MR VISSER: Mr Mong, Mr Chairperson.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I think that there was legislation after 1987 that women had to be present if another woman was in detention, that was the legislation that was established at that stage, I don't know why, but that legislation was established.
MR VISSER: Commissioner De Jager is correct, I must say that my recollection is the following and it is nothing more than a recollection, it is that it had to do with certain crimes where certain investigations were conducted, such as rape and so forth, but it is fairly recent to tell you the truth.
FREDERICK BARNARD MONG: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Mong, you are an applicant for amnesty in this application, that has regard to the Simelane matter, is that correct?
MR MONG: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And your amnesty application, we find in Bundle 2, page 423 to page 434, is that correct?
MR VISSER: And do you confirm the contents and correctness thereof?
MR VISSER: I put you down there as Captain Mong, you are still in the Police?
MR VISSER: And what is your rank?
MR VISSER: You are an Inspector? Chairperson, my Attorney just reminds me that I have neglected to refer you to the fact that this statement will then be Exhibit Y.
CHAIRPERSON: What was an Inspector in the old days?
MR VISSER: Unfortunately the list that I have typed, I left Y out. We went from X to Z. Pretorius was X and this is the next Exhibit, it will have to be Y.
ADV DE JAGER: Ross was W, and Pretorius after Ross, X.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, I will bring this list up to date if I have time tonight. Mr Mong, the background document, you have studied it, Exhibit A, is that correct?
MR VISSER: Can you identify with the contents thereof and you request that it be applied to you and considered in the consideration of your application?
MR VISSER: And the same applies for the evidence that is contained in Exhibit A?
MR VISSER: And in your amnesty application you said that you referred to the amnesty application of Pretorius, Coetzee, Ross and Williams.
MR VISSER: In paragraph 7(a) in your application form, it says "not applicable", that is 7(a) and 7(b), what is the correct position there?
MR MONG: It has to be amended with paragraph 7(a) that I was a supporter of the National Party.
MR VISSER: Was that the factual situation?
MR VISSER: In 1983 Mr Mong, you were a member of the Intelligence Unit of the Security Branch of Soweto?
MR VISSER: And under the direct command of Lieutenant Coetzee?
MR VISSER: You had the same knowledge as Mr Pretorius and you set it out from paragraph 3 and further on, we are not going to repeat it, we know how the evidence is as to how the meeting took place between Ms Simelane and Sergeant Mkhonza in the Carlton Centre and before the meeting, there was a meeting held, is that correct?
MR VISSER: And in paragraph 7 on page 4 are the names that you have put down there, are these the persons who were at the meeting or the persons who were at the scene?
MR VISSER: Are these the persons as you can recall them? On this particular day, what was your rank then in 1983?
MR VISSER: On this particular day, what was your specific order or instruction?
MR MONG: I had to observe with Mr Ross and Mr Williams, we had to observe the restaurant where the contact had to take place. As soon as contact took place, I had to move down to the parking area to lend support with the arrest of the person.
MR VISSER: That is a bit of a repetition, but can you continue with paragraph 11 and put it to the Committee?
MR MONG: My involvement with Inspector Coetzee who was a Lieutenant then at that stage, was observation during the initial meeting between Simelane and RS243 in the Carlton Shopping Centre; the pursuance of Simelane and the RS member from the restaurant to the parking garage in the Carlton Centre; support with the physical arrest of Simelane and the transport of her to the Norwood SAP quarters; input and support during the questioning of Simelane.
MR VISSER: On this particular day, did you watch Mkhonza and see who he met?
MR VISSER: You also saw who this was?
MR VISSER: And it was a woman? What did you do then?
MR MONG: From there I went to the parking garage to assist with the transport of the person if they came down to the parking garage.
MR VISSER: Did you speak to Mr Pretorius there?
MR VISSER: Very well. Continue please.
MR MONG: Simelane shortly afterwards, I think it was the Monday after the Saturday that she was abducted, she was taken to a safehouse, a farm in the Northum district in the Northwest Province. Here she was questioned by myself, Superintendent Coetzee and Superintendent Pretorius and some of the black members.
MR VISSER: When did you know for the first time that it was a woman?
MR MONG: When the meeting took place in the restaurant.
MR VISSER: Did you do anything with that information?
MR MONG: I did nothing in regard to this information.
MR MONG: As far as I can recall ...
MR VISSER: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I am confusing this witness with a previous witness who has already given the witness that he went down and told Pretorius, I am sorry, could I ask that to be struck off. I couldn't understand why he is giving the wrong answer here. I was busy with the wrong witness, I am sorry. Please continue.
MR MONG: As far as I can recall, only the following members attended the farm with regards to her orientation, it was myself, Coetzee, Pretorius, Sergeant Lengene and Sergeant Mothiba. Sergeant Nimrod Veyi and Strongman at that stage who was an informer.
MR VISSER: What was your involvement further on?
MR MONG: My further involvement was the following, the transport of Simelane to this premises in Northum, assisted by Sergeant Mothiba; the periodical input during the questioning of Simelane at Northum. My primary task was to show the photo album to Simelane and to put together profile sketches with regard to the persons which she identified, the periodical transport of rations from Johannesburg to Northum for Simelane and the black members who looked after her there. The period input during sessions where Simelane was tasked by Colonel Coetzee and Superintendent Pretorius, assistance to Sergeant Mothiba with the transport of Simelane from Northum to Potchefstroom and the handing over of Simelane to Colonel Coetzee and Superintendent Pretorius there.
ADV DE JAGER: How many vehicles did you go there with?
MR MONG: If I can recall correctly sir, Joseph and I, that is Mothiba, drove in the panel van and I think, if I am not wrong, Mr Coetzee and Pretorius went with Mr Coetzee's vehicle.
MR VISSER: And the black members?
MR MONG: With the initial transport of the subject, it was only myself and Joseph and the other two members, Coetzee and Pretorius.
MR VISSER: Somewhere I had read that Selamolela or Veyi had said that they went with their car later?
MR MONG: It could have been later, but not with the initial transporting.
MR MONG: The questioning and turning of Simelane was accompanied with assaults with her, these assaults took place during approximately the first week or so. The manner of assault was hitting her with an open hand in the face, hitting her in the back and in the sides with a fist and suffocating her by using a bag, a wet bag, which was used in detention, which would be put over her head until she starts gasping for breath.
MR VISSER: What do you mean hit with a fist, what do you mean? Like you would hit a punching bag?
MR MONG: Yes, like you would punch somebody. You know punching with a fist. With regard to any other assault, as is mentioned by the other applicants, I have no knowledge thereof, and I deny that it happened in my presence. My involvement in the assault was that I had slapped her with my open hand, I hit her in the back and sides with my fist and I placed the bag on her head. The assaults were of a serious nature and it could be seen as torture. The assaults on Simelane had the purpose of trying to convince her to work with the Security Branch and to convince ourselves that she was going to work with us. When a newly recruited informant had to be placed back in the system, he had to be supplied with certain information, so that certain communication channels must be established with this person. In this process it was unavoidable that certain agents or other informants had to be named to her or be known to her. If this person was not to be honest, such identities of such informers or agents would be disclosed to the enemy and this would lead to their death. I deny that any shock apparatus had been used on her as Selamolela testified in his amnesty application, Bundle 3, page 567. I have no knowledge that Simelane was thrown into the dam by Radebe as Selamolela says in his amnesty application, Bundle 3, page 567. We all had to wash in the dam and I don't know if this is what he refers to. The allegation ...
MR VISSER: Please excuse me, if I interrupt, or continue, we will get to that later.
MR MONG: The allegation in Bundle 3, page 567 that Simelane was assaulted so badly that she was unrecognisable, is untrue. If he wants to say that her face was swollen on some occasion, during the first week of interrogation, I will confirm that. On the farm Simelane was questioned by myself, Coetzee, Pretorius and black members. Some of the black members also acted as Interpreters. The manner was to ask her to write down a statement which would set out her role and knowledge of MK activities. She was also requested to do identification of persons from photo albums. This was mostly my task. We removed parts of her written statement and asked her to write those sections that we have removed, again. If she gives other information, other than what she had given us or if she had omitted anything, she would be assaulted again.
CHAIRPERSON: Please excuse me, were you trying to find out if she made a bona fide mistake, or did you just assault her?
MR MONG: What had happened Chairperson, as I said, we gave her things to write.
CHAIRPERSON: I know that, but now she is writing, you take it away and you tell her write it again and she writes something else, something different, and then you hit her?
MR MONG: No, and then we want to clear it out with her, but these stories do not concur, if it doesn't concur with what she originally had written, she would be assaulted.
CHAIRPERSON: So you let her write the second time and you read the piece that she had written and if there is a difference, if you look at the first piece that she had written, what do you do then?
MR MONG: Then we try to clear it with her, but if she does not come back to the original story that she had written or the story that we knew, should be true, she would be assaulted.
CHAIRPERSON: So then you would hit her so that she would write her first story again?
MR MONG: To get clarity Chairperson, as to which story was the correct one.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't follow you. You take the original piece and you take the second piece that she had written?
CHAIRPERSON: And you see there is a difference between the two?
CHAIRPERSON: And you ask her, or you tell her, you want to draw her attention to the difference?
CHAIRPERSON: And she gives some explanation to you?
CHAIRPERSON: So why do you assault her again?
MR MONG: At many instances it happened that if you asked her for an explanation of the two pieces, that the explanation she gave, did not concur with any one of the two and she comes up with some third story surrounding a specific incident.
MR MONG: And then we assaulted her.
MR MONG: To get the truth from her. If someone tells you two or three stories surrounding a specific incident, then at some stage we must get the truth from her.
CHAIRPERSON: And how do you corroborate what is the truth that you get from her?
MR MONG: If she was assaulted, she came with a story and assured us that what she was telling us, was the truth and we must accept it.
CHAIRPERSON: Even if it is a fourth story?
MR MONG: Even if it is one of these stories that she had already told us.
CHAIRPERSON: Continue Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: Will it be convenient to take the adjournment now, Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we can finish the chief, it seems to be very similar to the other statements that we have received?
MR VISSER: Yes. If you wish me to continue, we will do so Chairperson. We have arrived at where, paragraph 26. You have repeated in paragraph 26 that she supplied you with some information surrounding MK structures and their function in Swaziland and that from time to time, you did some follow up work based on the information that you received from Simelane, did you also go and verify and do follow up work?
MR VISSER: And there were times when there were only black members present with Ms Simelane at the farm?
MR MONG: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Are you aware of any instructions that Coetzee gave to the black members during such times, where you, this is now you, Pretorius and Coetzee were all away from the farm, what did they have to do?
MR MONG: The times when we were not present at the premises, he told them to continue with the writing of her story and the identification of the photo albums and the black members who guarded her, had to see that she do this.
MR VISSER: You say just like the other persons, Mr Mpho was arrested, is that correct?
MR MONG: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And information which was received from Simelane directly or indirectly, gave or led to the fact that over a time period, 17 other persons were arrested?
MR VISSER: You refer in paragraph 30 to the false flag operations, do you confirm that you were also involved here?
MR VISSER: With which ones of these operations?
MR MONG: I apply for amnesty, I was involved with Ross, Williams and RS243, both instances of the sub-station which happened on the 10th of September.
MR VISSER: You refer to your Bundle, page 430, Bundle 2?
MR VISSER: I don't know if it is my mistake, what you say Superintendent then Captain Williams, was Williams a Captain then?
MR VISSER: That would have made him the most senior of all of you because Coetzee was a Lieutenant?
MR MONG: No, no, I think Coetzee - I am not sure.
MR VISSER: You are a little confused, I think it is a mistake, I think Williams said that he was a Sergeant.
MR VISSER: Very well. Because of these explosions, you say you could provide credibility to agents in Swaziland, we know, we have heard from Pretorius that afterwards Sergeant Langa was indeed sent to Swaziland and where he received weaponry for attacks in South Africa, that he had brought the weapons from Swaziland.
MR VISSER: The recruitment, did this happen at once or did it take some time, what is the situation? Could you read paragraph 33?
MR MONG: The recruitment of Simelane took place over a time period of a few days, we had to ensure that her information was correct and we had to satisfy ourselves that she was indeed honest with her indications that she would cooperate with the SAP. With time we were satisfied that she was recruited. I heard that she was registered as an Opportunity Source with the Soweto Security Branch.
MR VISSER: Did you believe it then or only now, did you hear it then or only now?
MR MONG: Only after she was placed back in Swaziland did I hear this from Mr Coetzee.
MR MONG: With Simelane's accommodation and re-orientation at the mentioned farm, we saw to her personal needs, her toiletries, food, new clothing and others, so that we could continue with her co-operation and her attitude.
MR VISSER: Yes, we all agree on this.
MR MONG: Not all the members were always on the farm. All of us, sometimes two at a time, had to look after her. She was cuffed with leg irons and handcuffs during the night to prevent her from escaping.
MR VISSER: During the day she had the leg irons?
MR MONG: Yes, and when she had to write, she had the leg irons on. Sergeant Mothiba and I took Simelane under instructions from Superintendent Coetzee from the farm to Potchefstroom.
MR VISSER: This was now after this turning action?
MR MONG: I was given instructions that as soon as we left the farm, to remove the leg irons and I did do this.
MR VISSER: What about the handcuffs?
MR MONG: At that stage she did not have handcuffs. We travelled with a built up panel van which prevented one to see outside if you were in the back of the vehicle.
MR VISSER: So Ms Simelane, when you placed her in the vehicle here at the room, was she able to see the country side, could she take it in and identify it?
MR MONG: Chairperson, if I can recall correctly, I put Joseph in the back with her so that he had to ensure that she did not look around and see where she was. He was in the back with her until we got to Potchefstroom.
MR VISSER: What was the purpose thereof that she could not see what happened?
MR MONG: The farm which we had used, was a farm that Mr Coetzee - it was the farm of one of Mr Coetzee's family members and we did not want her to identify the farm. After conclusion of other aspects and the targeting and the structuring of her operational programme and indication of the handling group and the manner of future communication, I heard that she had been placed back in Swaziland.
MR VISSER: After you had handed her to Mr Coetzee in Potchefstroom?
MR MONG: Yes, I handed her over to Mr Coetzee.
MR VISSER: Where in Potchefstroom did this handing over take place?
MR MONG: If I can recall correctly, it was on the road where the industrial area in Potchefstroom was.
MR VISSER: From there, where did you go to?
MR MONG: From there we went back to the Custodum Flats in Norwood, where I left him there.
MR VISSER: Did you have any idea, do you have any knowledge of the allegation that there was a suggestion that members of the South African Police Coetzee and or Pretorius might have killed Ms Simelane and had buried her close to Rustenburg?
MR MONG: I have knowledge of these suggestions but I cannot confirm whether they are true or not.
MR VISSER: With regards to you personally, you said in paragraph 40, it would have been senseless to do it because this was not your objective?
MR VISSER: Please continue with paragraph 41.
MR MONG: The actions and omissions which I am guilty of, I had done during the execution of my official duties, under instruction from a higher Officer whose instructions I was obliged to execute. I did this as part of the opposition of the struggle and it was aimed at the supporters of the liberation movement. What I had done, I had done to protect the interests of the National Party and the government and to oppose the revolutionary onslaught. I humbly request that amnesty be granted to me for my actions and omissions in this regard.
MR VISSER: And this request includes on page 2 conspiracy to abduct Simelane, unlawful arrest and or detention, assistance or accessory after the fact and the abduction, assault or torture of the named person Nokuthula Simelane, defeating the ends of justice?
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.
FREDERICK BARNARD MONG: (still under oath)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mong, in this document Exhibit E, you state that members of the Security Branch, paragraph 5 were told beforehand during a meeting that it was decided that the MK courier would be arrested during the meeting and the turning action would commence immediately? Do I understand your evidence correctly that originally it was told to the members that there would be a turning action?
MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Do I understand your evidence correctly when read with paragraph 7, that both Mr Selamolela and Veyi were present during that meeting during which the discussion of the turning action, was held?
MR MONG: As far as I can recall, yes.
MR LAMEY: Is it possible that with regard to the two specific persons, you may have made a mistake with regard to their presence during such a meeting where such a turning action was discussed?
MR MONG: Chairperson, the possibility does exist, but as I have said, as far as I can recall, I should imagine that they were present.
MR LAMEY: Because I just want to put to you what my instructions are, that is that neither Mr Veyi nor Mr Selamolela had any prior knowledge of the objective of the action to arrest her, regardless of the turning action, they knew that there was going to be an arrest at the Carlton Centre and they understood that this would take place.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, it is not clear to me, were they at the meeting or were they not there?
MR LAMEY: They were not at a meeting specifically during which discussion was held about a turning action during which a person would be seized in order to turn this person.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but what I don't understand is whether or not they were at this meeting or whether they were at another meeting where this was discussed.
MR LAMEY: They were informed that there would be an arrest at Carlton Centre. That is what I understand.
MR MONG: Chairperson, I don't think that we should confuse the meeting between Coetzee and Muller with another reference to a meeting that Mr Coetzee had with us, to inform us about the action which was to take place. We shouldn't confuse these two meetings. With regard to the meeting between Muller and Coetzee, we were not involved in that. The meeting that we had with Mr Coetzee before the action, was more like a briefing session and during that meeting, I recall that those two persons were present.
ADV GCABASHE : At what point did you have this briefing session, just before you went to the Carlton Centre?
MR MONG: This is before we went to the Carlton Centre.
ADV GCABASHE : So it would have been an hour or two before going to the Carlton Centre?
MR LAMEY: My further instructions from Mr Veyi are that he was not present at all at the Carlton Centre where she was seized or arrested. It was only after that that he joined you at the Norwood quarters where her interrogation began, could you have placed him at the Carlton Centre by mistake?
MR MONG: Could you please put that question again?
MR LAMEY: You put Veyi in paragraph 7 as a member of the group that went to the Carlton Centre, is that correct?
MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr Veyi are that he was not there and that he only joined you later at the Norwood quarters where the interrogation commenced.
MR MONG: I cannot see the purpose about informing somebody about an operation, and then not using them.
ADV GCABASHE : So you are saying he was both at the meeting and at the Carlton Centre?
MR MONG: As far as it concerns me, yes.
MR LAMEY: But with regard to Mr Selamolela, he was at the Carlton Centre? Then I would also like to ask you about the question of the arrest and the seizure action and the discussion before that. Upon the question put by the Committee and the question was what would have happened if the person had not been prepared to cooperate with the Security Branch, in other words if she didn't want to turn and his answer was one of the alternatives that he mentioned was that she would be charged. Do you agree with that?
MR LAMEY: If an illegal abduction had taken place and not an arrest which would have made the entire background to the prosecution illegitimate, how would she have been properly prosecuted?
MR MONG: Chairperson, I would say that with the information that we had at our disposal with regard to her involvement with the internal structures of MK.
MR LAMEY: Isn't it true that during the past with such actions, you would arrest such a person and then interrogate them and then detain them and during the process also attempt to turn the person, but it would not necessarily be turning as a definite option from the very beginning as planned?
MR LAMEY: Your evidence is similar to that of Mr Pretorius and Mr Coetzee, also with regard to the additional submission. It reads very much the same ad verbum and I would just like to put it to you briefly that my instructions are that this person's physical condition up until the very last stage where Mr Selamolela and Veyi were at the farm, her physical condition was poor, she was swollen and according to them, she was still wearing the same brown over-all.
MR MONG: Chairperson, as far as it regards the same brown over-all, that would probably be true, however I cannot see that she was in an aggravated position of abuse or torture because otherwise we would not have been in the position to release her. We could not have sent her back to Swaziland in such an injured state if I might put it that way, because that would probably have been obvious then that she had been in our hands.
MR LAMEY: With regard to your evidence in which you state that Mr Mkhonza and Mr Langa had an instruction from the Swaziland MK to bomb the sub-stations, is that your evidence?
MR MONG: That is what I heard from Mr Coetzee.
MR LAMEY: That is what you heard from him, so you don't have direct, personal knowledge thereof?
MR LAMEY: I would just like to put it to you that my instructions are from Mr Mkhonza that he never received such an order from Swaziland MK, but there was another order that he had with regard to an attack on a parade ground of a Military Unit at Witwatersrand.
MR MONG: As I have already said, I cannot dispute that because I was not the handler, it did not come back to me.
MR LAMEY: Is it possible that Mr Langa alone might have received such an order and not Mr Mkhonza?
MR MONG: As I have already said, I cannot respond to that question because I was not the handler of either one of these two persons.
MR LAMEY: Then the shock apparatus that was used, were you present when Coetzee and Pretorius were examined?
MR MONG: No, I was only present from time to time.
MR LAMEY: So if this did take place, you would not be able to exclude the possibility?
MR MONG: I cannot exclude the possibility but it did not happen in my presence.
MR LAMEY: Where exactly was Ms Simelane handed over in Potchefstroom?
MR MONG: As I have already stated before, it was near the industrial area, outside Potchefstroom.
MR LAMEY: Could you explain which route you used from Norwood?
MR MONG: If I recall correctly, it was Rustenburg/Ventersdorp, Ventersdorp/Potchefstroom.
MR LAMEY: When you approach Potchefstroom from Ventersdorp, from which side did you come in?
MR MONG: I cannot recall that.
MR LAMEY: Which wind direction would you be speaking of? East from Potchefstroom, north or south or west from Potchefstroom?
MR MONG: I would say in a south-westerly direction from Potchefstroom, but I am not entirely certain.
MR LAMEY: You are not entirely certain but you would say that it would be on the south-westerly side of Potchefstroom?
MR LAMEY: On which side of Potchefstroom is the industrial area that you referred to?
MR MONG: If I could explain to you, if I have my wind directions correct I would say that the industrial area lies to the north of Potchefstroom. No, I beg your pardon, it is on the south.
MR LAMEY: Completely to the south?
MR LAMEY: Which towns are immediately the closest to Potchefstroom, in terms of its industrial area, what would be the first town after the industrial area of Potchefstroom?
MR MONG: If I know correctly, it would be Klerksdorp.
MR LAMEY: Stilfontein/Klerksdorp?
MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: That would be more to the western side, not so? So you came in from Ventersdorp from that side? Let me put it to you like this, did you go from the farm to Ventersdorp and then to Potchefstroom and did you first visit the Security Branch there?
MR LAMEY: So you never visited the Security Branch?
MR MONG: No, we couldn't visit the Security Branch office with the subject in our custody.
MR LAMEY: And she was transported in the panel van?
MR LAMEY: And from there after handing her over, what would the route have been, where would she have gone next?
MR MONG: From what I knew and was later informed, I handed her over to Coetzee and Pretorius there and they would have rendezvoused with Langa somewhere, I don't know where that rendezvous point was supposed to have been.
MR LAMEY: Coetzee's evidence if I remember it correctly, is that after that, they moved along the Potchefstroom/Johannesburg road?
MR MONG: As I have said I don't know anything about that. I was not part of that section of the exercise.
MR LAMEY: Could you perhaps help us to clarify this, I don't understand quite thoroughly. Could she have been handed over to the western side of Potchefstroom if Coetzee had been on his way to Johannesburg in an easterly direction? In other words the sides of Potchefstroom are on opposite sides and why in the industrial area, west of Potchefstroom to Klerksdorp and not on the eastern side to Johannesburg?
MR MONG: I cannot respond to that because that is the point upon which I was told to wait.
MR LAMEY: Was there a specific reason why that point itself was selected?
MR MONG: I don't know, you will have to ask Coetzee that.
ADV GCABASHE : Was this a week day or a weekend, the day you handed her over?
ADV GCABASHE : Was it busy, were there people there or was it absolutely quiet?
MR MONG: No, there were people there.
ADV GCABASHE : And you just did this in the open area, in the open parking area, you handed her over from one car to the other?
MR MONG: No, it was not a parking area, it was just along the road.
ADV GCABASHE : Along the road?
ADV GCABASHE : And this is a main road?
ADV GCABASHE : And she walked from one car to the other?
MR MONG: No, at that stage she was not bound.
MR LAMEY: Where were the cuffs and the irons removed?
MR MONG: My order from Mr Coetzee was that we could remove the leg irons from her feet as soon as we were on the road. As I have already stated, Sergeant Joseph was behind in the car with her, I can't say exactly when the leg irons were removed.
MR LAMEY: What was your rank at that stage?
MR MONG: He was also a Sergeant.
MR LAMEY: When you drove from the farm through Ventersdorp, where were you seated and where was Mothiba seated?
MR MONG: I drove and Mothiba, as I have already stated, sat next to her at the back of the panel van.
MR LAMEY: To whom was the order given that the leg irons were to be removed, to you or to Mothiba?
MR MONG: The order was given to me by Coetzee, upon the morning that I went to fetch her and Mothiba on the farm. The order was that as soon as we were on the road, her leg irons could be removed and that is how I conveyed the order to Mothiba.
MR LAMEY: Can you think of any reason why this could not have been done at an earlier stage on the farm perhaps?
MR MONG: I cannot think why this was not to take place earlier, all I can say is that I acted on an order that I received from Coetzee.
MR LAMEY: I am asking you in your experience, whether or not this made sense to you, to remove the leg irons only during the transport process or rather to do this when you were putting her in the panel van?
MR MONG: To be honest with you, I cannot see what difference it would have made if that had taken place inside or outside the panel van.
MR LAMEY: Why did Mothiba drive with her in the van?
MR MONG: Mr Mothiba was with her at the back of the vehicle because as Coetzee and Pretorius have already testified, he would have been the person who played the primary role or would have played the primary role in her handling after the time. I would say that the reason for that would be to maintain the position of trust and to have further discussions with her through the course, up to her release.
MR LAMEY: But wasn't she already oriented at that stage?
MR MONG: Yes, she was but that was simply to fortify the relationship of trust.
MR LAMEY: Was there a danger that during the journey, she could have escaped?
MR MONG: No, she would not have been able to escape because the van could not be opened from the inside.
MR LAMEY: How far was Northum from Potchefstroom?
MR MONG: Chairperson, I cannot recall that off the top of my head.
MR LAMEY: I am not asking you for an exact kilometres, could you just approximate. Let me ask you how far it is from Rustenburg?
MR MONG: Northum from Rustenburg?
MR LAMEY: Yes, did you travel from Northum from the farm, through Rustenburg?
MR MONG: I can't recall the exact route.
MR LAMEY: You can't recall the exact route?
MR LAMEY: Did you go through Ventersdorp?
MR LAMEY: Could it be a distance of some 200 kilometres?
MR LAMEY: At which stage did you give the order for her leg irons to be removed during the journey?
MR MONG: She was only bound with leg irons. As I have said when I picked up Joseph from the farm, I told him Mr Coetzee said we can take off the leg irons as soon as we are on the way, and that is why I am saying I don't know at which point during the journey, he took off the leg irons.
MR LAMEY: But when you arrived at the industrial area, she was free?
MR LAMEY: How was she transported in the vehicle?
MR MONG: In Coetzee's vehicle?
MR LAMEY: Yes, you handed her over to Coetzee?
MR LAMEY: And who was with him?
MR LAMEY: How was she transported in Coetzee and Pretorius' vehicle?
MR MONG: She would have been taken from the panel van into Coetzee's vehicle and be seated on the back seat, and from there I left.
MR LAMEY: Where did you go from there? From that point where you handed her over, where did you go?
MR MONG: I went back to Johannesburg, with Joseph.
MR LAMEY: Potchefstroom/Johannesburg road?
MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: So we have it that Coetzee and Pretorius also took that road as you did?
MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I don't wish to take much longer. As I have said I could go through all the questions that I put beforehand one by one, but perhaps it may not be necessary.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mong, did you hear the questions that Mr Lamey put to your colleagues, Mr Pretorius and Mr Coetzee with regard to the assaults and the versions of his clients? Do you know what Mr Lamey's clients' versions are of those events which took place on the farm?
MR MONG: Chairperson, I can broadly recall what was said with regard to that.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any commentary?
MR MONG: No, I don't think it is necessary for me to comment.
MR LAMEY: So you would associate yourself with their versions?
MR MONG: In so far - I differ with the reasons as given by Pretorius and Coetzee.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I don't have any further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Van den Berg?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Chairperson. Do you know Sergeant Langa?
MR VAN DEN BERG: You worked with him from time to time as a member of the Unit?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Sergeant Mothiba, let me just place this in context, Simelane was handed over in Potchefstroom and you and Sergeant Mothiba went back to Johannesburg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Where did you drop him off?
MR MONG: I dropped him off at the Norwood flats in Custodum.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you don't know about his movements after that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: And you also have no personal knowledge of what happened to Simelane after you handed her over to Coetzee and Pretorius at Potchefstroom?
MR MONG: No, simply that I knew that Langa and Mothiba would later accompany her to the Eastern Transvaal on that day.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You didn't know what the reason was for you handing over Simelane to Coetzee and Pretorius, because as I understand their evidence, she only spent a short time with them?
MR VAN DEN BERG: You mentioned scars on Ms Simelane, was she hit to the extent that there were wounds?
MR VAN DEN BERG: But you did mention scars?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Then how did she obtain these scars?
MR MONG: As a result of the assault which took place during the first phase, her cheekbones and eyes that were swollen.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Perhaps it is just my Afrikaans which is failing me, but am I correct if I understand the word "letsel" to indicate ...
MR VAN DEN BERG: Oh, is it marks? As we would say in English "bruises"?
MR VAN DEN BERG: When you received the instruction to pick up Simelane at Northum and bring her through to Potchefstroom, you said that you reported to Joseph and the others. Who are you referring to?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Was there anybody else that was present at the farm?
MR MONG: No, he was alone with her.
MR VAN DEN BERG: For how long have you known Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius, when did you first begin to work with them?
MR MONG: I began working with them in March 1983.
MR VAN DEN BERG: March 1983 and then at a certain stage, Coetzee was transferred from Soweto to Pretoria?
MR VAN DEN BERG: When did this take place, can you recall?
MR MONG: That would have been approximately 1988 or 1989.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, if we look at his application, he was transferred in 1987, the end of 1987, and he began at the Security Head Office of National Intelligence Co-ordination Component in 1988?
MR MONG: Yes, I agree with that.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you have contact with him after that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: With regard to work or friendship?
MR VAN DEN BERG: And Pretorius, was he transferred at any point?
MR MONG: Yes, he was also transferred as well as myself.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You have no personal knowledge of the replacement of Simelane in Swaziland?
MR VAN DEN BERG: The filing system at Soweto, were there individual files for suspects, possible MK members and separate files for informers? How did the filing system work?
MR MONG: Informer files were kept completely separate from the files of suspects, completely separate.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And if an informer was of no further value for whatsoever reason, what would happen to the file?
MR MONG: That file would have been closed and safeguarded.
MR VAN DEN BERG: At a separate place?
MR MONG: Yes, at a separate place until an audit of the file took place.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And that probably took place once a year?
MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And what would happen to the file after the audit, the closed file?
MR MONG: Depending upon what the Auditor had decided.
MR VAN DEN BERG: But it was merely about financial implications?
MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Because the information on the file would have already been processed into the system?
MR MONG: Yes, the information in the file would have already been processed during the person's period of activity It would have been forwarded to the relevant persons.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Inactive informers' files would be destroyed at a certain point?
MR MONG: That is possible, it may have been done.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Under which circumstances?
MR MONG: As I have said, depending upon the order of the Auditor's report, whether this file was still to be kept on record or not.
MR VAN DEN BERG: And if the file was clean, if there were no further financial implications, no further enquiries about money spent or money in arrears, would that be the stage at which the file would be destroyed?
MR VAN DEN BERG: When were you transferred from Soweto?
MR VAN DEN BERG: When during 1990?
MR MONG: I can't recall the specific dates, but it was during 1990. I was with Crime Intelligence.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you present in Soweto, as I understand other amnesty applications, statements or their evidence, were there any instructions to destroy files in the 1990's, were you in Soweto when this happened?
MR MONG: I was already transferred.
MR VAN DEN BERG: But you have knowledge that such an instruction existed and that files were destroyed?
MR VAN DEN BERG: In your initial amnesty application, you refer to RS243 and to RS269, why did you decide to name them in that manner and not use their names, what was the reason therefore?
MR MONG: I don't know, I cannot give you a specific reason.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When did Langa die? Do you know?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
MS THABETHE: No questions, thank you Chair.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE
ADV GCABASHE : I have been curious about this business of "all of us washed in the dam", everybody has said it today. Just explain that to me.
MR MONG: I mean there as no other facility to wash in, it was either the dam or at the tap that was there. There was no other facility. If I stayed over at times with the subject and the black members, then I used the dam to wash myself in.
ADV GCABASHE : You go and get water from the dam or you actually go and wash in the dam?
ADV GCABASHE : Right, now was this expected of Nokuthula Simelane as well, she would wash in the dam or water would be brought to her or she fetched her own water, just I am trying to understand that?
MR MONG: I can recall I think twice, that she went and washed in the dam.
ADV GCABASHE : And somebody would be guarding her because the leg irons would be off?
ADV GCABASHE : The other curious one is my assumption is with this farm, you normally have an inner fence around the homestead, then you have the outer fence around the farm itself, is this essentially what happened to this particular farm as well, just explain it to me.
MR MONG: No, I was not at the house where the family of Mr Coetzee had stayed, and if I can think back, it was just one fence on the side of the road, around the farm. That is all I can recall.
ADV GCABASHE : And how far was this store room from that fence?
ADV GCABASHE : Would it have been visible from the store, from the store room, the fence and the road? No?
ADV GCABASHE : Then Mr Mothiba, how old was he? Everybody refers to him as a father figure?
MR MONG: Yes, he was approximately in his early 50's at that stage.
ADV GCABASHE : And he is deceased?
ADV GCABASHE : What did he die of?
ADV GCABASHE : When was this? You don't know?
ADV GCABASHE : Okay, thank you Chair, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.
ADV DE JAGER: Maybe you can just assist me. Did you participate in the transport of Ms Simelane to the premises?
ADV DE JAGER: And you took her back?
MR MONG: Yes, back to Potchefstroom.
ADV DE JAGER: And both times this was in the panel van?
ADV DE JAGER: If you were away from the premises, what did you drive with?
MR MONG: I drove the panel van.
ADV DE JAGER: And were there any other vehicles on the premises that were left there?
MR MONG: If I can recall correctly, the only vehicle that stayed over there, was then Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius went there with their vehicles. If I went there to relieve them, I would drive with a vehicle and the person whom I relieved, would come back with that vehicle.
ADV DE JAGER: I see, so there were times when there were not vehicle there?
MR MONG: Yes, there were times when there were not vehicles there.
ADV DE JAGER: So there was no time that there were three vehicles?
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination Mr Visser?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Just two matters, thank you Chairperson. I want to understand what you are saying. You have referred to scars and you described it as her eyes that were swollen and her cheekbones that were swollen and some bruises, to which stage do you refer to where these marks were on Ms Simelane, was this on the day when you took her to Potchefstroom?
MR VISSER: When were these marks visible?
MR MONG: These marks were visible up to about approximately the third week.
MR VISSER: Yes, I think there must be some misunderstanding between yourself and Mr Van den Berg, Mr Van den Berg referred to the time when you and Mothiba took Ms Simelane to Potchefstroom. Were there any visible marks on Ms Simelane?
MR MONG: Not that I can recall.
MR VISSER: And the last aspect, how far from the house was this room that you stayed in, an approximation.
MR MONG: I would say approximately half a kilometre, more or less.
MR VISSER: Half a kilometre? So it was reasonably far from the house?
MR VISSER: Were there bushes in between? Could you see the two places?
MR VISSER: So you were totally apart from the house? And this dam, what type of a dam was this, describe it to us?
MR MONG: It was a normal dam that you find on farms with a wind pump. If I recall correctly it was deeper than four feet, approximately five, six feet.
MR VISSER: Or it was surrounded by an embankment, five or six feet high, so how do you get into the dam?
MR MONG: There were some steps.
MR VISSER: And then if you want to wash in the dam, what happens then? Do you climb up the steps to the top and then?
MR MONG: I put on a shorts and I climbed into the dam and washed myself.
MR VISSER: And this was in the month of September?
MR VISSER: September month in the Bushveld, it is reasonably warm?
MR VISSER: And you only went into the dam twice?
MR MONG: At times when I went to wash.
MR VISSER: You did not go in for a swim?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Mong, thank you, you are excused.