.

MR WAGENER: Was Strongman involved in this what you call an abduction?

MR COETZEE: Yes in the sense that he assisted in guarding this person at a later stage.

MR WAGENER: So he was not involved in the abduction itself?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: But he was involved in the detention of that person at a later stage?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: According to Exhibit A, this is the statement, if I may call it a statement of Mr Olifant. You've seen this document?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: You've seen that Mr Olifant then there deals with various incidents where he said he was involved?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And he also mentions a few incidents where he says that amongst others yourself and Strongman were also involved?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: You were present when I questioned Mr Olifant concerning this and the denials or the certain statements that I put to him, do you agree with that and do you confirm that?

MR COETZEE: Yes I do.

MR WAGENER: In other words, to save time?

MR COETZEE: The Simelane case, I'd highlight. This is the incident where I can confirm that he was involved in.

MR WAGENER: And that's the only one?

MR COETZEE: Yes that is correct.

MR WAGENER: Did you at a certain stage realise, that is now after you broke your ties with Strongman, that he was busy with criminal acts? Where did you receive this information from?

MR COETZEE: From co-handlers.

MR WAGENER: Did you in that regard take any steps?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: What did you do?

MR COETZEE: I told the members who, if they meet him again, must arrange for a meeting. I then requested Olifant to arrange for contact with them to try and arrange for a meeting with this person in order to talk to him and if possible to then get some information from him and then to warn him as well.

MR WAGENER: You say to warn him? In what sense?

MR COETZEE: To warn him in the sense that he knows what happened in the past, that there's no assistance if he was found guilty of any criminal activities and the information had no substance at that stage, they were only allegations. We did not investigate these instances ourselves.

MR WAGENER: Were you worried that he could disclose sensitive information concerning operations in which you were involved in?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: In other words that was not a consideration for you?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: We do know now that Strongman is deceased and that was during March 1991. Can you recall when you heard about this?

MR COETZEE: It was after his death, Mr Chairperson. It was in relation to - I'm talking under correction, I think it was members from a unit who heard from Mr Olifant about this specific incident and heard about this action where he was killed and also at a later stage or also in that same period of time from Col Pretorius with whom Olifant worked with in the offices.

MR WAGENER: Now in this specific incident, one of the applicants, Mr de Kock, testified that Strongman was eliminated on instructions from Gen. Engelbrecht because there was apparently a fear with you and Mr Pretorius that Strongman will disclose sensitive information about your earlier operations in Soweto. You've seen it and you heard it in the evidence?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: You've already testified that he held no threat or risk for you?

MR COETZEE: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: In March 1991 did you know Gen. Engelbrecht?

MR COETZEE: It's possible, yes.

MR WAGENER: Well, did you know him?

MR COETZEE: I would say March '91, not personally no.

MR WAGENER: Because he will testify that in January 1991 he formally joined the Security Branch from the Detective Branch. Did you know him before he joined the Security Branch?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: In March 1991 Gen. Engelbrecht was a confidante of yours?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: In other words would you have discussed aspects with them, for example the cases for which you applied for amnesty now?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR WAGENER: At that stage, that was now March 1991, did you know Mr de Kock?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: From where do you know him or just give us some background?

MR COETZEE: It was from the Namibia era.

MR WAGENER: Were you colleagues in Koevoet?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And was there a feeling of trust between the two of you?

MR COETZEE: Yes I'd put it like that.

MR WAGENER: Let us assume that Strongman held a risk for the operations. We know that it's not the case but let us just assume that it was the case and he was a great security risk for you. What would you have done about it?

MR COETZEE: I believe I would have discussed this with Col de Kock.

MR WAGENER: Directly?

MR COETZEE: Yes, directly. For assistance in case such a situation was created.

MR WAGENER: Mr Coetzee, concerning the death of Strongman, were you involved in it? The planning beforehand and the execution of it?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR WAGENER: You heard the evidence of Mr de Kock in this regard?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Do you deny it?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: After Strongman's death, that is now from 1991, did Mr de Kock at any stage make contact with you and discuss this matter now? This is Strongman's death?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: When did you become aware of the allegations from Mr de Kock that you and Mr Pretorius were supposedly involved in Strongman's death?

MR COETZEE: I'm talking under correction but I think it was late 1996 with the amnesty process.

MR WAGENER: In other words it was at a stage when you, if you were involved, you still could have asked for amnesty?

MR COETZEE: Yes that is correct.

MR WAGENER: And you didn't?

MR COETZEE: No I didn't.

MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wagener.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Coetzee, let's talk about Mr Olifant first. He also served with you in Namibia, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did he render the same services there, that Strongman rendered, Mr Bambo?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson. I would just like to make a correction here, Chairperson. Up until my departure, they were part of the same combat unit.

MR HATTINGH: I understand what you're saying, I'm just referring to matters of which you have knowledge.

And then you came to Soweto and both Messrs Olifant and Bambo accompanied you?

MR COETZEE: Well, they only followed at a later stage, Chairperson and I heard why they were sent back was there was a problem in Namibia and upon instruction in Namibia they were sent back to the R.S.A. and then eventually via Brig van Rensburg, they arrived at the Soweto Security Branch, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: This Brig van Rensburg to whom you refer to, is that the well known Nick van Rensburg?

MR COETZEE: Negative Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: No? Which Van Rensburg are you referring to?

MR COETZEE: This was a Brig van Rensburg, I do not recall his first name but I do know that it was not Gen. van Rensburg, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: This Van Rensburg to whom you refer to, to which division was he attached?

MR COETZEE: Security Head Office, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And his rank was brigadier?

MR COETZEE: Yes, later years, at that stage he was a Col van Rensburg.

MR HATTINGH: And then the two came to Soweto, this is now Messrs Bambo and Olifant?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I would just like to make a correction. Mr Olifant returned at a later stage. I cannot comment on exactly when they returned but I do know that Mr Strongman, Adriano Bambo, George and a Jimmy were the three persons who were placed at Soweto, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So let us refer to the time that the both of them were there. I'm just referring to Messrs Olifant and Bambo at the time when they were attached to Soweto Security Branch. At that stage they were both used as informers as you said?

MR COETZEE: In the capacity of an informer, yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So there was no difference in rank and status between the two?

MR COETZEE: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And it would seem as I've heard Mr Olifant's evidence now, as if you had a better relationship with Mr Bambo than Mr Olifant at that stage? Would that be the wrong impression that I gained?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You had the same relationship with both of them?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And were they both used for the same types of services?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can I briefly hear from you, this was the taking away and fetching of informers?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What else?

MR COETZEE: The securing of the safe house.

MR HATTINGH: Was that Mr Olifant's task?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what else?

MR COETZEE: And co-handling level, the picking up and dropping of informers at safe points or the picking up at safe points.

MR HATTINGH: Was that all?

MR COETZEE: No, I beg your pardon, I'm still busy with the picking up and dropping off of informers.

MR HATTINGH: Did they only pick up and drop off informers? They did not handle them by receiving information from them and making notes about this information?

MR COETZEE: No Chairperson, not in my capacity.

MR HATTINGH: When you say not in your capacity, what do you mean?

MR COETZEE: What I mean by that, Chairperson, is that we ourselves did the tasking and the gathering of information and the processing of reports. But they may have on occasion or on various occasions when we were not present. When they were present with a person in the office when his or her report was drawn up, but usually the informers would draw up their reports themselves.

MR HATTINGH: What did they have to report about?

MR COETZEE: With regard to their various tasks in terms of their target groups, if I can use the word target groups as such, Chairperson. During that time, Chairperson, the radical groups, whether it be the youth or the women’s' organisations or the trade unions, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Coetzee, I'm still busy dealing with the fetching and dropping off of informers. You say this was just a transport function that they performed?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And we have now heard about the guarding of safe houses. What other tasks did they have?

MR COETZEE: Supportive information roles where it was necessary, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What is a supportive information role?

MR COETZEE: In that regard, if I may explain it as follows, Chairperson, they were not primarily tasked to infiltrate any organisation or to participate on a permanent basis in any organisational activities in order to withdraw information. Supportive could be that agent A visits suspect B, this person by nature of the information which we want to obtain, may accompany him under cover in order to be part of it or whether to strengthen his credibility or he may drive the vehicle along with an agent and then transporting suspects from point A to point B, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what other tasks did they perform?

MR COETZEE: And as we have pointed out in our amnesty application, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Please tell us, we don't have your amnesty application before us.

MR COETZEE: At the instances where we were involved in certain incidents and in this case, such as the Adriano Bambo case, the kidnapping and unlawful detention of Simelane, the securing of Simelane. But physically from a co-handling perspective, what I mean by that is he will cook the food, he will give the food, he is present at the place where we are present and brings water and the like, Chairperson, if it is necessary.

MR HATTINGH: Any other tasks that they had to perform?

MR COETZEE: I know of one arrest and I do speak under correction, this is however not upon my instruction or this did not take place under my instruction but I have knowledge of an arrest of a trained MK member who on occasion was arrested in Soweto by Adriano Bambo in the Mapetle area upon instruction of a fellow officer. He accompanied the informer, he covered the member under cover and he at that stage, that day, arrested the person, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But those were not part of his normal tasks?

MR COETZEE: Not in those years, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: In any years? I'm not limiting you to certain years, I want to know what were their tasks, why they were attached to Soweto Security Branch?

MR COETZEE: Within these guidelines, Chairperson, but because we were a covert unit we did not physically participate in arrest actions, Chairperson. His handling and his usage was on a continual basis and was managed from a covert point of view, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I am afraid I do not understand what you mean by that. Can you tell us in simple Afrikaans what did he have to do?

MR COETZEE: Handling, co-handling, guarding safe houses where we trained agents, cooking food, supplying food and where he had to guard people, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And is that the sum total of his tasks within that framework?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And was that also the sum total of Mr Olifant's tasks?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, I believe so. I broke with them later but I believe it was within those guidelines.

MR HATTINGH: But now I'm referring to time that you worked with them, as long as you were involved with them, were those their tasks?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And somewhere in the evidence, your evidence-in-chief, you said that they were not used operationally or words to that effect? I cannot find the note right now but is that a correct version of your evidence?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What do you mean by used operationally?

MR COETZEE: I mean that they were not placed as agents in a political group or organisation whose activities we were monitoring during those years.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Were they used in any other manner that you described now operationally?

MR COETZEE: I've already said, Chairperson, supportive and I think of visits across the border where they dropped off informers there and went for appointments at rendezvous points like with other black co-handlers and the pointing out of houses across the border or in Soweto, Chairperson, that were identified by informers in terms of whether there were criminal activities or interest of security, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Coetzee, here in your evidence-in-chief you mentioned that during certain years you were guilty of irregular activities for which you have applied for amnesty?

MR HATTINGH: Without going into any detail, what was the nature of these activities that you applied for amnesty? Did it entail the killing of persons across the border?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Not in the country?

MR COETZEE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You never killed a person in the country?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Attacks on targets like buildings or vehicles, attacks which were not directed at people, were you involved in those?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what was the nature of those attacks?

MR COETZEE: It was explosions Chairperson and arson on one occasion, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And was either Mr Olifant or Mr Bambo involved in these internal activities?

MR COETZEE: I have already mentioned Mr Bambo in the '82/'83 activities where I know he was involved and I identified all the other members according to the incidents for which I have applied who were involved in the time thereafter but I would like to say, Chairperson, that many of these acts were acts which had to be committed by agents who at that stage received instructions from ANC/MK structures outside the country and these were all credible activities under my command and control, Chairperson, with the exception of Ipalageng, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The Exhibit A you read that, is that not so?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to Mr Olifant, I only dealt with the incidents where Mr Bambo's name is mentioned but there are a myriad of other events that Mr Olifant mentions in this statement, is that not so?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Whereby he involves you and Mr Pretorius?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And these entail incidents of explosions, arson and so forth here in the Republic of South Africa?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Whereby he says that he himself was involved in the execution of these tasks?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So did he also participate in such criminal activities with regard to Mr Olifant to which he refers to in some of the instances?

MR COETZEE: I can confirm that he was present, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So why did you have him participate in such unlawful activities if this was not incorporated in his tasks that you had just now comprehensively explained to us?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, that is the part that I had said. Supportive to such activities which were executed upon instructions of ANC in the outside where to add to that, it's where an agent had infiltrated, was trained militarily and was put in possession of arms and explosives and these arms and explosives at the end of the day found its way back to the R.S.A. and an agent was tasked with regard to a target in the country and these acts were committed as credibility activities as it is put to us by our management and executed, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What do you mean by an agent? What is an agent as you would describe it?

MR COETZEE: I would put it as follows, Chairperson, it is a person who - the groups who infiltrated the old targets, the groups, in order to gain information and in order to place themselves amongst them more on a permanent basis in order to monitor their daily activities.

MR HATTINGH: So its an informer who operates behind enemy lines?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, an agent already has the status that he is already a deeply penetrated person, there's continuity with regard to his involvement in the group. It is not, if I may state it as such, Chairperson, it's not a come and go person.

ADV SANDI: Yes but just for clarity, would this person hold a rank for example?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, later Soweto became part of the R.S. programme.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever give people like Mr Olifant instructions who would launch attacks on houses with the assistance of handgrenades?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, those incidents to which I refer to, the R.S. members or the agents or the informers were infiltrated in MK structures across the border and these instructions were credibility instructions which were performed and which had been cleared out with the command structure.

MR HATTINGH: But did you give you instruction?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Just hold on a minute. I am still asking my question. Did you instruct him to launch handgrenade attacks within South Africa?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And he did this?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, as part of a group.

MR HATTINGH: Not only he but other persons who were in the same position as Mr Olifant and Bambo found themselves?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So they were operationally used to attack certain targets with the assistance of explosive devices like handgrenades within the Republic?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And if this information came out later this could have led to great embarrassment for the Security Forces, is that not so?

MR COETZEE: I shall concede, yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And was Mr Bambo also not used in the same manner?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, yes. I had already, with the incident where he was involved, in my amnesty application I described his involvement.

MR HATTINGH: There's one incident, I'm trying to find it, where mines had to be placed at certain targets. Is that not so?

MR COETZEE: There is an incidence, Chairperson, but I was not present.

MR HATTINGH: The intention was that those mines, to put it this way, these mines were doctored and that they would explode as soon as the detonator is put into effect?

MR COETZEE: Negative, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Somewhere in his statement he mentions a case where three persons had to be killed in this manner. One land mine exploded and the person was killed and the other two, he says because they were not killed by the land mines they had to be shot?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, that is not me.

MR HATTINGH: You do not know about that incident?

MR COETZEE: No I do not. It has already served before the Committee, Chairperson, with the involved persons who knew about the incident or who were involved in the incident.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr Pretorius involved there?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So it was your branch's operation?

MR COETZEE: I had already left Soweto at that stage, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So after you had left there some of these persons like Mr Bambo and Mr Olifant were used for such types of attacks as I have described just now, is that not so?

MR COETZEE: Not in my instance, he was not involved there.

MR HATTINGH: But you know of this operation?

MR COETZEE: I heard for the first time of this operation with the amnesty applications and this operation for the first time came to my attention despite my relationship with Col Pretorius, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Let me try to shorten this line of examination. Are there any incidents which I explained in Exhibit A whereby Mr Olifant involves you that you dispute?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Would you please indicate those to us?

MR COETZEE: The hostel incident, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is that the attack that was launched on the hostel with a limpet mine?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You say you were not involved there?

MR COETZEE: No, I was not present there, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Never mind your presence, did you know about this?

MR COETZEE: No Chairperson, I would have applied for it.

MR HATTINGH: You also did not give instruction that this be executed? Did anyone attached to your unit give such an instruction?

MR COETZEE: I do not know, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did this take place while you were attached to Soweto?

MR COETZEE: I do not have any knowledge about this incident, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But you know what we are talking about now?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I think Col Pretorius would be able to comment on this specific instance.

MR HATTINGH: Are you trying to tell us that if it did take place it took place after you left Soweto?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, no. What I wanted to say was that they had contact with Col de Jager and Col Pretorius in order to assist them to clear out this incident because they could not find any evidence of such an incident, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know whether later evidence was found with regard to this incident?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So this is the first incident that you are disputing in Exhibit A? Are there any others?

MR COETZEE: And then the incident where he refers to Pantso, he was not present, Bambo was not present, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But with Pantso, I think the Pantso matter they said that they only went in and did reconnaissance and came back and then Mr de Kock and some of your members went in and did the operation?

MR COETZEE: The real operation was only undertaken under the instruction of Col de Kock and we were supportive of his unit under instruction from head office. But these people did not participate in it.

MR HATTINGH: Did they not do a reconnaissance beforehand?

MR COETZEE: I would like to put it as such, Chairperson, all information was followed up, all the houses were on a continual basis pointed out, houses were also pointed out under the supervision of other co-handlers, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Let us try to cut this short. Was Mr Bambo or Mr Olifant sent in for reconnaissance with the intention of killing Mr Pantso?

MR COETZEE: The informer may have pointed out the house to them, I do not deny that, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And if that had happened and there was later an attack on this house whereby people were killed then those facts would have come to the knowledge of Messrs Olifant and Bambo, is that not so?

MR COETZEE: Yes, at the office, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then they would have added two and two together and said right, we know, we know why we had to go and reconnoitre that house. This attack was launched on that house, is that not so?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And this could have caused embarrassment to you if that information came to light?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is there anything else in this statement which you would like to dispute the correctness of?

MR COETZEE: I was not present at Jabulani but I know about this incident.

MR HATTINGH: Which one do you refer to?

MR COETZEE: That is the Jabulani Stadium in Soweto, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: On which page is this?

MR COETZEE: Page 2, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Which paragraph?

MR COETZEE: Paragraph 2.

MR HATTINGH: They are not numbered. Which one?

MR COETZEE: The second paragraph, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was a limpet mine placed at the stadium.

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on what was placed there, I can just confirm that that operation was initiated by Security Branch Soweto with the involvement of the members to which I have referred in my application as well as Col Pretorius and that the incident had taken place. They refer to mines, I cannot comment on what type of mine was exactly used.

MR HATTINGH: Soweto was your area, you were entrusted with whatever happened on security level there?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And specifically if there was an explosion at a stadium like this shortly before Soweto Day then you would have known of it?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So are you saying that it was indeed your branch's operation?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, that I know of the operation but I was not present at the stadium itself.

MR HATTINGH: I accept that but when you say that you know of it, did you participate in the planning thereof?

MR COETZEE: I think so, Chairperson. I state that in my application to a lesser or more or less extent I participated in the planning.

MR HATTINGH: Do I understand you correctly that the names of the persons mentioned here in the second paragraph on page 2, those names are not correct, the names that you want to align with this operation?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on Bambo's participance in this operation.

MR HATTINGH: So you cannot deny whether he was involved there?

MR COETZEE: I would have known if he was involved because Special Forces was involved here who were actually the executioners of this particular operation, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what of Mr Olifant, could he have been involved in there?

MR COETZEE: Yes, yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: If he was involved there why couldn't Mr Bambo not be involved there?

MR COETZEE: Because Mr Olifant worked directly under Col Anton and I would assume that Co. Anton would that evening have taken along with him some of his own people, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Who was Gustav?

MR COETZEE: He was a Col van Greunen.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. But here Mr Olifant says that he and Mr Bambo was there. He incriminates himself with an act that was back then classified as an act of terrorism for which he could be sentenced to life or even be sentenced to death?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you think of a reason why he would say he was involved in there if he was not?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And now he incriminates the person who was closer to his heart than a brother to him? Mr Bambo?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. While we are still on this page what do you say about his allegations with regard to possible involvement in the Ribeiro murders?

MR COETZEE: I deny that in totality Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you deny that a vehicle was standing there and you were very angry with Mr Pretorius because he allowed Norval to leave the vehicle there?

MR COETZEE: Yes I deny that, I was aware of the vehicle but I was unaware, Chairperson, which role Special Forces that vehicle for.

MR WAGENER: Chairperson sorry, if I may come in here but I have to now start objecting to this questioning. I have the subpoena before me. This witness has been subpoenaed to answer questions in relation to his knowledge of the deceased, Adriano Bambo and his knowledge of his death and my submission is that the cross-examination now should not be allowed, it goes far beyond the ambits of what we're here for.

MR HATTINGH: Yes Chairperson, that is correct and I'm aware of the ruling of Judge Pillay but we have now to do with the situation of evidence. This witness says "if I'd been involved in such an incident, I would have..." - we're talking about the killing of Mr Bambo. "Had I been involved in his killing I would have applied for amnesty." Now I would submit, Chairperson, without going into too much detail about the other incidents but I should be entitled to try and demonstrate to the Committee that this witness had been involved in other incidents for which he did not apply for amnesty. That is the one leg of my argument.

The other leg of my argument is, Chairperson, that he says, the reason why he says Mr Bambo was not a danger for them is because he wasn't operationally employed and I'm just trying to demonstrate to you that he was in fact operationally employed and this goes to credibility, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose before you respond, Mr Wagener, that is saying you are somewhat drifting away when you refer to the Ribeiro murder?

MR HATTINGH: Well what I'm trying to demonstrate through the Ribeiro matter, Chairperson, I asked the witness to tell us which incidents described by Mr Olifant in this statement, he disagrees with. Well perhaps I should have given him an opportunity to come to the Ribeiros before I started dealing with it. He was still busy telling me.

CHAIRPERSON: But my recollection doesn't say that you dealt with that, with Mr Olifant as well?

MR HATTINGH: No, I didn't deal with that with Mr Olifant because with Mr Olifant I merely tried to demonstrate that Mr Bambo was involved in certain incidents Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any response Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Chairperson, yes. I heard the question of Mr Hattingh about the statement of Olifant. I assumed, maybe wrongly then, that reference is made to the incidents Mr Hattingh referred to in cross-examining Olifant where Strongman was involved in. I never understood it that Mr Coetzee must now go through this whole 34 typed pages saying what is right, what is wrong. That's not we're here for. If that is in fact the drift of the question then so much the more I say it is totally relevant, it is totally outside the ambit of the subpoena and it should, even more so, not be allowed by you because that was why I raised the issue before the start of this hearing. What are we here for? For what must these people be prepared for, to come and do what? They have to answer the questions that I've read to now in the subpoena and therefore I still object to his line of questioning, that the Ribeiro murder has got absolutely nothing to do with Strongman or Mr Coetzee or what we're here for.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you say before I come back to you, what do you say to his response that Mr Coetzee says Mr Bambo, the late Mr Bambo, was not an operational man and what he wants to find out from Mr Coetzee in respect of incidents like I suppose without him having said so and I'll stand to correction. For instance the amphitheatre in Jabulani, where he is drawn in by Mr Olifant and he says he wasn't there and he says but this Olifant says "I was there and Adriano was there" and he says "yes, Olifant could have been there, I don't know about Adriano."?

MR WAGENER: Chairperson, I did not object to any questioning at that time. I object to questioning that incidents in this statement where no mention is made of Strongman and specifically the last question regarding the Ribeiro issue, that was when I objected.

CHAIRPERSON: I wouldn't allow that one, Mr Hattingh. Of the Ribeiro, I won't allow that one.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Coetzee, may I then put it to you that it would seem from the statement and from the concessions that you have made thus far that persons like Mr Olifant had indeed acted operationally while they were attached to the Soweto Security Branch?

MR COETZEE: Supportive, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Not only supportive but here they say that they threw handgrenades?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, may I just state it clearly, I do not believe they threw the handgrenades, it was supposed to be the covering agent who had to commit the act upon instruction of the ANC MK structures under whose command he had to throw that handgrenade. These persons were sent with him in order to assist to control the situation. These handgrenades were not aimed at persons, these handgrenades were for the purposes of credibility actions.

MR HATTINGH: But you were not there when the handgrenades were used or when the limpet mines were used?

MR COETZEE: On occasion I was involved specifically and that was at Central Western Jababu, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Who handled the explosive devices there?

MR COETZEE: Myself Chairperson, Col Pretorius and Col de Jager. It was tied up, we tied the rope to it and we pulled the rope ourselves. The R.S. member who received the instruction from Botswana was present. There were also other co-handlers who were present, I cannot recall all their names.

MR HATTINGH: Could it have been Mr Bambo?

MR COETZEE: Negative because we were present there ourselves. I recall Selemolela specifically, Chairperson, because he was the co-handler and I recall RS290, that was the man who received instructions from outside and neither Mr Olifant nor Mr Bambo was part of those structures, or members of the force who succeeded in infiltrating an MK structure in Botswana.

MR HATTINGH: But in those instances where they say that they used handgrenades, Mr Olifant in particular, where you were not present, you cannot deny that?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can I just interrupt myself? Vlakfontein, what was that?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, that was just an area in the West Rand side close to mines where a safe house was rented, the place is still standing and it's still known today as Vlakfontein. It's close to the Lerotong Hospital.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the safe house that also came up in the Goldstone Commission when certain revelations were made concerning safe houses used by police and was under the command of Col Potgieter?

MR COETZEE: Negative. I do not know anything about it.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Mr Coetzee, let us deal with your evidence in this regard or with regard to this specific matter. At a certain stage Mr Bambo commits a crime, he is sentenced, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that you did not go and visit him or paid any attention to him while he was in prison?

MR COETZEE: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ask Mr Olifant to go to him and to tell him in jail that if he comes out of jail there will be a job for him?

MR COETZEE: What instance is this?

MR HATTINGH: That is the first sentence that he served.

MR COETZEE: Not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Were you aware of the fact that Mr Olifant visited him in jail?

MR COETZEE: I do confirm it.

MR HATTINGH: And that he could report back to you about these visits?

MR COETZEE: I would not say that he reported back but he did mention now and again that he did go and visit him.

MR HATTINGH: At that stage Mr Bambo had information as you conceded could have led to embarrassment for the Security Branch?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you not worried about this that he could have talked about it?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR COETZEE: Because we applied him on an operational level once again.

MR HATTINGH: But now this is before you applied him on an operational level. He is in prison, how do you know he is not going to talk?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I'm talking about the person which we used in this incident who was referred to us and who was then later applied on an operational level.

MR HATTINGH: But what person, who is this person?

MR COETZEE: Simelane, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I am asking you if you were not worried, that's Mr Bambo, while he was in prison could have disclosed information about for example the Simelane incident?

MR COETZEE: It's possible, yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I'm not asking you if it's possible, I'm asking you if he was worried about such a possibility.

MR COETZEE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, because that was just part of an operation. A person was not killed in this operation.

MR HATTINGH: But if Mr Bambo, while he is in prison, was asked to talk to a reporter or to a person and say look, I was involved in the abduction of a person, I'm working for the Security Police and we detained this person for a while, it would have led to embarrassment?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I would agree with that.

MR HATTINGH: Well why were you not worried that such a thing could happen?

MR COETZEE: Maybe I had a false trust in this person.

MR HATTINGH: You took no steps at all to prevent such an event?

MR COETZEE: No, I didn't.

MR HATTINGH: Well this person now committed robbery with the assistance of a police weapon, that I understood you correctly that he took from the Soweto Police Station or that he stole it from the offices?

MR COETZEE: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So he did not only rob somebody else of a police weapon but he also stole this weapon from the Police station while he was in a position of trust in the Police?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was this weapon found?

MR COETZEE: I think so yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was it found or not?

MR COETZEE: Yes it was found. I'm talking under correction, I did not investigate the case. I was not investigative officer.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now he is serving his sentence and now he is once again approached by Brig van Rensburg?

MR COETZEE: Can I just explain Brig van Rensburg's role? On a continual basis they went to Brig van Rensburg with complaints in Pretoria where we then received instructions to assist them then with the a, b or c of their complaints. Where Roelf van Rensburg, that is the brigadier to which I'm referring to, where he fits in the picture is, I cannot really recall.

MR HATTINGH: But you are now once again approached by him, that is my question?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: With the request that you must once again employ Mr Bambo?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I think it was an instruction at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Was it not very strange that a person who had stolen a Police weapon and then committed a serious crime like a robbery was sent to jail and then once again there's an instruction from Van Rensburg to employ this person once again?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know why he issued such an instruction?

MR COETZEE: No. I would just like to comment here. At that stage I was already aware of the fact that these people were involved in previous incidents under the command of Capt Dirk Coetzee before they were sent to Namibia. I cannot comment on all these incidents in which they were involved in during the command of Dirk Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr Bambo one of these people?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what you are saying now and it sounds as if you believed that Mr Bambo was involved in operations that could have created an embarrassment for the Police?

MR COETZEE: I did not know what these operations were about but this was all hearsay that they were involved and that they worked under the command of Dirk Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: And it was therefore better to get him back into the system so that you can then control them. Was that the impression that you got?

MR COETZEE: I took him back because it was an instruction to the Soweto Branch.

MR HATTINGH: He did not have special capabilities that made him very valuable?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR HATTINGH: If it was your decision would you have taken him in?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Do you mean yes he would not have taken him in?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Well, now you do employ him again and this is now an instruction from a senior officer?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then these irregularities now took place that you mentioned in your evidence?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were these serious irregularities?

MR COETZEE: If I can put it this way, Chairperson, at that stage we were busy to build quite a good team to establish in the East Rand, to work in the Criminal Intelligence infrastructure and to strengthen this infrastructure and I had various people who worked with me and various handlers who were withdrawn from the field and the result was that we had enough manpower and his actions discredited him and I stopped his services and suspended him.

MR HATTINGH: Before you did this, did you contact Brig van Rensburg?

MR COETZEE: I never discussed it with Brig van Rensburg concerning this man's services. The instructions just came from him.

MR HATTINGH: But now after you executed this instruction, now you suspend him without going to Brig van Rensburg and say "look Brigadier, you gave me the instruction to use this person but I cannot do it any more because of this and that reason."?

MR COETZEE: Yes, well I do not know where the Brigadier was at that stage. It was quite a few years later.

MR HATTINGH: But with anybody at head office because the instruction to take him or to employ him came from head office?

MR COETZEE: It was from Van Rensburg from head office, yes.

MR HATTINGH: But now, apart from the fact that it came from head office, you're now suspend him without discussing it with head office?

MR COETZEE: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And these irregularities in which he was involved in, did you give him a chance, did you warn him to stop otherwise he'll be suspended etc, or did you just decide on a certain day, look he is not suitable for application in the field any more?

MR COETZEE: I would also like to say Mr Chairperson that there were various others who were also suspended during that time.

MR HATTINGH: How did he accept this suspension?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that I just dropped him off and told him that he is not allowed in the safe house any more. I dropped him off in Eldorado Park.

MR HATTINGH: Did he live there?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you sent somebody or did you take him yourself?

MR COETZEE: He was dropped off, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You sent somebody to drop him off and tell him you do not come to the safe house any more?

MR COETZEE: At that stage he was aware of the fact and I did tell him at that stage that he was suspended.

MR HATTINGH: And what was his reaction?

MR COETZEE: He did not comment on it.

MR HATTINGH: But could you see if he was happy or unhappy about it?

MR COETZEE: I think he knew or if I can make an inference here, he just kept quiet, he did not make any comments.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, now he is gone and how long afterwards do you know or did you get to know that he was involved in crime?

MR COETZEE: I cannot put a date to it but I heard from co-handlers that they saw him in vehicles with people, every day in a different vehicle. They were luxury vehicles and it was well known that this person was quite good with the repair of vehicles and everything related to this and they also told me that they must go and look and to go and see because this person is involved in the theft of vehicles. This is now against the background of his past and it was very clear that he is somewhere involved or busy getting a different income, that he's busy with crime and this is giving him a different income.

MR HATTINGH: So he did not move in the terrain of your branch, it was more to do with the theft of vehicles and the department that dealt with that?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when you now received this information that this person was allegedly involved in these actions, did you not convey this information to other colleagues in the department that can deal with this?

MR COETZEE: No Chairperson, it was not substantiated, there were co-handlers who were tasked to get more information concerning this.

MR HATTINGH: And did they get more information?

MR COETZEE: Yes, more or less on his movements.

MR HATTINGH: But information that indicated that he was busy with criminal activities?

MR COETZEE: I could not attach certain crime or groups to him at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Why did this concern you, these actions?

MR COETZEE: It concerned me because I knew his background, he was a member of our office and he's an embarrassment. To get substance or to get a statement of these allegations I contacted Olifant and I told him I would like to see this person, I've got a few questions to ask him.

MR HATTINGH: Because he became an embarrassment for the Police or your branch?

MR COETZEE: Embarrassment yes, but it's also about the criminal aspect of allegations of his involvement in criminal activities and at that stage, although there was no substance to this and from the hearing it does seem that he was involved in it but during that time without me knowing it, was involved in murder and robberies.

MR HATTINGH: But units like murder and robbery, were they not better equipped to investigate such actions and to then confirm the fact that he may be guilty of such offences?

MR COETZEE: I would say yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Then why do you not then convey these suspicions to the relevant departments?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, we were a covert branch. I was never in direct contact with Murder and Robbery Units or vehicle theft departments or fraud departments. Commanders who worked on a provincial level managed this and handled this.

MR HATTINGH: Where were the offices of the Soweto Branch?

MR COETZEE: It was in Protea.

MR HATTINGH: Protea is a building where there were various units of the Police?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Amongst others murder and robbery?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Normal crime detection units? There's also an officer's canteen where officers from all the branches of the Police came together?

MR COETZEE: Yes I believe so, I was never in the canteen, not once in my whole life.

MR HATTINGH: But for you to convey this message to Murder and Robbery you could have picked up a phone, made a call or you could have walked to the one side of the building to the other side of the building and inform the people?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, I would just like to rectify this, I was in the East Rand, I was in a safe house in the Mid Rand area. I did not go to any office at that stage, I was part of the Intelligence Service and the command structure came to visit us during the day and after hours they would come to the safe house with our normal operational duties and relevant cases and to address these issues. We were withdrawn from the public eye because of the activities of these units.

MR HATTINGH: So much so, that's why you could have given it to somebody else rather than tasking your own people to observe him to ensure or to find out if he was busy with crime?

MR COETZEE: Yes on a short term basis I did task my own people.

MR HATTINGH: I will put to you that you were worried about the fact that this person could have been arrested and if he was arrested he could have then disclosed his involvement in the Security Branch activities and that is why you wanted to know what he was busy with. Is that not true?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, if I can put it in this way there was no substance that he was busy with these activities, it was only an allegation. But knowing that this person was involved in criminal activities in the past, I requested Mr Olifant to make contact, to arrange for a meeting to then question him and to then warn him that he will get no assistance from us if he was involved in any criminal activities. I think that was the main idea.

MR HATTINGH: What would make you think that he would come to you for assistance when he was arrested?

MR COETZEE: I was thinking about what would happen if something like this happened where they were sent to Pretoria and then came back to our office.

MR HATTINGH: But did Mr Bambo with his first arrest with his hearing, his sentencing and when he served the sentence out in the prison, did he ever come to you for assistance?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Then what made you think that he would come to you at a later stage?

MR COETZEE: If I recall correctly the brigadier was contacted.

MR HATTINGH: But not you?

MR COETZEE: No, I saw it as my duty as a commander under which this person served to arrange for a meeting and to then warn him that he must look out, that if he's involved in any criminal activities he is standing alone and he will get no assistance from the office.

MR HATTINGH: I make an inference, I would like you to tell me if this inference is correct concerning all what you just said. You did think that in the process of his first arrest and sentencing that he was in contact with head office and that he asked for assistance, is this a correct inference that I make?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson, I know that head office knew about his arrest and that he was sentenced and that it reached head office either through Mr Manuel or through one of the other people or persons who worked with them.

MR HATTINGH: Is it just a fact then that after he was released that you got an instruction to again employ him, that now if he was arrested again that he will come for assistance to you?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you wanted to say to him, " look, stop with what you are doing, if you are arrested you will get no assistance" and that is all you wanted to say to him?

MR COETZEE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You then tasked Mr Olifant to go and try and convince him to come and talk to you?

MR COETZEE: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what did Mr Olifant do, what report did he give to you?

MR COETZEE: He did give feedback to me.

MR HATTINGH: What was the feedback?

MR COETZEE: That he did make contact with this person and that the person had my phone numbers. I cannot recall if he told me that this person will contact me or phone me but Mr Olifant was primarily sent this way to attempt to arrange for a meeting.

MR HATTINGH: But why can you not then recall if ...(intervention)

MR COETZEE: I cannot recall a date, I do not know if there was a date that he gave when he said he will phone me. I don't know where he found the person if he conveyed the message, in what way and after all these years I cannot recall exactly what Mr Olifant reported back. All that I know is that Mr Olifant exceeded in finding this person to make contact with him and to tell him that I want to see him. Now he does not pitch up.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do about it?

MR COETZEE: I had no further contact with him.

MR HATTINGH: Why not? You now wanted to liaise with him, to warn him and now it is being said that there was an arrangement or there's a possibility that there could be a tentative arrangement of a phone call and now you do nothing?

MR COETZEE: Yes I did know, I also did not attempt to make any further contact.

MR HATTINGH: And the question is why not?

MR COETZEE: Because I went on with my normal work and I left him and if he was involved he would have had to take responsibility for what he did.

MR HATTINGH: I still do not understand. You instruct a person to go and get him to come and talk to you because you want to talk to him. He does make contact but there's no contact between you and him because of that and now you just leave it hanging in the air?

MR COETZEE: I would just like to add this, from time to time the black co-handlers also had good contacts and they were again in groups that from time to time came together, they met up with each other. News always reached the office, if I can put it that way but I never attempted or made any further attempts to contact this person.

MR HATTINGH: What news arrived?

MR COETZEE: Well, normally the co-handlers who worked in that area would say that they saw Strongman and I met him at that point, either in Soweto or in Eldorado Park and that was more or less on that basis.

MR HATTINGH: And then once again he told you that he was still driving in luxury vehicles and it seems as if he's involved in vehicle theft?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that was the allegations that were made.

MR HATTINGH: And despite that you never arranged for further meetings or contact with them?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: How long after this did you hear that he was arrested or didn't you hear about this?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, at a later stage. I think the first time when I heard about his arrest was via Col Anton Pretorius.

MR HATTINGH: And when was this?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, it was - I'm talking under correction, I think it was late 1990.

MR HATTINGH: What was the information that was conveyed to you?

MR COETZEE: The information that I received was that he was arrested and that he's being detained. I did not have all the details and that he was involved in robberies.

MR HATTINGH: What did you do about it?

MR COETZEE: I think I reported back to my immediate commander.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you do that?

MR COETZEE: In a normal discussion it came up.

MR HATTINGH: Just as part of a discussion?

MR COETZEE: Well, on a regular basis we discussed after hours, in safe houses, we discussed members, incidents, people, operational activities and I heard he was arrested by Murder and Robbery unit and also that we did not have in depth knowledge about what happened.

MR HATTINGH: Now you say this information that you received was in late 1990 ?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I would say it was late 1990, the beginning of 1991. I'm not quite sure of my dates.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, but this was during the time when the Harms Commission was announced, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: I do not carry any knowledge of the Harms Commission, I was not involved in that.

MR HATTINGH: I see Mr Wagener is shaking his head. I cannot recall when the Harms Commission started. He says that the Harms Commission started in February 1990 and if my recollection is correct it was in August when it was concluded, I think. Mr Wagener agreed there.

ADV SANDI: I think that is correct because right now I'm going through the Harms Commission, the report here.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Sandi. I was involved in the Harms Commission, I appeared for the CCB but I have a very bad memory when it comes to dates.

Mr Coetzee, if it was then late 1990, beginning of 1991, then it was just shortly after the revelations that were made public by the Harms Commission?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then Judge Harms issued a report that supported the Police and if a person would then now jump out with similar allegations, that Nofomela and Coetzee made of Police involvement in criminal activities then it would have been a very big embarrassment?

MR COETZEE: I believe so, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And were you not now worried that here is now a person who had such information, he is now arrested, is there not a possibility that he will talk like Nofomela did?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson yes, that possibility did exist.

ADV SANDI: Sorry Mr Hattingh, if I can just ask here? But Mr Coetzee, the existence of these safe houses, was that known to Strongman? Didn't he know about these safe houses?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Yes now logically if knew about such houses and he spoke about them, surely there would have been a document of one kind or the other to the establishment?

MR COETZEE: The possibility did exist, yes.

ADV SANDI: Yes but isn't it also so that even if you spoke about hearsay, let's suppose he had a conversation with Mr Olifant who referred to him as something more than a brother? If he had heard a conversation with Mr Olifant, Mr Olifant tells him that look, I was involved in such and such an operation at such and such a place. Now if Strongman talks about that surely there would be some kind of harm to the Police, surely?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson, that is the reason why we initially suspended him because of these undisciplined operational actions. You will see in various presentations people were always transported on the back seat of a vehicle and sometimes covered with a blanket. Even if they knew about this safe house there was to an extent in which you could save your operational management and the safe house.

MR HATTINGH: The fact that you suspended this person does not solve the problem, it could aggravate it, he now feels possible malice?

MR COETZEE: It's possible.

MR HATTINGH: So did you do anything to try and prevent Mr Bambo from talking about operations of the Security Branch or where he was involved in or about operations that he had knowledge about, about safe houses etc?

MR COETZEE: Not at all.

MR HATTINGH: A while ago I talked about safe houses of Police where you gathered and you will recall that one Sunday paper reported or made revelations about three safe houses in the area of Vanderbijlpark and Soweto and it was to such an extent that the Goldstone Commission launched an independent investigation for the reason behind these safe houses. Can you recall that?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And these were safe houses in which Col Potgieter was involved in?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And it was something that caused an uproar in the media?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And in the same way a revelation made by Mr Bambo about the existence of such safe houses would also have created an uproar if he had disclosed something like this?

MR COETZEE: It could have been, Mr Chairperson, but at that stage the ANC or the party on the other side of the street was aware of the modus operandi of the Intelligence Services in South Africa.

MR HATTINGH: But you still kept the safe houses as secret as possible?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson, but at a later stage we did move away from that safe house.

MR HATTINGH: No, but while they existed. You just said if agents were taken there they were place on the back seat and they were covered so that they cannot see how they get there and then maybe at a later stage identify or make known this place?

MR COETZEE: In the day it was the case but in the evenings I believe a lot of them sat up straight and a lot of them knew where it was.

MR HATTINGH: Let us not split hairs. This was done to prevent people from disclosing where the safe houses were?

MR COETZEE: Yes Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So you did not want to disclose this?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Bambo knew about it?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

ADV SANDI: Can I take it that in that sort of scenario you have given, you didn't want it to be known how you went about contacting your informers, taking them from one point to the other? Did you? You didn't want that to be known?

MR COETZEE: That is so, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: And didn't he know about that? He knew about that from what you said?

MR COETZEE: Yes he knew about that, Chairperson, but what could we do under those circumstances? He as I have said earlier was not the only one whose services was suspended from time to time, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: We have now heard in the Harms Commission when Mr Nofomela was on the point of being executed for a murder he had committed, then he went to speak to the media and revealed the existence of Vlakplaas and everything that went with that, not so?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So now you had an example of a person who when he found himself in trouble tried to get himself out of trouble by disclosing information which he had available to

him?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And would it not have been better for you to when you heard that Mr Bambo was involved in criminal activities which may lead to his arrest in order to get him back so that you could control him?

MR COETZEE: I cannot recall Chairperson, I may be mistaken, but I cannot recall an instance where I tried to bring him back.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that you tried to?

MR COETZEE: I would have remembered and I believed that the appointment of Mr Olifant I would have gone myself because I knew where to find him, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: How did you know where to find him?

MR COETZEE: Because they stayed in a place in Eldorado Park which was known to us where we always picked them up and dropped them off when there was no transport available to them or when Mr Bambo was off duty or when somebody else had to perform services after hours at the safe houses.

MR HATTINGH: But I am now referring to the time when you suspended him, did you know when to find him then?

MR COETZEE: I would not say which specific house but I believed that if I made some enquiries I would have been able to find him by means of the home of his girlfriend, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But you asked Mr Olifant to connect with him?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: To warn him or to arrange with an appointment with you?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And I wish to put it to you when we look at Mr Bambo's statement, I think it was in Volume 2 - not Mr Bambo, Mr Olifant's statement, Volume 2 on page 11 it starts, paragraph 4 thereof he says

"Coetzee informed me about the manner and told me that I had to find Strongman Adriano Bambo and tell him that I know what he is involved in and he should cease all his activities and he should not be concerned and that I had to bring him back to Coetzee so that they could talk."

What do you say about that statement?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I indeed as I had said earlier asked Mr Olifant to establish contact with Bambo and tell him that I wanted to see him. In general I will agree with what he says in paragraph 4 but definitely not at that stage with regard to work, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that you told him that he must tell Mr Bambo that he should not be concerned?

MR COETZEE: No, I would not have said that because why would I have told him not to be concerned, Chairperson?

MR HATTINGH: Do not be concerned, if you are arrested we shall look after you?

MR COETZEE: Negative Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Or if you are on the run from the law, come to me we will take care of you?

MR COETZEE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So that you could control him?

MR COETZEE: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What do you say about the last sentence in paragraph 4?

MR COETZEE: No Chairperson, I deny that, that I was somewhere involved with him in a conversation of which the purpose was that he would have told things which we were involved with if he was caught, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The statement was made in Braamfontein on the 1st July 1996, do you see that?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And a statement to Mr Liesk which is Exhibit A, he says that he was contacted with the objective of applying for amnesty?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: May I just ask you then, with regard to page 6 of Exhibit A, the paragraph which you have already dealt with ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I see you are getting into another matter. Could we take short adjournment here and over and above that I've run out of writing pad, I've nothing. Also to give an opportunity to get some writing pad.

MR HATTINGH: Certainly Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we will take 15 minutes break.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr Coetzee, you also caught your breath? I know two hours is a long time for anybody to testify and all that. You people would from time to time need a break, but you are still under your former oath.

WILLEM HELM JOHANNES COETZEE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hattingh, you may proceed.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairperson, I understood from one of my colleagues, I forget which one, that you considered the possibility of allowing Mr Jonker to cross-examine before I continue with my cross-examination. I doubt whether I'm going to finish in 20 minutes time, Chairperson. I believe Mr Jonker has a problem tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: He indicated a problem tomorrow, that he was going to send somebody for the others. Would I be correct Mr Jonker?

MR JONKER: Chairperson, I'll actually try to make arrangements to be here myself tomorrow. I just have a problem early in the morning. I'm quite sure I'll be here round about 10 o'clock. I don't want to delay the Commission for half an hour. There's a possibility that I can cross-examine or finish cross-examination of this witness. I'm quite sure Mr Hattingh will also cross-examine the next witness also for two hours so by the time I'm here ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, he hasn't made that indication.

MR JONKER: But I'm quite sure that Mr Hattingh will be quite lengthy with Mr Pretorius. By the time I'm here tomorrow I'm quite sure that Mr Pretorius wouldn't even have started to testify.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want us to intimidate our witnesses. Let's see, take it up from there tomorrow but I would indulge you and ask Mr Hattingh that please can we interrupt your cross-examination now and give Mr Jonker an opportunity?

MR HATTINGH: I have no objection to that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee, I apologise to you that we are running into problems that Mr Jonker won't be here timeously tomorrow, that I would give him an opportunity to cross-examine you. Do you follow that?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any objection Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: No, not at all Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR WAGENER: Except either alternative I can always make sure that Mr Coetzee will stay in attendance even after his cross-examination is finished, if that would suit Mr Jonker better but now is no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll rather take it this way.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH STANDS OVER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONKER: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

Mr Coetzee, for completeness would you please study your statement, page 7? The period 1987 until 1st October 1990, where were you stationed at that stage?

MR COETZEE: Will you repeat the question please?

MR JONKER: If you have a look at the time period in between (b) and (c) there is a time period of three years. Where were you stationed then?

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you? I'm lost as well.

MR JONKER: Chairperson, page 7, bundle 3. There's a period of three years difference between (b) and (c) paragraph 1.2.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I see.

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I do not feel it's relevant at this stage. Where I was stationed, this was an arrangement from January 1988 up to June or July 1990, I was at Security Head Office and thereafter, Chairperson, I was placed back on the East Rand which was within the two months, the Intelligence Unit, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: As I understand your evidence correctly, from 1988 to 1989 at that stage Mr Bambo was with you at head office, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, one of the few members.

MR JONKER: Let us just concentrate on Mr Bambo. And then you went to the East Rand. Did Mr Bambo accompany you there?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And at which stage was he suspended?

MR COETZEE: Late in 1989 or in the beginning of 1990, I cannot recall the date, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If we have regard to page 36 of bundle 2, I think this would be of assistance, the SAP69. It appears to me he was arrested sometime in October if my reading is correct of the MR number, 51610/90?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, then it would have been, I stand by my point, it would have been towards the end of 1989 beginning of 1990. I cannot recall the exact date or the month.

MR JONKER: Sir, for that time period after he was suspended up till the time that he was arrested in October did you have any contact with him?

MR COETZEE: No contact, Chairperson. No personal contact, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And Sir, if I understood Mr Olifant's evidence correctly, during this time he was attached to Mr Pretorius' unit, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: How did it come about that you tasked Mr Olifant who was in another unit, then yours, to find Mr Bambo?

MR COETZEE: I knew Mr Pretorius and secondly I knew where Mr Olifant lived relative to where Mr Bambo would find him.

MR JONKER: Sir, you testified - I will jump around a little bit but I will get myself in order soon, you read in a newspaper or you heard when you quoted - I want to quote your words specifically here. After Strongman's death I was informed that he had died and I heard that there had been an action in which he was killed. Those were your specific words, action, can you recall that?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Can you please tell this Committee what you see as an action?

MR COETZEE: An action, it could be in a criminal case where he was arrested where he may have been shot and I could use the same word for an arrest, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, would you agree with me and action does not fall out of the sky, it is planned, that is why I used the word?

MR COETZEE: That is how you interpret it but as used the word action I would associate it with an arrest. To me that is also an action, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, you were attached to security for a long time?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And there was no spontaneous arrests, would you agree with me, these were planned?

MR COETZEE: I differ from you, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And each arrest was an action?

MR COETZEE: I beg to differ, there were spontaneous arrests, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: But the previous question that I asked you, was each arrest an action?

MR COETZEE: Yes I would say so.

MR JONKER: So Sir, if you drive with your police car down the road and you were still in the Police Force and there's a man walking down the road with an AK47 and you arrest him, would that be an action?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I would put it as such, Chairperson, other persons might not agree with me, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's a question of semantics?

MR JONKER: I'll leave it at that, Chairperson.

Sir, you testified that Mr Strongman, if I can use the word, he disappointed you after you had taken him into service again?

MR COETZEE: I would say all persons who fail at some or other stage are to an extent a disappointment for the commander.

MR JONKER: And you had built up trust in him again and you tried to lead him on the right path after he was apprehended the first time?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, as I have already said that took some time.

MR JONKER: And then he disappointed you again by going on his own again?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You decided to get rid of him or fire him as you mentioned it?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, suspending his services.

MR JONKER: And you say he just kept quiet about it?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, if you were in the Police and the morning when you come to the office and you're told, Mr Coetzee, your services have been suspended you no longer work here, you are fired?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, this guy was not a member of the force, there was no contractual agreement with him.

MR JONKER: Please Sir, let me finish my question. Forget about the contractual accountability at this stage. What would you as a person have felt, there where you were working there. How would you feel if you came to work tomorrow morning and you were told that you no longer work there, would you keep quiet, would you be angry? What would you do?

MR COETZEE: Depending sometimes on the unit, I would be glad sometimes.

MR JONKER: That may be so but any person who is fired is not happy. People are not fired and then they are happy about it, would you agree with me?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And the fact that Mr Bambo kept quiet? It depends from person to person, some persons would say something about it, other persons would keep quiet, would you agree with me?

MR COETZEE: I interpret his silence as an admittance to some of the accusations against him.

MR JONKER: So you're telling me he was just happy and he decided he would not discuss it with you?

MR COETZEE: But other members would have discussed it with me, Chairperson, that was the practice.

MR JONKER: Sir, in the late '80s, early '90s, before the ANC was unbanned, persons who supplied information to the Police were agents. Can you please tell the Committee what happened to those persons if they were revealed?

MR COETZEE: They were taken up in the covert structures of the force, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, may I restructure my question? There is an agent, let's call him an impimpi. People hear that he is an impimpi. What happened to that person, what did the people there do with that person?

MR COETZEE: He could have been killed, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Yes, there was a big chance that he could be killed?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Yes Sir, you gave evidence that Mr Bambo worked with many agents, he knew them?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, yes.

MR JONKER: So despite the fact that you have now said that these agents, a time when Mr Bambo's services were suspended, these agents had already been withdrawn from the field. Was that your evidence?

MR COETZEE: Yes, some of those agents.

MR JONKER: Oh, some of those agents. So Sir, the other agents, their identities was still the same, it was still Lucas Radebe who supplied information there around the corner?

CHAIRPERSON: He is captain of Bafana Bafana.

MR JONKER: Maybe his younger brother, Mr Chairperson.

If some of the information leaked out there was the chance that he could be killed despite the fact that his services were used, would you agree with me?

MR COETZEE: Yes there is that possibility, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: So despite the fact that it was now safe to suspend Mr Bambo's services, he was still a risk for other person's lives, would you agree with me?

MR COETZEE: I beg to differ because despite his criminality he also had the characteristics of not revealing people. I can give him credit for that.

MR JONKER: This does not concur with a person who would not reveal persons who wants to go and point out a weapons cache point, the two do not concur. Would you agree with me?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that because I was not involved.

MR JONKER: But Sir, you have just testified now that if we look at him as a person, he was not such a person who would talk out, he was a confidante, you could trust him but still he goes and points out weapons and ammunition?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I cannot comment on that part of him, I refer to agents of whom I know but he had those qualities and I believe that he would not have unnecessarily exposed agents because that would lead the trail directly to him, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Would you agree with me Sir that there was nothing preventing him from exposing people?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Another interesting issue is that you testified earlier that you never knew Gen. Engelbrecht before his appointment at head office, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes, that's the truth, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Security and Murder and Robbery, sometimes they pursued the same suspects?

MR COETZEE: Not in my instance, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: So for the four years that you and Gen. Engelbrecht worked at Soweto you never saw him?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, we were not at Soweto physically, we were outside at safe houses.

MR JONKER: So from 1991 to 1994 you were in a safe house?

MR COETZEE: All the time from safe houses and from Police flats. My one amnesty application indicates that.

MR JONKER: So would you agree with me that the only manner in which to ensure that a person would keep quiet was to kill him?

MR COETZEE: I beg to differ because there are many handlers and occasional agents and R.S. agents whose services were suspended, they are still alive, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: I hear what you're saying but now we're here at 1990. In 1990 the circumstances were quite different from today. After 1990 half of the Police Force applied for amnesty or I don't know what the percentage is, but here in 1990 this person was a danger, there was no such thing like amnesty and if we have a look at the Police at that stage it appeared that each and every person could take care of himself with regard to this amnesty application but there must have been fears with persons, that they would be incriminated with things for which they did not apply for amnesty, would you agree?

MR COETZEE: Yes Sir.

MR JONKER: So therefore the best way to get rid of people or to get them to keep quiet was to simply kill them?

MR COETZEE: I do not agree because if we have a look at how many members from the Intelligence Services were transferred and who were exposed overtly then all these people had to be killed.

MR JONKER: Sir, how many persons to whom you refer to now sat in jail on counts of escape and then there were further matters outstanding against him of amongst others armed robbery, attempted escape, murder and armed robber and if I look at these cases I would venture to say that he would be sentenced to approximately 30 years. I do not refer to the minimum sentences that we have today. This man would have been looking at 30 years of incarceration and in 30 years you can think of many things while you were incarcerated, would you agree with me?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And as Mr Hattingh indicated correctly that Mr Nofomela who turned at the front door of the gallows came to other insights but here a person had - there was no reason why would a person, facing 30 years sentence, turn around and say this is what I did and this is who I am. He could have done so, so nothing could prevent him from doing this?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR JONKER: Did it not go through your mind that he could do this at any stage?

MR COETZEE: I believe it must have bothered me as a person from time to time, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, Mr Jonker, I don't know. Through you, of course, Chairperson. I may have misunderstood the witness but it would seem to me that he makes it very clear that there was this possibility that he could start talking and he had not taken any steps to prevent such an eventuality?

MR JONKER: That is indeed so, Advocate Sandi, but the witness also just answered the last question I asked him, is that he indeed he was worried about that, it went through his mind? But here is a man facing long term imprisonment ...(intervention)

ADV SANDI: I don't know, just on the last part of his evidence. I thought he said there it may have occurred to him that he would talk. He says he may have thought about it at that stage, the possibility of him talking. I didn't understand him to say he explicitly felt that he was going to talk. He may have thought about it. Isn't that what you said, Mr Coetzee?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Mr Coetzee, would you agree with me that when a person thinks about the incident where someone could talk it's already a train of thought that is placed with you?

MR COETZEE: That those are the responsibilities that I would have to take thereafter, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: So there were certain responsibilities that did come up? If you could make it clear what responsibilities?

MR COETZEE: Sir, you said that if this person talked, what I mean by that, Chairperson, if I may answer, I would have had to - how can I put it, I would have been responsible for those acts or criminal offences and then the legal process would have run its course against me as well.

MR JONKER: Sir, during this incident in 1990 what was your rank?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I think I was a lieutenant colonel. A lieutenant colonel, yes.

MR JONKER: Would you agree with me at that stage you were quite young and you had a great career before you in the Police Service, you could have been a director or a general?

MR COETZEE: Possibly Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And if an opportunity arose it would have lessened your chances of progress in the service.

MR COETZEE: I think so, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Is that you were thinking?

MR COETZEE: No Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, you testified that Mr Bambo was seen regularly, this was after he left you, that he was seen regularly in luxury vehicles, driving around in luxury vehicles?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, amongst others what the co-handlers told me was in the Johannesburg area and in the Eldorado Park vicinity.

MR JONKER: And were your handlers in the Vaal Triangle most of the time?

MR COETZEE: Over the whole area but most of them lived on the Vaal Rand and they worked on the East Rand, Johannesburg, Soweto area, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Mr Coetzee, did you know Capt Koekemoer there on the East Rand?

MR COETZEE: Can I just put it clearly now, not at all. I only met Capt Koekemoer in 1993 for the first time in my life and I also want to correct it. He was not a member of the Security Branch at that stage. It was a special unit that was put together by head office, that was at Vlakplaas. Not Vlakplaas here, Vlakplaas in the Thokoza area. All these people came from around the country and that was the time in which division BBR decided to remove me from the covert unit and to participate there. It was about investigations with regard to the smuggling with arms to South Africa and the arming of Self-Defence Units in which a myriad of people on a daily basis were murdered and this was about the conflict. I would say to stem the conflict between two warring parties, Chairperson. There for the first time I met this Capt Koekemoer who testified here, for the first time, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Captain, did you at any stage attempt or may I restructure the question, did you at any stage contact Mr Bambo's brother?

MR COETZEE: I would only have worked through Mr Olifant, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Are you certain of this?

MR COETZEE: Yes I'm positive.

MR JONKER: Sir, here you had a person whom you had suspended, you were very disappointed in him. Did you display any further interest in him?

MR COETZEE: Not at that stage, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: What was your fatherly attitude to warn him against criminal activities?

MR COETZEE: One cannot always warn a person.

MR JONKER: Mr Bambo had already at that stage, he knew he would be sent to jail, why would you warn him again and send someone to warn him again?

MR COETZEE: I think it was a time when the Security Branch started looking at the political arena and where he was involved in Criminal Intelligence, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, what did you do with the criminal intelligence that you withdrew?

MR COETZEE: It was processed on a continual basis and taken up further with the Provincial Head Office. There was an Intelligence manager who gave tasks to persons and accordingly managed it with the different units.

May I just add to that, I beg your pardon for interrupting, Chairperson, but for that person, in 1993 I was taken from the covert units to perform that task and function at Vlakplaas in Thokoza, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Sir, while you were there on a crime level, did the people of Murder and Robbery supply the information? I think it was the old Crime an Intelligence Service. Did they not receive information from Murder and Robbery and certain specialised units which were supplied to this Intelligence Service. Did you not receive information from units which was followed up?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I would just like to state it clearly here, Intelligence Services, if we refer to Intelligence Services, Crime and Intelligence Services, we were the Intelligence Services within Crime and Intelligence Services. We were the covert unit within Crime and Intelligence Services. There were other units, they had various tasks.

MR JONKER: But what my question is, you received information, maybe not you specifically, but there was information from Murder and Robbery where it was said that there's dangerous robber on the loose. Mr Bambo tried to find out something about this man. There is intelligence gathered and at a stage action was taken against this robber. Did this happen?

MR COETZEE: I did not task any other unit in the force outside intelligence service up until 1993, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JONKER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jonker. Mr Hattingh, unfortunately we will start with again tomorrow morning. I think it would be an opportune moment for adjournment.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We adjourn until tomorrow at 9 a.m.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS