Amnesty Hearings

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Honorary chairperson, the application of Mr Zeelie you can find in volume 2, pages 67 up to page 111. Mr Zeelie, you are an applicant in this case with regards to the death of Stanza Bopape, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

MR PRINSLOO: You also completed an application form which appears on page 67 to 69, volume 1?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And with that there's an annexure, and specifically Annexure B, which answers questions 10A and 10B, do you confirm that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it also correct that you also made a statement with regards to these events to the district attorney, attorney-general, sorry, up to page 109?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And there's another statement which you gave to the attorney-general on page 111, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, would you please tell the honorary committee, can you just, on page one of publication page, on page 67 at the bottom, it says

"This publication must be read with me..."

and then it's cut off on the photocopy. That was handed in to the attorney-general and should appear on page 104 up to page 107, sorry 109. Your honorary chairperson, you'd see that the statement on page 110 and 111 was taken only afterwards, and that statement was not part of the applicant's application and our submittance. It's a statement which was placed there by Mr Steenkamp, and it comes from the attorney-general's office, but the statements, as you'd see, was taken in March 1997.

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Zeelie, you also applied in other cases which is not here?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

JUDGE MILLER: Just to interrupt my learned friend, I notice that he hasn't referred us to page 87, I'm sorry, no, he has, I'm sorry, I do apologise, Mr Chairman, I just didn't know where this document fits in, but I see it's part of the application.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it's...

JUDGE MILLER: I'm terribly sorry.

MR PRINSLOO: ...from 67 to 111.

JUDGE MILLER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you. Mr Zeelie, when did you join the South African Police?

MR ZEELIE: 1969, in December, I joined the South African Police.

MR PRINSLOO: And when you left the force, which rank did you have?

MR ZEELIE: That of major.

MR PRINSLOO: And when did you retire from the police?

MR ZEELIE: The 31st of September 1993.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure 30 September, because there's not 31 days in September?

MR ZEELIE: That's possible. Maybe the head office made a mistake in the documents.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, chairman. Mr Zeelie, after you joined the South African Police Force, you worked in the uniform branch initially?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct. Your Honour, since 1972 until 1976 in July, sorry 1975, I was at the ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: At that time you served in Rhodesia, which is now known as Zimbabwe?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the nature of your service there?

MR ZEELIE: I served both in South West Africa as well as the then Rhodesia.

MR PRINSLOO: First you worked in Rhodesia and then in South West Africa?

MR ZEELIE: No, it's the other way round, first I served in South West Africa.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you do in South West Africa, on behalf of who or what?

MR ZEELIE: I served on the borders to serve as a buffer to make sure those governments do not fall, and in order to protect the South African government, so that those countries do not fall under communist movements.

MR PRINSLOO: And the nature of the service you did there, was it police work in terms of war, or inquiries?

MR ZEELIE: It concerned guerilla warfare.

MR PRINSLOO: And the service you did in Zimbabwe, what kind of service was that?

MR ZEELIE: It was also border, border service and specifically guerilla warfare.

MR PRINSLOO: Against who was this war?

MR ZEELIE: It was raised against terrorism, who was then under the leadership of Ngoma Mugabe.

MR PRINSLOO: And when that war was raged, the guerilla warfare, under who instruction did you do that service?

MR ZEELIE: It was under instruction of the commissioner of the South African Police.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it voluntary?

MR ZEELIE: It was under instruction, it was compulsory service.

MR PRINSLOO: And in those cases, were people shot, people killed?

MR ZEELIE: Several of my colleagues died in shooting accidents of terrorists, as well as landmine explosions.

MR PRINSLOO: And the people that were represented by you, did they also kill people?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, we were involved in several actions on the border.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, when did you join the Security Branch?

MR ZEELIE: Before I joined the Security Branch, I was involved with the foundation of the Unrest Units in Diepkloof, Soweto, and it was the beginning of 1970 until July 1976, and July 1976 I joined the Security Branch.

MR PRINSLOO: And in the Unrest Units at that stage, was there an onslaught from the ANC's side?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour, I experienced the beginning of the unrest from the very first day I was involved in Soweto, where the first white doctor was killed by black school pupils.

MR PRINSLOO: And those unrests, who started them?

MR ZEELIE: The initial unrest, well the initial reasons was because of the fact that Afrikaans was used as a medium in schools, and later it expired that the ANC, by means of mobilisation, actually sat behind the children and motivated them to take these actions.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Zeelie, concerning these unrests, was it very violent in nature, what was the situation?

MR ZEELIE: I already mentioned, from the beginning it was very violent, the first person that died was a white doctor, who was actually there to treat the people in Soweto, he had nothing against them, he was the first person to be killed in those unrests.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Zeelie, in numbers were you quite strong, or did you not have enough members, did you have enough people to fight this onslaught?

MR ZEELIE: We worked night and day, it was the beginning phase of the Unrest Units, and consequently we also made use of the force in Pretoria to help us to keep the crowds under control. Also normal uniform members also helped us as well as police members from other areas or regions.

MR PRINSLOO: The 1976 unrests, did you see that, did you experience it?

MR ZEELIE: I experienced it completely.

MR PRINSLOO: In those unrests at that stage, was the ANC well organised?

MR ZEELIE: I'd say yes, the ANC was well organised. I think since the 1960's the ANC was well organised.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, you also did service in ...(indistinct)?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, Your Honour, for a short time I did service in ...(indistinct).

MR PRINSLOO: And the nature of your service?

MR ZEELIE: I was transferred from the Security Branch to the Detective Branch, second in command.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, when you joined the Security Branch ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: The reason why I was transferred was because of the great amount of murders that took place in that specific area by means of violence committed by the ANC there.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, who do you believe committed those murders?

MR ZEELIE: It was a known fact it was committed by ANC members.

MR PRINSLOO: And it was to a great extent, these murders?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, it was to a great extent. Some of the members sat with more than 200 murder dockets, and these members just couldn't deal with it, there were not enough members to investigate all these murders.

MR PRINSLOO: Why do you think these people were killed?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, it was mainly political arguments that led to these killings.

MR PRINSLOO: I interrupted you, Mr Zeelie, before you want to add to your service in the Security Branch, is there anything else you'd like to say, there's nothing you'd like to add to what you did before you joined the Security Branch? So when did you join the Security Branch?

MR ZEELIE: In July 1976 I joined the Security Branch.

MR PRINSLOO: And which rank did you have then?

MR ZEELIE: At that stage I was sergeant.

MR PRINSLOO: And where were you stationed?

MR ZEELIE: I was stationed at John Vorster Square.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you also tell the honorary committee in which division you started at Security Branch?

MR ZEELIE: I was stationed at the Black Force(?) Organisations, which included the ANC and the PAC.

MR PRINSLOO: When you're talking about Black Force Organisation, what did that entail?

MR ZEELIE: They were organisations which was black conscious developing organisations.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you have to do?

MR ZEELIE: We looked at infiltrations, also information and we monitored the organisations.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you want with this organisation, why was it necessary to have it?

MR ZEELIE: It was necessary to have this information, to gain it, in order to protect the government of that day and to keep them in power, so that a takeover could not take place without the government offering resistance.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you understand, what did you believe, what was the goal of the government of that day?

MR ZEELIE: The intentions of the government were to keep the government in power and not to hand it over to a black force.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the ANC's goal?

MR ZEELIE: It was to undermine the government by using violence. At that stage they were busy doing this thing.

MR PRINSLOO: Then you went over to the Investigation Unit?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did that entail?

MR ZEELIE: It was investigation cases, looking into acts of terror as well as banned organisations, which included the PAC and the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you talk a little bit fast, the interpreter seems to have a small problem following you, would you mind talking a little bit slower?

MR PRINSLOO: Sorry, Your Honour, I'll try and control that. Mr Zeelie, when investigating these cases, what kind of cases did you investigate?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, I investigated several acts of terror where bombs exploded, people got injured, buildings were damaged, where people were killed.

MR PRINSLOO: And in these cases you investigated who were primarily the suspects in these cases?

MR ZEELIE: The suspects were primarily members of the Umkhonto we Sizwe of the ANC, and to a lesser extent members of the PAC.

MR PRINSLOO: And during the investigations of these cases, Mr Zeelie, could you determine what the ANC's methology(sic) was at that stage?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I could determine that. As I've said, they planted bombs, limpet mines, not only against State organisations, but also at innocent targets, Wimpy Bars and places where people went to eat.

MR PRINSLOO: So, as you believed, the onslaught at that stage was widely spread and could have happened anywhere?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour. I can just mention that even in black townships, people who might have been supporters of the ANC was also killed in bomb explosions and bombs planted by ANC members, trains running from Soweto, railway trucks, innocent black people who came from the black townships to the white suburbs was killed by the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: As far as arrestations and finding these suspects, did it help to keep the government in control?

MR ZEELIE: Absolutely, it's true that a lot of information obtained from people arrested, specifically members of the ANC, information gathered from these people was given to the government and it helped them to stay in power.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, did you do any courses?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I did several courses at the Security Branch.

MR PRINSLOO: What were the natures of those courses?

MR ZEELIE: I could just shortly mention several courses: security, as well as advance security, BBP, as well as advanced BBP courses ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: When you say BBP, what are you referring to?

MR ZEELIE: That's B B P, those are very important people, it's VIP, it's very important people, so referring to ministers of other countries, when they came to visit the country, we had to make sure they're secure. Also deactivation of bombs, defusing of bombs, weaponry used by terrorists, agent handling courses.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, this bomb defusing course that you did ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was this relevant to the Bopape killing, what does it have to do ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, it's relevant in the sense ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...do we need to know what ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: ...it gives rise to the Bopape incident as well...

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but the ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: ...as far as his experience, and what he believed at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it necessary to know what he did in a bomb disposal course? I mean we can accept he had a course, but we know that when bombs go off, people die and get mutilated ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the relevance is, with regard to his experience where he attended the scenes where the ANC was involved with bomb explosions.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we've got a fair picture, but I just ask you please, I won't interrupt, but if you can get to the ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: I'll live with that, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...incident as soon as possible please.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, in short, the bomb defusing operations you did, or the bomb disposal operations ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: At one stage, I was in command at the Witwatersrand, which stretched from Krugersdorp up to Vereeniging and Springs ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, if you can mention the amount of cases you attended, or where bombs were planted by the ANC?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, I investigated 160 bomb explosion scenes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the devices used there, Mr Zeelie, did it differ from limpet mines to bombs?

MR ZEELIE: It differed or it ranged from limpet mines to very difficult devices, up to car bombs.

MR PRINSLOO: And considering the amount of scenes you visited, what was the intensity of this onslaught by the ANC?

MR ZEELIE: The onslaught was very, very harsh, as I said, 160 bomb incidents which I investigated myself in the Johannesburg area.

MR PRINSLOO: And, Mr Zeelie, as far as this onslaught is concerned, and these different devices used and the consequences that flowed from this, the fact that people got mutilated, did this influence you as a person?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I can only mention, and I believe it's important, that in my time I lifted 55 cache? depots, and I'd like to mention that at that stage what I found there, just to create a picture for you, what I gained out of the information obtained when interrogating ANC members, out of those 55 cachets, I retrieved 10 AK47 rifles and 2 500 bullets, two AND assault weapons, one VZZ sub-machine gun, 10 Scorpio machine pistols and 450 rounds of ammunition, five (Indistinct) machine pistols and 1 150 bullets, eight Tokarov pistols ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do we need the whole list of weapons? I don't know how long it is, it might take half an hour to read it, if it's 55 ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, you can give a list to the committee with regards to the successes you had by means of interrogating people, and cache depots pointed out by ANC members. Mr Zeelie, if you were not successful when interrogating these people, what would have happened if all these weaponries stayed in the possession of the ANC?

MR ZEELIE: It would have led to great loss of human life, as well as serious injuries as well as, I can almost say "miljaard" rands worth of damage, billions.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you believe or not what you did at that stage, did you contribute in keeping the government in power?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, we'll carry on then with the case of Mr Bopape. At that stage, where were you stationed, this is now during 1988?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, I was stationed at the Investigation Unit, John Vorster Square.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the rank you held at that stage?

MR ZEELIE: I was lieutenant.

MR PRINSLOO: You also made statements and specifically we can see that's Annexure A in your application, that's page 70, Mr Zeelie.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, were you involved with the arrest of Stanza Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: How did you get involved in that?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, firstly at that stage I was a service officer of the Security Force, and I had to assist after hours. Major Victor was my senior office and he told me, gave me instruction, that Krugersdorp's Security Branch had information according to which a flat in Hillbrow had to be searched for possible ANC terrorists.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, in co-operation with whom did you go and search this flat?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, as I already said, I was in a service group or duty group. With me was Constable Engelbrecht and also Mostert was part of my group and they accompanied me.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage you already had certain information?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, not so much complete information, Major Victor only informed me that we have to help Krugersdorp. Krugersdorp, that's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Why were you approached and not the Commander Van Niekerk?

MR ZEELIE: As I already said, I was a duty officer there to assist, and I'd also like to put you more in the picture with regards to the two Investigation Units that did exist.

CHAIRPERSON: You can answer the questions of the advocate, but on page 70 you say that Colonel Van Niekerk accompanied you when arresting Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: Sir, that's a mistake in the statement, he was not present, that's a printing error.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, you went to a specific flat?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, in Hillbrow.

MR PRINSLOO: Who did you find there?

MR ZEELIE: In the flat were two black men, were found.

MR PRINSLOO: Who were these two black men?

MR ZEELIE: They were Mr Bopape and Mr Nkosi.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the flat searched?

MR ZEELIE: Yes it was.

MR PRINSLOO: Was illegal literature confiscated?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the banned literature that was found there in the flat, was that confiscated?

MR ZEELIE: Yes it was.

MR PRINSLOO: And the literature, did that have anything to do with the ANC, did it concern the ANC?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Stanza Bopape and his friend, Nkosi, were they arrested?

MR ZEELIE: Both of them were arrested.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you assault Bopape during the arrest?

MR ZEELIE: I didn't assault him. It is possible that at that stage he could have resisted himself against the arrest and that I had used the necessary violence to arrest him.

MR PRINSLOO: Did anyone else in your presence that you saw assault him?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Was Nkosi assaulted in your presence?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Were there some of the members who accompanied you, did they have pangas?

MR ZEELIE: No. Members of the Unrest Unit accompanied us and they had the usual protective uniforms, with their weapons.

MR PRINSLOO: And after the two people, that's Bopape, the deceased, and Nkosi, had been arrested, what happened to them?

MR ZEELIE: After the arrest, they were taken downstairs, where they were placed into a vehicle from Krugersdorp. My members and myself went back to John Vorster and the members from Krugersdorp departed to the West Rand.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have anything to do on that particular day with those two people?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR PRINSLOO: And were you at some point with Mr Van Niekerk, did you go to West Rand?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, on the 10th, that was the Friday, I went with Colonel Van Niekerk to Roodepoort.

MR PRINSLOO: Who accompanied you?

MR ZEELIE: If I can recall correctly, it was only myself and Van Niekerk.

MR PRINSLOO: On page 71, paragraph 5, on the application, if you can just look at that

"During the deliberations with Captain Jan Kleynhans, myself, Mostert and Engelbrecht were there."

Is that an error?

MR ZEELIE: That is an error, not Mostert or Engelbrecht were present.

MR PRINSLOO: During these deliberations, was the infor-mation gathered?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And after this information was obtained, did you return to John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct. I just want to mention that the main reason why I accompanied Colonel Van Niekerk to Roodepoort was because I had, or there was, I had to get bomb disposal equipment that came from head office, but I was present.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you have any personal knowledge or were you informed that the deceased, Bopape, was transferred to John Vorster Square and Nkosi to Sandton?

MR ZEELIE: When we returned to John Vorster Square, Colonel Van Niekerk and myself took Bopape to John Vorster Square.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he then detained at John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: I assume that to be the case.

MR PRINSLOO: As you saw him at that stage, did he have any injuries, did he complain about any injuries?

MR ZEELIE: No, he did not complain about any assaults, and I could also not see any injuries.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct on the 10th of June, according to your information that you had, that Bopape was detained under section 29 on the grounds of a warrant that was issued at that stage by Colonel Du Toit, General Du Toit?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I learnt that.

MR PRINSLOO: And Bopape was detained in terms of that warrant at John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: I assume that to be the case.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, when did you have anything to do with Bopape after that?

MR ZEELIE: On Sunday, the 12th of June, I saw Bopape again. I was busy with some other work in my office, when Constable Engelbrecht and Warrant Officer Mostert were interrogating Bopape in Engelbrecht's office.

MR PRINSLOO: Now the place where the interrogation was taking place, was that passage accessible to any other person on a Sunday?

MR ZEELIE: No, it was not accessible for any other person, there was control of the entry and where the cars were parked in the basement, there is a rolling door and you had to turn it up and down from the inside, and also at the entry of the offices on the ground floor, there's also an entry door that is controlled from the 9th Floor.

MR PRINSLOO: Is it correct, Mr Zeelie, as according to the testimony in front of the committee, there was information that Bopape was involved with the so-called Maponya group?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: This Maponya group, where did they operate?

MR ZEELIE: The Maponya group operated in the Pretoria and even Krugersdorp area.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, with regard to the interrogation, who did the interrogation of Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: Constable Engelbrecht and Warrant Officer Mostert handled the interrogation.

MR PRINSLOO: Was that in a separate office, where was it?

MR ZEELIE: It was in a separate office, in Engelbrecht's office.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were aware of the interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: I was aware of the interrogation, because I was in an office two offices from that one.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you hear during the interrogation whether there was any assault?

MR ZEELIE: If there had been any assaults, I would definitely have been able to hear it.

MR PRINSLOO: Could you tell the committee what then happened during the interrogation, where you were involved?

MR ZEELIE: At two occasions, I went into the office where the interrogation was taking place. At some stage Colonel Van Niekerk and myself were informed that Mr Bopape was not giving his co-operation, and it was decided by myself, Van Niekerk, Engelbrecht and Mostert to frighten Bopape by using a shock method to let him talk. We agreed that it should be done. At a later stage, Sergeant Du Preez arrived with a shock device at the office.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know who made the request that, who contacted Du Preez?

MR ZEELIE: I can't say at this point precisely who contacted Du Preez.

MR PRINSLOO: Was the shock device brought there?

MR ZEELIE: As I've said, a shock device was brought by Du Preez to John Vorster Square.

MR PRINSLOO: When the shock device arrived, what happened then?

MR ZEELIE: A chair from Colonel Van Niekerk's office, that's a large, heavy chair, wooden chair, it was placed in the passage. Bopape was told to take off his shirt and shoes, and he was then told to sit on the chair. His arms were tied to an arm support on the chair with velcro strips and his ankles were also tied with velcro strips at the bottom side, the legs of the chair. Bopape was then shocked by Du Preez and Engelbrecht with the shock device, by taking the cords of the shock device, which was soaked in water and then placed on Bopape, it was moved over his body and after approximately the third time that the device was turned, I saw that Bopape's head fell forward. I realised that there was a problem, as well as the other members. Colonel Van Niekerk said immediately that the person had to be untied. The person was then taken from the chair and he was laid down on the floor. Sergeant Du Preez did mouth to mouth resuscitation on the person, without any success. I then realised that Bopape was dead, and that created a problem situation in the group. In the group we discussed the problem and Colonel Van Niekerk said then that he would contact General Erasmus and that he would discuss the problem with him. After Colonel Van Niekerk contacted General Erasmus by telephone, Van Niekerk informed us that he had to go and see General Erasmus at his home. After some time, Colonel Van Niekerk returned and told us that General Erasmus would first go through to Pretoria, that was General Erasmus, that he would go through to Pretoria and that he would return later to John Vorster Square, and it happened later on, General Du Toit also arrived at the office. Myself and Colonel Van Niekerk, we spoke to Erasmus and Du Toit in Erasmus's office, and General Erasmus then told us that the person, Bopape, had to be transported to the Eastern Transvaal where there would be disposed of his body, and that a mock escape in the Eastern Transvaal had to be planned. After General Erasmus and Du Toit had left the site, Sergeant Du Preez went to buy black plastic bags. On his return, Bopape was placed in a foetal position and the plastic bags were pulled over the body from the top and the bottom side. Bopape was then, and I can't precisely say who carried him, but he was carried in a blanket that was thrown over his body - I left out a specific part - after Security Branch had died and Colonel Van Niekerk had left to General Du Toit's house, Bopape's body was placed in Engelbrecht's office and a blanket was thrown over him. This same blanket was then used to carry Bopape to the basement of the Security Branch, where his body was placed in my vehicle's boot. Colonel Van Niekerk and myself and Warrant Officer Mostert went in my vehicle to Bronkhorstspruit and we were followed by Constable Engelbrecht and Sergeant Du Preez in a second vehicle. On the highway at Bronkhorstspruit, next to the road, we got two vehicles from the Eastern Transvaal. In the vehicles were Brigadier Visser and Captain Van Loggerenberg. I knew both of the members. Colonel Van Niekerk spoke to Brigadier Visser, after which we moved over the... (tape ends)

...I pulled my vehicle's boot next to the boot of the vehicle of, Van Loggerenberg's vehicle, with his boot facing my vehicle's boot. Captain Van Loggerenberg and myself then transferred the body of Mr Bopape, which was still in the black bags, to the other vehicle's boot, that was the vehicle of Captain Van Loggerenberg. After this, we then returned to Johannesburg. Once again Captain Van Niekerk and Warrant Officer Mostert and myself were in my vehicle and the vehicle in which Engelbrecht and Du Preez, their vehicle followed us back. Underway, Colonel Van Niekerk told me that Brigadier Visser told him that the escape should not take place in the Eastern Transvaal and that we had to look after our own problems, and that is why we then returned to John Vorster Square. Before we arrived at John Vorster Square, we stopped at a shop where we bought food, after which we went to John Vorster Square and we planned the mock escape and also discussed it. We then decided that the escape should take place at De Deur. We decided that I would act as Mr Bopape. The shoes of Bopape were at that stage still in Engelbrecht's office, and it was the ideal opportunity to be used with the mock escape, me putting on the shoes and to leave a scent. We then departed to De Deer. At that stage it was myself, Colonel Van Niekerk, Constable Engelbrecht and Warrant Officer Mostert. I sat at the left back side of the vehicle, that is how we decided where Bopape would sit. Along the way we stopped and Sergeant Du Preez followed in a second vehicle. The arrangement was that I would escape in Bopape's shoes. I would run through a maize field and I would run through that and at another point Du Preez would then pick me up and take me back to John Vorster. The reason why I acted as Bopape was the fact that I was not involved with the interrogation, or that I was supposed to be involved there, as well as Sergeant Du Preez was also not supposed to be involved with the normal investigation. Constable Engelbrecht and Warrant Officer Mostert, who had been involved, with Colonel Van Niekerk, who was in command of the investigation, they would then be involved with the mock escape that should now appear to be real. The right back tyre of the vehicle was slashed by me with a knife. The vehicle's tyre was then changed by Mostert and Engelbrecht, where I was sitting at the left back side of the vehicle. The one side of cuffs on my feet, was on my one foot, the other side was loose. Warrant Officer Mostert's jacket was over the left front seat of the vehicle, and in his left pocket, if I can remember correctly, were the keys for the hand and feet cuffs. I had a set of loose handcuffs that was issued to Mostert, I also had that with me. I jumped out of the vehicle, I ran along the road and went into this maize field, with the one side of this cuff around my ankle and the other part in my hand, and that is how I ran. I just want to mention that these cuffs that we used, the shackles were the long ones. After I ran about 300 metres into this maize field, I sat down and then I also loosened this chain on my one leg. I can also just mention that from the vehicle up to that point where I sat down, I at times let the one part of the foot chain fall so that it would appear, or that it would in fact make marks as I was running. Where I sat, I took off these chains and I then took the handcuffs as well as these feet chains and I left them there, and then I ran further through this maize field up to the other side of the road, which then joined at a black township. Sergeant Du Preez picked me up. I took off the shoes, Bopape's shoes, and then my shoes, which were in Sergeant Du Preez's vehicle, and I put my own shoes on. Sergeant Du Preez took me to John Vorster, where I got into my vehicle and departed to my home.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, the food that was bought, what was, why was it bought?

MR ZEELIE: It was so that there could be receipts that an investigation went out.

MR PRINSLOO: And the velcro strips that you referred to, what was the reason for that?

MR ZEELIE: I also did a Murder and Robbery course while I was at the Security Branch, and at the course I got these velcro strips from one of the members of Murder and Robbery, and this person told me that these strips were, they were items to be used during application of shock treatment, because these strips are wide and they do not leave any marks on a body during the shock treatment. He also mentioned to me that these strips were available at the Logistic Department of the quartermaster. What the specific aim of the strips were was not mentioned to me.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, I refer you to the indictment that was handed to the committee as an exhibit before the committee. You have already looked at it and this was now about the case State against Torka, do you have the background?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I know the background.

MR PRINSLOO: In the indictment it is also referred to a certain Mpanyana, who killed himself during an explosion. Were you aware of that explosion?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I had knowledge of it. I could perhaps just mention, during all explosions and acts of terror, there are telex and cryptic reports sent to all the Security Branches across the country, where there is then an exposition of the acts of terror that have taken place, and that particular act of terror in April 15 ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: April of that year?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, it took place on that day.

MR PRINSLOO: And in the same month quite a few occurred in Pretoria, and also in May and June, shortly before the arrest of Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So there were many that took place as put out in Exhibit B that you have also seen, in Pretoria and in Johannesburg?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct. I also attended some of these scenes. The case second from the top, you referred to Exhibit D, that was a limpet mine and a fuel tank in Umhlaagte(?), I defused it myself before the limpet mine exploded.

MR PRINSLOO: And in this particular instance, did you have any idea, suspicion of who did it, who was responsible, looking at the method used?

MR ZEELIE: It wasn't something that I had any doubt about that it was the work of the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: Now, as put out in Exhibit B, now this refers to the Pretoria/Johannesburg area, were you aware of all these incidents?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And was the suspicion there that it was the ANC?

MR ZEELIE: I had no doubt that they were committed by the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, Mr Zeelie, was it a low intensity or a high intensity onslaught?

MR ZEELIE: It was a high intensity onslaught from the side of the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, why did you identify yourself with the fact that Bopape was shocked, why did you agree to that?

MR ZEELIE: I gained a lot of experience in the Security Branch, and that is why I mentioned the number of explosion scenes that I visited, and that is why I wanted to get the complete list of the terror weapons that I personally got from these caches, because these weapons had been uncovered because of intensive interrogation of ANC terrorists, and these interrogations took place to obtain information, as I've already said, to keep the government of the day in power in view of the fact that the ANC was launching a violent assault against the government, to, as has been mentioned, to overthrow the government with extreme violence, and I was a supporter of the then government and I saw it as my duty to went to the extreme to fight this onslaught and to get information from the ANC terrorists to work against this onslaught, an onslaught in which the people of South Africa were mutilated and killed in the most horrific way.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, you knew that it was illegal to torture a person by shocking him?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you believe that that what you were doing that you do it for the correct purpose?

MR ZEELIE: I knew that it was illegal, illegal to the extent that what it was against the criminal laws of the country, but in my heart it was one illegal act, it was not illegal to fight against the ANC, and this act was commonly used in the Security Branch to get information from the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, if you say it was general practice, did you believe that you were allowed to do it, or weren't you? What did you believe?

MR ZEELIE: It was not just that I believed that I was allowed to do it, I knew it, I knew that my seniors from my rank up to the commissioner of the South African Police, that they condoned it, that these methods could be used to get information from ANC terrorists.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, if I can refer you to volume 3, on page 642, it is a statement of Nkosi, now in this statement certain allegations are made against ...(intervention).

MR ZEELIE: I have knowledge of this, I saw it in his statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Before I start with that, Nkosi also mentions that banned literature was found in the flat?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage, when you found the literature, were those grounds to arrest Bopape and Nkosi and to charge them in terms of the Act on internal security?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage you already had legal grounds to arrest them?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, legal grounds to arrest both of the persons in that flat.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm not going to discuss each and every allegation, you saw that Nkosi says that you assaulted Bopape, you deny that, and you already said that you denied that there were people with pangas?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct. I just want to refer to inconsistencies in the statement with regard to the fact that I had hit Bopape in the stomach. Paragraph 15 reads

"Zeelie ... in the stomach. Bopape fell onto the bed and one of the policemen who was busy registering the books asked Bopape "is jy dronk?" and punched him again."

According to this paragraph, it was a policeman who were keeping the registers who punched him both times in the stomach.

MR PRINSLOO: But you deny that you did it?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Ja, I don't intend going through all of them. He denies that he assault Nkosi or Bopape, and it could be put to him by Mr Rautenbach in cross-examination, I presume so, he intends calling Mr Nkosi, so we don't know whether he's been instructed or not, or what the position is. Can I proceed along these lines and go for the statement, or what is the position?

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps Mr Rautenbach can advise?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I have still not been able to obtain a proper instruction. I've made the arrangements to actually speak to Mr Nkosi, I have not yet been able to do so. I'm not sure whether he's present at this moment. During the lunch adjournment, I will take further steps to see whether those instructions can be obtained, but I have no objection should Mr Prinsloo proceed on the basis on what is set out in the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was going to just say the same thing, Mr Prinsloo. Certainly, if there are portions of the statement or whatever is contained in the statement made by Mr Nkosi that is disputed, then, you know, please, I think it might be advisable to refer to them so at least you know which sections of the statement are disputed, and then the argument can't be raised later that, because it wasn't dealt with, it was tacitly admitted, although I don't know if that will go that far.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you. Mnr Zeelie, as ek u dan kan verwys na die verklaring wat dan begin op bladsy 642 van Nkosi, wat (onduidelik) verklaring te wees, daar op bladsy 643 daar sê Nkosi op paragraaf 7 dat daar geskakel was en toe kom daar 20 gewapende polisiemanne die kamer in met koeëlvaste klere en kapmesse en gewere. U het reeds gesê daar was nie mense met kapmesse nie?

MNR ZEELIE: Dis korrek, U Edele.

MNR PRINSLOO: Is die res korrek, van die koeëlvaste klere?

MNR ZEELIE: U Edele, ja, maar ek wil graag weer verwys na die word "jumped", that 20 men jumped into the room.

MR PRINSLOO: Right. And then paragraph 8, how big was the room, how many people came into the room?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, I couldn't say that there were 20 members there, but at least 10 or more, and there were members of my branch as well as those of the Krugersdorp branch, as well as members from the Unrest Unit which helped to secure the flat.

MR PRINSLOO: The question is not, I assume there could have been 30 people on the operation, but how many were, were all of them in the room?

MR ZEELIE: No, Your Honour, all of them would not have been inside the room. Usually what would happen is that the Unrest Unit would first secure such a flat, and the people inside the flat would be brought under control, and afterwards our members would then go into the flat and do what we're supposed to do.

JUDGE NGCOBO: ...estimate of about 20 persons more or less accurate?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, as I said, it could have been 10 or more people, in total I'd say the Unrest Unit, together with us, in total yes, probably 20, but definitely not all of them inside the flat.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie, paragraph 8, I suspect it refers to you, doesn't it, the way your name is written, but you asked "Who is ST"?, did you ask that question?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, it was a long time ago, it's possible that I did ask that question.

MR PRINSLOO: And the question of the "walk tall", is it possible you could have asked it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, it's possible I could have asked it.

MR PRINSLOO: And then in paragraph 11, they refer to the banned literature found? There was one magazine, Mzimbeze(?), Ruth First (indistinct) by Joe Slovo, and other literature?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

MR PRINSLOO: And there's also mentioning of a bag that was taken, Nkosi says that his bag was taken?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

MR PRINSLOO: Would Bopape be questioned then by you or a certain major?

MR ZEELIE: I had the rank of lieutenant, and that was why I was in command, because I was a senior officer, so it's possible that there could have been a major.

MR PRINSLOO: And then, "Who is that small one who looks so innocent?"

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, I cannot remember that statement at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you have made such a statement?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot see how I could have made such a type of statement.

MR PRINSLOO: And in the same paragraph it's stated that "I did not know", het jy dit gedoen?

MR ZEELIE: I deny that strongly.

MR PRINSLOO: And then also in paragraph 15 he says that you hit Bopape in the stomach?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, I already pointed out that I did not hit him in the stomach.

MR PRINSLOO: At some stage it was put to him in paragraph 17 that you went to flat 1206, in paragraph 17 it says some of the people went over to flat 1206?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, if I can remember correctly, it was so, but at this stage I cannot say with any assurance that this actually happened and who exactly went there.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you also know about a woman who was present there and who was lying on a policeman's lap?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour, there was a woman who came with the Krugersdorp members and she, whilst this operation was going on, she was in a vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: And as far as the taking away of people are concerned, you weren't involved?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's patience please, Your Honour. Mr Zeelie, with regards to the application you submitted to the committee, why do you say there was a political motive for what you did?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, the total onslaught launched by the ANC in order to overthrow the government of the day by means of violence was inherently a political issue at that stage. MR PRINSLOO: During the course of the death of Stanza and the way you covered it up and you took part in the mock escape, in other of those stages, did you do it in order to protect yourself?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, no. The main reason, the main purpose of this behaviour was not to jeopardise the government and the police force, and to put them to shame. I want to mention it that the commemoration of the 1976 unrests was just around the corner. If it became known that a section 29 detainee died during detention and interrogation, it would have had massive repercussions for the South African Police and the government of that day. That could have led to a complete renewed unrest and violence, and also pressure from the outside world on the government of that day and pressure on the government to give in to the demands of the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, and if I could just ask the other legal representatives, is there any objectoin to Mr Prinsloo handing in that list of weapons that was referred to by Mr Zeelie?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, at this stage it's in his handwriting, so I'll have to have it neatly typed, I can hand it in, unless you want it like it is, there's no copy of it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you perhaps ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Can I make a copy of it in the adjournment?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we won't really object too much, if it's a problem, the handwriting, then we can look at it at that stage.

MR PRINSLOO: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think if we can just give a list, we don't need any other portions of statements or anything else, together with it.

MR PRINSLOO: Certainly, Mr Chairman, I'll do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, that will then be handed in later.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Zeelie, at the beginning of your testimony with regards to the arrest, you said that you had information. What type of information did you have at that stage?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, as I already said, Victor told me that we had to assist Wes-Rand concerning the search of a flat where possible ANC members were hiding away.

MS VAN DER WALT: You also mentioned a woman in a vehicle. This woman, was she Ellen Magale, with her MK name Mpho?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you know that she was the person who went to indicate Bopape's flat, this Mpho, or Ellen Magale?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour. I can just mention that it was not told to me in detail, but I was informed and I'd like to put it on record, of course you have to remember it was a long time ago, that there were facts which slips one by and as time goes by that your memory is refreshed and certain facts do come to light again, and that's why today I can say I do remember that Krugersdorp members who arrived there told me about the people that they were looking for and that the names ST and Walk Tall was used by a certain person and therefore there were, before we went into the flat, a phone call was made to this flat and there was a question, and the person who answered was asked, "Is it ST?"

MS VAN DER WALT: Now this Ellen Magale, was she a friend of Maponya?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I was informed so.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when you drove from Bronkhorstspruit after the body of Bopape was placed into the other vehicle, you were with Van Niekerk and Loggerenberg, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now Mr Van Niekerk testified that already at that stage, when you were driving from Bronkhorstspruit, you were already talking about the escape?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct. I'd just like to make sure, are you talking about the mock escape?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR ZEELIE: The fact that it would have taken place in the Eastern Transvaal. Now this is after you left, this is his testimony, he said that already at that stage you already started talking about how you're going to arrange the mock escape?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I did mention it now in my testimony.

MS VAN DER WALT: And were you present when the bags were pulled over the deceased?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, Your Honour, I believe I was present.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was there a reason why the shoes were not put back on his feet?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, yes, my logic tells me these shoes had leather soles and should you then, if he had the shoes on and you put a plastic bag over the shoes, the shoes would have ripped the plastic bag.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: It's now one o'clock, would this be a convenient time to take the lunch adjournment?

MEETING ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Rautenbach, have you had sufficient time to take instructions?

MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have not taken full instructions, but I've taken instructions that may be relevant to the cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I just intrude at this stage, that the list compiled by Mr Zeelie is EXHIBIT H.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo, we will then receive this list compiled by Mr Zeelie, a list of various types of weapons as EXHIBIT A.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

LIST OF WEAPONS COMPILED BY MR ZEELIE HANDED IN AS EXHIBIT H

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, I just want to check whether I understand you correctly, I have it that you have testified that the use or application of a shock device to let a person who is being interrogated talk, is something that was generally used, is that correct? I refer to the Security Branch.

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember that there was any instance where I answered that a shock device was general use, that was not put to me and it wasn't asked.

MR VISSER: The record will speak for itself. What did you refer to when you said it was in general use at the Security Branch?

MR ZEELIE: I'm trying to refresh my memory, and therefore I say that I said that I knew that the police, the senior officers, permitted the fact that the necessary violence be used.

MR VISSER: What you said, according to my notes, and it could be wrong, is that you knew, and you emphasised the word that you knew that

"my seniors, up to the commissioner, approved it, that these methods could be used to get information".

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Which methods are you referring to?

MR ZEELIE: I would say methods that were absolutely necessary to get information from ANC terrorists.

MR VISSER: Such as?

MR ZEELIE: Now I can answer and say yes, it would even include shock methods.

MR VISSER: Do you refer to the commissioner of the South African Police, as the office, or do you refer to a specific commissioner in your testimony?

MR ZEELIE: I would use it as a specific position as particular office.

MR VISSER: Right, let's talk about the other senior officers, let's say the chief of the Security Branch, the head in 1988, who was that?

MR ZEELIE: It was General Van der Merwe.

MR VISSER: Did he in any way approve of these illegal methods that you refer to?

MR ZEELIE: I would say yes, otherwise he would not have given permission in this particular case that the body of Bopape be handed to Eastern Transvaal.

MR VISSER: Well I have a surprise for you, Mr Zeelie, if you think that General Van der Merwe, through his, that he actually approved of your action, and he will testify in this regard, can you think of any other reason why you say that General Van der Merwe gave his approval of this illegal method to obtain information?

MR ZEELIE: There had been many assaults, there were many cases where police were involved. If I specifically take Johannesburg, then I can only possibly think of two cases where policemen had been charged.

MR VISSER: And why would you say that happened?

MR ZEELIE: I would say that was because of the protection we got from our senior officers.

MR VISSER: Let's call it by name, do you say that they intervened to see to it that people who used illegal methods of questioning, that they would not be prosecuted or charged?

MR ZEELIE: I would not say that they intervened, but if they didn't approve it, then they would have seen to it that the policemen appeared before the Court.

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, it is not the duty of someone like Mr Van der Merwe to see to it that cases appear in court, that is the duty of the investigation team who investigates the case, isn't it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And the attorney-general?

MR ZEELIE: Yes. There were many judgments in the past with regard to assault by a policeman, and in the end, when nothing was done about the whole case, then you will expect that it would be the most senior person who would work downwards to the bottom to find out why action wasn't taken.

MR VISSER: So the security head, according to your testimony, would now have to concern himself with each and every case where prosecution is not progressing and to find out why it didn't take place or happen, is that your answer?

MR ZEELIE: When it has to do with security cases, I testified earlier that where a person would die in detention, in section 29 detention, and where he was assaulted, it would be a serious case in the eyes of the public in that time, and is it, according to me, that even for the head of the Security Branch that it would be a serious issue.

MR VISSER: Let's not change the facts, we now, we're talking of approval of illegal methods to obtain information, no-one referred to death in detention, Mr Zeelie, please confine yourself to this.

MR ZEELIE: I would like to answer. I think my learned friend ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: I am not your learned friend.

MR ZEELIE: ...I answered his question, and he sent it in another direction.

MR VISSER: Did General Erasmus give approval for illegal methods to get information during interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: Under his command I interrogated many people, and people were assaulted. I was never taken to task about it, and if I could expand on this, I, on instruction of Erasmus, I committed many acts that I have to ask for amnesty.

MR VISSER: Do you have a problem in understanding my questions? Do you have a problem with my Afrikaans?

MR ZEELIE: No, I don't think I have a problem, I'm answering your question in more detail.

MR VISSER: Let's just stay with what I asked you. Did General Erasmus approve or give approval for illegal methods to get information from people who were interrogated?

MR ZEELIE: It was tacit approval.

MR VISSER: Do you say that he was aware of instances where you were involved and he gave approval where illegal methods were used to get information from people who were detained?

MR ZEELIE: I would once again say yes, tacitly he gave approval.

MR VISSER: Give us an example?

MR ZEELIE: To mention specific cases would be impossible for me. I am...(tape ends) ...say that if they weren't facts.

MR VISSER: General du Toit, did he openly give approval for illegal methods to question people?

MR ZEELIE: Yes. I can in fact mention a name here, if you want names.

MR VISSER: Please mention it.

MR ZEELIE: I'm thinking of the name George Martins.

MR VISSER: And what happened there?

MR ZEELIE: This person was assaulted by me and some of our other members in the presence of Du Toit.

MR VISSER: How did you assault him?

MR ZEELIE: I can't specifically remember the methods, but he was assaulted.

MR VISSER: Why can't you remember how you assaulted a man?

MR ZEELIE: The reason why I remember George Martins's name was that at a later stage Colonel Du Toit came back to me and said that "That friend of ours whom you assaulted had escaped".

MR VISSER: I'll repeat the question, why can't you remember how you assaulted him?

MR ZEELIE: Does it matter to describe in detail the assaults?,

MR VISSER: Well the word assault can mean a lot. What does it mean according to you?

MR ZEELIE: There are many ways of assaulting.

MR VISSER: How did you assault George Martin?

MR ZEELIE: It wasn't only me, he could possibly have been hit.

MR VISSER: Did you hit him?

MR ZEELIE: It is possible, yes.

MR VISSER: I am asking you, did you?

MR ZEELIE: I say it is possible, yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, I don't understand your testimony. You have just said that you want to give an example of George Martin who was assaulted in the presence of Du Toit by you and others?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I am admitting to this.

MR VISSER: Now I'm asking you a very simple question, how did you assault him?

MR ZEELIE: I have already answered that.

MR VISSER: No, you have not. I have not finished. Did you hit him with the fist, did you kick him, what did you do with him? It's a very simple question how you assault someone?

MR ZEELIE: I'm here to talk the truth, I can't tell you whether he was kicked or hit at that stage.

MR VISSER: Was he shocked with an electrical device?

MR ZEELIE: That's why I say I can't tell you at this stage precisely how he was assaulted, but I am now making the confession that he was assaulted.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, Mr Zeelie, can you remember how long ago that example was, the George Martins, in what year would that have been, more or less?

MR ZEELIE: That is also a long time ago. It should also have been in the eighties.

MR VISSER: I think Commissioner De Jager has not finished yet, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Thank you, chairperson. Did any of these people, from the commissioner, whom you don't want to say who it was, or the security head, or Erasmus or Du Toit, did they ever give you approval to shock people, any person, people that you were interrogating?

MR ZEELIE: I have already answered that it wasn't specifically said that you may shock a person, but they knew of it and they tacitly accepted.

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, anyone who thinks that people were not assaulted during interrogation in the South African Police, or in any other police force in the world, should surely be stupid. This is not what this is all about. You specifically testified that there was approval given, this is what this is all about, and I want to put it to you that General Van der Merwe, as well as General Erasmus, as well as General Du Toit, will tell this committee that you are not telling the truth when you say this. I am now giving you the opportunity to respond.

MR ZEELIE: I maintain what I say. If the committee want to subpoena George Martin to testify, then he will confirm what I have said. I maintain what I have said that tacit approval was given to us and that is why I also referred to other amnesty applications, whether it be explosions or with people who were hit or kicked, that is assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I just want clarity about something. If I know that a person was shocked to death and I do not prosecute, or I do not see to it that they are prosecuted, those are now the people who have administered the shock, well let's just leave it with that, I don't do anything about it, am I not then condoning it?

MR VISSER: It would be our submission that that does not necessarily imply that it's condoned. The testimony will be that these three people were confronted by a situation which was a problem, they had to address the problem, and the addressing of the problem is not condonation, not even directly, this wasn't about covering a certain practice, this was all about a situation which happened in a specific political situation a few days before the Soweto Day on the 16th of June within a specific political climate where there could have been a lot of embarrassment for the South African government should this have been made known.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that there could be certain circumstances which could be presented as justification, but the fact of the matter is, here's a crime committed, I'm aware of it, I'm a policeman, I'm the head of a department, and I do nothing to prosecute. In fact it goes further, I help them to cover it up.

MR VISSER: That will depend, chairperson, whether you will accept what the witnesses will tell you, Erasmus and Du Toit, about how they read the political situation and subjectively understood it at that stage, and whether, based on that insight, and that that would then enable them to get amnesty. The only point that's made now, with respect, in answer to your question, is that the fact that they acted in such a way does not necessarily mean that there was condonation, because, if I may just add, there could not have been prosecution, because prosecution would in fact have jeopardised the mock escape, it would have taken that away, the whole mock situation, so it is a fact then that these people would not have been prosecuted from on top.

CHAIRPERSON: In your argument we will then handle that.

MR VISSER: Could I perhaps just say that the witness has already mentioned that and I'm leaving that for argument? I want to ask you a last thing, Mr Zeelie, have you never heard of it that if any policeman, regardless, detective, security, whatever, when they assaulted a person and that there was a charge, that a specific procedure would be followed to investigate such charges?

MR ZEELIE: Which procedures are you referring to?

MR VISSER: In the case of a policeman, the case would have been investigated and would have been submitted to the attorney-general, which is not necessarily the case in other incidents of crime.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In other words, the attorney-general would learn of each and every assault, alleged assault, by a policeman, do you agree with that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And to colour the approval of the high officers, and they would then also have to be able to say something and some influence with the attorney-general, isn't that so?

MR ZEELIE: It is now referred to a situation where there is a specific charge, and then I don't think that they would actually now intercede.

MR VISSER: But isn't it logical where a person is now assaulted and that later on when he's released, that he would go and complain?

MR ZEELIE: Many of those cases aren't taken that far that such a case then is submitted to the attorney-general.

MR VISSER: I want to put it to you in this way, if you and your co-accused or witnesses would be, that your testimony would be that there was a general condoned practice at the Security Branch that people could have been tortured, then there would have been pandemonium in this country?

MR ZEELIE: In which sense?

MR VISSER: Because everyone who would have been assaulted in practice would have complained about it and there would have been hundreds more cases than had appeared, many more cases would have been made known. There are hundreds of cases which came to the fore, but we confine ourselves now to this shock technique that you refer to. Now I understand that whilst you were in the Security Branch you only used it once.

MR ZEELIE: No, I never gave that testimony, sir, it was the previous witness.

MR VISSER: Did you ever use it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I was involved with a few cases.

MR VISSER: A few instances?

MR ZEELIE: Yes. I can perhaps mention even when I entered the Security Branch in '76 in December, when the former premier of Gauteng was arrested, there I started to come to know about the shock device.

MR VISSER: But once again this is not the question that I put to you. I'm asking you, have you used the shock device in the past, not that you have knowledge of it, did you use it?

MR ZEELIE: I have already answered you, I said yes, and I said that even as early as that stage, I had knowledge of it.

MR VISSER: Were any charges ever made against you by people who you have shocked?

MR ZEELIE: Do you refer to a specific instance or is it in general?

MR VISSER: Were there any charges made against you by a person that you have shocked?

MR ZEELIE: I accept that there may have been complaints, charges.

MR VISSER: Don't you have knowledge of it, you only think it?

MR ZEELIE: There were charges made, yes, there were, not now, but then.

MR VISSER: By whom?

MR ZEELIE: By some of the detainees.

MR VISSER: What happened to that?

MR ZEELIE: I was never charged.

MR VISSER: Why was that the case?

MR ZEELIE: It depends on the investigation that was done.

MR VISSER: And as I understand it, John Vorster didn't even have its own shock device?

MR ZEELIE: John Vorster had such a device.

MR VISSER: Why didn't you use it on the day with Mr Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: At that stage one wasn't available.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions, chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, concerning this issue that Mr Visser was busy with, with regard to the extent to which assaults occurred and where charges were made, am I correct in saying that these assaults about which people complained, this frequently occurred in the courts, for example in an internal court where there was reference made to an admission?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Would I be correct if I say that some of these charges in these hearings and trials, some of them weren't made voluntarily, and some of it, what was made, was true and some was false, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And this whole issue with regard to the assaults came to the fore more in these internal trials than with the departmental investigation?

MR ZEELIE: I would say that it came more to the fore in these internal trials than in investigation.

MR RAUTENBACH: Perhaps I just have to put it correct, I am referring to a situation where admissions or confessions are made and it is now tested by means of an internal trial and some of those allegations, some were the truth and some were false, that's basically how it happened, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Perhaps you also just misunderstood it, I'm referring to internal investigations, that would be within the police itself, such as a disciplinary investigation in your unit, these assaults were usually, came to the fore and they were discussed and evidence was given and it didn't appear that much in internal investigations in your unit, am I correct?

MR ZEELIE: Specifically in Johannesburg, a specific officer was appointed to investigate allegations where a policemen had assaulted people and they were now charged.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's take it a step further, would I be correct, if one looks at the amount of times, the number of times that assaults were reflected in admissions in the courts, that in most cases those people did not complain at the police but it only came to the fore in the court?

MR ZEELIE: I would not say most of the times, but often, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: I want to take you to, you dealt with a statement of Mbeki Nkosi, Mr Prinsloo went shortly through it, briefly through it, this statement starts on 642, it's in bundle 3. If you look at the statement, you will see that it starts with an introduction, who the person was, that he was arrested, and then I want to take you to paragraph 4 and 5, paragraph 4 and 5, Nkosi refers to a telephone call that was received in the flat and he refers to two calls. There isn't anything in these paragraphs 4 and 5 that you would dispute, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is what had happened.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then if we have a look at paragraph 7, I would just like to read this to you. He says

"Minutes later we heard a hard knock on the door. Bopape awoke and got up. About 20 men jumped into the room with bulletproof vests, bush knives and guns. One concentrated on me and told me to stand still. Bopape was standing in the passage and about three policemen concentrated on him. Bopape was facing the door."

Am I correct, and this is a paragraph that you are contesting, you referred to the word "jumped", is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: You referred to the 20 and you said those would be too much?

MR ZEELIE: I said there weren't 20 within the flat.

MR RAUTENBACH: That is correct. With regard to the bush knives, I think in Afrikaans the word is "kapmesse", which words were used?

MR ZEELIE: Both words were used, "kapmesse" as well as bush knives.

MR RAUTENBACH: What do you understand with a bush knife, what did you read it as?

MR ZEELIE: I don't know what you're referring to?

MR RAUTENBACH: Could I tell you, with regard to the uniform that was used by the unrest police, they usually had on the leg, something next to the leg, I can't remember it was the right or left leg, that looked like a knife, have you ever seen that?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: My instruction is that this is what is being referred to, it's something that looks like a knife, it was tied to the leg at the bottom.

MR ZEELIE: No, I have never seen one of the unrest people wearing something like that, and then in the same paragraph, I can just point you to another aspect, if we return to paragraph 5, then you'll see that Mr Bopape phoned a lady, no, it's paragraph 6, and five minutes later it was said that there was a knock on the door, Bopape woke up, in other words it means that he slept, is that what you're referring to?

MR RAUTENBACH: That it was said that he would have read, what are you referring to?

MR ZEELIE: He answered, in paragraph 5, paragraph 6, it is said

"Bopape then telephoned another place and spoke to a woman. The telephone was cut off."

And then five minutes later he says:-

"There was a knock on the door and Bopape woke up."

MR RAUTENBACH: What is the point you're trying to get at?

MR ZEELIE: I'm saying something is wrong, the one moment he's talking to someone and five minutes later he's woken up, so one moment he's talking to someone and five minutes later he's sleeping, then he's woken up because of a knock.

MR RAUTENBACH: I don't understand, what is strange?

MR ZEELIE: What is strange for me is that Mr Mbeki was busy trying to cover something, his facts aren't correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: What's not correct?

MR ZEELIE: Why would he talk to someone and five minutes later he was busy sleeping?

MR RAUTENBACH: Is it strange, in other words he should have fallen asleep and then he would have woken up? Well let's leave it, it's not strange, I don't find it strange, let's continue.

MR ZEELIE: I find it quite strange.

MS GCABASHE: If I may just point out as well, it depends on the language that was used when the statement was taken. I'm sure that can be dealt with, but do bear that in mind.

MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you very much for making the point, because that is what happens quite often in our testimony, that the use of the language usually, then there's a dispute, and then we are taken to task about the language dispute. Thank you very much. If you read further on, you will see in paragraph 8 he describes you as the leader of the group, I think that would be quite accurate?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And I think you've already, that you've said that you got the information that the person who was being looked for was known as ST?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: As well as Walk Tall?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: With regard to paragraph 8, 9, 10, 11, do you have anything there that you would dispute?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: You also mentioned 12?

MR ZEELIE: No, I did not mention 12.

MR RAUTENBACH: If we look at paragraph 12, you mentioned that you were the most senior person, there wasn't a major on the scene, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: From the side of Nkosi, his version is that he was under the impression, but that he could have been wrong. Let's have a look at paragraph 13, let take the least controversial one of the first two, you've already denied that the words have been used, "Who is the little one looking innocent?"

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you sure that you could not have used those words, Mr Zeelie, or could you possibly have used it?

MR ZEELIE: I'm quite sure, I would not have used something like that. I would directly have asked, "Who are you?"

MR RAUTENBACH: Am I correct in saying that he is smaller than Bopape, this is Mbeki Nkosi?

MR ZEELIE: At this stage I can't really tell you.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember?

MR ZEELIE: No, I can't specifically remember.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then there's a part that you specifically dispute and that is

"He put his gloved hand around my neck and began to suffocate me"?

MR ZEELIE: I deny that.

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want to return to the following thing, can you remember

"Who (indistinct) Stanza (indistinct)?"

MR ZEELIE: It's possible, I cannot say with any certainty.

MR RAUTENBACH: Dan sê hy

"They asked my name and I told them".

I don't think you will dispute that?

MR ZEELIE: No, I won't dispute that, but who asked him that?

MR RAUTENBACH: And then paragraph 15

"Zeelie punched Bopape in the stomach."

You've already denied that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to show you, perhaps you can say what you tried to give in your testimony when you attacked this statement and that those were the words

"Zeelie punched Bopape in the stomach. Bopape fell onto the bed and one of the policemen who was busy registering the books asked Bopape, "Is jy dronk?" and punched him again."

What is the problem that you have with this paragraph?

MR ZEELIE: The problem that I have is in the beginning he refers to me, where he perhaps referred to the policeman who punched him the second time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why do you say that he possibly refers to the policeman?

MR ZEELIE: Because he refers to it.

MR RAUTENBACH: What he says is that you hit him ...(inter-vention)

MR ZEELIE: But I deny that.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm telling you now how I read the sentence. And then he says

"I fell onto the bed and the other policeman who was present asked him, "Are you drunk?", and then punched him again."

MR ZEELIE: In Afrikaans and English it tells me that the other policeman hit him again.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, I just want to tell you that the word "again" only means that he was hit again.

MR ZEELIE: And then he would have said that Zeelie punched him again.

MR RAUTENBACH: We'll leave it at that. If you look at paragraph No 16, he makes the allegation that Bopape was handcuffed and that he was not handcuffed. Would you dispute that?

MR ZEELIE: I can't see the one would be handcuffed and not the other.

MR RAUTENBACH: But the little one was not placed in handcuffs, apparently it's not necessary.

MR ZEELIE: I told you I can't remember what his size was, but whether he was tall or small, it would have been the same. Could I perhaps just say why I say this? If I would handcuff Bopape, because I have a specific reason, because he was linked to the ANC, I would also have done that with Nkosi, because he could also have been a member of the ANC, or a collaborator.

MR RAUTENBACH: Because he was in the room?

MR ZEELIE: Most probably, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: We'll return to that a bit later on. Let's have a look at paragraph 17, and it seems that that was also not disputed, am I correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Paragraph 18, anything there that you would dispute?

MR ZEELIE: None.

MR RAUTENBACH: Chairperson, it should not be interpreted that it is only where it refers to Mr Zeelie, otherwise we'll have to go through each and every paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it the question directed to Mr Zeelie is in respect of what he himself may know, whether he himself ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: That is so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...is in a position to admit it or dispute it?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, I think you also understand it in such a way, it's only inasfar as it is something that you have knowledge of. If it's outside of your knowledge, then of course you can't answer that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, you will see up to page No 18, where the people were placed into the car, I'm reading, and I cannot say anything about the fact that the woman was lying on the policeman's lap.

MR RAUTENBACH: It, in any case, doesn't seem as if you appear, your name appears in the rest of the statement.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, if we look at what he says about you while you were present, we said that we had a semantic difference with regard to specifically the "again" that he punched him again.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then there was the other difference with the five minutes, one of the members informed us it would be a very logical explanation for what stands there. It seems to me, if I look at Nkosi's version and yours, that there's only really one aspect that you, in essence, differ from him, and that is the fact that you kicked, or rather hit Bopape and that you tried to suffocate him?

MR ZEELIE: I would have suffocated, or tried to strangle, Mbeki, not him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's just have a look. If I tell you that the only real difference between your version and his is only the question of the assault, do you agree, specifically in relation to Bopape and then paragraph 13?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: So it seems to me to be paragraphs 13 and 15, and then it seems that his version seems to correlate with yours?

MR ZEELIE: Correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now if we return to this issue of what Nkosi says in his statement, in your testimony you said, you referred to resistance to the arrest. Precisely what happened when you wanted to arrest Bopape, what was the resistance, if there were?

MR ZEELIE: It was a very difficult situation, to answer this after such a long period of time, it's a very wide concept, broad concept. There could be, resistance can be in very different ways. Perhaps I would have handcuffed him and he wouldn't want me to do it, then I would use the necessary violence to control him.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Zeelie, would you please confine yourself to answering the question. If you cannot remember, would you please say so. Do you understand that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I have already said it's a long time ago, I can't precisely say, that is why I tried to present myself in this way.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes, and would you please refrain from giving us a description of what form resistance can take? If you can remember, say you can remember, and just answer the question directly. Do you understand that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. In the beginning I said it was a long time ago, I can't remember precisely.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, Stanza Bopape, did he offer resistance against the arrest the day he was arrested by you?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, again I cannot say yes or no, I cannot remember exactly what happened.

MR RAUTENBACH: Regarding that aspect, so you have no independent memory on whether he offered resistance or not?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, the information you received as far as ST is concerned and Walk Tall, can I just, can you clarify that, were you told that the person you're looking for is Walk Tall or ST?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, I accepted like I said forward, this something that happened a long time ago and I do not want to talk about each aspect word for word, because if I say yes, then it's yes, and if I say no, it's a no, and then it comes under dispute, and therefore I'd rather stick to the fact that I cannot really remember and I cannot really answer.

MR RAUTENBACH: But Mr Zeelie, that's exactly what my colleague asked you. If you cannot remember, you don't have to tell us a long story, all you have to say is, "I cannot remember". MR ZEELIE: Thank you, Your Honour.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, can you remember if you had any other information at the time of the arrest concerning Bopape, except for the names and the fact that he was also known as ST and Walk Tall?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: In your testimony you mentioned a flat which had to be searched?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can I just learn the following from you, can you remember that you had to accompany people to go and search this specific flat?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: So a flat had to be searched, a person didn't have to be arrested?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, it was specifically a flat that had to be searched for people who might have been ANC members.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let me just (indistinct) this, do you remember that it was a flat that had to be searched and that ST and Walk Tall had to be arrested?

MR ZEELIE: I mentioned earlier, yes, West Rand said that there were ANC terrorists, possible ANC terrorists.

MR RAUTENBACH: But did you have a name? You had the name ST, Walk Tall. When was your instruction that if you searched the flats and you found a person with this name you had to arrest him?

MR ZEELIE: It wasn't an instruction.

MR RAUTENBACH: What was it?

MR ZEELIE: It was a request from West Rand to accompany them.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now tell us exactly in basic language, what did you have to go and do there?

MR ZEELIE: I already said, they asked us to accompany them to a flat where there were possible ANC terrorists, and I understand that there was a person ST or Walk Tall, it's only one person, but as far as I carried information concerning the ANC, they moved in cells, where there could be more of them together.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now let's return to the question, the question was when you went out to go and search the flat, whether it was an instruction or a request, did you have such an instruction or request that not only did you have to search the flat, but also arrest anyone that was in that flat?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, that's the way I answered.

MR RAUTENBACH: Any person, it doesn't matter who they were?

MR ZEELIE: No any person as a word was used.

MR RAUTENBACH: At that stage, when you arrested those people and you walked out of there, the only information you had was that there's a person with the name ST or Walk Tall, and that these people possibly had something to do with the ANC, is that correct.

MR ZEELIE: Correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you have any more information?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: And when you walked out of the flat and somebody stopped you, let's say, for example, it was a senior officer, and he asked you, "In terms of what, why did you arrest these people?", what would you have answered?

MR ZEELIE: It's because I found literature there, Your Honour.

MR RAUTENBACH: But this is exactly what I cannot understand. You say you had the instruction to arrest people you found there anyway, on grounds of what would you have arrested them if there were not found literature but you didn't have information, you only had a name?

MR ZEELIE: I already said that I had a request and that there were possible ANC terrorists in the flat, and that was enough for me.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you also took Nkosi because of the fact that he was also in the room?

MR ZEELIE: And the fact that there was banned literature, that's enough reason.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you're saying that even if there wasn't banned literature, you'd still have taken him?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, the possibility exists that we would have taken him to question him. The law on internal safety, if somebody knew something about an ANC terrorist and he doesn't report it to the police, he's also, he might be guilty.

MR RAUTENBACH: But at that stage you didn't know that he was an ANC terrorist?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, but that's why there's interrogation.

MR RAUTENBACH: I don't want to stand still too long at this issue, but the actual goal of the arrestation was to question them, to interrogate them?

MR ZEELIE: West Rand wanted to interrogate them, not me.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'll repeat the question.The actual objective of that arrest was to interrogate these people?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: This takes us to the next point, these people are arrested and West Rand has these people, you are a senior officer and Mr Van Niekerk as well?

MR ZEELIE: The lieutenant was a junior officer.

MR RAUTENBACH: How many years experience did you have at that stage?

MR ZEELIE: 16 years.

MR RAUTENBACH: In that unit you worked, at John Vorster Square, how many officers were there, except for General Erasmus?

MR ZEELIE: There were quite a few officers, maybe 10, 12, maybe more.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you work in the same division as Van Niekerk? Who else was in that division, which other officers?

MR ZEELIE: If I'm correct, I think there were about four officers.

MR RAUTENBACH: And how did it happen that you and Van Niekerk made the decision that the two of you would go and fetch this person at John Vorster?

MR ZEELIE: I already testified that I did not go specifically to fetch him. I accompanied Van Niekerk to Roodepoort because there was also other things we had to do at the same time. I was of assistance in bringing Bopape back to John Vorster after he had talked with Kleynhans.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'd just like to know, how did it happen that you and Van Niekerk were asked to fetch Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: No, I was not asked to interrogate him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well why did you return with him?

MR ZEELIE: Because of talks that was held between Van Niekerk and West Rand, he was transferred, I think there were talks between the commanders and that John Vorster would help with the interrogation, I personally was not asked.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you were never asked to interrogate him, you had nothing to do with it?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: You had nothing to do with the interrogation, you were not directly involved?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I was not directly involved.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I'd like to know, this information which you obtained during the course of the interrogation, can you tell us now when you take him back from Roodepoort to John Vorster Square, what information did you have at that stage with regards to Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: If I remember correctly, it was that he was involved with the Maponya group. As I already answered, I went with Colonel Van Niekerk to conclude other business too.

MR RAUTENBACH: What do you understand with involvement, what does involvement mean?

MR ZEELIE: Considering what?

MR RAUTENBACH: Well with regards to the Maponya group.

MR ZEELIE: He was involved with the unit of Maponya.

MR RAUTENBACH: You had no more information?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: You had no more information except for the fact that he was involved in the Maponya group?

MR ZEELIE: At that stage, no.

MR RAUTENBACH: And the next day, did you have more information or not?

MR ZEELIE: The next day I wasn't there, Your Honour.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you couldn't have obtained more information?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: We're talking about the 11th?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: What about the 12th, did you have more information then or not?

MR ZEELIE: No, Your Honour, I wasn't involved with the interrogation.

MR RAUTENBACH: So at all times whilst you have been indirectly involved, the most information you had was the fact that he was involved in...(tape ends)

...and did you have more information concerning the Maponya group?

MR ZEELIE: Not at that stage. As I've already testified, a telex came earlier confirming that the Maponya group was concerned with several bomb explosions in Pretoria, and I cannot give you specific incidents, but as I already said in my testimony, (indistinct) came through confirming incidents that took place at several of the Security Branches.

MR RAUTENBACH: Before I carry on, I'd like to look at page 350, which is volume 2. Let's look at 349 first. Here you were asked by Mr Steenkamp, look in the middle of the page. Then Mr Steenkamp asks you

"This is a section 29 investigation. Did you do anything to Mr Bopape while you were arresting him, did you arrest him or anything, or did you at any stage arrest or assault Mr Nkosi as far as you can recall?"

Dan antwoord u:-

"I would not say that I assaulted them, but it's possible that we roughed them up at the time that we arrested them. It was possible that they resisted arrest, so I am not going to dispute that much."

Would you agree with that answer of yours?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that stuff I testified before, it was a long time ago and therefore I cannot answer you in detail.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's carry on. Then Mr Steenkamp asks you

"You see, my information is that you assaulted Mr Bopape by hitting him with your fist when you were arresting him. Would you recall that he resisted arrest, or what was the position? Did you assault him with your fist?"

Dan sê u:-

"I would not recall with absolute certainty that I assaulted him with my fists, because even at that stage there was no charge laid against me for assaulting him with my fists. I do not believe that it was a serious assault. There were various ways of assaulting, sometimes it was just a matter of dealing roughly with the person while arresting him."

Do you still agree with that?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, that's correct, it's a long time ago and I mentioned that he might have offered resistance and maybe I used the necessary violence and then I referred to the word assault.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then you were asked directly and your answer is yes.

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, at this stage I think I said twice that I cannot remember correctly, and I was asked again and again, and it could possibly be that eventually I just said yes, that's what I might have meant by that and that's by which I'll stand now.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I don't understand what you're saying, did you give the answer attributed to you at page 350, namely "Did he resist arrest?" and your answer was "Yes", did you give that answer?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I did give that answer, but again I'd like to say why I possibly said yes, because maybe I just said yes, that is possible, that could have been added because at two previous occasions I said that it was a long time ago and it was possible, and how many times was I going to be asked this?

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you know, Mr Zeelie, from your experience as a policeman particularly, and I assume that you've appeared in court, that when in court one should be very careful when giving evidence and shouldn't give a question that may not be correct, merely because you're tired of being asked the same question over and over?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I understand, Your Honour, and that's why I'd like to correct myself and I'd like to give you a statement concerning that today.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What is the position now?

MR ZEELIE: I have already testified that I cannot remember exactly.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What is it that you cannot remember?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot remember exactly if he offered resistance to arrest or not.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'd like to ask you, Mr Zeelie, with regards to the aspect of the woman who was in the vehicle, who might have been, according to affidavits submitted, it seems that this woman was Helen Magale. Did she have anything to do with the investigation or anything else, maybe the interrogation, concerning the case against Helen Magale and her brother, George Magale?

MR ZEELIE: No, Your Honour, nothing, nothing.

MR RAUTENBACH: So would I be correct that at the stage when Bopape was shocked, that at that stage all you knew about Bopape was that he, according to information, was involved in the Maponya group?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

MR RAUTENBACH: So he didn't really know which information he had to give in order to avoid the electric shocks?

MR ZEELIE: It was enough for me, Your Honour, to know that he was kept in terms of section 29. If he was not kept in terms of that section, then it would have been a different matter, but he wouldn't be detained in terms of that section if there was not good enough grounds that he was involved in those acts.

MR RAUTENBACH: So what you are saying is you don't have the information, but he is detained in terms of that section, and because he's kept in terms of that section, the methods of coercion are allowed to be used, because he has to talk?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, yes, as far as I was concerned, it was enough reason for me, he was involved in ANC activities, the explosions came about, and I can talk a lot about explosions, I saw a lot of that, and it's touched me personally, I've defused 12 of them and I was close to explosions, my own vehicle was blown up by the ANC at my house, I can talk about these things. To me it was enough reason.

MR RAUTENBACH: Just to return to that, with regards to his involvement, you didn't know exactly how he was involved?

MR ZEELIE: That's why we had to obtain the information. MR RAUTENBACH: This involvement could have been that he had phone conversations with Helen Magale, or was closely linked to Maponya itself?

MR ZEELIE: No, I couldn't say that.

MR RAUTENBACH: He can say nothing, he couldn't say anything at that stage, because he had no information, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour. As I've already mentioned, he was detained in terms of section 29. There was information that he was involved in the Maponya group, and that to me was enough grounds to enforce methods of coercion on him. Once again the stability of the country had to be assured.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, it seems that when you were detained in terms of section 29, your chances of being shocked by a shocking device was quite good, because you had to give information, and even if you did give information, it wasn't considered enough?

MR ZEELIE: It's your words, it's not necessarily so, it would depend on the person's willingness to talk about certain things or not.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can we just once again have a look at page 379? Sorry, this is not the page I was looking for, just a moment, the first two aspects which I'd like to refer you to, when I give you a page we're still going to get to, but first page 371 and then later 381, but first 371, at the bottom of the page, where it says, Mr Zeelie, you say

"I learnt the electrocuting methods from my very first years in the police force, and that is why I want to say that it's a general and widespread practice for obtaining information from unwilling suspects, it was general practice."

That's how I understood your testimony. That is still your testimony?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, during my first years in the police, I did learn about this method.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then on page 381, there you say, with regards to this method, on the top of the page

"From my first year in the police, I had this entrusted, I knew this method, I saw it applied, and I never saw anyone having any long-term damage from this."

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Your Honour.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, can I understand from this that you started at the police in 1969 and that this method, or these methods of shocking people has been in use since 1969, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: As far as that same aspect is concerned, with regards to other methods, could you explain to us which other methods were used, except for the electrical shocks?

MR ZEELIE: Your Honour, I think I've mentioned earlier where a person was hung to a broomstick ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm not trying to ask you something that's there to confront you, I'd just like you to look at page 390, page 390, in the middle of the page, you are asked by the chairman of the section 29 committee, you're asked the following, she refers to the use of the inner tubes, dan sê jy

"I have knowledge of this, where the so-called tube method was used."

This tube method, what exactly was that, could you tell us?

MR ZEELIE: It's when a tyre, a tube, is pulled over somebody's face in order to suffocate that person.

MR RAUTENBACH: This is also to receive admissions or information from someone, and these types of methods were used since you arrived at the police in 1969?

MR ZEELIE: No, I referred specifically to the shock methods.

MR RAUTENBACH: But then these are other methods then which you also know of?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: En dan sê u

"I know of instances where the so-called broomstick method was used."

That's your next sentence. Could you tell us, what did the broomstick method entail?

MR ZEELIE: His hands were cuffed and his feet, and the broom was put through his arms and legs and he was swung between two tables.

MR RAUTENBACH: To do what?

MR ZEELIE: It's just a type of way to make him talk, he is hanging on his arms and legs and he was being swung and it causes pain. I never applied it, but I have seen it once.

MR RAUTENBACH: Dan sê u

"I know of instances where a person's toe was pinched with pliers."

Kan u net dit verduidelik?

MR ZEELIE: I'd just like to, for you to, something, as I've said before, there must have been mistakes, "instances" might well be "instance" and not "instances".

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you just tell us what happened there?

MR ZEELIE: It's a specific case I saw where, and this came about in a court case, it came to light in a court case, I didn't see it myself, it was in a court case, where a person was charged and he was interrogated and in the court he gave testimony that somebody bit his toe, but it might not have been what happened, he was blindfolded, his toe was pinched with pliers, that's what actually happened.

MR RAUTENBACH: You pointed out that you were aware of all these methods, for example the tube and the broomstick method, and also the pliers story, you've made use of methods of coercion in the past, let's just get that on record.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I mostly made use of the shock method.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why did you make use of the shock method?

MR ZEELIE: Because since my first years in the force, I was a young man, I saw this being used, I got to know it well.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you considered this the most effective method?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, it was very effective.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you aware of cases where a person might have used different methods, maybe first try to suffocate the person, then it doesn't help, and then later you'd apply electric shocks, maybe as the last measure?

MR ZEELIE: No, Your Honour, I can't see why electric shocks would be used as the last measure, but there's no reason why a person should first use one method and then later another method, it's not necessary.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you think, you are saying the shock is effective enough?

MR ZEELIE: With all respect, Your Honour, I'd like to know where these questions are leading us, because most of them are hypothetical, it's concerning methods that might be used, but it's not relevant in this case, and we're not getting anywhere?

MR RAUTENBACH: That's completely correct, Mr Chairperson, several witnesses have been asked about this, but each one is an individual applicant for amnesty and with regards to each one, the family's feeling is still that the way that Mr Bopape died, the fact that he was questioned or interrogated and after light shocks as described by the witnesses was applied to him, he suddenly died, that in the light of those versions, the fact is that these versions are not acceptable to the family and that's why I have to ask each witness the questions to investigate the issue and to understand that there might be room for other types of assault, other types of methods used, whichever, which might have led, in the end, to the death of Mr Bopape, whether it has been because of suffocation, shock, assault or whatever. Those are the reasons I'm asking these questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I can understand the reasons. I think this is also a matter that can be adequately dealt with in argument, but I think you can ask him whether he used any other particular methods. If we have to go through every possible method ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...of torture, we could be here for a long time, because there's innumerable types of methods.

MR RAUTENBACH: As it pleases you. I may just point out that for purposes of these aspects, the methods, I have asked the questions that I would have liked to ask, I have actually come to the end of it, but for maybe asking this last question. Mr Zeelie, did you ever make use of any other method, other than the shock method?

MR ZEELIE: No, Your Honour.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, it seems from the documents, and perhaps you could give us some clarity, that you are referred to in the documents as a so-called State witness. What is this all about?

MR ZEELIE: I would be very glad if you could give me information on that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you at no stage contact the attorney-general?

MR ZEELIE: No, I didn't contact the attorney-general, they contacted me.

MR RAUTENBACH: And did the attorney-general, when they contacted you, what was it all about, can you tell us?

MR ZEELIE: It had to do with information that the attorney-general had, and I was questioned about it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was this about Stanza Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: Yes. At that stage I had no information, I didn't give it to the attorney-general.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you at any stage give it to the attorney-general?

MR ZEELIE: I gave it to the attorney-general after I consulted with my legal representative and he told me that I had to go to the attorney-general and give a statement.

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want clarity, there wasn't a situation that a section 204 was at issue and that you would be a State witness?

MR ZEELIE: With regard to this incident?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes.

MR ZEELIE: No, it wasn't put to me. I could perhaps mention, in the other cases where I was questioned, and where I talked to the attorney-general and facts were given to me, I gave my co-operation only to the extent where the attorney-general told me that I will only give evidence that there would be a section 204.

MR RAUTENBACH: And I also want to ask you, with regard to the interrogation of Mr Bopape, as I understand it the people who were responsible, they were Engelbrecht and Mostert, or am I wrong?

MR ZEELIE: I don't understand your question?

MR RAUTENBACH: Who would accept the responsibility for the interrogation of Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: Mostert and Engelbrecht were responsible for the interrogation of Bopape.

MR RAUTENBACH: And I also want to say to you that at the stage that Bopape was interrogated, you testified, I think what it was, you went there, what did you ascertain there?

MR ZEELIE: I didn't ascertain anything, perhaps I just walked in there and asked how it went and then walked out.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you have any interest, did you want to find out what was going on?

MR ZEELIE: The fact that I was involved with the arrest and the fact that I was an officer on the floor, I believe that in all cases which are investigated that I have an interest.

MR RAUTENBACH: Since the start of using the electrical device, were you present the whole time?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you tell us, Mr Zeelie, let me put it to you this way, initially we have an interrogation, you're not really involved?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: To use the expression, you pop in at certain occasions?

MR ZEELIE: Please put it in Afrikaans.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that not good Afrikaans?

MR ZEELIE: We talk Afrikaans, please give me the statement in Afrikaans.

MR RAUTENBACH: I used the word in Afrikaans "loer", it is pop in. Is it that phrase that you don't understand?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, once or twice I went to have a look what was going on.

MR RAUTENBACH: Perhaps you did not understand?

MR ZEELIE: Well there's confusion, I couldn't hear you properly.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, we now have a pattern, where the person is asked for information. You're not really interested, you remain in the background, but when the person is shocked with a device, then you are present the whole time?

MR ZEELIE: I never said that I wasn't interested.

MR RAUTENBACH: I repeat, during the interrogation, you only popped in approximately twice, if I understand you correctly?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: When the torture starts with the shock device, you're present the whole time?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I was present.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why were you present then, at that stage, why do you want to be present then, or was it coincidental?

MR ZEELIE: I won't say it was coincidental, it was the same reason why I went into the office once or twice. It's in the passage and it would be normal that I would stand there.

MR RAUTENBACH: The question is, the machine is now obtained?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: You know the people were going to fetch a machine?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now you're not in the office anymore, you are now present where the man is going to be shocked?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Any specific reason why you're now present the whole time, did you want to see the results, what was the reason?

MR ZEELIE: It was clear that when someone is shocked, that certain information would come to light, and I accept that I would have been interested in that, to hear what information was given.

MR RAUTENBACH: What is your version concerning the time, for how long was he shocked, what was the duration?

MR ZEELIE: It could have been three, four minutes.

MR RAUTENBACH: If you refer to three, four minutes, could I infer from that, that it was over a period of three, four minutes?

MR ZEELIE: With intervals.

MR RAUTENBACH: If we have a look at this, if we look at the physical administering of a shock and the shocks, if we now add that in time, what would you guess, what would - I'm not referring now to the intervals that he wasn't shocked, but if you could now perhaps give an estimate?

MR ZEELIE: There were three shocks and if three shocks were given together, we have three different shocks, but if they now have to be added ...(intervention)

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, let's do it that way, yes.

MR ZEELIE: I would say half a minute.

MR RAUTENBACH: Concerning the shock, I want to refer you to page 379, page 379 you answer a question put by the chair-person of the section 29 committee, you start on page 379 at the top, this is your answer

"If you will give me the opportunity just to finish what I want to say. When I was informed that he was not co-operating, then we decided, all of us together decided that as we said that he had to be frightened, when one gives someone an electric shock, then the person would shake and you can damage yourself if you shake like that when you have been shocked, and that is why we decided to place the person in the passageway, so that there would not be any other items or furniture in the area so as the person couldn't be hurt by those other objects, that is why this happened in the passageway."

Can you remember that you gave the testimony?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you stick to that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just tell us, this is one of the only sections that I could get that gives more or less a description precisely what happens to the person when he was shocked. Is it your experience that he shakes to such an extent that if he's close to other items that he could injure himself?

MR ZEELIE: What I meant with that, if you shock someone, then the muscles are contracted, and what I tried to say was that there was a possibility, the fact that his muscles contract, that he could straighten out his legs and through that a chair could be pushed over and the person is placed on a chair which is not very stable, and that is basically what this boils down to.

MR RAUTENBACH: I also infer from this that there is a definite jerking, shaking of the person when his muscles contract?

MR ZEELIE: I would not say that he really jerks, it depends on how you turn the sling. It has to do with a contraction and then also release of the muscles.

MR RAUTENBACH: If I take that handle and I give it one turn and then he contracts and releases, relaxes, I don't know much about this, you say it depends on the turn, could you just explain that, if you continue turning it ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: If you continue turning it, then the muscles stay contracted. If you stop, then it relaxes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now if the machine, as you said, for example, half a minute, 30 seconds, for 30 seconds this machine is turned, would the person be in the contracted position for the 30 seconds?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Under section 29 proceedings, you also indicated to Mr Steenkamp, you had to make an estimation of how many times you have shocked people in the past, it was very difficult for you to do that, can you remember?

MR ZEELIE: I think that is incorrect, I think it was referred to a question, how many assaults had been committed and not so much shocks, and he used figures of 200 and so forth, and I told him I could not answer that, and I read it in this version and this was incorrect, he referred to assaults and not shocks.

MR RAUTENBACH: If you refer to shocks, and this is why I want to put this to you specifically, shocks, how many times in the past have you shocked people?

MR ZEELIE: It's difficult to give a specific number, it could have been 10, it could have been more over the years.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, would I be correct if I say that some people give more resistance than others, some people you have to shock for a longer period before they give information, am I correct?

MR ZEELIE: It's not only about resistance, it's also concerning the type of information that is withheld.

MR RAUTENBACH: But if you now, for example, want information and this person really doesn't want to give it to you ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: Yes?

MR RAUTENBACH: ...what would you say, as I understand you, and also from the other members' testimony, is this is a process where it was only started, the shock therapy was only started, if I can put it in this way.

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you mention a case where you were involved, according to your experience, that was on the other side of the continuum, where the process had proceeded for quite some time, how many times would such a person have been shocked?

MR ZEELIE: It would depend on the specific case.

MR RAUTENBACH: You would not shock a person on end?

MR ZEELIE: If he doesn't want to talk, you would leave him at some stage and then you'll come back and then you'll continue with the shock.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you will refer to a process, you would shock the person, you would stop, you would come back, then have another session, shock him again?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: According to you, with your experience, what would have caused the red lights to go on, if you understand what I say?

MR ZEELIE: This shock method, according to me, is mostly there to make the person tired, there's also some pain involved, but this is the type of method that I cannot think that you can really kill a person. I can just say that in this process of contracting, the person also keeps in his breath, holds his breath, and the moment the muscles are relaxed, he would then breathe normally again. According to me, if I turn the sling for three minutes on end, then it could become dangerous, but I have never seen that any person, in the years that I've been in the police and involved in these instances, that a person had any damage, long-term damage, perhaps stiffness of the muscles, that is what he experiences.

MR RAUTENBACH: It seems to me from what you say that the measure of how the person feels uncomfortable, discomfort, is in correlation with how long you turn the sling, so that you could have the following situation: a person doesn't want to give information, the electrodes are placed on his body, the sling is turned, he's in discomfort, it's visible, and you ask him, "Where's the information, I want the information?", and the person says no, he's not prepared to give the information, and then there's a strong possibility that the next time you would turn the sling even longer, so that the discomfort increases?

MR ZEELIE: Not necessarily. The number of sessions that you have leads also to the discomfort, it's like a child who is spanked, he gets his first, he's at the first time, now the second one is not more intense, but it becomes even more painful, but by continuing with the shock, letting it be longer, it also becomes more painful.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you see any pattern that day regarding the duration of the shocks on the body?

MR ZEELIE: No, the period was so short that I was really surprised that this person died, and the only deduction that I could make was that this man died because of a heart attack, that it was a shock, that he got such a fright.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, let's take it in such a way, if you had not been present and a person told you that, someone like Du Preez, Du Preez was a constable, wasn't he?

MR ZEELIE: No, he was a sergeant.

MR RAUTENBACH: He comes to you and he says, "Lieutenant, we turned the sling two or three times for short periods, he's dead", it wouldn't have made any sense, you would have questioned it?

MR ZEELIE: Exactly what I have said now, I would have asked him, "Didn't that man die of a heart attack?", because I want to say to you that I knew many fit people who I knew went to the gym every day, and walked into his office, it happened to a senior officer, one of the fittest people that I knew, and he walked into his office and when he drank his cup of coffee, he fell forward and he had a heart attack.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, how many people, in your experience, who were shocked by means of this electrical device, by turning this thing, how many people had died?

MR ZEELIE: No, never, that was the first time. I also want to mention another specific case, and it happened in my family, where someone broke in, and this particular family member of mine, and he got to the house and the thief ran away and he jumped over the wall and he shot at him with a 458 gun and he phoned the police, and the police came out and five metres on the other side of the wall, they found the man, he was dead, and he didn't have a single mark on him, and the finding was that this person died of shock.

MR RAUTENBACH: And while there was a body available to have a post-mortem investigation?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, and I would really have given everything that we could have a body available today to show to you that what we are telling you now is the truth and only the truth. I personally would have liked that body to be here.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, this whole aspect would have been much easier if it been handled and dealt with in the way that you are saying now, and that is exactly what is the problem with the family, is the fact that you disposed of the body. There's a very strong suspicion that the body was in such a condition that the police could not afford it that this body should ever be found?

MR ZEELIE: I don't agree with you. As I have already said, at that stage, it was a totally different situation as it is right now. At this stage, I would also very much like the body to be available, to show to you, to prove to you that the man was not assaulted and that it can then be determined what caused his death, because my honest opinion is that he could have possibly died of a heart attack, and there's just no way that he could have died because of another reason. The fact that the body was disposed of, you have to understand, was, there was really no other choice at that time, could I also just finish what I say, because of the political situation and the unrest and the war we were fighting and the complications it would have had for the government of the day at that stage, and also the police force.

MR RAUTENBACH: You made a lot of the 16th of June, but you could perhaps also have waited for after the 16th of June, that could also have been an option.

MR ZEELIE: I don't understand what you're saying?

MR RAUTENBACH: You refer to the 16th of June, that was the 12th, so you could just have waited a few days and then you could have made it public that he had died in detention. Well I know there are other factors, but this is something that you could have considered?

MR ZEELIE: I don't think this is really telling, I don't think one could wait for four days and then make something public, the complications would even have been bigger.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now you say the complications would have been bigger?

MR ZEELIE: I don't want to debate this with you, because you know it would have been.

MR RAUTENBACH: No, that's not what I'm saying, let's have a look at the aspect that I was busy with. If someone comes to you, a junior officer, and tells you, and you told me that in all the years, this shock method that you prefer, that no-one has ever died, and a junior officer comes to you and he says to you, this junior policeman comes to you, "Lieutenant, we turned this thing two or three times and the person is dead", would you have questioned it?

MR ZEELIE: I would not have questioned it.

MR RAUTENBACH: It wouldn't have occurred to you that perhaps this person is lying to you, isn't that one of the possibilities that you would consider?

MR ZEELIE: If I knew the person and he came to me and he told me, "I turned this thing once or twice and the man

died", then I would not really doubt him directly, because he comes to me with a problem. If he came to me and told me, "I tortured this person until he died and now I have a problem", then it is a different case. I cannot think that at that stage that I would really doubt him, because he comes to me with a problem and he states it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, you would have been surprised, because it had never happened before, isn't that so?

MR ZEELIE: I didn't say that I would not be surprised, I said I would not have doubted him. I would have asked him, "Are you sure the man didn't die because of a heart attack?", that is what I said.

MR RAUTENBACH: And if he came to you and he said, "We turned this machine for five minutes and he then died", that would not have surprised you?

MR ZEELIE: Then I would have told him, "I think you went too far", because then he would have given me the reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, when you come to a convenient stage, we can adjourn at any time, tell me if it's convenient for you at a point where you're not ...(intervention).

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, okay, I think this is a convenient stage, it is (indistinct), I see. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll then adjourn the matter until tomorrow morning. Will half past nine, as before, half past nine tomorrow morning, and I wonder if we could please just ask the legal representatives quickly to see us in the office (indistinct).

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS