Amnesty Hearings

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Good Morning. Mr Rautenbach, at the conclusion of yesterday's hearing, you were still in the process of putting questions to the witness. You may continue.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Zeelie, I immediately want to refer to an incidence that was discussed yesterday. You remember that you were asked with regard to people who would appear in court and that they would now allege that they had been assaulted. Do you remember that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And in some of those cases where people alleged that they were assaulted we've got a situation where some of them had been assaulted and others who alleged that they were assaulted but who weren't. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now considering the people who alleged that they were assaulted, for example electrical shocks, people who made those kinds of allegations, whether it be security, prisoners or just ordinary accused who were being investigated by the detective unit. Would you agree that in many of those cases, let's take the people who were really assaulted, who alleged that they were assaulted, the members of the police force usually denied that the people had been assaulted. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: I just want to say I don't have knowledge or I only have knowledge of security detainees.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you were also in the detective unit?

MR ZEELIE: No I was never part of the detective unit.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's confine ourselves to security detainees, let's say security prisoners, there were cases in internal trials that they alleged that they had been assaulted are you aware of that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now the people who had been assaulted. Would you agree with me that usually the police officers, even in the internal trials, even with regard to people who had been assaulted, they would deny that they had been assaulted. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: So with regard to people who had been assaulted a situation was created where policemen with the normal procedure of court cases then also lied, committed perjury? With regard to the intensity of the shocks that I referred to yesterday, you indicated yesterday and I got the impression that the shocks that were administered to Bopape in intensity was almost the same.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you just tell me, you personally, when you made use of the shock device as the person was interrogated, did you increase the intensity to get answers?

MR ZEELIE: I would not say that it was always increased as I said earlier. The intensity could even have been less. We just gave a single turn and then shock and a single turn and then shock. So it just didn't follow that it would have been increased.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you in any way with regard to Bopape, was it your plan to increase the intensity to get him into a situation where he was forced to talk?

MR ZEELIE: I would not say by increasing the intensity. It could have been that we could just give one turn and leave it and give it one turn but we would have got to the point where we would get the information from Bopape by means of the shock treatment.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was it your plan to increase it later on?

MR ZEELIE: I can't say that but the idea would have been to apply for a longer period.

MR RAUTENBACH: I want to refer you and I'm not trying to say that this differs from what you are saying. This is in Volume 2, page 366, Bundle 6. Now this has to do with an answer you gave during the Section 29 investigation at the bottom of the page. I think it was a Committee Member or an Investigation Officer, Dr Allie. He asks

"So electric shock is torture and was Stanza Bopape, was electric shock applied to him? Would you consider that torture then or not?"

And the answer was -

"I would say that the degree of shocks given to Bopape were not yet torture since he had not yet been given big shocks. Our goal at that time was to frighten him with regard to what might happen to him."

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you confirm that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie what was your idea with the use of the words "He had not yet been given big shocks"

MR ZEELIE: I believe what I meant with that as I have said was that the administering of the shock would have taken place over a longer period of time.

MR RAUTENBACH: "Big shocks"?

MR ZEELIE: The word "big" could perhaps be wrongly used because it can't be a bigger shock. It's the same shock that is administered only over a longer period of time.

MR RAUTENBACH: With respect Chairperson, this is in English, he testified in Afrikaans. We don't know what the Afrikaans words were. It looks like a very strange translation - "big shocks".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I unfortunately wasn't there so I can't comment. I don't know how accurate the translation is.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, it is surely debatable at the end of the day, I accept that this is a translation. Mr Zeelie, the suspicion on the side of the family is that this was a progressive way of torture that would in the end by means of bigger shocks or whatever methods would have led to it that Mr Bopape died, that he died because of torture. I'm just telling you what the feeling of the family is.

MR ZEELIE: I don't know whether I should say something, that I should answer. It was a statement made, it was not a question put.

MR RAUTENBACH: If you don't want to comment, nothing to be held against you, that's the feeling of the family.

MR ZEELIE: What I can say what I testified earlier, I was of the opinion that he died because of a heart attack.

MR RAUTENBACH: With regard to the fact that you think that might of been a heart attack, I want to refer you to the following testimony. What caused it that you could have thought that it might have been a heart attack? Was it something that happened?

MR ZEELIE: There wasn't something specifically that happened at that stage, at that stage I though that would be the only possibility.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was it just something that occurred to you in your general experience that that could have been the cause?

MR ZEELIE: That was the only reason that I could see.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie it appears from the Section 29 proceedings that something happened that would have caused you to think that. I refer to page 377 it's also in Bundle 2. There is an answer that you gave, it's in the middle of the page, Zeelie, in the last paragraph you say the following: "The fact that this man died so quickly and in such an easy way concerned us and that is why Colonel van Niekerk checked up on the file and while checking up on the file he found this, and this is just hearsay, you will have to ask him the question how he exactly he did this. What he then determined that this person had been to the Princess Hospital for treatment and people with heart problems were treated there. That is why I'm saying that I cannot give you a detailed comment on this aspect." Now the question I would like to ask you about this file. Just before you have this, so what you say in the last paragraph, something you said about the District Surgeon. Now the impression that is created with the Section 29 that in the file with regard to Bopape, there were indications that he had a heart condition. That was not what Mr van Niekerk's testimony was.

MR ZEELIE: That is why I mentioned at that stage it was hearsay and it was a thought that occurred to confirm what I had thought at that stage what could have taken place.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can I just return to your previous answer, do you say that it played a role in information that you got, this hearsay information with regard to what was in the file?

MR ZEELIE: No, as I said my opinion was that that was made on that specific day that he could have died because of a heart attack and as I said, hearsay and that is why I said hearsay information that that could have been the reason same as what I thought previously.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie did you at any stage, this incident that you were quite surprised if we look at the evidence on page 366, did you ever think about it to have a look at the file? Are there any comments that were made by the District Surgeon?

MR ZEELIE: No, I didn't do that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, you also hear the testimony of Engelbrecht where he said that the medication that Bopape had with him that he helped him to obtain when he came from the District Surgeon was for a sinusitis problem?

MR ZEELIE: I heard that.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to ask you, the discussion that you had at John Vorster Square. There was a discussion that you were present with Colonel van Niekerk that you had with General Erasmus. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you tell us what did General Erasmus tell you during that discussion?

MR ZEELIE: He referred to after he returned from Pretoria.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's put it in context. As I understand it, Colonel van Niekerk initially contacted General Erasmus.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: He went to his house?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And General Erasmus then went to Pretoria apparently to discuss this with General van der Merwe?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: He then returned to John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then there was a discussion during which you and General van Niekerk were present - that was with Erasmus?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just tell us what did General Erasmus say during that conversation?

MR ZEELIE: If I can remember correctly, General Erasmus informed us that Bopape's body had to be transferred to the Eastern Transvaal and that we had to arrange a mock escape there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that what you can remember what happened?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did General Erasmus make any enquiries with regard to how it could have happened that the man had died during interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: No, not when I was present, it could be possible that it was discussed with Colonel van Niekerk.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then with regard to the person Bheki Nkosi, I just want to say to you because I wanted to put it earlier but I couldn't make it positive. Can you remember that on the 10th, the Friday, the 10th June, whether we now call it interrogation or not, the testimony is that it was a proper interrogation but were you aware of it that there were discussions between Engelbrecht and Mostert with Bopape on the 10th June?

MR ZEELIE: I was at no stage involved with any interrogation on the 10th June with Bopape.

MR RAUTENBACH: The question wasn't whether you were involved, the question is whether you were aware of the fact that there were discussions.

MR ZEELIE: No I was not aware of any.

MR RAUTENBACH: With regard to the interrogation. Bheki Nkosi says that on the 10th June he was interrogated on the same floor that Bopape was interrogated and during his interrogation Mostert came into the room and he said Mostert grabbed on his shoulder and shook him and he wanted to know something about Bopape. You have no knowledge of that?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you transferred the body of Bopape at Bronkhorstpruit, the body was transferred to the vehicle, Van Logellen's vehicle and was placed in the boot. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember what kind of vehicle Van Logellen had?

MR ZEELIE: No I can't remember.

MR RAUTENBACH: The colour?

MR ZEELIE: At this stage I can't remember the colour.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember that you were quite sure during the Section 29 investigation that it was a white vehicle?

MR ZEELIE: It is possible. At this stage I can't remember.

MR RAUTENBACH: Another aspect that I would like to have clarity on with regard to the occurrence book. There was an entry and perhaps you can just explain to us. It is on page -the one that I want to refer to, it's on page 754. That is the entry concerning Bopape in the right hand column with regard to the section or what is meant in the right hand column, it's not quite clear but with regard to meals, there are six. Who enters these meals?

MR ZEELIE: The person who makes the entries is the person on duty at the cells.

MR RAUTENBACH: Who is in charge of the cells. With regard to Bheki Nkosi, the question that arises is that the only information in relation to him that existed according to you, is that he was found in a room that Bopape was in and then secondly that banned literature was also found in that room?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is it correct that Bheki Nkosi was placed in Section 29 detention? Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you also read that Bheki Nkosi alleged that he was also assaulted for information?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I read it in his statement.

MR RAUTENBACH: And I don't think it's necessary to really go into this but with regard to who was present at certain meetings you refer to printing errors. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want clarity - are those printing errors or is it a case that perhaps after you read some of the other applications or had been properly consulted that you remembered more and that you realised that perhaps you made some errors in your initial statements with regard to people present?

MR ZEELIE: I accept that it was an error made by the legal representative who compiled the amnesty application. Facts were given to them and our applications were handled by them, it's a large volume and I think that's where the errors came in.

MR RAUTENBACH: You signed it. Probably you did not see it when you signed it?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I also want to ask you, I'm almost at the end of this cross-examining. With regard to Vlakplaas. Were you involved at Vlakplaas?

MR ZEELIE: No I was not.

MR RAUTENBACH: Not at all?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you have any information of Japie Maponya, that is a person who was blown up during a bomb explosion?

MEMBER OF PANEL: Mr Chairman, it wasn't Japie Maponya, it was Oderile Maponya, that was blown up.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, I think that's in the record. Yes. Did you have information about him?

MR ZEELIE: Specific information no.

MR RAUTENBACH: Were you aware of the fact, Mr Zeelie, that he was also interrogated about Maponya activities?

MR ZEELIE: If he was detained he would also have been interrogated.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you aware of the fact that he died?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I read about it.

MR RAUTENBACH: And that he died during so-called interrogation session? The broer of Maponya, the person who died now at the explosion, now his brother died later on, do you know [interruption]

MR PRINSLOO: What is the relevance of this?

CHAIRPERSON: Is this relevant at all Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: It depends on the knowledge of the witness, the witness says to me he heard about it, he knows nothing more about it, that's the end of the question, I accept that. Mr Zeelie, are you aware of the fact that Maponya's brother died in an effort to interrogate him or are you not aware of it?

MR ZEELIE: No I'm not.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'll leave it there. I want to make a certain remark with regard to what you said about the political situation in 1976. According to you it was a situation where the ANC stood behind the unrest and I suppose you would also concede then that in '76 there was a lot of unhappiness among the largest part of the population?

MR ZEELIE: That is now the Black population?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes that is correct.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Steenkamp do you have any questions?

MR STEENKAMP: No further questions thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo did you have any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Zeelie were you aware of a shock device that was held at Sandton?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Zeelie and the struggle that you've referred to that you waged against the ANC when you worked with Bopape did you believe that you were involved in the same struggle as your colleagues?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And after this person had died were you in any way told by your superiors that you should not use a shock machine or any other methods of coercion?

MR ZEELIE: No never.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Gcabashe do you have any questions?

MS GCABASHE: Mr Zeelie, there are a few areas I'm not very clear about. First, is it correct that you were in charge of the bomb disposal section of the investigative unit under the now Mr van Niekerk?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: And I'm specifically just speaking about the period 9th - 12th, 13th June 1988. Alright?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: Now at the time your functions essentially were related to bomb disposal?

MR ZEELIE: That is not correct.

MS GCABASHE: Your functions you are saying included investigating other matters?

MR ZEELIE: I was a member of the investigating unit at John Vorster Square Security Branch.

MS GCABASHE: But on between the 9th and the 12th you were not asked to participate in the interrogation of Bopape, Stanza Bopape. Yes?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: You were simply asked to assist with arresting on the 9th, the night of the 9th?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: And your superiors in the form of the now Mr Erasmus actually asked you to do that?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MS GCABASHE: Who was it who gave you the instruction to go and assist?

MR ZEELIE: It was Major Victor.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you, you're right, you did say that. So you had an instruction from a superior "go and assist with the Bopape matter." That's really what I'm establishing.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: We then get to the telephone calls that were made to Bopape. Did you make those telephone calls as the most senior person who was going out to investigate, arrest this man?

MR ZEELIE: I didn't personally make the calls.

MS GCABASHE: Were you there when the calls were made?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember that I was present but I accept yes.

MS GCABASHE: Now Mr Nkosi in his affidavit says one of the calls that came in was referred to the room next door. Would this have been room 1206?

MR ZEELIE: I really can't give you a correct answer to that but what I know is that at some stage one of the members went to that particular room.

MS GCABASHE: You personally did not go to the room next door?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember that I personally went there.

MS GCABASHE: Do you know if anybody from the room next door was arrested?

MR ZEELIE: If I can remember correctly, there was no one in that room.

MS GCABASHE: Right, now coming back still on the night of the 9th. In your Section 29 testimony you speak of the possibility of having roughed up the people you were arresting had they been resisting. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. In Afrikaans I used the words of "necessary violence"

MS GCABASHE: Now as part of that necessary violence, what exactly would that include?

MR ZEELIE: It would depend on the extent of the resistance. That would now be the violence that could be used.

MS GCABASHE: Now I would really like you to think back and try to remember to what extent you used that necessary violence?

MR ZEELIE: In my testimony I said that I believe or that it is possible that it could have taken place. In my testimony here I was questioned with regard to this particular incident and I corrected myself and said that perhaps I could have said yes and the panel confronted me with this and I said that I believe or rather I said that it was possible but I can't remember whether it in fact happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry Ms Gcabashe if I may just interpose. So you can't remember whether or not there was any resistance?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But if one takes the situation, you've got two people, we know the one was lying in bed probably in his pyjamas. There's a knock on the door and a host of armed policemen come in with battledress and bullet proof vests armed with weapons. Would it be reasonable for anybody to infer that there may have been resistance. Could those two people, one of whom was lying in bed in his pyjamas probably, what would have been their purpose to resist that onslaught if I can use the word.

MR ZEELIE: I've already testified that the normal procedure was that the one unit, the unrest people would control the people inside and then I also said that if it was possible that there was resistance it could possibly have been where for example you have to handcuff him that he could resist that. That is what I remember that I told you.

MS GCABASHE: Yes, you see Mr Zeelie, you say in your testimony at the section 29 hearing on page 350, that's volume 2, in relation to a question about assaulting with a fist and this is on the night of the 9th. 350 - it's all got to do with the arresting of Mr Bopape. You say "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". Let's just stop there. Had there been a charge laid against you - are you saying you would then have remembered whether or not you had assaulted him with your fists?

MR ZEELIE: No your honour, there was no charge put against me and I would have denied it in any case. That is why I refer to assault with fists because any measure of violence can be seen as possible assault.

MS GCABASHE: Really, but in the very next sentence you say "I do not believe it was a serious assault." Now there was either an assault or there was no assault. You either believe there was an assault and it was not serious or there was just no assault at all. Which is it?

MR ZEELIE: I've already said that I do not remember if there was any resistance.

MS GCABASHE: And you cannot then explain the sentence "I do not believe that it was a serious assault.

MR ZEELIE: What I meant by this, once again, was that only the necessary violence was needed to get him under control.

MS GCABASHE: But the problem is you can't, you can't even explain that necessary violence, you can't give us a picture of what that might have entailed.

MR ZEELIE: Your honour, what I've said in my evidence, I cannot give evidence if I'm not sure what happened, I'm only speculating then.

MS GCABASHE: You see Mr Zeelie because I would have thought that generally speaking when policemen rush into a room as Judge Miller has just set out, there will be some form of violence, however minor, there will be a form of assault and what concerns me as a member of this panel is why this becomes such an issue that it's difficult for you to admit that you would have roughed people up, you would have assaulted them however mildly. I don't understand why you won't disclose certain things that seem to be pedestrian issues.

MR ZEELIE: I explain at various and I said it was possible that it could happen.

CHAIRPERSON: The fact that those policemen who went into that room were dressed in bullet proof vests and they went in there in fairly large numbers, did you believe that the inhabitants of that flat may well be armed? Maybe with automatic weapons?

MR ZEELIE: I would have answered yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So if you went in there, would there not have been any intention on part of these policemen dressed in bullet proof vests to overcome them, to stop them from getting to their arms? Did that happen?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I do agree with that. They went ahead, I cannot say with certainty how they acted precisely.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you in the forefront. You were the leader. Were you the first in the door when you went into the flat?

MR ZEELIE: You mean when the person was already taken into custody?

CHAIRPERSON: No, when the door was opened of the flat.

MR ZEELIE: From the unrest members was there first and it would have been them.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Zeelie, may I just clarify one aspect. You see at page 150 of the record you are said to have said the following: "I do not believe that it was a serious assault." Now what you've just told us this morning is that what you meant by that statement is that you were referring to the necessary violence?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. What I meant was that if it happened it would not have been a serious assault.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you say at that enquiry that "I do not believe that it was a serious assault." Did you say that?

I don't want you to tell us what you meant, I just want to find out whether the words which appear here, which are attributed to you. Did you make that statement?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot precisely remember what my Afrikaans version was. You've got the document in front of you and that is what you see. I cannot at this stage what was my true Afrikaans version at that stage.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I'm not asking you what you may have said in Afrikaans, but what I'm asking you is as far as you can remember, is what appears on this record an accurate reflection of what you said on that occasion?

MR ZEELIE: Your honour I said I gave my evidence in Afrikaans. I would like to help you with an answer but I look at an English version here now and if I can listen to the Afrikaans version then maybe I could honestly answer you.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me ask the question again. What stands on this record, is this an accurate reflection of what you said on that occasion?

MR ZEELIE: I had no opportunity to test this English version against the Afrikaans version in which I gave my evidence.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I take it that you understand English?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

NGCOBO: And I remember yesterday you queried one of the statements made in the affidavit of Mr Nkosi. Is that right?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Now what difficulty do you have in telling us whether as this sentence stands, does it correctly reflect what you said on that occasion?

MR ZEELIE: As I said to you, I have got no problem with it but you made a direct statement to me that was translated into English, a direct - to give a direct answer, I have to listen to what was my Afrikaans words at that stage.

MR DE JAGER: Could I ask you then, let us forget what was said in Afrikaans at that day, is what is standing here a correct version of the facts as you remember them of what happened that night?

MR ZEELIE: There are a few places.

MR DE JAGER: We would like to deal with this phrase now. We would like to deal with this specific phrase "I do not believe that it was a serious assault."

MR ZEELIE: I say that it was possible that I could have said this.

MR DE JAGER: Let us forget if it was possible that you said it, was there at that specific evening an assault but it was not a serious assault?

MR ZEELIE: I said I could not remember if there was an assault but I tried to put the facts in such a way that if those words were said it's not specific to say that it was not a serious assault but the intention would not have been a serious assault.

MS GCABASHE: Then just to finish off this point. You then go on to say in answer to Mr Steenkamp, same page, the question was "Did he resist arrest?" Your short answer is "Yes."

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: But you are unable to tell us today whether he did in fact resist arrest and as a consequence of that whether he was then roughed up, assaulted, handled with the necessary violence, whichever phrase you prefer.

MR ZEELIE: I explained this whole situation to the panel and questions was put to me and I did answer them and I said there was at various stages asked, questions put to me and I said I could not remember, it is possible and the panel took me up on this and I could have said yes and to conclude your point and the Chairperson told me about it.

MS GCABASHE: Now haven't you refreshed your memory in the last five minutes, just while we have discussed this point. What is the answer to the question? Did he resist arrest?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot remember.

MS GCABASHE: We move from there to the bathroom. Nkosi in his affidavit says that you took Bopape to the bathroom. Were you on of the people who took Bopape to the bathroom?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember that I did that.

MS GCABASHE: Would you know who did take him to the bathroom?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot remember who would have done it if it happened.

MS GCABASHE: Can you give an estimation of the amount of time you spent in the flat that night?

MR ZEELIE: It is difficult to give a specific time of how long we spent or how long we were there. I cannot give a correct estimate.

MS GCABASHE: Mr Zeelie, you continuously misunderstand questions that are put to you. The simple question was an estimate, no precision is asked for, an estimate.

MR ZEELIE: It could have been 15 minutes, could be 20 minutes, it could be longer or less than that.

MS GCABASHE: Do you recall who found the banned literature in the flat?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot remember a specific person who got this banned literature.

MS GCABASHE: As the most senior officer at the place at the time was a report given to you about this literature being found?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MS GCABASHE: Where and when was it given to you?

MR ZEELIE: I believe it was given to me in the flat when Nkosi was also arrested.

MS GCABASHE: Did you see this literature? You personally?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I believe I did see it at that stage.

MS GCABASHE: Did you ask the officer reporting to you where he had found it?

MR ZEELIE: I would definitely have asked him that.

MS GCABASHE: But you can't remember anything else about that?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot remember.

MS GCABASHE: Mr Zeelie, now you have been at great pains to say to us you were not involved in the interrogation of Bopape on the 12th June, certainly not at the time that Mr Mostert and Mr Engelbrecht interrogated Bopape in Engelbrecht's office. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is true.

MS GCABASHE: But, you kept popping in and out or you popped in and out on occasion?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: I did not get your answer to the question put to you, what was your interest in this matter? Why did you keep popping in and out? You weren't seized of this matter.

MR ZEELIE: I have already gave my evidence. I was an officer and I was attached to this case. I was involved with the arrest of Bopape. I already mentioned that the information given to us that he was involved in the Maponya cases. I already mentioned that there were various telexes and cryptos that came across regarding certain explosives in which Maponya was involved in and I believe as officer of such a unit, if I was directly involved by the investigation or not, I have got an interest in the investigation by members who was part of my unit.

MS GCABASHE: Correctly put it was more of a curiosity? You were curious as to what progress was being made?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that is true.

MS GCABASHE: You then participate in discussions. If you look at page 379 of the same record, section 29 record, where you tell us right at the top that you were informed that he was not co-operating. That's not strictly true, you were not informed, it's Mr van Niekerk as the superior officer who had tasked two junior officers with interrogating Bopape. He was the person who was told that Bopape was not co-operating, not you?

MR ZEELIE: Your honour, if I said that, that was the intention. I was present there and not specifically it was said that Colonel Van Niekerk do not want to give his co-operation. I was present and a statement was made that says Bopape do not want to give his co-operation.

MS GCABASHE: You see the other problem I have is, the extend to which your presence at this meeting, at the interrogation itself, could have added value to the work that was being done by your colleagues. How did you add value? You knew very little about this. Mr van Niekerk had been to an in depth meeting with Mr Mostert. Mr Engelbrecht says he was briefed by Mr Mostert before they started the interrogation. You just happened to be there doing your own work and yet you make a contribution to these discussions. What value did you add to these discussions?

MR ZEELIE: I do not understand the specific statement of what value I added. I've already said I'm also an officer of the investigative unit at John Vorster Square. It was an ANC investigation and what was said there I cannot see how I have got no interest in that and what information could have been given, I also had a share in that by making certain recommendations and questions to give to the members to ask regarding certain telexes and other information that we received regarding the Maponya group.

MS GCABASHE: The point Mr Zeelie is, in terms of input you knew very little about this matter. Your colleagues knew much more so in terms of output, you could not have made a positive contribution to the discussion.

MR ZEELIE: I would not put it in that way. With the interrogation every person that makes a contribution makes a positive contribution.

MS GCABASHE: On the same point. Look at page 353, same hearing, 353. We are now on 353. "The terms 'scaring a person' has several meanings, but basically what I wanted to say was that we wanted to get him to tell the truth." Now the evidence we've had before us, Mr Zeelie, is that the man wouldn't talk, he wouldn't co-operate. You are somebody with the least knowledge of what the man is supposed to know of the four people who were there. What truth did you as an applicant in this particular matter, you want to get out of Bopape.

MR ZEELIE: As I mentioned, I some information regarding the Maponya group and this was an ANC terrorist investigation and my previous evidence I said that it was an attack on the system to try and disrupt or overthrow the government and I was part of the investigative team who fought this onslaught and that is why I think I've got just as right as all the others to investigate this person to have a share in this and to make a contribution.

MS GCABASHE: But this is precisely again the point, Mr Zeelie, you simply popped in and out on occasion during the initial interrogation in Mr Engelbrecht's room so you are really not privy to the responses or the questions that were being asked there. You really were not involved in that at all - I haven't finished - you then say you make a contribution to a discussion because you wanted the truth from Mr Bopape. In what manner would you, the individual, have been able to evaluate this truth? I mean, you, the individual?

MR ZEELIE: Firstly, like I wanted to ask this question that if Mr Bopape made certain information available it would have been to my interest because it's logic that if the members report that they are not allowed to give out any information, I can then see it as useless information. But if he gives positive information and on the point that where the members gave evidence that he doesn't want to work with them, he's resisting them, that in the Safety Police and Investigative Unit, I can give a contribution to help these members although the necessary information - to get the necessary information from Mr Bopape from the information that I've got from Maponya - Maponya activities.

MS GCABASHE: The question was how would you as an individual be able to evaluate what this person was saying, if he said anything at all? If he said anything at all?

MR ZEELIE: Once again as I have said, I have knowledge of the Maponya group and should Mr Bopape give evidence that corresponded with the activities in the Maponya group then I would have known it.

MS GCABASHE: But you would also then have had a report at your usual meetings either from your Commanding Officer or your superior, Mr van Niekerk, or in general discussions with Mostert and Engelbrecht. Your presence there at that particular time was totally unnecessary.

MR ZEELIE: No, as I have testified, I'm an officer in the investigating unit and at no stage an investigation would any officer's presence be unnecessary during any interrogation.

MS GCABASHE: Let's come to the idea of the device. Whose idea was it to get that device from Sandton?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot specifically say that it was me who made mention or perhaps Van Niekerk but among us, the five of us we - no sorry, at that stage we were four, it was mentioned that we - that the shock device should be used.

MS GCABASHE: Now, did somebody explain to Bopape how this device worked and why it was about to be used on him? You say you were there?

MR ZEELIE: No I can't remember that anyone told Mr Bopape how the device works and that device was going to be used. But I assume that he could have heard that we were going to use a shock device because it was discussed and that it also is a known fact among ANC members what the shock device is.

MS GCABASHE: Now do you know I had actually assumed that this meeting to consider these options took place in Mr van Niekerk's office. Are you saying this meeting took place in Mr Engelbrecht's office and C.N. Bopape was there, Stanza Bopape was there listening to this discussion?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot say that it was in Colonel van Niekerk's office or in Engelbrecht's office but I can't see why it should be kept a secret that he should not be able to hear that we're going to use a shock device and that we wanted to frighten him. I think that might have been the intention so that he should realise that we are going to use a device to in fact persuade him to give us the information.

MS GCABASHE: Please Mr Zeelie, just assist me in understanding in what happened that morning. You either had a meeting in the presence of Bopape and he was with you in Van Niekerk's office or all of you were in Engelbrecht's office. Which is it?

MR ZEELIE: As I've already said I can't remember precisely. But I can mention that should it had been in Colonel van Niekerk's office then there is also a possibility that Mr Bopape could have heard it because it was directly next to Van Niekerk's office and there was only glass division between the two offices.

MS GCABASHE: Mr Zeelie, slightly different point, please take me through the reactions of Bopape as you wound up that machine, that device.

MR ZEELIE: I did not do it. You said you. As I have already said when you turn the sling then Bopape's body muscles would contract and it also depends on where the ends of the cords are placed on the body and that would determine the specific effect it would have on the person.

MS GCABASHE: Yes and then when you let go, not you, the royal you, the person, I know it was Mr du Preez who actually wound it. When he let go of the handle or the sling what then would happen to the body? Just explain that to me?

MR ZEELIE: As I have testified the body would relax, the muscles would relax where the muscles are contracted it would now go back to the original position.

MS GCABASHE: The man would sweat, he would scream, his eyes would bulge out. What would his reactions be?

MR ZEELIE: No, from experience I've never seen that such a person's eyes would pop out or that he would scream. The contraction of the muscles and while the device is turned he won't be able to scream.

MS GCABASHE: I thought you were going on to explain what would then happen. Those are just examples, what would then happen? It's a totally painless exercise this?

MR ZEELIE: I have already testified it is painful.

MS GCABASHE: And you're not prepared to go through the reactions of that individual on that day while you were standing there?

MR ZEELIE: I don't understand your question?

MS GCABASHE: You are not prepared to describe to the Committee what the reactions of Bopape were. What reactions you observed as you stood there?

MR ZEELIE: I have testified on several occasions that this person's body contracted.

MS GCABASHE: You've also testified that he continued to refuse to say anything at all?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: That is why it was wound up three times.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: Now just a - it's a gentle issue, really. Let's finish off the issue of the blindfold. You've heard me ask your colleagues in their testimony what they knew of this. Let's finish that point off. What is the position, Mr Zeelie? Was he blindfolded or wasn't he?

MR ZEELIE: Perhaps I can answer. Mr Steenkamp, if I can remember correctly, on page 354 asked me a direct question whether he was blindfolded. At that stage I answered that is correct. On page 394 I also put it clearly with regard to this aspect and there I put it quite clearly that the person was not blindfolded and the reason why I should have said it was correct because that was normal procedure but here we acted openly, we wanted to frighten him and we wanted to coerce him to give information and he wasn't blindfolded and in detail I explained it in detail on page 394 and the panel accepted on that day what I have said and I wasn't referred to the fact that why did I say that he was blindfolded. The panel accepted my word and that is what had happened.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So, what is the answer?

MR ZEELIE: Who answered what?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Was he blindfolded?

MR ZEELIE: He wasn't blindfolded.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Thank you.

MS GCABASHE: Now we come to your comment about senior officers and their role in all of this. If you look at page 393. In fact it starts on 392. If you have 392, "If you have a Commanding Officer that you can see through your action under his command, you know if something happens he will cover you. That would be the sort of framework within which any investigative officer acted. Similarly with investigating officers who serve under me, they would have acted in a certain way if they knew I would take their part." Now I know you were cross-examined on this point by Mr Visser, Advocate Visser, but can you explain this to me? The assumption here was if you did something that was not proper, that was not right, your senior officer would cover for you. Explain that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I believed and as I have already said I knew that the senior officers would protect me because these acts that we committed weren't acts that we committed to personally get any gain it was done to keep the government of the day in power, it was to get information to keep the government in power. It was information that was obtained to prevent further acts of terror. It was information that was obtained to protect people's lives. I'm trying to look for the right word and that was to cope with the onslaught against the government.

MS GCABASHE: You see, it appears that this is exactly what happened in this particular case. Mr van Niekerk went to see Mr Erasmus, Mr Erasmus went to see Mr van der Merwe and we did have a cover up. So you are right, that they would condone this and cover it up.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: Then my last point was on page 414 on this aspect. Turn to 414.

MR DE JAGER: On this point Mr Wessels, he was Deputy Minister of Order at some stage and he said that he even had some suspicions that something like that could have happened and he asked no questions because he didn't want to know. Are you aware of that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I am, that is correct, that is why I testified yesterday that tacitly approval was given.

MS GCABASHE: To finish off on the point on superior officers on page 414. You say the very Commissioner who you referred to is the same one who issued the instruction with regard to the corpse. So I don't understand again within the context of condonation approval be tested to, or [indistinct] tested as you say. Page 414 line 6. You speak of the very Commissioner?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I believe I referred here to General van der Merwe.

MS GCABASHE: But again here, you are assuming that tested approval, you were not privy to any of the discussions that Mr van der Merwe may have been involved in?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: The mock escape. The mock escape. The De Deer incident. Let's come to that. Page 441 of your testimony. Just to confirm for me, this mock escape was planned after you returned from the Eastern Transvaal. That's correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. That is the one that took place, yes.

MS GCABASHE: But the planning actually started off in the car? That's the evidence that has been given.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. On the way back from the Eastern Transvaal.

MS GCABASHE: Who chose the De Deer site? Who chose that particular spot?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember which member chose the De Deer spot or site, it wasn't me because I didn't know that area.

MS GCABASHE: This mealie field that you ran through. Did it have crops?

MR ZEELIE: Not at that stage if I can remember correctly, possibly could have been, it's a long time ago, it could be possible that were some maize that had been harvested and that there were just little stumps standing there, I can't say with certainty at this stage whether there was still some maize or mealies on.

MS GCABASHE: Mr Zeelie, you ran through that field, you should remember whether you had mealie stumps or whether it had all been harvested at that stage. You ran through it.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. It was a long time ago and that is what I said it is possible that at that stage it could have been that it had been harvested already but there definitely weren't any mealies growing before it was harvested.

MS GCABASHE: Then those leg shackles. The intention was that they should make marks as you ran. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that is correct.

MS GCABASHE: Now did you turn back to look at what marks were in fact being made whether the plan was being effective?

MR ZEELIE: What I mean with that and what took place was that I had the one part of my hand and at that stage I let it fall and as you run the other side that fell out of the hand would fall to the ground and as you run forward and then you would pull it to the front and it would then make another mark and then it was picked up again up to the point where I took it off from my ankle.

MS GCABASHE: But anything, any animal, any person could have made any kind of mark on that mealie field?

MR ZEELIE: It would have given a very clear reflection where there would have been very clear footprints in the soft soil and with the footprints you would find these marks and then the inference could be made.

MS GCABASHE: Maybe I just don't have the right type of imagination, Mr Zeelie. The soft soil, it hadn't been raining, we know nothing about the rain. We know it's a mealie field so it's not sandy soil, it's not beach prints. How did these shackles leave marks? What marks were they supposed to leave there and I'm talking about marks that would indicate to investigating officers that an escaped person had run through this field?

MR ZEELIE: I didn't have a look at the marks but that is something that I did at the spur of the moment. It wasn't something that was planned before hand that I would leave these shackles to make the marks. That was while I was running and at the spur of the moment I did it to give it more credibility.

MS GCABASHE: Those shoes did they fit comfortably?

MR ZEELIE: It's possible that perhaps it could have been a size bigger than my feet. If I can remember correctly was Mr Bopape a bigger person than me.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moloi?

MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Zeelie, at the beginning of your evidence, you gave us a list of certain qualifications you have. I'm particularly interested in one which could possibly cast some light on you type of evidence. You referred to having undergone a course in giving evidence. I don't know how it was translated in English but I heard it in your Afrikaans to mean "Getuines Liewerings Kurses" , a course in giving evidence. It's one of the things you underwent. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that's correct. If I can remember correctly it was giving evidence with relation to weapons. Terror weapons. That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And what is the content of it more or less. I don't want a whole course but more or less what did it entail?

MR ZEELIE: It had to do with mostly the identifying of terror weaponry and that is why I said I also did a course in bomb disposal but it had to do with the finer detail of terror weapons and the expert evidence in that regard where there could possibly be questions.

MR MOLOI: And you would then prepare yourself to give evidence in court in order to secure conviction on the basis of this knowledge you had?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. What usually happened, was that weapons that were found in possession of terrorists, it was then placed in front of you in the presence of the accused and then you gave evidence on this about the weapons and he then pointed out to you and he gives his own version and then it is to weigh the knowledge that that person has about the weapons.

MR MOLOI: This occurrence, this causation of death of Bopape is not what you are used to?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: In your experience, when you want to obtain evidence from an activist, you never saw a person dying?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And also you went out of your way together with your colleagues to work out a scheme in order to conceal as it were the fact of his death?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. That was done in that way.

MR MOLOI: Lot's of planning took place and you were also fully aware of the repercussions it may have on you as individuals, on the force and in your words, on the government of the day as well?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: This is an occurrence that would live with you for a long time?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: I suppose it's something that you would not likely forget?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: You would not likely forget in particular the circumstances leading to the eventual death, would you?

MR ZEELIE: Could you just repeat the question please?

MR MOLOI: You would not forget in particular the circumstances leading to the death itself?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: You would need to be meticulous and also span in as it were, your mental and memory resources to remember this incident, it's a once off incident?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And in your evidence here you do tell what happened in great detail. Do you agree?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: You however suffered some amnesia when it comes to the real issues leading to the death. Do you agree?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And it is surprising is it not that you cannot remember the detail which you are supposed to remember in terms of your own evidence that led to the death of Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: I can only testify about what I can really remember and as you can sit and work it out, it's over a long period of time what had happened and questions arise, who, what, where and then you testify about that what you can really, really remember.

MR MOLOI: In this particular incident you put lots of time from the moment the death stepped in. Do you agree with me?

MR ZEELIE: I'm not quite sure what you're asking?

MR MOLOI: From the moment death occurred, you had to work out lots of things?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, there's a lot that goes through your thoughts, your mind, once again how is it possible? And there are many things that you think of.

MR MOLOI: The staging of the fake escape, you had concerns somebody may enquire about his death?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And also when you prepared for your application for amnesty, you reflected on this issue, you must have?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: You did so individually and you did so jointly with the others, didn't you?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct in collaboration with our legal representatives.

MR MOLOI: You wouldn't necessarily have wound your mind back and said the 9th June 1988 in that flat this and that must have happened?

MR ZEELIE: That is why I've said that it is possible that's

where I wasn't sure, that is correct.

MR MOLOI: No but if this, if, Mr Zeelie, if this was a once off incident and you have seen none like it, it wouldn't be difficult really to recall in detail what happened even if you had to live a hundred years?

MR ZEELIE: I would say that the incident where the death occurred, stepped in, what happened before that, the ordinary arrest, it was an arrest that was really an issue - a West Rand issue - you leave that in the hands of that division and that is why it isn't possible for me to give detail concerning that aspect.

MR MOLOI: Wouldn't the very fact that this was actually not your matter even make you remember more as to look what I went into because of the matter that was not even mine. I could have served as a better reminder, do you agree?

MR ZEELIE: I agree and that is why there would be differences between the Section 29 questioning and the questioning taking place here where there was criticism raised. But it is so that the more you sit around a table, the more you discuss the issue things come to light and then you can remember, yes it's possible and then you can testify about it.

MR MOLOI: Mr Chairman I notice it's eleven, I wonder if it's not opportunity to adjourn now?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes this is a convenient time we'll take the tea adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: (s.u.o.)

MR MOLOI: ...were brought into this matter of the rest of Bopape and the interrogation but you were not actually involved in this matter were you?

MR ZEELIE: Could you just repeat please?

MR MOLOI: Bopape was just brought in, you were not involved, so to say, it was not your case.

MR ZEELIE: Yes I would just like to explain further. I was not part or I did not - I wasn't involved in the interrogation.

MR MOLOI: And also the arrest you were just called in to lend a hand.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I was just busy to complete the previous question or answer. I repeat again I was not directly involved with the interrogation but the previous question that was asked, what was my interest with this interrogation on that specific day, I would just like to add that as I have given evidence I was involved with the disposal of the bombs.

MR MOLOI: Have you finished now?

MR ZEELIE: No not yet and my presence at the interrogation could at that stage have been very necessary where the relevant person Bopape could have given information regarding bombs or any other weaponry and I could then in that regard make a positive contribution. Thank you.

MR MOLOI: But the fact remains and which was a short question it was not your case?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I was not the investigative officer.

MR MOLOI: The 12th June you were present when you saw him dying when you - when he was tortured?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: Did this make an impression on you?

MR ZEELIE: Please repeat?

MR MOLOI: Did the fact of his death make any impression on you if at all?

MR ZEELIE: The fact that he died?

MR MOLOI: More so in that fashion?

MR ZEELIE: I was shocked I was surprised that he died.

MR MOLOI: And if this person, that you see dying, resisted arrest just a few days before that, surely that would be something that would remain registered in your mind, wouldn't it, at that moment?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot with certainty say that it would have been - come up with me if he did resist this arrest.

MR MOLOI: And if this person that you see dying now was hit by yourself with a clenched fist a few days before that would surely come back in your mind?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR MOLOI: And that fact would be indelible actually in your mind?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct but I have testified that I did not attack him with my fists.

MR MOLOI: And if you had treated him in any other manner other than hitting him with a fist that would also be registered indelibly in your mind if at all you cared.

MR ZEELIE: It was not specifically, as I testified earlier on, the evidence was that when he died that is something that stays with you but not necessarily be the things surrounding his arrest.

MR MOLOI: Mr Zeelie is it not so that whenever reference is made to any possible excess, the police and you in particular, might have engaged in, then your memory deliberately fails you?

MR ZEELIE: I do not understand your question.

MR MOLOI: Don't you find it convenient then to forget or fail to remember whenever there is reference made to any excesses that you might have engaged in?

MR ZEELIE: No the evidence that I gave you was the truth and nothing but the truth.

MR MOLOI: You give us in detail what happened, what reaction Bopape showed during the application of the shock treatment?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: Yet your memory cannot tell you that you applied force on him or not?

MR ZEELIE: I've already given evidence that I cannot remember that there was violence used against Bopape during his arrest.

MR MOLOI: You can also recall without effort that you went to Krugersdorp or Roodepoort, you had an assignment to do other than attending the briefing session that was given there?

MR ZEELIE: That is why you will see as I testified earlier in the Section 29 interrogation, I could not remember those facts but it came up. I could remember it later on and I gave evidence or I testified about it.

MR MOLOI: But those issues that really matter, you find convenient not to remember?

MR ZEELIE: I do not agree with that as I testified, the arrest is one event that happened and the interrogation on the 12th is another event that took place.

MR MOLOI: Surely if two or three days prior to a person's death, if you had done anything to him it would be an easy matter to remember? That's now him then?

MR ZEELIE: Not necessarily.

MR MOLOI: Do you mean you could also forget that you had any dealings with him a few days before his death?

MR ZEELIE: That I what with him before his death? I was involved with his arrest but the finer details one not always can remember and you can forget certain facts, as like in this panel some of the questioners forgot some of the questions and then repeat them.

MR MOLOI: Mr Zeelie application of force on a person is not a minor issue or is it to you?

MR ZEELIE: It is the measure of violence applied. Resistance of arrest happens a lot during arrests but you cannot always remember those facts. Once again I have to mention this was a West Rand investigation. We helped and West Rand at that stage took that person away. Those are facts that you shared in, but that you cannot always remember the details.

MR MOLOI: Now thank you, you have said now what you wanted to say but can you now reply to my question?

MR ZEELIE: Could you just repeat again please?

MR MOLOI: Application of force in whatever measure on a person cannot be a minor issue or is it to you?

MR ZEELIE: Not necessarily.

MR MOLOI: What's that supposed to mean?

MR ZEELIE: I can once again mention I was involved in various cases and I did answer them correctly - the questions of yesterday. I know that a person was attacked, if I was personally involved and with respect I cannot in how that person was attacked in detail. And that is the same for this case. I cannot give evidence to you because I think that it happened in this way and it's my right that if I cannot remember, with respect I can then say to you that that part of the investigation I cannot remember. You want me tell the truth and I did tell the truth and I keep on saying to you that I cannot remember those parts.

MR MOLOI: If I must work from your own story, this is not something that you have seen before - that a person dies in the circumstances you have described. Do you agree with me?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: It cannot be associated with the many other instances where force was applied to any person that really cared?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct. I agree with that but that is why I separate these two instances, the one is the arrest, it's an ordinary arrest and the second case is where the person was interrogated and he dies and that is that part that stays with you.

MR MOLOI: And this arrest must have been unique to you?

MR ZEELIE: The arrest was not unique.

MR MOLOI: This arrest was the first in which you were involved where a person subsequently died. Was it not?

MR ZEELIE: This specific arrest is not, was not brought to me or I could not remember it over the years that the fact died and that remained with me.

MR MOLOI: So it's easier for you to conveniently forget the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the death of the person?

MR ZEELIE: Your honour, with respect, it is not as what you put to me now. I did not forget anything conveniently. You did address me because there was also questions put to me and I said that is correct and you said to me that I must be careful and I am doing this now. Now I say, or tell you, what I can remember and I will only testify about what I can remember and that is why I will stay with what I've said.

MR MOLOI: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr de Jager?

MR DE JAGER: Do you ask amnesty for what happened during the arrest?

MR ZEELIE: In this specific case?

MR DE JAGER: In this specific case.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. If I read the whole context it is about the death of Bopape, it is attack - assault that led to his death.

MR DE JAGER: It is an assault during the arrest and there was also an assault with the machine. That's two assaults it's on different days, different cases.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, if I could remember that I assaulted Mr Bopape with arrest then I've got no reason or see no reason why I would deny this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge Ngcobo?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Zeelie, you were asked why you were present when the shock was administered to Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you were also asked to describe your interest in the interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: As I understand how the security branch works they co-operate with one another in obtaining information from detainees?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: There may have been something that Bopape would say which would be relevant to matters that you were then investigating?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You did not have to have any knowledge of the precise activities in which Bopape had been involved in order to be present during the interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you could have asked him any questions which emanate from the answers that he gave during the interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: It is - am I correct in saying that - it is therefore not strange to find that a member who is not part of the interrogation unit also take part in the questioning of the suspect?

MR ZEELIE: It is not something that happened in the past. The investigative team, we are one unit and at times this happened a lot that a person who is not directly involved with the interrogation do take part in this interrogation. It happened a lot.

JUDGE NGCOBO: That's not something that's normal procedure as I understand the position, is it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me direct your attention to I think it's page 376 of the record, Volume 2, I think it is. You see, you will recall will you not, that your Section 29 enquiry you were asked about the presence of Mr Mostert during the interrogation of Bheki Nkosi? You will recall that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And the answer of that you gave, well that the answer that is attributed to you is the following: "Yes, firstly, once again, it is unlikely that when two members were given instruction to question one's suspect, that Mostert would also be involved in the interrogation or questioning of course. That does not make sense to me." Did you say that?

MR RAUTENBACH: It's the wrong page Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 376 and the words appear about one third down the page next to the underlined words Mr Zeelie.

MR ZEELIE: I did say it yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Do you still stand by that statement?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I furthermore said I cannot accept that Mostert, I'm not saying that it's not so.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes, I'm coming to the next sentence. You're still standing by that sentence?

MR ZEELIE: I did say it yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And did you went on to say: "I cannot accept that Mostert, I'm not saying that it is not so, I am saying that I cannot accept that because it was not standard procedure with us that he would have become involved in the Syfret matter and Nkosi matter simultaneously whilst they had to, that Syfret would have been involved in the Nkosi matter while he had to question Bopape as well." Do you still stand by that statement?

MR ZEELIE: Yes what I meant was that he was busy interrogating Bopape. What I did not see at that stage or I didn't see the necessity that Nkosi must be there while he was outside with Bopape.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me move onto another aspect. You will recall yesterday that you were asked about whether the deceased resisted arrest. Do you remember that? Do you recall that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And I read to you the answer which was attributed to you in which you replied that "yes he did arrest". Do you recall that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And I think you later on said you are not certain that he did resist arrest?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And when you were asked as to why you stated as the fact that he resisted arrest but in fact you couldn't recall, your answer was: "Well I had been asked about this aspect on many times that's why I ended up giving that answer." Did you say that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Right, now, well you see your evidence at the enquiry commences at page 343. That's when you took the oath, I think thereabouts and the first question, the question which was put to you by Mr Steenkamp was the following: "Did you do anything to Mr Bopape when you were arresting him? Did you arrest him or anything - did you at any stage arrest or assault Mr Nkosi as far as you can recall?" And then your answer: "I would not say I assaulted them, but it is possible that we roughed them up at the time that we arrested them. It is possible they resisted arrest so I'm not going to dispute that much." Is this an accurate description of what you said at that enquiry?

MR ZEELIE: On what page is that?

JUDGE NGCOBO: 349 at Volume 2.

CHAIRPERSON: It's about two thirds down the page.

MR ZEELIE: Yes we did talk about this aspect but I said that the answer that I gave there...[intervention]

JUDGE NGCOBO: I think that at this stage I just want to confirm that what appears there is an accurate description of what you said?

MR ZEELIE: I'm a bit confused because I wasn't at the specific page when you asked this question. If you could continue with that?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me see whether I can clear up any confusion. In response to the question by Mr Steenkamp as to whether you did anything to Mr Bopape or to Mr Nkosi at the time of the arrest. Your answer was: " I would not say that I assaulted them" I'm reading now at page 349. "But it is 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." Did you say that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And then on the next page which is 350, you then ask specifically for the first time now by Mr Steenkamp, "Did he resist arrest?" And the answer was yes.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Where does it appear on this record, that is before the part which is that I've just read to you, where you were asked about resisting arrest?

MR ZEELIE: I do not understand. I really don't understand.

JUDGE NGCOBO: In order to explain yesterday why you admitted that Bopape resisted arrest, you said you gave that answer because you had been asked many times whether he had resisted arrest?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And what appears on this record is that you were the first person to bring up the issue of resisting arrest. No one else had asked you in this record. So I want you to take - to show me on this record before this proceed, where does it appear where those questions were put to you in regard to resisting arrest.

MR ZEELIE: I referred to the attack, that was assault, that was mentioned earlier on and that is where I got to the point of the resistance of arrest.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Well perhaps you don't understand my question. Your evidence was that "I said that Bopape resisted arrest because I had been asked many times whether he had resisted arrest prior to that, prior to my giving that answer." I want you to tell me to show me where prior to your answer are those persons in regard to resisting arrest?

MR ZEELIE: On the question of Mr Steenkamp he talked about arrest or assault and that is why we brought this thing in of possible resistance against arrest to bring it in connection with the word assault or [intervention]

JUDGE NGCOBO: But that was the first question that Mr Steenkamp asked you though, was it not?

MR ZEELIE: That he asked me about the assault?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zeelie if you take a look - sorry - if you take a look at your evidence it commences on page 343 and then there's a discussion about subpoenas etcetera and the first, right up to page 34,7 it's the discussion between the chairperson and your representative, Mr Prinsloo. Not talking about anything about the merits of the matter that occurred on the 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th June and then the questioning of Mr Steenkamp of yourself starts on page 348. That's the first question put by Mr Steenkamp. He asked "Did you have 26 years in the Police Force?" "Yes". So there's from the statement where you said that he resisted arrest is made on page 350 so that's two pages of evidence before that statement was made. I think what Mr Justice Ngcobo is asking is yesterday you said you gave that answer out of frustration basically because you'd been asked on many occasions did he resist and eventually to get it off your back you said yes he did. But now that must have happened in these two pages and what is being asked is whereabout?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I understand what you mean.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not there is it?

MR ZEELIE: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: It's not there is it?

MR ZEELIE: I do not understand what you're saying now.

MR DE JAGER: There is no mention in this record that you ever in the past was asked if he resisted his arrest?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR DE JAGER: It was the first time that you were asked this question in this record and you said yes and yesterday in explaining the matter you said that the reason why you said yes was because he asked you repeatedly and now what is put before you, that explanation of yours does not hold because it has not been asked you in the past?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. Except the fact that mention was made of the assault, because of that reference or statement that was made, I used the word resistance.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So in other words the explanation that you gave to us yesterday was not true. Is that right?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I want to move on to one other aspect and that is the blindfolding. As I understand your evidence now it is that at the time when you gave the answer to the effect that he had been blindfolded, you believe that indeed he had been blindfolded is that right?

MR ZEELIE: I earlier once again, I put it clearly. It was a direct question and perhaps I then indirectly gave a direct short answer. It was practice that the person was blindfolded. It was a quick question, I answered and I corrected myself at a later stage.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I see. Because it was a quick short question, you gave a quick answer which happens to be incorrect?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Where did you correct yourself, will you show them the record?

MR ZEELIE: It's on 394.

JUDGE NGCOBO: 394, yes. What about - would you just read the relevant passage?

MR DE JAGER: Approximately the 10th line approximately where the second blank line is?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What you're really saying here as I read your evidence, it is just that he had nothing in his face, his face was not covered?

MR ZEELIE: Yes. That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you at any stage of that enquiry go back to the answer that you gave and said when, wait a minute, that was an incorrect statement that I made?

MR ZEELIE: No, but I was never asked why I'm saying this now.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Now your explanation for making this statement is that it was a quick question?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I instinctively answered because it was the normal procedure and because this was a question that gave more direction, I could give a better answer with regard to what in fact happened.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yesterday you furnished us with the two page document in which you set out somewhat very accurately on can gather, you know, the arms, the quantities of the arms that you had recovered, is that what this is about?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: That is Exhibit H.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And over how long a period did you recover these?

MR ZEELIE: I just want to mention that this was over a period, I was trained in 1980 in bomb disposal, it was approximately from 1983 onwards but then I also have to mention that I made this survey from statements that I had at my disposal and I also want to mention the Pastoors investigation and many more of this weaponry was found and it would in fact be a much higher number.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Oh yes I'll accept that. There's no question about that. I'll accept that but I think the point I want to make here is that you compiled this list in preparation of these hearings, is that right?

MR ZEELIE: Since we had this hearing I went through it and I made this list.

JUDGE NGCOBO: This was in preparation for these hearings?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What investigations, if any, did you make in order to remind yourself as to what precisely happened in and around the death of the deceased?

MR ZEELIE: I have no documentation that I could refer to regarding the facts. With this I had documentation before me.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you try to sit down with your colleagues and try to refresh one another's memories to what happened?

MR ZEELIE: At some stage we got together and we tried to discuss it to get the facts together and therefore each one came here and gave his version as he could remember it otherwise we would have had a version that would have been exactly the same.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes. You've talked in somewhat greater detail about what you described as a total onslaught by the ANC?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you - I think you mentioned that you regarded yourself as some kind of a buffer against this onslaught?

MR ZEELIE: I didn't consider myself to be that. I did my duty, I did what was expected of me, what my seniors expected of me, the police force expected as well as the government expected of me.

JUDGE NGCOBO: The people that were fighting the ANC, they were seeking to overthrow the Government of the time by violent means, that's what you believed?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. That is what I also experienced.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes and they were prepared to engage in any means in order to achieve their objective?

MR ZEELIE: Would you please repeat that?

JUDGE NGCOBO: They were prepared to resort to any means in order to achieve their objectives?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: On the other hand, as a servant of the Government of the time you were also prepared to resort any means possible in order to arrest that onslaught?

MR ZEELIE: I was prepared to arrest people, to fight against the total onslaught.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you were prepared to torture people in order to get information?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Were you prepared to kill in order to achieve your objective?

MR ZEELIE: I never had the intention to kill anyone.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I understand from what you said yesterday that as you are giving evidence now, you honestly believe that Bopape died of a heart attack?

MR ZEELIE: That is my honest opinion and I also went as far to say that I would give anything to have the body of Bopape come to the fore so that the evidence that we have given, the testimony, so that it can in fact be confirmed that he died because of reasons that we could not foresee at that stage.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So you had nothing to do with the death of the deceased?

MR ZEELIE: No that is not what I said. It is something that we did not foresee. I did not see that he would have in any way envisaged that he would die because of the shocks.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I don't understand what you're saying. You believed that he died because of a heart attack.

MR ZEELIE: That is the only inference that I could have made to give me some peace of mind that that was the case.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Why do you want amnesty then?

MR ZEELIE: Please repeat.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Why do you want amnesty?

MR ZEELIE: Because the person died.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes?

MR ZEELIE: A murder case is opened and that is why I'm asking for amnesty.

MR DE JAGER: What do you think caused the heart attack?

MR ZEELIE: I can just draw some conclusion and say that it was shock but as I have said even a very fit man can also suffer heart attack.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Thank you Mr Zeelie, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo do you have any questions arising?

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. In relation to questions that Ms Gcabashe put to you and also questions by other members with regard to the assault on Bopape during arrest, had Bopape been assaulted by you, he would have had opportunity while he was in the cells to lay a charge against you?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. And that is why I said in the first affidavit that if I had assaulted him he would have laid a charge against me.

MR PRINSLOO: And another aspect Mr Zeelie, if he had been taken to the District Surgeon for examination in terms of his detention under Section 29 then he would have had the opportunity to complain that he had been assaulted?

MR ZEELIE: Yes he then has the opportunity to complain and lay a charge.

MR PRINSLOO: According to your experience did the District Surgeon, did he ask such detainees whether they had been assaulted?

MR ZEELIE: Yes those are questions that are put to the detainee.

MR PRINSLOO: And was there any litigation by someone that Bopape had alleged that?

MR ZEELIE: No, no such allegations were ever made against or questions asked to me by any person.

MR PRINSLOO: The banned literature that was found in Bopape's flat, would the person who have found it would he make a statement about it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes. That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the people who were involved with that was it your office or West Rand?

MR ZEELIE: That would have been West Rand.

MR PRINSLOO: Should such a docket still exist it would be with West Rand?

MR ZEELIE: Yes it would be in that docket yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Zeelie in connection with the interrogation, that relates to the resistance against the rest that was put by the committee to you as on page 349 and 350. It was referred to the question put by Mr Steenkamp during the investigation. Let's have a look at 349. Mr Steenkamp has three different parts, it's three different questions in one, if you look at 349 towards the bottom. "...[inaudible] while you were arresting him" that's the one question. "or did you at any stage arrest or assault Mr Nkosi or as far as you can recall?" Do you see that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: More than one question in one?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then you continue and your answer is "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." You say that was possible.

MR ZEELIE: Yes. That is correct. That is what I tried to convey.

MR PRINSLOO: What you say that you would not dispute?

MR ZEELIE: What I meant with that was that there was a possibility that it could have taken place.

MR PRINSLOO: The arrest itself, were you assisted during the arrest?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then on the same page, and then Mr Steenkamp says "From the beginning, see my information is you assaulted Mr Bopape by hitting with your fist when you were arresting him. Do you recall that? He arrested arrest or what was the position?" And then he already started with the whole story of resistance of the arrest and then he continues with the long question as it was put: "Can you remember that he resisted arrest and I want to put it quite clear." "I cannot remember it precisely." "If there had been such a resist would there have been a charge?" "No not necessarily"

Mr Zeelie you were also asked the following from a question you answered put by Ms Gcabashe with regard to the death of Bopape that you said with regard to the shock that was administered that he could have suffered a heart attack. Do you remember that?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember it precisely.

MR PRINSLOO: If you said in that context that because of the shock he had a heart attack in other words what I'm saying to you, if he had not been shocked he would have had a heart attack?

MR ZEELIE: Not necessarily. It is possible that perhaps he could also have had a heart attack in any case.

MR PRINSLOO: But if he had been shocked he would also have a heart attack?

MR ZEELIE: Yes it's not about the whole - the shock - or perhaps then the shock that he experienced, not the physical shock by the machine.

MR PRINSLOO: And then another aspect regarding what was asked of you that you believed that the officers would condone this action. Did you believe it in general or did you believe it in this specific case?

MR ZEELIE: I believed that in this specific case where a person is interrogated in an ANC case, a case of terror and a Section 29 detainee. I saw it in that context where a person is being interrogated about internal security and that my officers would there condone my actions in this case.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie regarding information that is gathered, if Mr Mostert and Engelbrecht had obtained information from Mr Bopape where you were not that investigating officer, would such information have been conveyed to you?

MR ZEELIE: I assume that it would be conveyed to me.

MR PRINSLOO: Why?

MR ZEELIE: As I have already said I was also an officer part of the investigating staff and I can also say that at that stage I was a duty officer and there were telexes that had to be sent away in that regard and that I would also have had to see that.

MR PRINSLOO: In this particular case, you are applying for amnesty on the charge of culpable homicide. That's the only one at this particular case?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: In other words that you caused the death of Bopape because of negligence not with any intention?

MR ZEELIE: No I never had any intention.

MR PRINSLOO: Now if you say you were negligent how do you understand that in that context?

MR ZEELIE: I was negligent because of the fact that the person had died whilst he was being assaulted and this is not something that we envisaged, that he would die.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: That you Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt do you have any questions arising?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. This does not arise from questions of the Members but you inadvertently skipped me on a previous occasion before.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry about that.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: No I'm sure you didn't do it intentionally Mr Chairman. I just want to say that

you mustn't look for matters arising from questions of the panel. There are two issues Mr Chairman which I have to clarify.

Mr Zeelie, I discussed your testimony with Du Toit regarding your testimony about George Maartens and he told me that this was a case, this detention of Mr Maartens which took place in the early '80's '81, '82 is that possible?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember exactly which years it happened.

MR VISSER: Let's just quickly finish. Just try and answer the questions. Could it be true that's the question.

MR ZEELIE: I have already said I can't remember.

MR VISSER: So you are not prepared to concede that it might be true? He said that the case of Mr Maarten was a case where they wanted to get the person to give evidence against someone else. Can you remember?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR VISSER: And that the man escaped from custody. Mr George Maarten escaped and General Du Toit said he was in no way assaulted.

MR ZEELIE: He was definitely assaulted.

MR VISSER: You said that you assaulted him but you can't remember how?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, I just put it to you that this is not a case that isn't really relevant but for what it's worth, General Du

Toit will deny that he in any way blatantly condoned it if that man had been assaulted or allowed it?

MR ZEELIE: That is what had happened and that is what I said yesterday. If the committee wishes to then this specific person can be subpoenaed to testify.

MR VISSER: You can give the name to Mr Steenkamp perhaps he call him. In any case regarding the testimony that you gave that General Erasmus on the evening of the 12th June that he had given instruction that the mock escape would or should be done in the Eastern Transvaal. Now please understand me correctly, I'm not arguing that perhaps it could have been a perception that you had or that it was what you thought, that General Erasmus, as he can recall it is that what he said was that the body had to be disposed of in the Eastern Transvaal but that there as never any mention of the fact that the mock escape would be arranged in the Eastern Transvaal. Could that be true, could that be correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is what was conveyed and that is why Colonel van Niekerk discussed the issue with Brigadier Visser.

MR VISSER: And today with certainty, based on your good memory of that, that you can now give the positive answer?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I can.

MR VISSER: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, with regard to the disclosure of what happened and decisions that were taken I want to ask you the following. The decision to use the shock device, it was a decision as I understand you, by the people who were present?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: All of you?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: The decision to plan escape at De Deur it was taken by all of you? That was at De Deur, not the escape but at De Deur?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, I was busy answering, after the body had been handed over to members of Eastern Transvaal, when we arrived after Brigadier Visser had said that it would not take place in his section, on the way back it was discussed by me, Mostert and Van Niekerk.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, with all the patience that I have, we don't want to hear your testimony right from the start. We have heard that story from different witnesses four times. There is a question put to you. Did you, the five of you, did you sit and decide that it was going to happen at De Deur? According to your testimony it happened there, certain decisions must have been taken?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now who decided it, you, all of you together?

MR ZEELIE: The original decision...[intervention]

MR RAUTENBACH: We have nothing to do with the original discussion about Eastern Transvaal, the question was put to you concerning De Deur and just answer the question please? I'm asking you, please don't tire us with a history every time.

MR ZEELIE: That was not I wanted to do, I just want to inform you that we were five people who were involved but even in the vehicle we were only three people who discussed it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, the decision that Bopape had to be taken from the office and placed into the passage was it taken by all of you together present?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, I just want to ask you and I want to put it to you in this way. Why is it that you can't tell us who took the initiative with these decisions? Can you tell us or not?

MR ZEELIE: Because it was in a discussion and I cannot say who specifically said it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Isn't it that not one of you individually want to take the blame for taking the decision?

MR ZEELIE: No that is not the case.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to say to you how can you say that Bopape would not have complained about the initial assault, why?

MR ZEELIE: Because I believe it did not happen.

MR RAUTENBACH: I ask you, you already told me that you never had a look at the District Surgeon's file or report is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, we don't know whether there was a complaint made, a complaint made by Bopape, if there had been a complaint then it would have been investigated and would a statement have been taken from me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Among the members of you, would one of those members have recommended that a statement would have been taken?

MR ZEELIE: I said that if he had complained to explain it, once again, then the case would have been put to the attention by the District Surgeon of the officer who investigates these cases and that officer would have talked to me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, a last point, I got the impression today that you continuously stayed with the whole issue with regard to the assault during the arrest that you can't remember it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is it correct that you said the next, the following thing and the Section 29 on page 360 with regard to Nkosi's allegation that you had assaulted Bopape and I now quote, just a moment please, it's page 360, I'm going to read the whole answer to you. "Is this question aimed at his arrest in the flat or at the police station?" "Ja, I just would like to mention that I do know at which stage Nkosi made a statement because such a statement was never brought to my attention at any stage. If he had such facts he should have made them available earlier and it would have been put to me at an earlier stage so I dispute what he says" and before I read the last page I want to go to the previous page. It relates to a question put by Dr Ally where he said that - and it has to do with the fact and then you end your answer with the following: "Certain allegations which I believe had been made for the sake of sensationalism" you would concede that there is now a difference between what you say now and what you said with the Section 29 investigation, is that true?

MR ZEELIE: I said this yes. The reason why I said it was that had I arrested him or assaulted him there would have been a charge or complaint and Mr Nkosi's statement would have been taken and then this would be taken up with me by this specific officer.

MR RAUTENBACH: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Zeelie.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Before the next witness is called I would just like to ask the legal representatives - as you know we'll be adjourning a bit earlier tomorrow because some of us have to catch aeroplanes. We don't know how long Mr du Preez the next witness’ evidence will last and we also have the question relating to Mr Erasmus who has indicated that he would like to be excused tomorrow.

I was wondering whether despite the facts that was agreed on at the pre-trial conferences that you had with Mr Steenkamp whether it wouldn't be convenient and I leave it in your hands as well, whether after Mr du Preez, Messrs Visser and van Loggerenberg testify and that would then complete the events that took place on the ground as it were relating to the actual death and disposal of the body. I don't know if that would be convenient and then after that get to the other applicants who - I don't know if that would be convenient - and then if Mr du Preez' evidence finishes early we can then decide whether or not depending on the time to start with the next witness because I don't know how desirable it will be to stop in the middle of a witnesses evidence and then resume on an adjourned date which will be some time in the future?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, if I may respond, in fact it has been agreed that Mr Visser and Van Loggerenberg will complete their evidence before I lead my witnesses so that has already been agreed, the only thing that may have changed that order was during the previous discussions when we didn't know how long we would have next week or whatever the case may be so that in fact has been done and Mr Chairman may we join you in our concern postponing a matter with part heard witness it often creates problems later when he's not available.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not desirable really and it can prejudice the witness in fact. Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: I just wanted to say that the next three applicants are my clients. I would like it that they - we leave it till later - we can continue with the other and that will be completed. Thank you.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman from our point of view we understand the concerns and we also agree that a witness should not if possible at all stand over in cross-examination however, we would like to see that as much time as possible be utilised. I understand the situation tomorrow but even if we may start a little bit earlier just to see to it that with much time as possible will be utilised but we understand the situation that if we get to a witness and it's clear that that witness will have to stand over it may become necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we'll perhaps be in a better position at the close of today's proceedings to see what will happen and we can discuss it then. Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Yes, thank you. Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: I call Mr du Preez.

MR JOHAN LUDWIG DU PREEZ: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr du Preez, you also applied and your application is regarding Volume 1 from page 112 to 117 is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Like the previous applicant you appear in the annexure A and B?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: I confirm annexure B?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr du Preez, when did you join the South African Police service?

MR DU PREEZ: Since 1966.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are present still in their service?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it was during this time that you were part of the Safety Branch?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Security Branch?

MR DU PREEZ: No during 1976 up until 1978 I was involved with the Uniformed Personnel, 1978 to 1987 I was at the Detective Branch.

MS VAN DER WALT: And after that?

MR DU PREEZ: From 1987 up to present I worked for the previous Safety Branch, Security Branch.

MS VAN DER WALT: During the death of Mr Bopape where were you then stationed?

MR DU PREEZ: At Sandton at the Investigative Unit that was resorted with the Security Branch there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is that John Vorster?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Under whose command were you?

MR DU PREEZ: At that stage it was Mr Pretorius.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did Mr van Niekerk have any command over you?

MR DU PREEZ: Major van Niekerk was at John Vorster Square at the Investigative Unit. Mr Pretorius was at Sandton and they had equal ranks and it was part of the security branch it was not my direct section head or unit head.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now on the 12th June that was the Sunday, were you contacted by someone? Do you know who this person was who contacted you?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot say who contacted me.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was the request?

MR DU PREEZ: The request, if I had access to a shock equipment and which I confirmed.

MS VAN DER WALT: What were you supposed to do then?

MR DU PREEZ: That if I had access to such equipment I must take it to John Vorster Square. I left my house, I went to my office in Sandton where I got this device and then left to go to John Vorster Square.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why was there a shock device in Sandton?

MR DU PREEZ: The shock device there was used during interrogation sessions.

MS VAN DER WALT: Good, you then went to John Vorster Square?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened there?

MR DU PREEZ: Well at John Vorster Square I got access into the building, I went to Mr van Niekerk or Major van Niekerk, I reported to him where he asked me if I brought the device with me - I said yes. I then went to my vehicle to go and get the device. When I got back Mr van Niekerk told me that there is a detainee who does not want to work with them, co-operate and they want to frighten him in order to get the information from him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did he at any time mention what information they need from Mr Bopape?

MR DU PREEZ: He did explain to me in general that this man was a member of the terror group, terrorist group, so-called Maponya Group and that they want to interrogate him regarding his participation or the doings of this group.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any knowledge of this group?

MR DU PREEZ: Sometimes there were circulars or articles were sent to different branches regarding well known groups and I had heard of this group and I knew they existed. There was also in the media, mention was made there and there was photographs in the Sunday papers after the leader of this group killed himself during a terror act in Pretoria.

MS VAN DER WALT: After Mr van Niekerk said to you that they want to frighten Mr Bopape what did you say?

MR DU PREEZ: I prepared the shock device meaning that I insured that the electrical cords that's attached to this device is properly fastened and that the points of the device was covered meaning that is was covered with material. I also dampened these points and while I was busy with that, there was an old wooden chair that was in Mr van Niekerk's office. I took that to the passage, I put it in the passage. Mr Bopape was then taken from the office, he was asked to take off his shirt. He then sat on this chair and with velcro bands or strips he was then fastened onto this chair.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you soak these point in water?

MR DU PREEZ: Water is a conductor for electric current and when the points of these wires is covered then a current cannot go through them that is why the material is soaked in water and the water is then the conductor.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why was the points covered in cloth?

MR DU PREEZ: The shocks or the points of the wires results in small burning marks on the body. If the shocks are administered, that is why the points are covered so that afterwards there would be no visible signs of what happened.

MS VAN DER WALT: You then mention that Mr Bopape was taken from the office. Did you see him?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes I saw him when he came out of the office.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were not involved in the interrogation that was before that but when you saw him could you see if he was injured in any way?

MR DU PREEZ: He had no visible injuries.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did he walk by himself?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes he did.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did he appear normal?

MR DU PREEZ: He did appear normal to me. I cannot really remember if there was any things that stood out. If he did not appear normal I would have remembered it today.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened then after he was tied to this chair?

MR DU PREEZ: They did all the preparations. After the preparations was completed I took the shocking device. Mr Engelbrecht used the conducting cords or managed them. I stood from them a metre, metre and a half and I started to turn the sling of the shock device.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you tell this honourable Committee that this turning of this device, how does it work? Is it only once or can you describe it to us?

MR DU PREEZ: I would just like to ask do you mean that a circular movement one turn?

MS VAN DER WALT: You said that you turn the shocking device. What do you mean?

MR DU PREEZ: I had the object in my hand and I turned this sling in a circular movement and it was connected to a coil and it goes round a point and by turning it, you turn the coil and that generates the electricity or the power.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you do that a few times after each other?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you show with your hand in a circular movement?

CHAIRPERSON: He indicates with a circular movement of the hand going around. How many times Mr du Preez, two or three times that you indicated looked like two or three but if you could do it again?

MR DU PREEZ: A circular movement two or three times I cannot really say. A few turns. Sorry?

MS VAN DER WALT: You can then continue.

MR DU PREEZ: I turned it, I started turning it two or three times and meaning one turn, another one, not continuously, generation of electrical current but only in short stages. I stood there to give the person an opportunity that if he wants to or if he shows that he is willing to answer the questions or to give his co-operation that he will then get that opportunity.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did anyone talk to him after the first few turns?

MR DU PREEZ: They did ask him if he is willing to co-operate. I don't know who put these questions to him, I did not talk to this person.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes and was there any reaction from Mr Bopape?

MR DU PREEZ: There was a negative reaction from him.

MS VAN DER WALT: What do you mean by that did he answer or did he keep quiet?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot specifically say if he answered or if he just kept quiet I think that it was one of the two because I continued with the shock device applying shock.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, you can continue.

MR DU PREEZ: Then I applied it again, I did it again and once again there was no positive response and after a third or fourth time after this process was repeated I saw within the administration of these shocks I saw that his upper body and his head was hanging. It looked to me as if he wasn't conscious, there was a difference because previous times he sat upright. It was strange to me, Mr van Niekerk said there was something wrong. He put the machine down and I helped to - I went to him and I freed him from the chair and I saw that there was no reaction from him. We put him down on the floor on his back and I then administered CPR and I tried to resuscitate him, it was not successful, I had got no reaction from him, there was no indication that he was beginning to breathe again. I just want to mention that when he was put down on the floor it was as if I could not perceive any breathing and that is why I started with the CPR or mouth to mouth resuscitation.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened then?

MR DU PREEZ: If I can remember correctly, Major van Niekerk felt for the pulse, he could not feel anything and I realised then that Mr Bopape was possibly dead.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes and what did you do then?

MR DU PREEZ: We realised that there was great implications because of this, because of his death and we decided then to -the Branch Commander of the Security Branch, Brigadier Erasmus now General Erasmus, to contact this person and to tell him what took place.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you realise that there would be great implications? What implications?

MR DU PREEZ: The implications to what I can refer to is death while detained. It was a political detainee. The 16th June date was just four days away and in the past it was a date where actions were taken against the government - protests, attacks in that period of time and this death could have resulted in an intensifying of actions aimed at the government of the day.

MS VAN DER WALT: During that time in June 1988 what was the situation regarding the general violence and the unrest?

MR DU PREEZ: I can mention that during the '80's from 1985 there was an increase from an escalation in the violence from the ANC side, from overseas and the organisations locally. There was to bring stability back into the country in order for a normal living standard so I can say that during that time there was a great onslaught, not just from the ANC but also from it's alliances locally.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you say that this death while detained could have worsened the situation?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes according to me it would have.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Chairperson I see that it is one o'clock and that this might be a convenient time to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I agree with you, we will take the lunch adjournment now.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, yes Ms van der Walt you can continue please.

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, during the adjournment Mr Prinsloo pointed it to me that Mr du Preez' full names are not on record if we could perhaps just place that on record please?

CHAIRPERSON: Du Preez, could you please give us your full names?

JOHAN LUDWIG DU PREEZ: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr du Preez in your testimony you were at the point where you applied mouth to mouth resuscitation and then you realised that Mr Bopape had died. What happened then?

MR DU PREEZ: After it had been determined that Mr Bopape had died, his body was removed from the passage and it was placed in Mr Engelbrecht's office. The door of the office was locked. The five of us got together and it was decided to contact the Head of the Security Branch, Erasmus, and to inform him about the incident. Mr van Niekerk contacted, phoned the General and he made ...[inaudible] Mr Zeelie, Mostert, Engelbrecht and myself, we remained behind at John Vorster Square. Whilst we were waiting, we discussed the incident and we could not at that stage draw any conclusions as to what the precise cause of Mr Bopape's death was. I took the shock device, I took the two different poles in my hands, I held it in my hands and requested Mr Engelbrecht to give the sling a little turn, I want to put it clearly that it wasn't a full turn or more than one. If I can use the English description it was a click and I want to explain that on this little wheel of the coil at the contact point, for every click that you give, every cord that touches it, it gives an impulse and I requested him to turn the sling so that I could feel the impulse. He did that and I felt pains in both elbows, it wasn't very much pain, it was painful, but I won't say to a great extent.

MS VAN DER WALT: You said that you then discussed the incident, did you discuss anything else that was after Mr van Niekerk left you?

MR DU PREEZ: What I can say is that we discussed the incident that was mostly what we discussed, I can't say exactly what we discussed - everything.

MS VAN DER WALT: You didn't at that stage discuss a mock escape?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did Mr van Niekerk then return from Mr Erasmus?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened then?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr van Niekerk informed us that he discussed the incident with Mr Erasmus and informed him what the situation was and General Erasmus then undertook to discuss the incident with head office and then he would then come to John Vorster Square to give us the result. After some time, I can't say precisely how long it was, almost an hour, two hours later that Erasmus arrived there and then a short while after that I also saw Colonel Du Toit. Mr van Niekerk and Zeelie the two officers who were present went to General Erasmus' office where they had discussions. I don't know what they discussed, I wasn't present but when Mr van Niekerk returned he told us that there was an instruction given that the body had to be taken to the Eastern Transvaal section where the body would be disposed of and that Bopape's death should be covered by a mock escape and this period or during this time that we were there, General Du Toit came to the 10th floor and he then looked at the deceased's body. After these deliberation, discussions had been concluded, I made the suggestion that black bags should be used to place the deceased's body in, in order that during the transport of the body no forensic remains would be found. With this I mean hair or any samples that the forensics experts, that it would enable them to say that the deceased was transported in the boot. I went to a shop in Vrededorp. I bought the bags and returned. I want to say that after it became known that Bopape's body had to be transported, I pulled his legs to his chest in order to make it a smaller package so that he could be transported with more ease. On my return I placed the body into the bags.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you please explain, describe what you did?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, it was a roll of plastic bags, the ordinary ones that you buy. I loosened them, I took one bag and placed or pulled this bag from his head side over the top half of his body and a second one I used from his feet. I can't say whether I only used two bags or perhaps even more but I did ensure that the body was totally covered. After that was completed Mr Bopape's body was taken down with the lift to the basement and it was then placed in Mr Zeelie's vehicle.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Committee how the body was taken down to the basement?

MR DU PREEZ: The body was carried down I can't say exactly how many people carried him, I can't remember whether I carried, I assume that I would have helped. The body was on a blanket or a carpet, I'm not quite sure, I was asked about this earlier. It was now on this blanket or piece of carpet and it was carried down.

MS VAN DER WALT: You may continue.

MR DU PREEZ: The vehicle in which the body was placed was driven by Mr Zeelie. Mr van Niekerk and Mostert accompanied him. Mr Engelbrecht and myself went in Mr van Niekerk's vehicle and we followed in his vehicle. If I can remember correctly, we followed the highway in the direction of Bronkhorstspruit. On this highway close to Bronkhorstspruit near a bridge two vehicles were seen. If I can remember we almost passed the vehicles to identify the people at the vehicles. We then stopped at the vehicles and shortly afterwards we departed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you talk to any of the people after you stopped?

MR DU PREEZ: No. It was dark, I can't remember the exact time but it was after we had stopped there, it was a short period of time. Mr van Niekerk talked to a person, I only met this person after applications for amnesty were made, I came to know him as Brigadier Visser, one of the applicants. He talked to him. Mr Zeelie and the other applicant, Mr van Loggerenberg, I also only met him now, I also didn't know him then. They then took the body from Mr Zeelie's vehicle and transferred it to Mr van Loggerrenberg’s vehicle.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now the discussion between Van Niekerk and Mr Visser, according to your application it seems that this discussion took place when you arrived at Bronkhorstspruit where you stopped for the first time is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot say with certainty Chairperson. Where we got together at Bronkhorstspruit on the highway, I don't think there was a very long discussion, I think this discussion took place when the body was transferred.

MS VAN DER WALT: You say that you then departed?

MR DU PREEZ: After the body had been transferred.

MS VAN DER WALT: How was it transferred could you describe that?

MR DU PREEZ: What I can say is Mr Zeelie and Mr van Loggerenberg, I don't know whether it was from the top or the bottom part, they stood on both sides of the vehicle and then they transferred the body from the one boot to the other boot. Now the cars were pulled together with the boots facing each other and then they transferred him. There wasn't a distance between the two vehicles that they had to carry him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now you didn't assist with that?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: You may continue.

MR DU PREEZ: When we departed for Johannesburg, the status quo was maintained - Engelbrecht and myself, we returned on our own and the other three persons also travelled in the way that they came. At John Vorster Square when we arrived there Mr van Niekerk informed us that we had to be responsible ourselves for arranging the mock escape and we did that. My share or the instruction that was given to me was that I had to transport Mr Zeelie from the so called escape scene. Mr Mostert, van Niekerk and Engelbrecht would then remain at the scene and they would then do the necessary statements or information that they would give during the investigation that would be instituted.

MS VAN DER WALT: You know of the statements that the other applicants have made regarding the mock escape? You made no statement because you were not part of the escape except that you had to pick up Mr Zeelie?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: I want to take you back. Before the body of Mr Bopape was transported, was there at any point food that was bought?

MR DU PREEZ: Before we departed to De Deur, where the escape would take place, we stopped at a late night takeaway at Jeppe Street where we bought food and the purpose for doing that was that there would be proof that meals had been bought because record is kept of meals given to detainees.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you started your testimony you said that you have knowledge of shock devices that had been used in the past. Can you tell the Committee what knowledge you have?

MR DU PREEZ: I testified earlier that a shock device was kept at Sandton and it was used there. The device that I used to shock Mr Bopape is similar to those that I knew that were there. I cannot say whether it was the same one.

MS VAN DER WALT: The other shock devices that you have observed, what effect did they have on a person?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, the description that I can give you is that there are muscle contractions in the vicinity where the ends of these conducting cords are placed. As the shocks are administered there are muscle spasms, muscles contract and relax. It's like an exercise that you do in a gymnasium where you are pumping muscles if I can describe it such a way.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you observe this, these other shock devices have you observed it?

MR DU PREEZ: I was involved with the administering or the assault of the people that I am referring to in the sense that I cannot say that I administered the shocks on my own but I have observed that that is the normal effect that it has.

MS VAN DER WALT: And these people that you have observed, did any of them die because of the shocks?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: In paragraph 5 on page 116 of your application that it was later determined that Bopape had a possible heart attack and that he was admitted in the Princess Hospital, how did you have knowledge about this?

MR DU PREEZ: If I remember correctly, the message was given by Warrant Officer Mostert to me that it seemed as if Mr Bopape had possibly died because of a heart attack. That I don't want to say but that was indeed the case. I assaulted the deceased, I take responsibility for his death. According to the law, you accept a body as you receive it, as you get it. I cannot say that it was a heart attack or whether it was the shocks but I'm involved here with an amnesty application for a crime I committed and then I don't want to shy away by saying it was possible heart attack.

MS VAN DER WALT: But the information that you give in paragraph 5, when did you receive this information?

MR DU PREEZ: It was some time after the deceased had died, I can't say whether it was a week, ten days later, it was some time after the incident.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why was it necessary to go to General Erasmus?

MR DU PREEZ: General Erasmus was the Commander of the Security Branch. What we had done fell under what I would view to be my task and that it why he had to be informed. You have said that information had to be obtained from Mr Stanza Bopape? Why was it that urgent that the shock device should be brought from Sandton on a Sunday when everybody wanted to rest? Could you just tell the Committee?

MR DU PREEZ: The aim, purpose and function of the security branch was to gather information. It was to gather the information to evaluate it and then also to institute counter revolutionary actions. I'll get to that later on. The nature of the information that had to be gathered at that stage was to fight the revolutionary onslaught against the Government of day, the National Party then, and information had to be gathered to in fact fight against or to diminish that onslaught and the information that was available was that the deceased would have been involved with a terror group. It was a MK Cell which was the Military Wing of the ANC, but there was information that they were responsible for acts of terror and therefore there was an urgency to get further information that could lead to further arrests or that the planning of targets could be jeopardised and that it was it was important for me to get the information as speedily as possible.

MS VAN DER WALT: Regarding the fact that a shock device was used, how did you see it, using such a device? How did you see it in the work that you did at the security police? Was it a general practice or was it only done in certain instances?

MR DU PREEZ: I can try to answer by saying it was general practice but it wasn't recklessly applied. Where the circumstances required it, then it was used. Not every person who was detained was shocked. I can perhaps give you an example - where a person is being detained of possible assistance then he would not be interrogated to this extent to get information. It was only in selected instances where it was really necessary to act with speed but where it was of crucial importance then we went to extreme to assault people with shock devices in order to get information.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have already testified that it was of crucial importance during that time because of the acts of terror?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: It was a Sunday, why did you now get involved?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I cannot give you a specific answer why I was involved, my involvement started with a telephone call. When I got to John Vorster Square and although I in broad terms realised the urgency of the matter and because it was also a serious case for me and it was part of my duties to fight against this onslaught that I have referred to earlier, that is why I became involved in this issue.

MS VAN DER WALT: You said in your testimony when you arrived at John Vorster Square that you first went up to the 10th floor where Mr van Niekerk was and you first had a discussion with him and only then did you go down to fetch the machine. Why was that?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I first went to see, as the Englishman would put it, to see whether the coast was clear. Although it was a general practice to assault people, we did it in a discreet manner because an assault process out in the open would be an embarrassment not only for the security branch but also for the Government and I can perhaps even say that today it's still the case but although at that stage it was a bit different but regarding that time an image had to be presented that the police was in control of the situation and that this tremendous onslaught was being coped with, being combated and that the police were the gentlemen.

What I'm trying to say is that it couldn't be publicly said "yes we assaulted the people" it had to be covered and that is why I went upstairs to find out what the circumstances were and then I got the instruction from Major van Niekerk to go and fetch the device.

MS VAN DER WALT: You applied for this offence and you have also confirmed under oath that you accept responsibility for this offence. Now you have applied for culpable homicide, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And why are you applying for culpable homicide?

MR DU PREEZ: I am applying for this offence of culpable homicide because I had no intention at any time to kill anyone. His death is a result of possible negligence on my side and one of the requirements of culpable homicide is the negligent death of another person and therefore I'm asking for culpable homicide and not only assault.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr du Preez, with this act that you have committed, did you gain anything personally from it?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson no, I did what I did on behalf of the Government of the day. I personally gained nothing from it. I only had experienced damage but I now have the opportunity to correct the damage. I did it to assist in the protection of my country. I can also say that even long before I was at the Security Branch, I did border duty in the former South West Africa, Namibia, voluntarily, I wasn't obliged to do it but it was because I felt patriotic and it was part of the support for the Government to enable them to stay in power. I also went to the borders to protect the country against the onslaught. It wasn't for my personal satisfactional gain that I did or committed these deeds. I did it because I believed that what I was doing was right and it was also the norm or the practice prevalent and that is why

I had part in it.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms van der Walt. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions of this witness?

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr du Preez if I understand you correctly, you say that you accept the body as you get it. With the death of the person are you saying that the person was shocked, that he died and it could have possibly have been a heart attack that was a result of the shock. Do you mean then in the classic example that when a person was hit with a fist and he's got a soft skull that he dies, it was not your intention to kill that person?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, like I said I did not have an intention to kill Stanza Bopape. My purpose was to get information in a short, pat way in order to stop certain acts of terror.

MR PRINSLOO: If he had any hidden illness whatever, then you did not know of this?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I did not know of any illness or any heart problems.

MR PRINSLOO: Did he look healthy to you?

MR DU PREEZ: The way in saw him in that passage he looked normal and healthy.

MR PRINSLOO: You gave testimony that at that stage you were aware of what appeared in the media regarding certain bomb attacks where this person Maponya was killed?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you also aware that during that time, I'm not going to ask all the long questions, that it seemed that -the list of deeds that in your area and also in Pretoria?

MR DU PREEZ: I did see this list.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see that as a whole part of the acts of terror that was governed by the ANC?

MR DU PREEZ: That was part of the acts of terror although it was not just here in the Rand. It was not an onslaught just here it was nationally also, there were also incidents of acts of terror, it was a global onslaught.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you believe that to shock a person to get information that in specific circumstances that you could do that and that you had the right to do that?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you have any questions of this witness?

MR VISSER: Thank you for remembering me Mr Chairman but I don't have questions thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach do you have questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

I would like to refer to page 469 your testimony during Section 29 investigation. Page 469 in Bundle 2. In the middle of the page and I realise that it's a translation and I'm going to tell you what you said and you must just tell me if that's the words that you used:

"I can tell you that the bag covered his head and shoulders, a normal bag without it having been changed in any way. Similarly at his legs, at his feet, I can't tell you exactly how many bags I used but I want to believe that I probably used three bags. But I made sure that his body did not show at any point." Now the important part: "The main reason why I covered him" and I stress the word 'him' "the main reason why I covered him was as we all know, we all know about forensic science, I wanted to ensure that there would be no blood or hair remaining in the boot of the vehicle after the body had been disposed of".

Now I want to ask you, why did you make reference here to blood? You said that you wanted to ensure that there was no blood left in the vehicle?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, I would like to refer you to the next page where I correct myself.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes I know you corrected yourself.

MR DU PREEZ: That was just a slip of the tongue, directly afterwards I changed that and said not blood per se but any bodily fluid, as I said in my testimony any forensic science like hair, skin, if it could maybe satisfy you, blood, it could be a body that's been transported that could have maybe hooked on the boot, it could be maybe scratched, it could be skin, I did not have any intention that there were any pools of blood or that he had open wounds and that is why I directly afterwards, the question was put to me, I corrected it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez, it was corrected after Mr Killian referred to blood.

MR DU PREEZ: He did ask me the question and that is the answer that I gave him.

MR RAUTENBACH: You see why I asked this, I'm not talking here in general, I refer specifically to Stanza Bopape.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then Mr du Preez, the end of your testimony you talked about electrical shocks and your intention was, or that you ask amnesty for culpable homicide, are you or can you say, can you give us technical details of the shock, how much volts or ampere?

MR DU PREEZ: No I haven't got the technical details.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you able to give us an indication of what type of electrical shock is enough to kill a person?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez have you got any knowledge that people in the past were shocked to death?

MR DU PREEZ: Ordinary electric shock - 22 volts? Yes people are killed of shocks, so many people also survive.

MR RAUTENBACH: How many times have you used this device?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot give you a precise amount, I've observed it in the past, I've used it in the past myself but that was the first time that I experienced it that a person died of it.

MR RAUTENBACH: You've got a lot of experience, could you tell us during what period you made use of these shock devices?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot give you a certain period. For a long period of time since I've been in the police I've seen that shock devices have been used since 1976 up to 1987, it's a long period of time so I cannot precisely say to you, it's a long period of time that I've seen this device being used. I myself did not use it very often although I did use it. I'm not denying that I used it.

MR RAUTENBACH: I would just like to refer to then page 462 of the Section 29 investigation. Pardon me, 461, one page back. You were asked specifically regarding how Stanza Bopape would have look when you saw him for the first time. As I understand you and through your testimony you did not see anything wrong with him. Is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct and I gave my testimony today as well.

MR RAUTENBACH: On page 461 you refer to it as follows, the same question

"I can't remember that clearly that far back but I can't remember him having physical injuries, open wounds, if I think carefully about it, it might prompt my memory but I can't tell the committee here today that the man had no injuries or that he could have had injuries."

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson I gave testimony today that the person appeared normal and I specifically referred to that he did not have any open wounds. What I testified today here was that I could not specifically remember if he had any injuries referring to visible injuries.

MR RAUTENBACH: I put it to you then Mr du Preez, that what you said today has got definite implication that the person was normal while in the Article 29 you obviously said that you cannot give an answer if he had injuries or not.

MR DU PREEZ: I can tell you today that I cannot remember if he had any specific injuries or any injuries. He appeared normal. From since the Article 29 the period of time as it lapsed over this thing I've thought about this whole matter and that is why I can say today he appeared to be normal.

MR RAUTENBACH: But your evidence today is different of that day. Did you get new information then?

MS VAN DER WALT: I'm sorry I'd like to interrupt you. It's not the only - I'm sorry I'm choking.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman perhaps I can help, if you just look at page 461 two thirds down the page where he's asked

"no I'm asking physically what was he like?" " I can't say, normal - normal"

he said. I think that's what my learned friend wants to refer you to.

CHAIRPERSON: I think let's just wait and hear what Ms van der Walt's got to say.

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, can I take off my jacket?

CHAIRPERSON: Not at all, Mr du Preez, you can take off your jacket.

MR DU PREEZ: Thank you.

MR RAUTENBACH: ...[inaudible] adjournment Mr Chairman, I'm so informed?

CHAIRPERSON: Okay I think then if we can just take a short adjournment at this stage.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

JOHAN LUDWIG DU PREEZ: (s.u.o.)

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms van der Walt, you were wanting to intervene.

MS VAN DER WALT: It appears to me that Mr Visser did rectify this question and I would like to thank him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach I think you can continue.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr du Preez, the point I would like to make is that specifically it was asked to you, look on page 461, Mr Killian asked:

"No I'm asking physically, physically what was he like?"

The answer was:

"I can't say, normal - normal"

Then it was asked:

"Uninjured?"

you say during that proceedings:

"I cannot say if he had any injuries or not"

MR DU PREEZ: Like I said I thought about this and I am sure that he did not have any visible injuries.

JUDGE NGCOBO: The answer that is attributed to you which occurs at page 461, here's the answers that you gave on that day?

MR DU PREEZ: Won't you just repeat, I did not hear.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Okay, one of the answers that you gave is that "I can't remember that clearly far back "I can't remember him having any physical injuries, open wounds, it might prod my memory but I cannot tell the Committee here today that the man had no injuries or that he could have had injuries." One gets the impression that at the time when you gave evidence before the Committee then, you were not certain as to whether he had any injuries or whether he didn't have any injuries. Is that the position?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, that's what I said at that stage.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So you have since carefully considered the matter and you are now satisfied that he had no injuries?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you at any stage tell the Committee then that you hadn't considered the question carefully?

MR DU PREEZ: I think I did tell the Committee now on a question from Mr Rautenbach, said that I did thought it through and then I can say today that I'm sure that he did not have any visible injuries.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes, thank you.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez, regarding the evidence or the testimony before Mr Bopape was shocked with this device. In your testimony how did it happen that his shirt and shoes were taken off?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, his shirt was taken off to pull the cords around his body. I cannot say exactly why his shoes was taken off. It was said earlier on it was to tie him to the chair I cannot specifically say why his shoes was taken off, I can say about the shirt that it was taken off to use these cords.

MR RAUTENBACH: Who took off his shirt?

MR DU PREEZ: If I can remember correctly I think he took his shirt off himself.

MR RAUTENBACH: You see I want to ask you this specific question. As I understand with all the testimony that we received Mr Bopape did not give his co-operation, is that correct in general?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes it's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: He did not want to give information?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: At one stage it was referred to and one of the witnesses agreed that he was stubborn to use the English word meaning that he did not want to give his co-operation and give evidence or give information. What I don't understand is why then would Mr Bopape then out of free will just take off his shirt while being interrogated? It just doesn't make sense.

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot comment on that. We asked him to take off his shirt and he did it. If he knew what was going to happen and he still took off his shirt.

MR DE JAGER: The same reason we could then say why would he give his hands to be cuffed out of free will?

MR RAUTENBACH: With all respect sir, I don't think there's any that Mr Stanza Bopape gave his hands to be cuffed.

MR DE JAGER: There was a question if he resisted his arrest and there one of the answers was that he co-operated when they wanted to put the cuffs. Once again we are busy speculating let us leave it there, let us carry on.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Rautenbach, could I just ask one question, it's on the same point. You did not say in your evidence in chief that the shoes were removed, you only mentioned the shirt being removed. Were the shoes removed?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes Mr Chairperson, the shoes had to be removed. I think Mr Zeelie testified or Mr Engelbrecht testified that the shoes were taken off to place him on the chair. I was busy at that stage with the preparation of the device and I did not really give attention to who does what. I had my own task at that stage but that his shoes was taken off is a fact.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR RAUTENBACH: Without taking that point further is your testimony then that Mr Bopape then out of free will agreed to take off his shirt and sit on a chair?

MR DU PREEZ: That is my testimony.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez, who phoned you to tell you that people need a shock device at John Vorster Square?

MR DU PREEZ: Sir, in my main testimony, I cannot say precisely who phoned me. I can now elaborate on that. I thought about it and there are only two possibilities. It was either Major van Niekerk who at that stage was the senior officer, the commander of the group or Warrant Officer Mostert. Why Warrant Officer Mostert, I know him for a long time and he could have phoned me but I cannot say precisely who phoned me but it was one of them. If I can speculate as possibility I would say that it was Major van Niekerk - he's a senior person and he can give or request such an instruction to come to John Vorster Square and that is as far as I can explain that point.

MR RAUTENBACH: So if one does not want to speculate about the shock device would your answer then be I cannot answer?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez who decided that the chair must be taken from the office and be placed in the passage?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot say.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez who decided that the body must be pressed into a foetal position?

MR DU PREEZ: In my main testimony I said that after it was said that the body must be transported, I went. I cannot say if I decided or if I did push up his legs by myself, but I gave testimony that I did that.

MR RAUTENBACH: I know you gave testimony that you did it but whose decision was it because Mr Engelbrecht also gave testimony.

MR DU PREEZ: It was my decision I won't speculate but I did it.

MR RAUTENBACH: At what stage was that?

MR DU PREEZ: It was before I drove to go and buy the plastic bags.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was that before or after General Erasmus had a meeting let us say, just a meeting, with Van Niekerk and Zeelie?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes. That is correct. That was after the meeting was held and Major van Niekerk came back and said the body must be transported.

MR RAUTENBACH: I think you indicated somewhere that it was supposed to have been done before the body was stiff?

MR DU PREEZ: I did give testimony about that in a previous hearing at the previous proceedings that to save time that before the body is stiff that the body can still be flexible and in a position to be parcelled.

MR RAUTENBACH: And regarding the time span at that stage that Mr Bopape was dead we know that Mr van Niekerk went to the house of General Erasmus, or he phoned him first and then went to his house. Afterwards Erasmus went to Pretoria, as I understand it, to go and speak to Mr van der Merwe. Do you understand?

MR DU PREEZ: I understand.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then he came back to Jo'burg then this meeting took place with Van Niekerk and Zeelie, is that correct? Was it after these events, after the body was still flexible to be put in a foetal position?

MS VAN DER WALT: There's no testimony that General Erasmus went to Pretoria it was said that he made contact with head office but there's no testimony that he went to Pretoria.

MR VISSER: Well perhaps I should come in here, Mr Chairman, Visser on record. The evidence will be that General Erasmus came to Pretoria and spoke to General van der Merwe here so perhaps my learned friend should just perhaps take cognisance of that fact.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser and there's also evidence that they waited for at least, well may two hours, whatever for General Erasmus to arrive.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why I asked it or put it to you like this, it seems that the evidence of Engelbrecht that this attempt to get this body into a foetal position so that he could be placed in a vehicle, this decision was already done before Van Niekerk could inform the members that a senior officer, by means of the Generals. What do you say about that?

MR DU PREEZ: I don't agree.

MR RAUTENBACH: I would like to refer you to page 459 of Volume 2. Page 459 refer to the top of the page and I can perhaps just briefly say to you first, refer to the electrodes and then you say: "I cannot recall who might have taken the notes because there would normally be a person taking notes during questioning. The purpose of questioning after all is to gain information from the person so you would take down notes" Regarding this aspect here's your testimony that notes were taken during the interrogation when the shock device was used or that notes were not taken.

MR DU PREEZ: The notes that I refer to is that when a person would convey information that it would be minuted. The testimony is that Mr Bopape gave no co-operation so notes were taken, the man didn't say anything that had any use for evidence, so no notes were taken regarding evidence.

MR RAUTENBACH: I think if one looks at your answer then it gives rise to the next question, were there one of the people who was ready to take notes should there be information?

MR DU PREEZ: That is normal procedure. I handled the shock device, Engelbrecht had the electrodes so that would then be two of the people so I cannot really say whether someone was ready with a pen but there is a possibility that there could have been pen and paper handy should this person start talking.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez, before we proceed to speculation, isn't your testimony that you cannot remember whether there was a person who took notes?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot specifically say whether there were any notes or not.

MR RAUTENBACH: You can't remember?

MR DU PREEZ: As I say I say whether or not.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you can't remember?

MR DU PREEZ: Correct. Those are your words.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez, when arrived on the scene you said you first went upstairs and you talked to Van Niekerk and then you went to fetch the device and then you arrived at the scene. Who gave information to you concerning who was there and what was going on?

MR DU PREEZ: I reported to Major van Niekerk because he was the senior officer present and he then in broad terms explained what the circumstances were.

MR RAUTENBACH: What would be the broad terms? What precisely did he tell you? Was this a person who is part of the ANC, what exactly did he say?

MR DU PREEZ: As I said in my testimony Major van Niekerk told me that they had a detainee who did not at that stage want to co-operate, that he was a member of a terror group and that they wanted to obtain information from him. The Maponya Group was mentioned and I also testified that I had knowledge of the Maponya Group because of telexes that was given to me that I had seen and because this well known Sterland Incident occurred just before this incident.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you say about telexes?

MR DU PREEZ: During conferences you are informed about the climate so there's information, a telex, that would be circulars going around, that was information that was known concerning terror groups. When he referred to the Maponya Group I knew of the existence of such a group.

MR RAUTENBACH: What he conveyed to you was it this person, was he involved with the Maponya Group or possibly involved?

MR DU PREEZ: That he was involved? I cannot precisely tell you the specific details what was said but in general terms he could have said possible or whether he was involved I cannot give you a specific answer.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you also can't remember that?

MR DU PREEZ: As I said I can't give you a specific answer whether he said possible or whether he was in fact involved. MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez, you referred to it earlier, you brought the machine, they busy with an investigation you had nothing to do with, correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why was it necessary for you to participate in this shock process and it wasn't necessary that you had to do it, your input wasn't necessary?

MR DU PREEZ: The moment that I came to John Vorster Plein and they told me to bring up the machine it was an instruction, in other words I then become part of the interrogation.

MR RAUTENBACH: At that stage you had no idea of what the interrogation had resulted in or kind of information, what specifically was look for?

MR DU PREEZ: No, at that stage, no.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez I want to ask you and perhaps I can explain it with the following example. There was testimony that at the stage that Bopape was questioned there were basically two people who were involved namely: it was Mostert and Engelbrecht. Do you perhaps have an answer, why is it that the moment when the electric shocks are administered that everybody now is, that they're involved, all those present? Is this something that would normally occur?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot say that it occurs normally. The circumstances as it occurred that day I explained to you I cannot give you reasons why. My involvement started the moment that I carried that device into John Vorster.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now if a person is shocked at Sandton during interrogation would it also happen that the people in the vicinity would stand around and would help and assist in the shock process, perhaps this is something I don't understand that it is the normal practice that everybody assists?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I can try to put it to you in this way, every instance is unique in a case. Where there are enough people available and the necessary equipment is there, that would now be the shock device, then use would not be made of outsiders. I mentioned that it was still done discreetly. People aren't just gathered from all over to help with an assault and this case there wasn't a shock device available and they had to get one and that is why I believe that I was contacted and that made me involved.

MR RAUTENBACH: I want to refer you to page 476 of Volume 2. Please have a look at page 475 first of all at the bottom. It is asked by Mr Malan: "The next question that I want to ask is, there was a blanket used. Can you recall what the situation was with regard to this blanket? Where did you obtain this blanket, what happened to the blanket afterwards and so forth?" The answer was: "No" and then it is asked: "If you think back how did you carry the body to the boot of the vehicle?" And the answer was: "If my memory does not fail me we used a carpet, a piece of carpet and the deceased was placed on this piece of carpeting and taken down to the vehicle" Do you still confirm that?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I do.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know what happened to the blanket?

MR DU PREEZ: As I have testified, a carpet or a blanket. What I testified in Section 29 according to me it was a carpet. It was testified here that it was a blanket, for me it was a carpet, if it was a carpet then the carpet would be back in the office. As I told you if it was a piece of a carpet, why I'm saying this is I mentioned the broom cupboard and I actually wiped the floor afterwards. If I can remember correctly that it was placed back into the office?

MR RAUTENBACH: What was that?

MR DU PREEZ: That was the carpet, blanket, whatever.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was it placed back into the office?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that Mr Engelbrecht’s office or Mr van Niekerk's office or Mr Zeelie's office?

MR DU PREEZ: That would have been and I assume it would have been Mr Engelbrecht's office because that is where the body was, Mr Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want to get some clarity at some stage when we talked about the blood, what did you say what did you clean to clean up to ensure that a forensic investigation wouldn't bring anything to light?

MR DU PREEZ: I'm not following you, what are you referring to?

MR RAUTENBACH: You refer to the black bags, the black bags that is what you refer to, I'll leave it there.

MS GCABASHE: But a note I have here what you said just two minutes ago. "I wiped the floor afterwards" is that correct? Have I entered this in correctly? "I wiped the floor" you said that just now or am I wrong?

MR DU PREEZ: You are correct is, in my testimony I referred to the broom case where I wiped the dust, if I can't remember correctly and if you use a carpet then the underfelt leaves a bit of dust. Perhaps I just didn't put it clearly. That is what I can remember that I cleaned that in the passage.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can I just have some clarity. Precisely what?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Is that the reason why you recall that no blanket was used but it was a carpet?

MR DU PREEZ: I don't understand it? There's a bit of noise let me just put on the headpiece.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Well you've made reference to the cleaning of the - the removal of the dust. What I want to find out from you is that - does that remind you that it wasn't a blanket that was used but that it was a carpet or a mat?

MR DU PREEZ: If I understand you correctly I remember that it was a carpet that was used to carry the body to the vehicle.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Well, let me just read you what you said at 476 just the middle of the [indistinct] about six or seven lines from the bottom, beginning of that paragraph

"Why I'm saying this is that after the deceased had been placed in the boot of the vehicle, on the 10th floor there's a kind of a broom cupboard. I would have taken the broom to clean out to remove the dust from the bottom of the carpet so that it would not be dust all over the office the next day when people came to the offices. That is why I think they used a piece of the carpet."

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson I refer to the dust that was under the carpet between the underfelt and the carpet and if the dust fell from the carpet onto the floor after we had removed the body to replace the carpet then I cleaned the passage to remove the dust. That is how I remember it although it had been testified that a blanket was used.

MR RAUTENBACH: There are one or two words that I missed. The carpet that you're referring to, was that the carpet in the passage or was that the carpet used to transfer the body?

MR DU PREEZ: No there isn't a carpet in the passage. The carpet was taken from the office on which the body was placed. That is how I can remember on which the deceased was carried out.

MR RAUTENBACH: And this carpet was taken back to the office?

MR DU PREEZ: Correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And that was when the carpet was cleaned?

MR DU PREEZ: No I didn't clean the carpet.

MR RAUTENBACH: What was the dust?

MR DU PREEZ: It was the dust that remained in the passage. That is what I refer to when I cleaned, I cleaned that.

MS GCABASHE: But again, just for clarity, when the body was put into Engelbrecht's office, it was covered with the blanket?

MR DU PREEZ: He was covered with a blanket.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez, let's just conclude that aspect. This, the body of Mr Bopape, when he died was it placed on top of the carpet after he died? Where was he placed.

MR DU PREEZ: In Engelbrecht's office.

MR RAUTENBACH: On what, on the floor?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't say whether it was on the carpet, it is not a wall to wall carpet. State buildings have small carpets.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was that the carpet that was used to carry it to the vehicle, the body?

MR DU PREEZ: That is how I remember it.

MR RAUTENBACH: If that be the case what is the story about the dust in the passage.

MR DU PREEZ: That is the dust that fell from the carpet while you are carrying the person and as you're carrying the dust falls down and it stays on the floor and it leaves dust. That I cleaned up.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez, you were part of a group, you felt that you were part of this group of people who were responsible for the death of Stanza Bopape. Did you tell any other person about what had happened outside of this circle of people who were present?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes on the Monday the next day I went as usual to Sandton where I worked and I was depressed, it was a traumatic incident, I was alone to the extent that the members of that group of people with whom I acted they weren't there and I feel depressed. I went to my Commander and I informed him that I had a problem and whether I could see him. There were other members at the office and later during the day he approached me and asked me what the problem was and I told him that the previous day I was involved with an interrogation and that the person had died. He asked me whether the Commander, referring now to General Erasmus, whether he had knowledge of it and I confirmed that. He then informed me that he did not want detail about what had happened and that there was nothing that he could say to me and that if the General had knowledge about it, it would be okay.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you tell him who the person was who had died?

MR DU PREEZ: I told him that it was Stanza Bopape.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, who was your Commander?

MR DU PREEZ: It was Major Pretorius.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you only tell him about the interrogation and the death of the deceased or did you tell him also about the going out to Bronkhorstpruit and the fake escape?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, Major Pretorius didn't want the detail, I didn't give him the detail of precisely what had happened.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you give to him?

MR DU PREEZ: As I said, I told him that the detainee died during interrogation and he asked me then whether the Commanders knew and I said yes and we left it there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Continue.

MR DU PREEZ: It was clear that he didn't want to be involved.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did he say if you say he didn't want to become involved?

MR DU PREEZ: If I can remember correctly he said "Let's go make some coffee" and we left his office. I left it there because it gave me a clear indication that he did not want to be involved with something that he had no part in.

MR DE JAGER: Did you at that stage - was there a policy - I don't know what to call it - or a way of action according to which you acted where there was a case of 'need to know'?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct. That is what I meant with acting discreetly, what I did was not necessarily necessary for any other member outside of that situation in which you acted that they should have knowledge of anything, that was information is classified even today and every section only worked with what it was involved with.

MS GCABASHE: But the point of the matter is, your own Commander had not authorised you to go to John Vorster Square, you were in fact off duty, you were at home when you were requested to go across. Is that right?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: Is it normal procedure for one Commander to request a junior officer from the next Commander, so Van Niekerk should he have requested Pretorius to allow you to come and assist them, is that the correct procedure?

MR DU PREEZ: If it is outside of office situation from one unit to the next then that would be the procedure but I don't know if there were any arrangements that I had to be contacted so I can't say whether there had been any arrangements.

MS GCABASHE: You're then saying that anybody from any section could phone you and say bring that machine over, I'd like to use it?

MR DU PREEZ: If it is an officer within the security branch, in this case Johannesburg, then it would not have been strange. It's an officer in the security branch and although we're not in the security branch and although we're not part of the same unit, he's my senior and he can give me an instruction. So it's not out of the ordinary. Or let me put it this way, I did not see it as being out of the ordinary that another officer phoned me and not my direct Commander.

MS GCABASHE: And it wasn't unusual for you to leave your home when you're off duty to go and get involved in a matter that you actually knew nothing at all about?

MR DU PREEZ: It is - if you're in the police it doesn't matter who you're at the uniformed branch, detective or security branch, it is not out of the ordinary that you're phoned and you're asked to come out and come and work. Whether you're off duty or during weekends if you are requested to do anything, whatever, then you go. It is something that is part of your duties it's something that you do. That is how it works in practice in the police.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez, why would you say that the people at John Vorster Square, I refer specifically to Mostert and Van Niekerk, why did they connect your name with the shock device?

MR DU PREEZ: I have testified, I have thought a lot about this, the possibility is that Mostert knew me, I worked in Sandton, they knew that there was a machine, that was why perhaps they did it. I can't say why specifically I was contacted.

MR RAUTENBACH: But it goes further, not only your name is connected to the shock device, but you also operated it. Who told you Du Preez, you handle the electrical shocks the duration, in other words, you are now in charge of the machine and you determine the duration. Who told you that?

MR DU PREEZ: Nobody told me to determine the duration. I brought the machine, I was part of the interrogation. In the past, I don't want to speculate this, but I was involved with this before, with this machine and because it was a machine that I brought there, I dealt with that part of the interrogation. It wasn't specifically said that you had to turn and so many turns and so forth. That is not how it worked.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you spontaneously decide that you would turn the machine to generate the electrical shocks, did you do it yourself?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: You were at home at that stage when you were phoned is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember what time it was?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I testified that it was between ten and twelve. If I can get to a specific time I would say it was much closer to twelve. It was closer to twelve when I received the call rather than ten o'clock but specifically I can't give you but it was approximately eleven thirty.

MR RAUTENBACH: How far, not your address, but how far were you, your house, your residence from the Sandton Police Station?

MR DU PREEZ: At that stage I stayed in the Police Flat in Triomf. Triomf is one of the Western Suburbs of Johannesburg.

MR RAUTENBACH: South Western isn't it?

MR DU PREEZ: It's Western. If you know where Melville Western is, Triomf is next to it, so it would be West/South West, I'm not going to argument and from there it's approximately 40 kilometres to Sandton and then approximately 20 to John Vorster.

MR RAUTENBACH: So we're talking about approximately 60 kilometres that you had to travel after you received the message?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then you also had to stop at Sandton and that is now to get out of the car and get the machine and so forth, correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And what time would you say did you arrive at John Vorster?

MR DU PREEZ: That was approximately and hour from leaving my residence after when I came at John Vorster so it would be round about 12:30.

MR RAUTENBACH: ...[inaudible]

MR DU PREEZ: Sorry, this is not something that I did intentionally, but I am used to talking with my hands.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you arrived at John Vorster, you testified that you saw Van Niekerk, went back, you got the machine, then you went out again and then the deceased was taken from the office and placed on the chair. Just give us some idea, how long was the period since when you arrived at John Vorster up to the point that the man was actually shocked?

MR DU PREEZ: I would say - let's say 15, 20 minutes. It's difficult to give it to you exactly but it would be 15, 20 minutes, 25 minutes to half and hour.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez as far as you know, is there any record written with regard to your movements on that particular day that said that you arrived at Sandton, possibly that you had to sign something when you got there? Is there anything?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then Mr du Preez I want to refer you to page 457 with regard to your testimony that Mr Bopape, that he willingly took off his shirt, at the bottom of the page, page 457, you give the following answer: "That is correct, in the preparation of this device, to apply this device on the person of the person under questioning, on that particular day, Bopape, there was a chair removed from Colonel Van Niekerk's office. It was placed in the corridor, passage. Bopape was requested to leave the office. His shirt was taken off and he was then placed on the chair, on this chair in the passage.

MR RAUTENBACH

"On this chair in the passageway and then he was tied

to the chair"

What did you mean with words ...[inaudible]

MR DU PREEZ: ...[inaudible]

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you say that Bopape took off his own shirt?

MR DU PREEZ: That is how I testified.

MR RAUTENBACH: That is how you understand your words there, in the passive sense you're sure it was removed?

Mr Chairman, I don't have any further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach.

Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Miss van der Walt, do you have any re-examination?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr du Preez, at that stage when you were at Sandton, is it correct that Major van Niekerk was Mr Pretorius's senior?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: And that Sandton was a satellite office of John Vorster?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you got instructions from Mr van Niekerk to take this device to John Vorster, you placed yourself on duty, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: It was also asked of you regarding how Mostert or van Niekerk had known about the machine. Is it correct that Mr Mostert actually worked in Sandton?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Gcabashe?

MS GCABASHE: From what you have said to us this afternoon it would appear that you were the technical expert during this interrogation, is that right?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Chairperson, I am not a technical expert, I would not present myself as an expert regarding technical aspects.

MS GCABASHE: Let me put it this way, could the people who found at John Vorster Square have used this machine without your assistance?

MR DU PREEZ: It is possible Chairperson. Some of the witnesses have testified that they had used this type of device before this incident.

MS GCABASHE: So please tell me, why did you stay, why didn't you simply go home, leave the machine there and go home? They'd simply asked for the machine.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Bearing in mind that I think on Tuesday following the Saturday, on the day when the deceased died, you were due to sit for the ...[indistinct]

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes.

MR DU PREEZ: The moment that I received the instruction to bring the machine I then became part of this group or the interrogation I was not only told: "Thank you, you may leave", I assumed that my presence would not be a problem and therefore I remained.

There was no indication at that stage that it would be something that would continue for an extended time, that a man was now going to be interrogated for hours on end. It wasn't a problem for me at that stage.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Isn't the fact of the matter not that you wanted to take part in this interrogation because you were cooperating with your colleagues?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I received an instruction to take the shock device to John Vorster Square and I interpreted it to mean that I was on duty there, that they needed my duties there, my assistance.

JUDGE NGCOBO: To use the machine?

MR DU PREEZ: To use the machine and what also might have flown from that.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Because you knew how to use the machine?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot say whether that was the case.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You knew how to use the machine, you brought that machine there.

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I knew how to use it.

MS GCABASHE: You see, what I still fail to understand is, you knew you were bringing this machine for the purposes of an interrogation of a detainee. It was your day off. Interrogating a detainee I'm sure is not a pleasant task even to a hardened policeman.

I still fail to understand why you would hang around. You've got your own interrogations to conduct when those are given to you to conduct, why stay and go through yet another one unnecessarily so?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, as I have said, it was also a concern of mine to make a contribution towards stability, it's not only concerning the interrogation. If you can give me the opportunity, after the interrogation where information is obtained, however, whether it was by means of coercion of assault or where someone gave information out of his free will, then there are follow-up operations.

In this case, on a Sunday as you referred to it, it was a day off. If a person is interrogated perhaps it would lead to further actions and then I was available to assist, then it wouldn't be necessary to waste some more time to get some other people. And that sense of duty, if you can call it that, that's why I stayed.

MS GCABASHE: Now talking about this particular machine itself. I know that you tested in a sense after Bopape died, did you test if before you used it, while you were setting it up?

MR DU PREEZ: I didn't test it in the sense that I had a look at it. What I testified is that I looked whether the cords and the cloth, that was all in place. I didn't test it so see whether it worked.

MS GCABASHE: Now, coming to the testing after Bopape died. You have said that one click gave you quite a bit of pain in the elbows or something like that, some pain in the elbows, one click.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: One swing, how many clicks is that?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot give you a specific number Mr Chairperson.

MS GCABASHE: Is that because there are so many you can't count them?

MR DU PREEZ: No, that's not what I would say. I've never opened the machine to count but if you take coil there are different cords or one cord that goes through different movements and that forms a tussle so that there are many points within 3cm, a radius of 3cm. I'm speculating.

Let's say there are 20 points, then one turn would be 20 clicks. If you understand me correctly I'm speculating, I'm not saying that that is the case but just to explain to you what these clicks are.

MS GCABASHE: So essentially you really did not know how much current you were putting into his body, you just used it in the manner to which you were accustomed to using it?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: Bopape dies, the machine is still with you, did you test it when you got back to Sandton, to try and see if there may have been a fault with the machine?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I didn't, I got rid of the machine.

MS GCABASHE: But why was that? This is a machine that had been in service?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, a dies, I'm not going to keep the machine and use it again. I experienced a situation where a person died. I got rid of the Exhibit, I wanted to do away with it. I didn't go afterwards to see what was wrong. I don't have technical knowledge to find out what was wrong. I can't ask another person: "Please test this machine because someone died because of a shock".

MS GCABASHE: Now as I understand it every item of furniture in any government department is tagged, that machine, was it part of the furniture, was it part of the equipment that you used? Was it tagged? And at the end of the day could you simply dispose of it like that?

MR DU PREEZ: That kind of device is not part of the state's assets, it wasn't tagged, it wasn't identified. If you can put it in this way, it sound strange, but it is something that you can use to assist you, it is not something that is given to you: "This is a shock device, use it".

MS GCABASHE: But where did it come from in that case if it wasn't government issue? And if you are saying seniors condoned this, where would it come from?

CHAIRPERSON: It's ...[indistinct] shocking machine device that may be in the office.

MS GCABASHE: Yes.

MR DU PREEZ: I don't know where that machine came from, I can't say that to you but it was not something that was issued by the government or by the police.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Where did you get that machine that from?

MR DU PREEZ: That specific machine I got the Sandton offices, I got it in a small little cupboard. There are sewerage pipes in the building, it's next to a bathroom, it's closed with an ordinary door and that was one of the places there where this was hidden.

JUDGE NGCOBO: How did you know that it was there?

MR DU PREEZ: As I have testified earlier I have made use of a shock, it was put away there. There was not one specific place, there were empty offices where it was also place. It was not something that you placed on the same place everyday.

Should a person come and say: "No, go and have a look there specifically", it wasn't always kept at the same place. If I didn't find it there then I would have systematically have searched for it until I found it.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Who first told you of the existence of this machine?

MR DU PREEZ: Referring to this specific machine or the first time that I had anything to do with it?

JUDGE NGCOBO: No, this one, this specific one.

MR DU PREEZ: Since I started working in Sandton in 1987 I saw the machine there and it was used. There wasn't a specific person who told me that we had such a machine if you as a new member came there, it was wasn't something that they told you: "This is the coffee room and this is the machine".

This is something that you observe with time and should you then want to use it then you could.

JUDGE NGCOBO: This machine I understand was hidden?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Why was it hidden?

MR DU PREEZ: As I testified earlier on, people act discretely when such an interrogation takes place, so

the machines are hidden so it's not put in the open. If you bring a witness to your office to make a testimony you didn't want to see those things standing around.

If other members of other branches come to your branch it's a discreet thing and that is why it is hidden.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you want your superiors to see this machine?

MR DU PREEZ: I couldn't hear.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Would you have liked your superiors to see this machine?

MR DU PREEZ: Sir, it is not ...[intervention]

JUDGE NGCOBO: Major Pretorius for example?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot say to you that I did not want him to see it, it was general knowledge, the existence of this device but to hide it you would not embarrass him if someone comes who is not supposed to see this machine, so it was not hidden specifically or that there was a fear the he would see it. The existence of these machines or devices was known.

MS GCABASHE: To finish off this point, who authorised you to dispose of this machine? Who would you have to account to for it's disposal?

MR DU PREEZ: No-one Mr Chairperson. Like I said I do not have to explain to anyone. I threw this device away. If someone would ask me I would not even admit that I had this machine. Like I said, there was discretion, I got the machine, I was alone there in Sandton, so no-one could really connect me with this machine except the people who were present, the applicants here.

So no-one would then have asked me: "Du Preez, what did you do with this machine, what did you do with it"? It's one of the reasons why I was not involved with the giving of testimony so that other people can't ask me: "What part did you play in the escape"?.

MS GCABASHE: Were there other replacement machines available for the rest of the work you did between '88 and 90 whatever?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, after this even these machines were still used. It was replaced, there was replacements, these events did occur again.

MS GCABASHE: Where would the replacement come from?

MR DU PREEZ: Let me put it this way, similar devices or machines come from telephones, so if you had an old telephone you could replace it.

MS GCABASHE: Let's come to the attempt to resuscitate Stanza Bopape, were you instructed to do so or did you do that voluntarily?

MR DU PREEZ: I did it voluntarily and I did it instinctively.

MS GCABASHE: Now, I must say that when I first that in the papers, and this still baffles me, why did you bother, this man was an enemy, he was the type of person you were trying to protect the State against and in your frame of mind at that time, I still find it difficult to believe that you would have bothered to try and do something about this person. No offence meant but it's just mind-boggling to me as an individual.

MR DU PREEZ: Like I've said Mr Chairperson, I acted instinctively. There was not even once an idea in my head that if Bopape died or I didn't want him to die during or after an assault, my instinct came to the front if I did not try and keep that man alive or resuscitate him.

That is where the point comes in of the embarrassment for the security branch, the government, that another person died in confinement. I cannot just stand and do nothing, even if he's an enemy and now he dies. It would be an illegal assault that took place. It is something that cannot be easily explained, so the circumstances could have been different.

Say the example is a shooting incident where it's his life or my life I would have still tried to make him comfortable and try and resuscitate him or help him. Even thought the person is an enemy of the State I still would have helped him.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you, no further questions at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I see that it's now after four, this will be a convenient time to adjourn and we'll start again tomorrow at half past nine.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS