CHAIRPERSON: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Today we are going to start with the applications of the following applicants, M D Ras, E A de Kock, A Roslee, N J Vermeulen and G C Mosiane. The Panel that will sit to hear this application as well as all the others sat down for this venue, consist of myself, Judge Sisi Khampepe, on my right hand side, there is Adv Motata, on my left hand side, Mr Wynand Malan. May I request the legal representatives who will be appearing in this matter, to kindly place their name for the record.
MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, my name is P A Hattingh, I appear on behalf of Mr de Kock, and I am instructed by Mr Schalk Hugo, thank you.
MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair, I am Adv Jansen, I appear on instructions of Julian Knight Attorneys and I appear for Mr Ras.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson, Wim Cornelius, I appear on behalf of N J Vermeulen.
MS VAN DER WALT: I appear on behalf of Mr H J Prinsloo, I think you may have omitted to mention his name, he is also an applicant in this matter, I am Louisa van der Walt, thank you.
MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Chairperson, I appear for the applicant Adrian Steven Roslee.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Madam Chair, I represent the applicants Mathebula and Mosiane. I may just mention that Mr Mathebula is also an applicant in this incident. As far as it is necessary, I also represent the interest of Mr Machene, but he is not an applicant.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson, Naas van Heerden, appearing for the family of Patrick Mahlangu.
ADV STEENKAMP: Mrs Chairperson, I am André Steenkamp, I will be the Evidence Leader in this matter, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. That being so, I have been advised outside, I nearly said in chambers, that we will commence with the application of Mr Ras.
MR JANSEN: That is correct Chair, I beg leave to call Mr Ras as a witness in his application.
MARTHINUS DAVID RAS: (sworn states)
MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated. I beg your record, just for the purposes of the record, your full names are Marthinus David Ras, D-a-v-i-d?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knight, are we on the same page, the application, the written application of Mr Ras, is indicated to be appearing from page 289?
MR JANSEN: Yes, of Bundle 1, Bundle 2, sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of Bundle 2, 289 until 306?
MR JANSEN: That is correct. Madam Chair, we have a bit of a problem with our, a technical problem with the applicant's microphone, it doesn't seem to go on.
MR RAS: Everything is in order, thank you Chairperson.
EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you. Mr Ras, just with regard to your personal background in the South African Security Police, I would just like for you to confirm a number of aspects, just for the sake of background. Is it correct that in 1984, you joined Section C1 at Vlakplaas?
MR JANSEN: You came from Koevoet in the former South-West Africa at that time, in other words you were already part of the South African Security Police when you joined C1, is that correct?
MR JANSEN: And in 1984 you were a Sergeant?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: You were a member of Vlakplaas until 1992 and you left that Unit with the rank of Captain, is that correct?
MR JANSEN: The incident that we are giving evidence about today, took place in 1986, and at that stage you were not yet an officer, you were a Warrant Officer, is that correct?
MR JANSEN: Now, if you will go to your evidence, or your application at least, which would be on page 291 of the Bundle, there in paragraph 8(b) of your application, you set out your background, and your general motives and working motives as a policeman as well as your working methods as a member of the Security Police, more specifically a member of Vlakplaas, is that correct?
MR JANSEN: I am not going to refer to all the precise detail thereof, but do you confirm the correctness thereof?
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Jansen, can he not just confirm the correctness of the entire application, because it isn't clear what he is confirming. Are you merely asking him to confirm (b)?
MR JANSEN: No, it is the entire application. I will put it as such. In as far as it is relevant, for the rest of your application, do you also confirm the correctness thereof?
MR JANSEN: You are also aware and you were also present during the evidence which was given a month or two ago, regarding the general workings of Vlakplaas and more specifically, Mr de Kock gave evidence during that time, is that correct?
MR JANSEN: You also wish that the evidence that was given during that hearing, be incorporated with your application here, is that correct?
MR JANSEN: Madam Chair, it struck me that this is not strictly speaking a so-called de Kock Cluster and I don't know whether the idea was that that evidence be read into this evidence as was I think the idea then. I haven't had copies of that evidence made available, I will do so as soon as possible and let you have it. I think most of the members do have it, but if you don't have it, I will let you have that. It is background evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I personally do not have it. I wasn't part of the panel that sat during that hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr van Heerden also would like to have sight of that document.
CHAIRPERSON: He definitely doesn't have ...
MR JANSEN: No, it is my omission, I was just assuming that it would go the same way as the other de Kock Clusters, but I will rectify that, thank you Chair. Very well, with regard to the incident itself, could you perhaps before you deal with the facts themselves, inform the Committee and confirm what the method was that Vlakplaas used to work with other Units?
MR RAS: Chairperson, upon request of various Branches throughout the country, we would assist such Branches with the tracing and arrest of ANC or PAC members and also we would provide the necessary assistance upon request with infiltrations which were aimed at obtaining further information regarding the activities of the ANC and the PAC and in this specific case, the ANC.
MR JANSEN: I think that it is also generally known and it forms part of the general information that before such actions, you would make extensive use of the persons who are referred to as askaris, in other words former members of the ANC and the PAC, is that correct?
MR JANSEN: Now within this context and with reference to the application before you, the facts of which commence on page 296, would you take us through the course of events chronologically.
MR RAS: Chairperson, during 1986 Col de Kock came to me and said that Prinsloo required us in the area and that I should report to him. Vermeulen and I went to him and Mr Prinsloo showed a report to me and requested that we assist with an infiltration in the Mamelodi area and to attempt to determine the activities of the person at that stage and to obtain further information regarding the person or persons who had already been trained. As far as I can recall, the report also mentioned that the person had already received training in Botswana and that they were busy with training in handgrenades in the Mamelodi area.
MR JANSEN: Before we continue, this report which you mention, could you perhaps briefly sketch the background of how information would be obtained within the Security Branch and how it was processed or how it was channelled through into report form?
MR RAS: Chairperson, this report was the result of informers who were employed by the Northern Transvaal Branch specifically in Mamelodi who provided information to the handlers. This information was then processed and then sent through to Head Office. I don't know whether this report was sent through to Head Office at that stage, it was however shown to me and indicated what the activities of the relevant person was at that stage.
MR JANSEN: And in your work as Security Policeman, it is not controversial I think that informers performed a very important role in your work?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I don't think that it was only at that stage, up to this very day, I don't think that the police can actually function without the assistance of informers, but at that stage it was of cardinal importance, due to the circumstances and the acts of terrorism which were being committed in the Pretoria area. If we just think of the Checkers bomb incident, Seuntjie Mahlangu who was shot dead at that stage, there was an intensive investigation into the terrorism of that stage. I can think of a landmine incident, Brig Malope who was shot dead, a handgrenade was tossed where a baby was killed. This was in Mamelodi. Min Lukhele was shot dead with his sister-in-law. At that stage, all of these matters were being investigated in conjunction with this incident.
MR JANSEN: Can you just continue with the incident itself?
MR RAS: Mr Prinsloo gave us addresses and requested whether it would be possible for me to use some of my askaris to pretend that they were members of the ANC who had to come and work in Mamelodi, who were seeking accommodation at this person who had to obtain information regarding his activities. I answered in the affirmative, I can recall Chris Mosiane who I tasked. At that stage I had six former ANC/PAC members who were working with me. As far as I can recall, I infiltrated two members and I cannot say precisely today that they came back a day or two later, and reported back regarding the information that we gave to them, and confirmed that the person was involved in instant training in the Mamelodi area. At a later stage, I asked them to return to follow up the information and the result was that when I once again arrived at the safehouse where all of us stayed, they had this particular person in the vehicle. It had not been planned at that stage, to arrest or abduct the person, the intention was for us to obtain further information and then plan a large scale operation.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose? Are you saying that the askaris without any approval from yourselves, took this person to this safehouse, without your knowledge or without any prior arrangements with yourselves?
MR RAS: Chairperson, the order at that stage was not to arrest the person, but I must just add as well that the askaris also acted on their own, individually. They were involved in many arrests throughout the country and at that stage, they felt that their lives were in danger as a result of the fact that this person had been confronted and it had been stated that he had liaised with Botswana and that those in Botswana did not know about these persons who were pretending to be operatives, and as a result of this, they arrested or abducted the person. I don't know, it could be one of the two, perhaps it was more a case of abduction at that stage, they abducted him and brought him to the safehouse. At that stage, the person had already been assaulted by them.
CHAIRPERSON: Now the safehouse, we have had no evidence being led by you as to the existence of the safehouse, I want to know whether this was a safehouse which was used by you ordinarily or whether it was a safehouse that had been established specifically for this operation?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I cannot say whether Northern Transvaal had used this premises on a previous occasion, it didn't appear as such, because it was an old farmhouse without windows or doors, it had a roof at least and there was a room that we had to clean out, clear out so that we could stay there, it was on a very remote spot. I don't know whether I would be able to find the place again today, but I do believe that Mr Prinsloo would be able to point out the place if a search was to be started for it. As I have stated, the person had already been assaulted by the two other persons at that stage. I myself, then commenced with further interrogation and the person ...
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue, why would the person have been assaulted at that stage? Did you make any enquiries about that?
MR RAS: Yes, I must say this is 13 years ago, but persons who had been confronted at that stage, would know that the person was an ANC member, it was already a confirmation for them, that he was an ANC member and perhaps they wanted to obtain further information from the person, before they arrived at the safehouse and the person had been confronted with the arrest and he would probably have said to them "you are not ANC members" and that must have led to the assault at that stage.
MR MALAN: Can you recall that they said to him that they had made enquiries in Botswana?
MR RAS: That is what I recall. The askaris said that he had said that he had received confirmation from Botswana, that they were not supposed to be there. And we must just remember that this person had been abducted, he did not accompany them voluntarily. Most probably at that stage, I must add this is 13 years ago, they must have used violence to get him into the car to bring him with. Along the way, the person was assaulted.
MR MALAN: What was his condition?
MR RAS: He had marks, but they were not of a serious nature.
MR MALAN: Where were these marks?
MR RAS: Chairperson, if I can recall, his one eye was swollen, one could see that this man had been assaulted.
CHAIRPERSON: May I on a question of clarity, so that I don't have to come back on this issue again, find out how long did it take Mosiane and the other askari to get to this person, try and infiltrate and bring this person to the safehouse in this assaulted condition?
MR RAS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, they went in the first time, I cannot recall whether they spent a day or two there and I must reiterate this is my recollection, they then returned and I told them to go through to Vereeniging and at a later stage, to make contact again, which was the case. I think it was two or three days later when they returned to the person and on that afternoon or evening, they returned with the person to the safehouse where we were staying. I also stated with regard to that, in my application, that I personally did not assault the person, but that the person had been assaulted with my permission, in this regard that the room in which we detained the person, I would go into that room and talk peacefully with the person and if he didn't want to provide any further information or co-operation regarding his activities, I would tell him "look, I am leaving the room now, and I am going to allow the persons who have brought you to this point, to continue with what they were busy with", which indeed took place a number of times, to a point when I returned to the room and he said to me "listen, I am going to play open cards with you and tell you everything" upon which I wrote a report or at least I took notes as the interrogation commenced. I must just state that at a certain stage, Mr Prinsloo arrived there with Roslee. He also didn't expect that at that stage, the person would already have been abducted or arrested because the whole idea was that if our persons could have been infiltrated with the person for a period of time, his informer would not have been exposed and it would have been possible with such an arrest, that our persons would have been the persons who would have been suspected of exposing the information and being responsible for his arrest. Such a swift arrest or abduction, so soon after the infiltration, had such a consequence. But I cannot recall the name of the informer. The name emanated from the report, and Mr Prinsloo, when he read the report was quite upset, because his informer, the life of his informer and his family was in danger and I have already mentioned the cases of the little boy who were shot dead, the Brigadier who was shot dead, the handgrenades which were tossed into homes and at that stage, it was definite that this informer and his family would definitely be killed. He then told me that a plan had to be made with this person which I then clearly understood to mean that this person had to be killed. Snor Vermeulen and I then discussed it and also realised for the safety of the informer and the involvement of the person as such, and I must just state regardless of whether such a person would have been arrested or not, information had been leaked out from the jails and the informer along with his family, would still have been in the same jeopardy. The person was involved and I went along with the plan to kill the person. I undertook the planning, I asked Snor Vermeulen whether he had any explosives and he answered in the affirmative, upon which he went to the farm, to Vlakplaas to fetch the necessary explosives and I continued with interrogation. With the planning of the death of the person, I also realised that possible enquiries could be made about the person if we did not cover up his disappearance to a certain extent. I then asked the person to write a letter with the explanation that he would be detained for a further number of days and that he didn't want his family to report him to the police, and that it was his plan to leave the country and to receive further training with the ANC. Today I cannot recall after I have studied the applications, as far as I can recall, I personally at a later stage, went through and posted the letter from Gaberone. I read the statement of Mosiane which states that I gave him the letter to give to the family and to request clothing. It is possible that I may have thought about posting the letter in Botswana and that I did not do so and that I gave the letter to Mosiane and requested clothing and accommodation for a brief period of time. As such it was the case that the family would then be satisfied that the person had gone over to the ANC and that they wouldn't make any further enquiries with regard to his disappearance and it wouldn't have drawn any further attention. I then identified a place with Vermeulen, it was on a railway line near Northam where we planned to kill the person and leave him on the railway track and blow up his body. It would then appear as if the person had been involved in a sabotage incident and had made a mistake and paid for it with his life. As such, at a later stage I conveyed this information to Mr Prinsloo along with the report of the information that we had received at that stage, from the person and his involvement with the ANC, his training, persons that he had already identified. Mr Prinsloo agreed and stated that they would fetch us that evening. However, I did not want the other black members who were working with me, to suspect that we were going to kill the person and for this reason I requested Simon Radebe to take the person to a road outside the safehouse. We there took the person and placed him in our vehicle. It was me, Prinsloo, Roslee and Snor Vermeulen. As far as I can recall, I told Radebe that I wanted to use the person as an informer and then he left. We then went to the place which I had already identified, the scene where we would blow up the person. Near the place
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue, the safehouse, you say that you don't know where it was, but how far from Mamelodi was it?
MR RAS: Easily 60 to 70 kilometres, we can ask Mr Prinsloo, he would be able to tell us precisely. It was quite a distance, about 80 kilometres.
MR MALAN: And the place that you identified in Northam?
MR RAS: If I had to estimate today, it would be a further 120 kilometres from there.
MR MALAN: Why did you identify this place and please explain to us how you identified this place?
MR RAS: Earlier that afternoon, we were driving around looking for a place. In the first instance I thought that it might be Bophuthatswana or in that area. I don't know why I was driving from the Rustenburg area, Bophuthatswana was independent at that stage. The investigation would be of such a nature that they would conduct the investigation at the scene and it had to be a remote place, where we could not be disturbed because we were dealing with a person whom we already knew would be killed. I had to take him to a place where the chances were as close as possible to zero that anyone would see me at the scene and then be able to connect me or other persons or a vehicle to that scene. The place that we selected was quiet, there was no traffic there at night and that is why I identified that place and decided upon it.
MR MALAN: It is just strange to me that from the safehouse onwards, you drove a further 120 kilometres to identify a place while the Northern Transvaal Branch had identified many other places on previous occasions which were much closer?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I undertook the planning, not other persons. My first problem with this is that if I had blown up such a person near the Pretoria area, the chances would be very good that there may be a fingerprint or something and I would have wanted to exclude such possibilities as much as possible, by placing his hand on the explosive device. The person would not be connected with a disappearance in Pretoria, so I tried as much as possible to remove the whole situation from Mamelodi so that investigations could not connect with each other.
MR JANSEN: Perhaps if I could just come in here Mr Ras, we also know that Vlakplaas operated in groups which consisted of an officer, then these former freedom fighters and black SAP members, there were groups in such in which you operated?
MR JANSEN: And these groups worked in various territorial areas?
MR JANSEN: And you worked primarily in the Western Transvaal and the Bophuthatswana border area with your group?
MR JANSEN: So you were very familiar with those areas which were situated west of Pretoria?
MR RAS: Yes, I had worked at one stage from a farm in the Northam district, so it was quite a familiar area to me. Chairperson, on the way there and because it was unpredictable with regard to explosives and aspects that may have been omitted after the time and the quantities which were used, I did not decide to shoot the person because a bullet may possibly have been detected or a hole may have been identified forensically as a bullet hole if a skull or any other body part was found, that is why I decided to strangle the person, which I then did.
CHAIRPERSON: How would a bullet have been detected if you are the one who is firing the shot and you are able to remove any evidence of that bullet?
MR RAS: Chairperson, it had been that at the point of an explosion, that is why I went the previous day and fetched a pocket watch, so - and I am also a demolitions' expert, if any residue was to be detected subsequently which were to determine that something else had happened to the person, let's say a piece of the person's skull had remained which contained a bullet hole, forensics would have been able to determine that something else had happened, other than the explosion, that is why I fetched the pocket watch, that if any residue was to be detected, it should not appear that anything else had taken place. It should appear that this person had been involved in sabotage and had accidentally blown himself up. I strangled the person to death, we stopped, my hands were tired, I believed that this person was close to death. According to me, the person was dead at that stage, we then carried him over the fence and placed him next to the railway track where Mr Prinsloo drove away and said that he would pick us up 15 minutes later. I must just state that after I had spoken to Mr Vermeulen this morning, he said that it was never a landmine. The idea was originally that it should be a landmine, but he states that these were TNT blocks and if I recall, we used TNT blocks which was the same quantity as a landmine. We used that ultimately because we could not obtain a landmine. I seated the person next to the railway track, we placed the explosives on his lap, we placed his hands and head as close as possible to this and Snor Vermeulen electronically activated the spring charge, the explosive charge. We then returned to the car, we climbed back into the kombi and drove back to the safehouse from which we withdrew the following day. I think on that day I saw a newspaper report in which it was stated that a person had attempted to blow up a railway track and he had instead blown himself up. I showed this particular newspaper extract to Mr de Kock. Mr de Kock simply asked me whether everything was clean, whether there would be anything that would point back at us and I answered him that everything was in order. This was never again discussed until the point when I decided to apply for amnesty. I did not have any previous permission from Mr de Kock and this was a decision made by the Northern Transvaal Branch.
CHAIRPERSON: When I was wanted to interpose, I wanted to find out if there was any stage when de Kock actually gave his approval, not only for you to participate in Mr Prinsloo's operation, but whether he knew what kind of operation you had to participate in and whether he knew that that operation included the killing in the fashion in which you did, of Mr Mahlangu?
MR RAS: Chairperson, today it would be easier for me to say yes, Mr de Kock did have knowledge, but he did not according to me. At that stage he did not know. I did not know that he had any knowledge of that specific operation.
CHAIRPERSON: The only knowledge that he knew from the evidence which you have led to far, was that Mr Prinsloo wanted to discuss something with you and you were to go there with Mr Vermeulen to have those discussions?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson. In the statements, I also see, which was written by Mr de Kock that Vermeulen went to him and asked him for explosives. Vermeulen never told me that he had discussed it with Mr de Kock. I did not know of it and I mentioned it to him later, but as far as I knew, he did not know beforehand.
CHAIRPERSON: At no stage did you report to Mr de Kock about your activities of Mr Prinsloo, Vermeulen and yourself with regard to the Mahlangu incident?
MR RAS: Chairperson, from the time that I worked there, I was there constantly with the interrogation. Snor Vermeulen did come through to Pretoria, I did not even know whether de Kock was in town at that stage, we did not have any telephone contact at that stage, and the person who had knowledge, was Mr Prinsloo and I believe he, as the senior person, would have conveyed this to other senior persons.
MR MALAN: Your first contact with de Kock was when you showed him the extract from the newspaper?
MR MALAN: And his reaction at that stage, can you recall?
MR RAS: Yes, I can recall exactly Chairperson, he was standing at one of the desks, one of these filing cabinets, and he looked at the thing and he said, and he read it and he said "are there any fingers pointing back" and I said "no", and he didn't even answer to that. He left it there.
MR MALAN: And the inference that you drew is that he knew of it, or was that not so?
MR RAS: I could not say that he knew or that he did not know because he did not ask me any more and eventually he handled it very cool and calm. He just looked at it and the only question that he asked was "could any fingers point to us".
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, did you at Vlakplaas have the capacity and authorisation to kill people without receiving instructions or approval from your seniors?
MR RAS: I don't think any person, it does not matter who the person is, have the capacity to do this. But I had to protect my Northern Transvaal source and because of the acts of violence at that stage, I felt that it was necessary.
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, you told us that you did this under the instruction of Mr Prinsloo?
MR RAS: Yes, Mr Prinsloo told me, he said "make a plan, kill him." When he said that I did it and I associated myself with it.
MR MALAN: I will repeat my question, did you have the authority to do such a deed without getting authorisation from Vlakplaas or from the Branch?
MR RAS: I think Chairperson, Mr de Kock at some point testified that a person, all persons had to act on their own if it was necessary. It was fortunately for me in previous instances where I did not take any decisions on my own, I had consulted with Mr de Kock.
MR MALAN: But that is my question, whether Mr de Kock was not surprised and he asked you whether everything was clean, did you then not tell him it was Prinsloo's instruction? Did you not report to him at all, you only showed him the newspaper extract?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR MALAN: What did you think you were doing when you showed him the report?
MR RAS: I don't know, at that stage I felt that I needed to show him the extract. That was part of our work Chairperson.
MR MALAN: But that is the point, Mr Ras, I cannot accept that you only showed him an extract from a newspaper, you had to inform him what this was about?
MR RAS: Chairman, I did not. I am honest here today, I did not inform him.
MR RAS: Chairperson, it would be easier for me to say today that Mr de Kock said this and that to me, but I think it is unnecessary to place the blame on other people when you took the decision yourself and it was necessary to take the decision at that stage, and one has to take responsibility for oneself and not place the blame on other people. Mr Prinsloo told me at that stage "make a plan with the man", and I associated myself with that decision, but Mr de Kock according to my knowledge, did not know of the operation.
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, the newspaper would have said here is a man whom had blown himself up in an attempt to sabotage a railway line and now you are saying you showed this extract to Mr de Kock and his only reaction is "are there any fingers that could point to us"?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as you mentioned now, I never thought, he had to know about it at some stage, because otherwise he would not have asked that question and he would have wanted to know who was it and what about the further investigations. I tried to forget about the whole incident, because it was an unpleasant incident, but as you put it now, I have to say he must have known about it.
MR MALAN: Mr Ras the point is it is highly improbable that you would show a newspaper extract to your Commander and say somebody tried to sabotage a railway line and it was blown up, but you do not connect this to an operation when you go to your Commander?
MR RAS: Chairperson, if he had asked me questions about it, I would have answered it.
MR MALAN: I want to know why would you show such an extract to him?
MR RAS: I would have told him that we were involved in an operation and this is what we did, but he did not ask any questions about it.
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, did you not just tell me now that you do not report, you take your own responsibility and now you are saying that you would have told him?
MR RAS: No, you asked me what the reason was and why I showed him the extract. The reason was that I wanted to report to him, but his reaction to the photograph was his, and I think he would be able to testify as to what his reaction was ...
MR MALAN: But my memory says that the first time when I asked you, you said that you did not want to tell him and you did not want to involve him and you wanted to take responsibility yourself?
MR RAS: No, I just feel that - it is not a matter that I say that I did not want to tell him, but I did burden him with it. I just felt that I did not inform him or asked permission before the time to go ahead with the operation.
MR MALAN: Please continue Mr Jansen.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Jansen, without belabouring this point, maybe to try and assist Mr Ras. What was your intention when you showed de Kock the newspaper article?
MR RAS: Chairperson, in order to inform him about the operation.
CHAIRPERSON: How did you think, just merely showing him the article, which obviously did not have the full facts, which was speaking of a sabotage having gone wrong, would be able to give him the facts of your participation in the operation?
MR RAS: Chairperson, that he would have questioned me and I wanted to explain to him. If he asked me questions, because he only asked "are fingers pointing at us" and the inference I drew from that is that he had information. He knew about the operation beforehand, but I see in his application he says that Snor Vermeulen did discuss the matter with him. Snor returned ...
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, you don't have to tell us what is written in the other statements, we have read it. We want to know what you know about the incident, what you have known then, not what you have read now.
MR RAS: Chairperson, my statement was the first statement of all these people, so mine, and mine is as I recall it. I showed him the extract from the newspaper and that was his reaction. I did not ask why did he not ask me any questions, why he didn't ask me about the operation, why did he only ask me that question, I forgot about it and from that day, I tried to forget about it, until the day when I applied for amnesty, and I tried to forget that part of my life.
CHAIRPERSON: And to encapsulate your response to my question, the reason why you showed him the newspaper article was to try and inform him about your participation in that operation?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed, Mr Jansen.
MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair. Mr Ras, on this point, it is true that you worked according to the need to know principle, is that correct?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And this entailed if one could state it briefly, that as few people as possible had to know of a specific operation and that what they knew, was only what they had to know, is that correct?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And you at that stage also knew that many of your operations, similar to this one, entailed illegal action?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Things for which you could go to jail for a very long time if you were caught?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: So there was no departmental orders as to who gives instructions and who takes instructions and how such things are planned and at which meetings these things are discussed, is that correct?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Was it ever in a type of secret meeting told to you that "listen here, you are now part of illegal conduct and our rules are the following and that is our working manner", was it expressively told to you as such?
MR JANSEN: It is a working method and please correct me if I am wrong, where you became used to a culture which you found and a culture which you assimilated as you became involved or as time ran its course?
MR RAS: I regarded it as part of my work.
MR JANSEN: But your method of work, this was something which was determined as time went on and as you understood, according to yourself, how it had to be done?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And then in conclusion ...
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Jansen, I apologise for interrupting, is the evidence Mr Ras, that the need to know principle was applicable to your own Commander, you would have only told Mr de Kock what he had to know and if you had killed somebody, he did not have to know it?
MR RAS: No Chairperson, Mr de Kock was part of us.
MR MALAN: So you would ... (tape ends) ... he was in a position to know everything?
MR RAS: Yes Chairperson, I did not hide any of my operations in the nine years that I worked with him, from him.
MR JANSEN: Just on that point, unfortunately we have to analyse all the operations and as a manner of summary, I would like to state that Mr de Kock was in command of most of these operations, he was operationally also in command, is that correct?
MR RAS: Or that he gave me direct instructions, yes Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Who was operationally, except for yourself, involved here and who was in command of this operation?
MR RAS: Operationally along with me is Snor Vermeulen and the person in command, because of the area where we worked, was Hendrik Prinsloo.
MR JANSEN: Did you know to which extent Mr de Kock made it his business to know where his members were if he sent them out to other areas on requests of Commanders of other areas? Did you know to which extent he insisted on knowing?
MR RAS: Chairperson, most of the operations, Mr de Kock was informed and was contacted if it was possible. I do not want to speculate about that question.
MR JANSEN: But that would have been the subject and the knowledge that Mr de Kock would have had or not have had, would have depended upon what was your comprehension at that stage about the discussion between himself and Prinsloo? Do you know what the discussion was between Mr de Kock and Mr Prinsloo?
MR RAS: I don't know, he only told me that I had to assist Mr Prinsloo.
CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't your evidence, sorry Mr Jansen, wasn't your evidence earlier on that Mr de Kock's instruction was for you and Mr Vermeulen to have discussions with Mr Prinsloo?
MR RAS: That is correct, it comes down, it boils down to the same, for me it boils down to the same, that I had to go and see him and that I had to assist him. That is where he also showed the report to me and he told me to assist an infiltration. I did not go back to de Kock, we operated from there, because of the reason that de Kock and Prinsloo had already had a discussion, whether it be telephonically or personally, I cannot recall, I don't know.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it not imperative upon you after you had been told by your Commander, to come back and report to him about the discussions you had had with Mr Prinsloo?
MR RAS: Chairperson, that is not always the case. Many a time, there were matters that they had already discussed and then he tells us to go there and we immediately start working, wherever he sent me and I immediately start assisting that specific Branch. I believe at that stage, he had been informed and it was not necessary for me to go back and fro to report to him and to go back to Prinsloo, we had to start working at that stage Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What was the basis for you believing that there was no need for him to know, that you needn't make a report, as a matter of courtesy as a junior officer?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I did not say that I did not say he had to know, the operation went as such that at that stage, Prinsloo told me that we had to continue with the operation and we had to get rid of the man which was planned. Snor went through, I don't know where Eugene de Kock was at that stage, whether he was at the farm, Vermeulen did not tell me that he was at the farm and that he had discussed with him. I would have recalled it if he told me and what de Kock said about that instruction. Nobody told me and I believed we could just continued with the operation.
CHAIRPERSON: At one stage you testified that you believed that Mr Prinsloo as a senior person, would probably have advised Mr de Kock as another senior person, about your involvement and the extent of your involvement and participation?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I would just like to state that Mr Prinsloo worked directly under Jack Cronje and he could in all probability reported to his own Commanders which came back, and then he came back to me and told me to make a plan with the operation and that the operation had continued from there. I cannot speculate as to what he said and whom he went to. I just think that he might have cleared it out with other persons whom he needed to clear it out with.
CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr Prinsloo at any stage advise you about Mr de Kock's knowledge of this operation?
MR RAS: No Chairperson, he did not mention whether Jack Cronje or Eugene de Kock had knowledge of the incident, he just told me to continue. I did the planning, I submitted it to him and he approved it. He did not mention to me that any other person knew of it. I don't think it would have been correct of him to tell me that such and such a person had authorised it and had cleared it.
CHAIRPERSON: He also never mentioned Mr Cronje's knowledge about the plans for the elimination of Mr Mahlangu?
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Knight.
MR JANSEN: Mr Ras, with regard to this incident, you did not receive any remuneration?
MR JANSEN: You did not know Mr Mahlangu except for in this regard, in the security regard?
MR JANSEN: I don't know whether I have specifically referred t it, but with regard to your political motivation, you deal with that in your statement on page 203 and do you confirm what you say in your statement there?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: With regard to the making of the statement, is it correct that this statement was completed in the middle of 1996?
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: And at that stage, you completely out of own motivation when to Mr McAdam, of the TRC, is that correct?
MR RAS: I would like to mention Chairperson, before the Truth Commission came into position, I was arrested for the Motherwell incident and at that stage, I had no choice to continue with it, I was found guilty. I received a ten year sentence, I am currently out on bail and when I returned, the Truth Commission was in place and I was not, I did not want to go through the same process and I believed that the Truth Commission was the only process where what had happened in the past, could be disclosed.
MR JANSEN: But at that stage, these statements were made on your own to Mr McAdam, so he drew up the statement, not your legal representative?
MR JANSEN: At that stage, you had not read the statements of other applicants in order to refresh your memory with regard to certain aspects?
MR JANSEN: Thank you Madam Chair, that is all the questions from my side.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen. Do we start with you, Mr Hattingh?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Ras, Mr Jansen has now mentioned the evidence which Mr de Kock has given with regard to Vlakplaas as an Operational Unit of the Security Police, you have heard that evidence, is that true?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And you have also mentioned that the document which was drawn up for the purposes of that evidence, will be submitted to the Committee. I will briefly refer you to singular aspects of that document. It is a supplementary affidavit which was drawn up by Mr de Kock which was heard during the first cluster of incidents by that Committee, but afterwards, it was incorporated with all the other incidents which followed and if I could briefly refer you to page 9 of the affidavit of Mr de Kock, it actually starts on page 8. On page 8 he mentions the directive which came from Security Head Office to all Security Branches throughout the country in which the establishment of C1 Unit at Vlakplaas, was made known to these Branches and were they were informed that this Unit could be used by them as it was stipulated in the directive, are you aware of that?
MR RAS: I am aware of that Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And on page 9 Mr de Kock continues and he refers to a follow up directive, dated the 26th of January 1982 in which Divisional Commanders of the various Security Branches who had to take responsibility for the application of these Units and they were told not to use junior personnel as liaison officers for specific information, what I want to deal with here Mr Ras is that according to the follow up directive, it was stated clearly that when a Commander of a Security Branch requested the services of Vlakplaas, that the members of Vlakplaas who are deployed for this purpose, will fall under the command of that Commander, is that correct?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: So here it was apparently Col Prinsloo who requested the assistance of Vlakplaas?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall, he was a Captain at that stage.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, and then you and Mr Vermeulen and some of the askaris were deployed to assist them?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: According to that directive, you and the other members who accompanied you for purposes of that operation, would resort under the command of Capt Prinsloo, is that not so?
MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock at that stage, was also a Captain, I think?
MR RAS: It is possible, I am not certain.
MR HATTINGH: It was clear to you that if the Commander of the Branch who assisted you ...
MR MALAN: Mr Hattingh, I apologise for interrupting, did I hear you correctly, did you quote this directive as January 1987?
MR HATTINGH: No, it couldn't have been 1987.
MR MALAN: That is what I heard? Is that the question you asked? 1982.
MR HATTINGH: What is then clear Mr Ras, for purposes of this operation, you resorted under the command of Capt Prinsloo?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And he gave you certain instructions which you executed?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: you have already said that you don't know what was discussed between Mr Prinsloo and Mr de Kock, but at least we would accept that Mr de Kock would have known you were involved in an operation of Mr Prinsloo?
MR RAS: That is correct Mr Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: If I understood your evidence correctly Mr Ras, it was initially not the intention that Mr Mahlangu be abducted or arrested and be questioned and assaulted?
MR HATTINGH: The intention was that he be infiltrated in order to obtain information from him?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, I unfortunately omitted to mention that we also have instructions to appear on behalf of the implicated Mr Simon Radebe, and may I just ask a few questions on his behalf. Mr Ras, are you certain that it was Mr Simon Radebe whom you told to take Mr Mahlangu to a certain place, where you took him into reception?
MR HATTINGH: Because my Attorney consulted with him, and Mr Radebe does not have any recollection of such an incident?
MR RAS: It was he. It could be a matter, he was not directly involved there, I cannot explain how he cannot recall it.
MR HATTINGH: But according to your evidence it is clear that he did not know for which purpose he had to take Mr Mahlangu there?
MR HATTINGH: And you did not inform him afterwards as to what had happened to Mr Mahlangu?
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson, we have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh.
MR MALAN: Before you continue, is it your recollection that Mr Radebe was involved in the interrogation and assault at the safehouse of Mr Mahlangu?
MR RAS: Chairperson, it is difficult. I tried to think hard about it, but there were several people involved and I cannot say that Radebe was there. I cannot say with certainty whether he was involved in the assault.
MR MALAN: So you cannot say whether he was at the house?
MR RAS: He was at the house, but there were times when he was not there, when he drove around, because he was the one driving the kombi and the other persons continued with the questioning. I would speculate.
MR MALAN: I do not want you to speculate. I want to know whether you have a recollection that he had been at the safehouse?
MR RAS: He was at the safehouse.
MR MALAN: And your recollection is that he dropped off Mahlangu?
MR RAS: That is certain Chairperson, I am hundred percent certain about that.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other legal representative who would like to put questions to Mr Ras?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Ms Chair, Cornelius on behalf of N.J. Vermeulen. Mr Ras, am I correct to say that you found yourself in a dilemma, you had infiltrated the person and the next moment the person was assaulted, arrested, assaulted and he was on your hands?
MR RAS: No, the assault was not the big problem, the big problem was the information came about that he knew who the source was and he had already seen the askaris there and he knew of the source, the informer.
MR CORNELIUS: So it was a dilemma?
MR CORNELIUS: And what would the consequences have been if the names or if the informants' names were disclosed, would these people have been in danger?
MR RAS: At that stage Chairperson, I was convinced and I am still convinced, that they would have been killed.
MR CORNELIUS: And you could not allow that the askaris at that stage, the askaris who were turned enemies, to put it as such, be disclosed in the Republic?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I don't think that would have been the great problem, the story of the askaris, because some of them had testified against people before they became askaris, but the big problem was because of - it is long to set in an informer and Mr Prinsloo was concerned about the identity of the source and the information which will be lost.
MR CORNELIUS: Very well, and there was the directive that you could take a decision at groundlevel in order to protect the Security Branch?
MR RAS: In certain instances, yes Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: Did you ever find that as we have heard at several hearings, that far reaching steps were taken in order to protect the Branches, false statements were made and interfered in investigations, have you heard that?
MR CORNELIUS: And that there were actions against Head Office, although some of these groundlevel decisions were not directly authorised to protect these decisions?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I cannot say now when such decisions were taken, but I cannot speak for Head Office.
MR MALAN: Mr Cornelius, what is the comprehension of the term groundlevel decision?
MR CORNELIUS: It is a military term Chairperson, it is when persons take decisions on the ground.
MR MALAN: I only hear on the ground, so it is the same thing?
MR CORNELIUS: It is the same thing Chairperson. Did you believe that your conduct would have the approval of your seniors?
MR RAS: Under the circumstances, yes Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: So if you had given all the information to your seniors, it would have been authorised, to use the English term, you would have received implied authority?
MR MALAN: Mr Cornelius, are you now busy attacking the evidence of the applicant or are you busy with cross-examination of your own applicant?
MR CORNELIUS: I beg your pardon Chairperson. No disciplinary steps were taken against you with regard to this incident?
MR CORNELIUS: You knew that Security Branch in the area took responsibility for your action?
MR RAS: I would just like to mention that at that stage there were still files at Head Office and the things have been destroyed now, Mr de Kock made an entry into the file that I would be used for covert operations, but these documents have been destroyed.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Ms Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that all Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: That is all, thank you Ms Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms van der Walt?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Madam Chairperson. Mr Ras, just one singular aspect. Mr Roslee in his application on page 283 mentions at the top paragraph
"... Mr Prinsloo and myself decided to kidnap him ..."
(that is Mr Mahlangu), is that correct?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, this was not the plan initially.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Prinsloo was not involved with the askaris who fetched Mr Mahlangu or let's say arrested him?
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, your answer was that was not the plan?
MR MALAN: But then it was asked of you that Mr Prinsloo was not involved in the abduction?
MR RAS: No, it was not he. The askaris executed the abduction themselves up to the safehouse.
MR MALAN: Would you like to tell us on what grounds do you base that knowledge that he and Roslee did not tell the askaris?
MR RAS: Chairperson, because I was the Operational Commander who was in command of those askaris at that stage, and the Branches worked that they work through you with the askaris, they could not go on their own and instruct the askaris.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Ras, and furthermore Mr Mosiane says in his application on page 234 of Bundle 2 that Mr Prinsloo had handled the letter to which you have given evidence now, the letter that went to the family of Mr Mahlangu, that is also not correct?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall, I was there when the letter was written.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wagener?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Ras, you have given evidence that 1986 was earmarked by a large amount of acts of terror and violence in the greater Pretoria area?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall, yes Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: And as an example you have referred to the death of, if I heard your correctly, Constable Seuntjie Mahlangu?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: I see in the ANC's further submissions to the TRC where they accept responsibility, they refer to an incident on the 18th of March 1986 where a Constable Seuntjie Vuma, where he was killed in his house, would that be the incident to which you have referred to?
MR RAS: Yes Chairperson, I believe so.
MR WAGENER: Then I would like to ask you Mr Ras, I am not entirely certain whether I understood you correctly, but this particular operation with which this incident deals, who was the Operational Commander?
MR RAS: Chairperson, we worked under Mr Prinsloo at that stage, but the operational planning was done by myself. I received an instruction to do it and I did the planning myself.
MR WAGENER: So who would have taken the decision as to exactly how the man would be killed?
MR RAS: I took the decision Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: And that decision of yours, was it at any stage discussed with the other three members who went along that evening in the minibus?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I cannot recall specifically. The only thing I can think of was, I told them that I would strangle the man to death, they did not argue and we continued.
MR WAGENER: Would you for example have told my client, Mr Roslee, that your tasks would be this and that, would you have spelt it out to him or was there no such discussion that you can recall?
MR RAS: I think the only planning was that Snor Vermeulen would supply us with the explosives, Mr Prinsloo had to drop us off there and pick us up again. Snor was responsible for the explosives and I was responsible for killing the person at the place where we would have blown up the person.
MR WAGENER: I ask you that because my client's recollection is quite vague and he can also not recall whether there was specifically a briefing session?
MR RAS: No, there was not. From the time we started driving and we arrived there and the person was picked up along the road, there was no planning with regard to that. I knew what we were going to do, the planning was already done. Snor Vermeulen was there and it was conveyed that we had had a plan and we said we would go. I cannot tell you whether I told Mr Roslee this, this and that, I know my hands grew tired and Mr Roslee took over.
MR WAGENER: What Mr Roslee does recall is that when you stopped at the railway line, the deceased was unloaded from the back of the vehicle and he lay on the ground, can you recall that?
MR RAS: Yes, there was limited space in the back of the kombi and when we opened the door, he fell out.
MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee's recollection is that when the deceased was laying on the ground, he made certain strangling sounds, which indicated that he might still be alive, can you recall that?
MR RAS: That is how I testified, Chairperson.
MR WAGENER: And then it is Mr Roslee's recollection that when he finally killed the person by stepping on his throat, where he was laying on the ground, that that was the manner in which he finally killed him, is that possible?
MR RAS: That is possible Chairperson, I would concede. I would not say exactly what had happened, I just know that he assisted in the killing of the person.
MR WAGENER: So where you say in your application, I think it is at the bottom of page 300, where you say that Mr Roslee strangled the person after you, would you agree with his evidence that he did it by stepping on the man's throat?
MR RAS: I will not dispute that Chairperson, it is possible.
MR WAGENER: And then a final point, Mr Ras, I believe it is on page 305 of the Bundle before you, I think it is paragraph 11 of the prescribed form where the question is asked at the bottom of page 304 with regard to who would have given the instruction for the operation and your answer at the top of page 305, you give five names. What do you mean by that? Are you trying to say that these five persons gave the instruction and if not, who are you saying?
MR RAS: Chairperson, all that happened here is that the instruction came from Hendrik Prinsloo and there might have been some mistakes to the extent that I mentioned five names and I think I completed 23 applications in five days with Mr McAdam.
MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee says he did not give the instruction, he executed it?
MR RAS: No, he did not, I would say it was Mr Prinsloo.
MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
MR MOTATA: Could you yourself also issue orders?
MR RAS: Under those circumstances, yes, I believe that I also took decisions myself, I did so under those circumstances.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Ras, I have heard from you that the circumstances under which you compiled your amnesty application, were quite pressurised and that there were many matters that you had to call into independent recollection in a very brief span of time?
MR LAMEY: And this incident took place quite a number of years ago, is that correct?
MR LAMEY: Do you accept or at least, I accept what you say that you are allowing room for memory problems or faulty assumptions with regard to bona fide facts with regard to this matter.
MR RAS: Chairperson, if you can specify these aspects to me, I can tell you as far as my recollection goes.
MR LAMEY: No, what I mean is as a point of departure, there is room for that, I am not saying that one should cross out your application, but that possibility definitely exists?
MR LAMEY: According to my instructions and I am representing Mr Mathebula on the one hand and Mr Mosiane on the other, I would like to ask you very briefly whether you agree with the following or not. Is it correct that there was a reasonably large group from Vlakplaas, quite a number of askaris at that stage at this place with the name of Soutpan?
MR RAS: I would say that we were not more than seven, we were a group of seven, it wasn't that much, between five and seven.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall all their names?
MR RAS: No Chairperson, otherwise I would have mentioned this from the very beginning. The only time when I thought of Mathebula, was when I saw him here now, I did not even recall him.
MR LAMEY: If I were to say to you that some of the askaris who were there, were Eric Sefadi, Mfala Pitsa, Moses Nzimande, Colin ...
CHAIRPERSON: May you just be slow so that we can record the names.
MR RAS: I could recall, it is possible that he is there.
MR RAS: Yes, at a stage I also used him for the purposes of infiltration if I recall correctly.
MR LAMEY: Colin Khumalo, was he involved in the infiltration?
MR RAS: It is very difficult to say today.
MR LAMEY: Are you not certain?
MR LAMEY: Very well, and what I know of Mr Chris Mosiane is that he and four, along with himself, five, there were five persons, is that correct?
MR RAS: I think Jeff Bosego may also have been there.
MR LAMEY: And then there were also black members, who were permanent SAP members?
MR LAMEY: People such as Simon Radebe for example?
MR RAS: Yes, Simon was there as far as I can recall.
MR LAMEY: And then there were also black members from the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, such as Mr Mathebula?
MR RAS: I couldn't recall Mr Mathebula, I couldn't recall that he was there at that stage, I see today that he is here.
MR LAMEY: It sounds to me as if this was a case as with the usual operational work of Vlakplaas initially, that you would undertake identification of terrorists with a group of askaris and black police members in co-operation with the Northern Transvaal Security Branch as with this case specifically?
MR RAS: Yes, it was an operation of a dual nature, as I have already stated. Simon Radebe could possibly have transported the other members around for the purposes of identification of ANC members and may also have used equipment of those who were specifically involved in the operation.
MR LAMEY: He says "we were looking for a terrorist called Mishak Maponya, he was also known as Odirele Maponya at that stage". May I just tell you that the murder of Brig Zwane or at least Warrant Officer Zwane was connected to Maponya at that stage, could this have been one of the subjects that you were searching for?
MR RAS: yes, Maponya was wanted quite seriously at a stage, until he blew himself up, I think it was at Sterland if I am not mistaken.
MR LAMEY: If Mr Mathebula says this, you would not disagree?
MR RAS: No, it was among others him and members of the other group. I think it was Jabu at that stage.
MR LAMEY: Very well, then Mr Mathebula says that it is his recollection that Chris Pitter from the Northern Transvaal Security Branch arrived there with a letter, there at the farm, he says he did not see the content of the letter, but from this it appeared or at least he understood, that a woman by the name of Connie Mahlangu was also involved in the murder of Sgt Vuma. The name Connie Mahlangu, did this ever emerge, can you recall this?
MR RAS: At this stage, it is difficult to recall people who worked with me on a full-time basis at that stage, let alone those whose names appeared twice a week perhaps.
MR LAMEY: Indications were that Connie Mahlangu was an ANC activist in Mamelodi and that she was also involved with a Unit who functioned in Mamelodi which among others had been involved in certain murders?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I think these questions should be put to Mr Prinsloo who was involved with this work, I cannot recall this.
MR LAMEY: It is possible that he might be able to shed more light on this, but you cannot exclude this?
MR RAS: I cannot shed any further light on the reports which were given at that stage to Mr Prinsloo, he was the one who was involved with that on a full-time basis, he would be able to give you much more information about it. I cannot recall.
MR LAMEY: The fact is that you had information from Mamelodi circles?
MR LAMEY: At any stage, was any option discussed, I am not saying that there was a final decision, but was any option discussed that a person should be abducted for the purposes of interrogation?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as far as I know, that was not the original plan and ...
MR LAMEY: Well, then let me accept for the moment that the abduction of Mr Patrick Mahlangu was not within the plan, all I am saying is that my clients from their perspective, cannot shed any light on this. Was there any discussion at any stage in which the objective was to obtain information from Mamelodi, was this ever discussed as an option but never really led to any final decision?
MR RAS: Not that I can recall at this point in time.
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey are you referring to the victim here, Mr Mahlangu, the option to abduct him or is this generally speaking? MR LAMEY: A person.
MR MALAN: But Mr Lamey you put a question and this referred to various persons that they were investigating, you referred to Maponya and then you asked whether an option was ever discussed to abduct a person and the question is now, are you referring to Mahlangu or are you referring to any person?
MR LAMEY: Let me get to the point then. Mr Mathebula's recollection was - and your recollection cannot point specifically at Connie Mahlangu, his recollection was that at a certain stage, Prinsloo, Ras and other white members as he describes it, planned to abduct Connie Mahlangu and to interrogate her, but he does not know whether that plan ever came to execution and so forth.
MR RAS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, it wasn't part of the plan and as far as I can recall, I was not a member of any such plan.
MR LAMEY: But he says this is as far as he can recall.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Ras, you said you could not remember the name Connie Mahlangu at all?
MR RAS: No, the name sounds familiar, but I cannot connect it with that particular incident. I had heard that she was quite involved, but I cannot say to what specific I could connect her, and with regard to this specific incident, I cannot connect her name to this.
MR LAMEY: Very well, and the other aspect is, is it your evidence that you state definitely that Mr Mosiane was one of the askaris who abducted Mahlangu or is it possible that you may be mistaken about that?
MR RAS: Well, that is as far as I recall, that he was involved in the abduction. If he ...
MR LAMEY: I will get to his version shortly, all I want to ask you is the following, how many askaris were sent to Mamelodi with regard to this infiltration?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall, initially there were two. The one had a problem with language, and then we used another of which one we have mentioned his name earlier ...
CHAIRPERSON: May we remind you, Mr Lamey has already indicated that quite a few askaris were used, Mr Sefadi, Mr Mfala Pitsa, Nzimande, Khumalo.
MR RAS: Moses Nzimande, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: You know about Simon Radebe and Jeff Bosego.
MR RAS: Yes, thank you Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: You see, that is what I want to know, are you definitely certain or could you be mistaken that it was Mr Mosiane? Isn't it possible that Mr Mosiane was for example one of those who went for example as he stated, to take clothing, that is why Mr Mahlangu was still on the farm, to take clothing to the family or a sister of Mahlangu. He doesn't know what it was for, but all he knew is that he had to take clothing to them and then later, at a later stage he also states that they had to win Mahlangu's sister's confidence. He states that they had to obtain such confidence and so forth, and obtain accommodation in Mamelodi and it looks to me as if this boils down to the infiltration objective that you had mentioned, and it would appear to me that Mr Mosiane was actually involved in that, whereas my definite instructions from Mr Mosiane are that at a stage he saw Mahlangu at the farm and that he had been assaulted, but he himself, was not involved in his abduction as such?
MR RAS: Chairperson, firstly they had to take clothing, that was not the case. There was a request, the letter was compiled as such for them to request and fetch clothing.
MR LAMEY: I am sorry, I formulated it incorrectly, he states in his statement
"... we spent the night there and in the morning Pat Mahlangu's sister arrived with a bag containing packed clothes to send to Pat in Botswana",
in other words they were under the impression that he was in Botswana?
MR RAS: The fact is as far as I know, he was known initially, it was known that he was there, that this was the first infiltration, that the person had been abducted, that is why he was requested to return. I don't know exactly how they abducted the person, I just know that they arrived at the farm or at the safe house.
MR LAMEY: Is it possible that it may have been two other persons or two other askaris, other than Mr Mosiane who abducted the man, because my definite instructions from Mr Mosiane are that he was not one of the persons who abducted the person?
MR RAS: All I can say is that they brought him there to the safehouse, I don't know how the abduction took place. I don't know who the persons were who were specifically involved in it.
CHAIRPERSON: What you are saying Mr Ras ...
MR RAS: I beg your pardon Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What you are saying Mr Ras, is that as far as your recollection is concerned, you know that you gave instructions to Mr Mosiane to be amongst the many askaris assigned to infiltrate Mahlangu?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson, and that the askaris had brought the person there at a stage.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, but you don't know which askaris brought him there, because you arrived there and then he was already there?
MR RAS: At least I was at the farm and then they brought him there, I cannot recall that aspect specifically for the Committee.
MR LAMEY: So it is possible that it was a group or a section of the group that brought him there and that the rest of the group were busy with infiltration and then in the meantime, someone would arrive there with Mahlangu, that Mosiane specifically was not part of that?
MR RAS: Chairperson, if he was not part of it, then he was one of the persons who was first involved in the infiltration. He may not have worked directly with the person, but he must have conveyed information and that is why the person was arrested or abducted at least at that stage, because the person suspected that they were not supposed to be here. That is why the askaris abducted the person.
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, it would appear to me that you are talking passed each other. Mr Lamey wants to know if you can recall that Mr Mosiane was specifically involved in the infiltration and in the abduction and in the bringing him to the house, not whether the askaris were responsible for this?
MR RAS: I cannot say specifically Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: So what you are trying to say by means of inference and rationalisation is that you don't have a direct recollection?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ras, I am getting a little confused on this issue, I thought I understood your evidence to that Mr Mosiane, at least you recall him as having been the person that you instructed to infiltrate Mr Mahlangu and his Unit and that your instruction was to infiltrate with a view of obtaining information about the persons who were being trained by him and you were specific in your instructions that he was not to be harmed, but they were only to extract or obtain that information and that your bewilderment, when you came in at one particular day in this farm, you discovered that they had brought in Mr Mahlangu who had been assaulted severely? My impression is that you are still talking about Mr Mosiane, you couldn't recall the other askaris, but Mr Mosiane's name was very clear, you were crystal clear, you couldn't be mistaken about him, he was involved in the many sequences, the infiltration, the abduction or the taking illegally of Mr Mahlangu from his place to that place on a farm, to the assault and the fact that you then took over the interrogation yourself, and you were able to come up or extract further information. The impression that was created in my mind as you gave your evidence-in-chief, was that Mr Mosiane was clearly in the picture, right through the sequence of events. If you now consent to what Mr Lamey is saying, you leave me with very serious confusion in your evidence-in-chief.
MR RAS: Okay, Chairperson, might I just explain and this is what I explained at that point. The entire point remains the same, the only thing that I am not certain of, is the point whether I used him for the infiltration and that they stated to him that they were under suspicion as a result of the fact or the reason why they were there and that they were not supposed to be there, all these things are Mosiane. But all that I know is that the person was brought there, and it may be, I would like to hear Mr Mosiane's version again, that he may have said to the persons, the man is on his way there and then the other persons were supposed to abduct him, so that he would not be directly involved in the abduction, I don't know what his version is. All that I know is that he was used consistently throughout the infiltration, but he was involved. With the point of the abduction, I would concede that I cannot say with specificity that he was definitely involved, I would like to hear his version.
CHAIRPERSON: With your permission Mr Lamey, may I interpose, I still have a problem with regard to that. How I understood your evidence-in-chief was the reason why they then deviated from your precise instructions not to abduct but to obtain information, was because they found themselves in difficulties in that when they got there, as they were infiltrating, Mr Mahlangu told them that after the had spoken to Botswana, they were not supposed to be there. We are talking about this Mr Mosiane who is doing the infiltration, now he must have been the person to abduct, for the very reasons that you have advanced to this Committee?
MR RAS: That is one hundred percent correct.
CHAIRPERSON: It should be quite clear to you, you therefore cannot say you are not sure who actually did the abduction and it is evidence which is very important for your application?
MR RAS: No, Chairperson, I understand and that is what I have attempted to explain to Mr Lamey. What I cannot understand is that - this is something that I have spoken of previously - that he must have conveyed the information to the other members who had to pick him up and he must have said to them "listen, this person, this is the information, that is why I can no longer be there" and that the other persons would then pick up the other person along the way. I don't know what the situation was, but Mr Mosiane must have conveyed the information to them, that this was the danger that they were in at that stage and that is why the person was abducted. There can be no other reason, he must have conveyed the information to the other persons to abduct the person. That is how I recall it, I cannot recall it in any other way.
ADV MOTATA: No, no, it confuses me further as you explain it. You had given specific instructions to Mosiane to infiltrate?
ADV MOTATA: Now this person comes back, they come back with a person, let's say people, askaris come back with a person, you get information that whilst the infiltration was taking place, confusion arose and out of that confusion, they realised that they would rather abduct this person, who are you getting the information from, because the instructions you had given is Mosiane, who are the others who came with this person, who are giving you now this information that something went wrong whilst they were fulfilling their instructions?
MR RAS: Chairperson, the only reason why I made the concession earlier is the point that Mosiane states that he was not involved in the abduction as such, he was involved in the infiltration of the person and as far as I know, the information was given to him that the persons knew that they were not supposed to be there and that is why I would like to hear his version. There were two groups, one group drove around in a kombi and the two others who were participating in the infiltration. The two persons who were infiltrating, had contact with the persons in the kombi and said "there is the person, we won't be in the kombi, arrest that person, or kidnap him" and when I arrived at the farm, they had brought the person there.
CHAIRPERSON: But when this person was brought ...
MR RAS: That is the only explanation that I can offer. I beg your pardon Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: When Mr Mahlangu was brought, were you present when he was brought in?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall, I was on the farm when they brought him in.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and to your recollection, who brought him?
MR RAS: Well, the kombi brought him in and Simon Radebe was driving the kombi. I cannot recall everyone who was there, but I must add that even though the two persons who were infiltrating were separate from the other group and the person had been abducted, you could put a bag over the person who was being abducted's head, he wouldn't be able to identify everybody, it is possible that they may all have arrived there simultaneously. That is why I want to hear his version, because he is the person who gave the information, he has to give evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Prinsloo had no authority over your askaris, do I understand that correctly, that you had authority over your askaris?
MR RAS: Well, he was in overall command, but because I worked with them every day, he worked with them through me, so I was in control of the askaris.
CHAIRPERSON: So, he could not have given any instruction on the askaris with regard to the infiltration, you were the only person who gave instructions?
MR RAS: I issued the instructions with these things and he worked through me. There is no question that he worked independently.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and the reason why you were contacted as members of Vlakplaas, was because you specialised in the infiltration and you had askaris who were trained and who could do the infiltration much more easily?
CHAIRPERSON: And amongst your askaris, you must have relied or depended on one or more of them, with regard to this operation you was specifically brought in to undertake?
CHAIRPERSON: And amongst the many askaris that you brought along with, there was Mr Mosiane?
CHAIRPERSON: Who did you specifically give instructions to infiltrate, is it Mr Mosiane or Mr Radebe?
MR RAS: No, Mr Radebe was not involved in the infiltration, he drove the kombi. But Mosiane was as far as I can recall, one of the persons who was employed in the infiltration, but this is 13 years ago, this is my infiltration.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is right. I understand, I understand your difficulty. That is why I am saying to the best of your recollection. You are able to recollect Mr Ras, you are able to at least recollect Mr Mosiane's name clearer than the others?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mosiane in his affidavit in relation to this incident, says that certain people had problems in communicating in Tswana when he had contact with the Mahlangu family, so much so that they had to be pulled out of the operation, do you recall that?
MR RAS: Yes, I can recall that.
CHAIRPERSON: He mentions specifically the name of Moses Nzimande who could not speak Tswana?
MR RAS: Yes, I recall that I used Moses.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Can you recall when Moses was used, was that during the infiltration or at a later stage?
MR RAS: Chairperson, this is what I am trying to establish, we have the first infiltration where persons were involved and then a period of time that ensued and then I used persons again for the second infiltration where persons went in, and as far as I can recall, I sent a letter from Botswana. They also mentioned the letter that they delivered and the clothing that they received, so there were two infiltrations and according to my recollection and my knowledge, I used the same persons for the first and the second infiltration, but I also recall that there were problems with language during the first infiltration, but that I had no other persons that I could as such use for the infiltration and then I told Chris to do most of the talking and I gave him other persons and he said at the end of the day, that this had not worked. Moses Nzimande was involved in this, I think it might have been the second time that I used him, Moses. I replaced the other person with Moses Nzimande.
CHAIRPERSON: The problem which I think Mr Lamey will soon be highlighting again to you is the fact that Mr Mosiane seems to be quite clear and firm that he was never involved in any of the infiltrations?
CHAIRPERSON: The first infiltration?
MR LAMEY: The first infiltration, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: The first infiltration, with regard to Mr Mahlangu, the one that required him to infiltrate Mr Mahlangu and obtain information about the people that he was training and he was only involved in the delivery of the letter and Mr Nzimande who could not speak Tswana, was at your instruction removed and he was placed, he was replaced by Colin, I want to believe that is Colin Khumalo, that Mr Lamey has already referred to?
MR MALAN: Nzimande replaced Colin?
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, yes, Mr Nzimande replaced Colin Khumalo?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I think the persons who may have the best recollection would be the persons who spent the night with the family during the first infiltration, as far as I can recall it was Chris Mosiane.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Lamey, thank you for your indulgence, you may proceed.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I see it is now five past one, will this be a convenient stage?
CHAIRPERSON: Very convenient, thank you for bringing that to our attention. Can we reconvene at quarter to two, will that be convenient? We will reconvene at quarter to two.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, we took a break whilst you were in the process of cross-examining Mr Ras.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)
CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, may you give us an indication when you will be able to hand up the affidavit of Mr Mathebula? I don't know whether your colleagues actually have copies, I think right now Mr Jansen is working at a slight disadvantage in that he doesn't really know what the affidavit of Mr Mathebula is.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, the particulars relating to this incident of Mr Mathebula is in Bundle 1, on page 141 to 145.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jansen, you have not been disadvantaged, I don't know whether you actually knew about this affidavit?
MR JANSEN: No, for some or other reason I missed that, I suppose because the name did not appear from any of the other applications.
MR JANSEN: But, and I don't have that Bundle with me, but I am okay, until Mathebula himself testifies, I am fine.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, fine, you may proceed Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I don't know whether that has been recorded, but I recall that I at the pre-hearing meeting also I said that Mr Mathebula is also an applicant in that incident.
CHAIRPERSON: I am aware of that, I had not actually seen the affidavit of Mr Mathebula, I simply assumed that when we commenced the hearing this morning, you would hand it up because I didn't look at Bundle 1, to check Mr Mathebula's affidavit in relation to this incident.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Chairperson. Mr Ras, it would seem as if there were two infiltrations, the one before Mr Mahlangu had been abducted and then thereafter, there was the clothing episode after his abduction and then there was the incident where there had to be an infiltration, this was after his abduction, is that correct?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Very well. With regard to the infiltration, before Mr Mahlangu's abduction, is it your clear recollection that Mr Mosiane was part of it specifically or is your recollection that askaris were involved?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, Mr Mosiane was involved in the first infiltration.
MR LAMEY: I don't know if you had had an opportunity, I will take instructions once again from Mr Mosiane, that at a stage it was difficult and I tried to get telephonic instructions from him, but I have not offered you the opportunity to study Mr Mosiane's statement, page 234 to 237.
CHAIRPERSON: What is your question Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: I would like to ascertain whether he had an opportunity to study Mr Mosiane's statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what are you trying to get at, because we would prefer that you get to the point. Won't you assume that Mr Ras who is immanently represented by Mr Jansen, has had such an opportunity, what is it that you want him to respond to in relation to the application of Mr Mosiane?
MR LAMEY: I will come to that, I want to actually just then, I don't want to actually, if he had an opportunity to look at it, then I don't have to take him through the affidavit, otherwise I will have to ...
CHAIRPERSON: We don't expect him to do that, you are cross-examining him, it is not your duty to take him through the application of Mr Mosiane. We won't allow you to do that, if there is any point that you want to cross-examine him on, in relation to the evidence that he has set, please you may proceed to do so, but I don't think it is fair for you to take him through Mr Mosiane's affidavit, Mr Mosiane has not yet tendered evidence. We do have his application and from what you have also said to us, you are still in the process of taking further and precise instructions from Mr Mosiane.
CHAIRPERSON: So just get to the point of what you want him to respond to.
MR LAMEY: Yes. Well, may I just say, then just put this on record, regarding any involvement about the first infiltration, I will have to just check on that from Mr Mosiane, but I have clear instructions, may I just put this on record, that Mr Mosiane was not involved in the abduction of Mr Mahlangu, he himself. That we must make clear. I also have this further instructions, that Mr Mosiane confirmed the contents of his statement, also in his instructions to me, and that is the version from my vantage point, as to his amnesty application. Very well, you say you have a clear recollection that Mr Mosiane was involved in the first infiltration? I will obtain that instruction from him, but with regard to the askaris involved in the abduction and who brought him there, my impression from your evidence is that you are not entirely certain, you place Mr Mosiane in the picture, but you don't have a clear recollection of it, is my summary correct there?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson. The only thing that I recall is that the whole group arrived there.
MR LAMEY: And then I would like to briefly tell you according to Mr Mosiane, Mr Mahlangu was at the farm, he observed and his conclusion was that he had been abducted when he was detained there, he was requested to hand over a letter, an envelope which contained a letter which was drawn up by Mr Mahlangu, he was accompanied by Mr Colin to Mamelodi and he had to hand over this letter to a member of Pat Mahlangu's family, is that correct?
MR RAS: Chairperson, what I do not understand is that he says the person was already there when he arrived there, as far as I know, we went there in one group. We started with the infiltration and the other groups worked outside, so I believe that I would have recalled if I went through to fetch him and he arrived there afterwards. All the persons who were involved from day one, the persons were there during the period of time when we worked there and the person was also abducted during that period of time.
MR LAMEY: If you say all the persons were involved, whom are you referring to?
MR MALAN: He refers to all the askaris, Mr Lamey, that is clear.
MR LAMEY: Very well, and then my instructions are also that his sister arrived with a bag with clothing which had to be sent to Botswana?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson, they did go back and that was part of the deep cover, that the person's family would not report him missing and that they would think that he had left the country to join the ANC, and that is why we requested clothing, that was part of the cover operation.
MR LAMEY: With regard to, when, the stage when askaris went to Mamelodi, what were they transported with?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, they made use of public transport and my contact point was as far as I can recall, was once or twice when I met with them, was at the post office in Silverton.
MR LAMEY: Yes, those are almost my instructions, that they always used public transport?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: I would just like to know the following, were there other askaris who went by means of any other transport?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have said, there were two different groups, the persons doing the infiltration used public transport and the necessary funds were supplied to them to use public transport and there was a second group, who used the kombi and they also drove around and went identifying persons who were involved with the ANC or who were members of the ANC.
MR LAMEY: Very well. But you say that when Mahlangu was brought to the farm, during his abduction, he was brought with the kombi, is that what you are saying?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I said they arrived with the kombi, the whole group.
MR LAMEY: Yes, that is what I heard, because I accept that he would not be transported or abducted with public transport?
MR RAS: Chairperson, no, that is why I have already said when I tried to explain that it was possible that the persons were in the area, that they had reported, this was the incident, this was the circumstances and that the kombi as such was involved and assisted with the abduction.
MR LAMEY: You see, that is the whole point which I am trying to clear up. Mosiane says that every time he travelled with public transport and you know somewhere there is something that is amiss with regard to the version, that your recollection was that he was involved in the abduction, it would seem to me as if it was the members who drove around with the kombi, who were involved there?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I have stated it a few times now, the whole point is that the persons who infiltrated, could not - had contact with the persons in the kombi, without that happening, there was no way that the kombi independently could have gone to such a person and abducted the person. They did not know of each other's operation, they did know that the other two persons were there and I believe what had happened was that the other persons, or I don't believe, this is an inference that I draw, that the other persons who drove there, they stopped them and they told them "this is the incident, there is the man", but they could not have gone out of their own, without the information that Mosiane told them.
MR LAMEY: That is an inference you draw?
MR RAS: Yes, they would not have done that on their own, because they were not part of the operation.
MR LAMEY: Very well, Mr Mosiane furthermore states in his statement that Nzimande later had to fill the place of Khumalo because Khumalo was not conversant in Tswana?
MR RAS: I have already said Chairperson, I concede that.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Lamey, I think we have to put this in context because Mr Mosiane says it was after the abduction.
MR MALAN: We have to recall that, Khumalo would accompany him after the abduction, and because he could not speak Tswana, this was just to provide a cover up?
MR RAS: Chairperson, what is unclear to me at this stage, is that the persons two or three days that they stayed there, that they were at the house as far as I recall, when they were involved with the infiltration, they came back and two or three days they were part of the infiltration and then the problem came, because the person came from Botswana and the person said that they don't know about the activities in Mamelodi and they came out, and then there was a problem to send a person back there, problems with the language and that is what I can recall and then he asked that he was looking for another person to accompany him, because we could not use Colin Khumalo and as far as I recall and as far as I knew, with the second infiltration with regard to the clothes, is when I sent Moses Nzimande with him.
MR LAMEY: And then Mr Mosiane's recollection, as he states in his statement says that when he handed over the letter and when the clothing was received, Khumalo was with him. He says at that stage, as I understand his statement was that Mahlangu was already at the farm and afterwards Khumalo was withdrawn and then Nzimande was sent to stand in for Khumalo and he refers here to Pat, that is Mahlangu, he had to win the trust of Pat's sister with the purpose that she could introduce them to this ANC as he describes it, ANC Combat Unit, who allegedly operated in Mamelodi?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have said previously, this is 13 years back, I suspect that this person's memory failed him, because I cannot recall that a person directly afterwards, he comes back, why a person comes back from Botswana, gives the letter, my recollection is that the letter was mailed in Botswana and I will concede that I may have given the letter to Mosiane to go back, but my recollection was definitely not that it was right at the start or the second part with the other person, that would mean that I used four different persons for two or three infiltrations, that is not how I recall it.
MR LAMEY: Let me clear this up for you, are you in accord that the letter aspect came about after Mahlangu was already at the farm?
MR RAS: Chairperson, that was part of the cover operation, that had to be so.
MR LAMEY: Could it not also be that the cover operation was continued but with another person, with Mosiane, in the person of Nzimande, to win his sister's trust in order to obtain information that you wanted?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I would really like, that is how I recall it, I would really like to hear from the family's side and Mosiane who has to testify, was that the person who was there the first time or the second time, but my recollection is that the person, Mosiane, I used him the first time and I cannot specifically - Colin Khumalo, but I know that I replaced one person with Nzimande.
CHAIRPERSON: We have repeatedly heard you saying that, Mr Ras. Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Very well, I will then conclude and not spend any more time on this incident. These are my instructions, that is how he recalls it. May I just make certain before I depart from this point. Yes, I would just like to ensure with regard to Mr Mathebula's version, whether I have covered everything. Mr Mathebula, just this, I don't know he says there was a questioning of Mahlangu during which he was struck with fists and kicked and Mathebula says that he also participated in the interrogation and assault, can you comment on that?
MR RAS: That is correct, as I have already said Chairperson, I did not assault him, but I allowed it to happen and that I played the good person, and allowed that my colleagues go in and assault the person and I walk out.
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, what you have described to us is not allowing assault, but a total orchestration of systematic assault?
MR LAMEY: Just to clear up this point, with regard to my clients, in the decision to eliminate Mahlangu and the members involved there, this was in the inner circle of Prinsloo, yourself and Roslee on a strict need to know basis, the other black members did not know what was happening and what had eventually happened? That would have been left to their speculation?
MR RAS: Chairperson, they did not know about it.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Madam Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Heerden?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Chairperson, may I proceed?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. Mr Ras, can you give an indication of the lapse of time from the first infiltration up to the death of Patrick Mahlangu?
MR RAS: It happened during the first week, five days if I recall correctly.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Is that the time period from the time of the first infiltration up to his death?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson, as far as I can recall the first time I sent people in, they spoke to people, they came back, confirmed the information, they were infiltrated once again and I think that was two or three days, two days, they came back and the kombi came back with the deceased in the kombi.
MR VAN HEERDEN: The information which you received after the first infiltration, can you elaborate on that?
MR RAS: Chairperson, all that I can recall is that the information which I received, as far as I can recall, is what I read, that the person was involved in the ANC and that he was involved in underground structures in Mamelodi.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, please Mr Ras, you must not let us have any doubt, you are saying as far as I can recall it had to be, do you recall it or are you making a construction? The question is what do you recall?
MR RAS: Chairperson, that he was involved in the ANC and the underground structures of the ANC.
CHAIRPERSON: From whom did you obtain that information?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall, it was from Mosiane.
CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Chairperson. Did Mosiane say that Patrick Mahlangu was a member of the ANC?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I cannot recall specific words, but it was that he was involved in the ANC underground structure, and these are my words that I am using at this stage, I would not say a member, but in the underground structures, and that he was involved with the ANC at that stage.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Which underground structures was he involved in?
MR RAS: Chairperson, at that stage, I cannot go back 13 years and say which.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You cannot recall?
MR RAS: No, I cannot recall Chairperson. Chairperson, I would also like to add that the original information that he was involved in the training of handgrenades, crash courses in handgrenades in Mamelodi, and this came back, confirmed that he was indeed involved.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Where did you receive this information about the handgrenades from?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as my knowledge will allow me, I recall it was Chris Mosiane.
MR VAN HEERDEN: That was before the first infiltration?
MR RAS: It was during, with the infiltration, the first time that they made contact, when they came back and said the information is correct, the man is involved.
MR VAN HEERDEN: It would seem as if you refer to two incidents, the one where he was involved with the ANC and another incident where the handgrenades were referred to and training in handgrenades?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have said, they went in and came back and reported that the information which we gave to them, they specifically referred to training in handgrenades and his involvement in the ANC, they came back and reported that the information which we supplied to them, was correct, the person was involved.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Where did you receive the initial information from to send these persons to Patrick Mahlangu?
MR RAS: Chairperson, from Hendrik Prinsloo.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What was his instruction to you?
MR RAS: Chairperson, that I had to avail two askaris for an infiltration, to obtain more information with regard to the person's involvement with the ANC.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What other information did Mr Prinsloo give you beforehand about Patrick Mahlangu?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I cannot recall the detail, except that I recall that specifically he gave me one of the informants' reports to read.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What did this report entail?
MR RAS: It is impossible for me to say Chairperson, I read thousands of reports, except that it was about, amongst others that the person was involved in instant training in the use of handgrenades.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you give an instruction as to how long the infiltration had to span?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Where was report back given to you?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, we use made of Silverton's post office, where we had a specific time and if he could not arrive at the first meeting, because of some or other unforeseen circumstances, we had a second or third instance where we could meet at the rendezvous point, where I would go to the rendezvous point.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I would assume that you gave him a date as to when he had to report back to you?
MR RAS: Chairperson, here we spoke of day 1 or day 2, not weeks.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you tell him that he had to report back after two days or three days?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I believe that the following day, for example I would say that I will meet you six o'clock at the post office, if not six o'clock, then seven o'clock, if not seven o'clock, then the following morning eight o'clock, I will meet you there. I think we had bleepers, and if there was a need, to find me at a certain place.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And after the reporting, did you tell him to return to Patrick Mahlangu?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I did send them back there, I cannot recall whether it was immediately or whether it was the next morning, or whether they went home or whether they went to the safehouse first.
MR VAN HEERDEN: How long did it take before they arrived at the safehouse with Patrick Mahlangu after the meeting?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have said, I think it was the second or third day thereafter, I think the first day they went in, the following day they came back and then they went back in and two or three days after that, they came back with the deceased in the kombi, which was against the planning at that stage.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did I understand your evidence correctly that the safehouse was arranged in such a manner that one could stay there?
MR RAS: No Chairperson, it was an old farmhouse, we swept the place, there were no doors, there were no windows. As far as I can recall, there was only a roof over the building.
MR VAN HEERDEN: So nobody stayed there on a permanent basis?
MR VAN HEERDEN: When the askaris arrived with Patrick Mahlangu, what was your first reaction?
MR RAS: Chairperson, my first reaction was what is the man doing here, why did you bring him here, and the explanation was given to me that the man had contact in Botswana and had said that their movements were not known there and they did not know of people who would have operated there from Botswana at that time.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you ask how they got Patrick Mahlangu to move with them in the vehicle?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as I have already said, I cannot recall that part, they took the person to a room and as far as I can recall the interrogation started.
MR VAN HEERDEN: My question was, whether you asked them how they got Patrick Mahlangu to climb into the kombi with them, or did you not address that aspect?
MR RAS: I have said Chairperson, that I did not address that aspect as to exactly how the abduction took place, or I cannot recall.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, the question was, did they say that they took him and brought him or did you only draw the inference?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. Did you then immediately continue with the interrogation?
MR RAS: Yes Chairperson, as far as I can recall, it was the logical thing to do.
MR VAN HEERDEN: How long was Patrick Mahlangu at the farm?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall Chairperson, a maximum of three days, two nights and the third day.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he taken away on the third day?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall, yes Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Who guarded him on the farm?
MR RAS: Chairperson, the askaris guarded him.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did the askaris stay there on a permanent basis?
MR RAS: There were members there permanently, and there were places, we always had guards who stayed there, or we had a person or two persons who guarded the place, but at that stage it was about the interrogation of the person.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was there a place which was constructed as a cell for guarding purposes?
MR VAN HEERDEN: So there had to be a person with him constantly?
MR VAN HEERDEN: How long did the interrogation take place?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, it was at least two days on and off.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Does that mean that you went to your own house to sleep in the evening, or did you sleep at the farm?
MR RAS: We slept there Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you immediately after Patrick Mahlangu arrived there, realise that there was a problem, that he could not be sent back?
MR VAN HEERDEN: When did you realise that there was a problem?
MR RAS: Chairperson, after the interrogation it became clear that he knew who the informer was and along with that, the information which he gave at that stage, was that he was involved with the ANC.
MR VAN HEERDEN: The informer who was involved, of which he had knowledge, was it somebody from his community?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, it was somebody quite close to him.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you tell me why it was necessary to for example send Chris Mosiane there also?
MR RAS: Chairperson, because the informer had to be protected and the askaris at a later stage could testify against him, without disclosing the identity of the informer and without anybody thinking that the informer had given out information.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was the plan to construct a court directed investigation?
MR RAS: Chairperson, initially I think that was the direction that we followed.
MR VAN HEERDEN: How long did you plan this?
MR RAS: Chairperson, the whole thing was to send the persons in and to receive information and to verify it and then from day to day, to do further follow up.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I speak of a period of five days here, you already had an informant close to the deceased, and I still do not understand why anybody else had to be sent in?
MR RAS: Chairperson, the informer cannot give evidence and it cannot be suspected that the information had given information about a certain person and the informer is sometimes the only person who knows about certain issues, and as soon as one arrests a person on the information of an informer, like in this matter, it would in consequence lead that the persons - he would tell the persons outside that that person had sold him out and that person would be killed.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you know the informer?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did Mr Prinsloo tell you about the informer?
MR RAS: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he also tell you that a court directed investigation had to follow?
MR RAS: Well, as I know Mr Prinsloo, he launched several court directed investigations which led to death sentences and there was one matter where four persons received death sentences.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he tell you that or not?
MR RAS: I know of it. I think many other persons who knew the method of Mr Prinsloo's investigation, knew the manner in which he followed investigations ...
MR VAN HEERDEN: But I am asking you about this incident, did he tell you that there was a court directed investigation?
MR RAS: No Chairperson, he only asked for an infiltration.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What did you understand Mr Prinsloo to be wanting from this kind of infiltration that he was asking you and your members to do?
MR RAS: Chairperson, initially he asked for an infiltration in order to obtain more information with regard to the person and if other persons could be identified and if arrests were made, that the askaris, this would be the so-called persons that gave him away, but what I further understood, the day when everything went wrong, he said that the man had to be taken out.
CHAIRPERSON: What I want to know is, what more information was the infiltration supposed to seek out, in view of the fact that you already had some kind of information, which he had obtained from the informer, from his own informer?
MR RAS: Chairperson, the informer did not walk with the person all the time, and the idea was to closely link up with the person and that he be introduced to the other person who this person was involved with and the persons he was training and obtain more information what the informer had and at the same time, in order to give evidence against this person, of an arrest had ensued.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that made quite clear to you, by Mr Prinsloo at the time when you were instructed to infiltrate?
MR RAS: Chairperson, initially that was the idea that we would just go for an infiltration and I could understand that when Mr Prinsloo arrived afterwards and his reaction was that he was quite upset that the person had been upset and his first words were that "my informer will suffer because of this", not in those precise, exact words, but he was very upset about the identity of his informer that could be disclosed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Chairperson. When the askaris reported back the first time, what did you do with that information?
MR RAS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, Mr Prinsloo from time to time, visited me and I think I conveyed it to him.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Where did Mr Prinsloo visit?
MR RAS: The safehouse Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you know whether you gave him this information just after the first infiltration?
MR RAS: I cannot say today whether I did so or did not do so, but I believe I did.
CHAIRPERSON: And the information that you conveyed to Prinsloo was so conveyed before the abduction?
MR RAS: That is correct chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What was the purpose to call it as such, the second infiltration?
MR RAS: Exactly the same as the first Chairperson, to extract information, to extract more information and to become involved, to find out who was the other persons in Mamelodi, because of the acts which were committed at that stage, and we wanted more information as to who the persons were who were involved, and the informer could not give us that information, or could not give Mr Prinsloo that information.
MR VAN HEERDEN: When would the infiltration be stopped? Did you have a mandate to that?
MR RAS: Chairperson, no, as I have said, we would have determined it on a day to day basis, as to when we should stop the operation.
MR VAN HEERDEN: If you are saying us, who are you speaking about?
MR RAS: I will correct myself there, in that sense the person who would have taken the decision, was Mr Prinsloo. Information which would be given through to him, he would base his decisions thereon. I did handle the askaris, but because of the informers, he knew the place much better and would delegate certain tasks to us or done certain taskings.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr van Heerden, was this a special instruction or was it one of the three week teams going in and going to work with Branches, was this one of these cases?
MR RAS: It was one of the usual go in with Branches for three weeks.
MR MALAN: And you assisted the Northern Transvaal for three weeks?
MR MALAN: So it would have covered more than just this, it was not only Mahlangu, it could have been Odirele Maponya and lots of other things?
MR RAS: I would just like to say while we were involved, after that incident, we were involved in the arrest of Tieng-Tieng Ntabo.
MR MALAN: During the same period?
MR RAS: Yes, during the same period, after this incident.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. When the askaris arrived with the deceased, do I understand from you that you started with the interrogation?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall, yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: When did you then inform Mr Prinsloo of the arrest?
MR RAS: Chairperson, he regularly arrived there and the afternoon as he arrived there, as far as I can recall, it was the afternoon, late afternoon that he arrived there, and he saw that the person had been arrested or had been abducted.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he immediately tell you to make a plan?
MR RAS: He was quite upset initially and he asked why it had happened and I explained to him and he said his informer, and he said "very well" and then within the hour or two hours, he said we have to "make a plan with this man".
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you then formulate a plan immediately?
MR RAS: I first continued with the interrogation at that stage. I took some notes and to extract maximum information from that person, and it was also handed over to Mr Prinsloo and he saw that the person had indeed confirmed his suspicions that the person had known who was the person who had betrayed him.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And if you say that for two days you were busy with this?
MR RAS: Yes, two nights and the third, I would say that it was two to three days.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you consistently send information through to Mr Prinsloo?
MR RAS: It is not that I was putting questions all the time and taking notes all the time, the other manner of interrogation would be to say we have been speaking to you for ages, sit for the next five to six hours, think about it, then you would walk in again, he would say yes, he has information, you would give him a piece of paper and he would write it down. Interrogation had many facets, it wasn't only a question of only talking to a person all the time.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you alone undertake the interrogation?
MR RAS: Primarily, yes. I think that Mr Prinsloo also spoke to the person at the times that he was there, actually I don't think so, I know he did so.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You gave evidence that you and Mr Vermeulen discussed the problem?
MR VAN HEERDEN: When did you go looking for a place in order to handle this problem?
MR RAS: I think it was the last morning before we went, we went looking for a place and this was after Prinsloo told us to make a plan with the person, and after we had undertaken the planning, the next day, there was further interrogation and then I asked that Vermeulen fetch the explosives at Vlakplaas.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you ask him to do so or did he suggest it?
MR VAN HEERDEN: How long did it take him to obtain the explosives?
MR RAS: Chairperson, I cannot recall, I think he was away for half a day.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you physically drive to go look for a place?
MR VAN HEERDEN: You and Mr Vermeulen?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Now, the area in which the person died, was that the former Bophuthatswana or what?
MR RAS: That is what I thought, but later I heard that it was not Bophuthatswana.
MR VAN HEERDEN: At what stage did you decide to ask Patrick Mahlangu to write a letter?
MR RAS: After we had decided that we were going to kill him. I thought about all the manners in which such a murder could be covered up and that is why I decided for him to compile a letter, and as such prevent his family reporting that he was missing.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you dictate to him what he was supposed to write?
MR RAS: Yes, basically. He also chose his own words, but it was basically that he had decided to leave the country and to join the ANC and that he was going to send some of his friends back home to fetch clothing for him.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did it take quite a while to get him to write this letter?
MR RAS: Well, he did it in his own handwriting.
MR VAN HEERDEN: What was the nature of his injuries at the stage when he wrote the letter?
MR RAS: Chairperson, at that stage, he had marks on his face, but I cannot recall that he was really that severely injured or that his face was broken, it was somewhat swollen, but his injuries were not that serious. The method of interrogation which was applied, was to hit the person on the footsoles so as not to leave any bruises, to hit the person on the knee with a bottle.
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, did this take place in this case?
MR MALAN: No, Mr Ras, don't believe anything, just tell us what you know, stop believing please. Don't tell us the manners in which it was done, the question is, what was done in this particular case?
MR RAS: I don't know, because I wasn't in the room.
MR MALAN: Well, then say so. Please, you are simply wasting time and confusing everyone, when you tell us these things about manners that existed. Stop believing and just give the information that you have knowledge of.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Chairperson. Did you ever ask what had been done to him?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he wearing shoes?
MR RAS: When we took him away, yes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he wearing shoes during the interrogation?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he clothed?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he wearing trousers?
MR RAS: This is 13 years ago, I cannot recall.
MR VAN HEERDEN: You say that he was wearing shoes when you drove, when you departed?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Were these especially given to him to wear again?
MR RAS: These were his own shoes.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall what shoes they were?
MR VAN HEERDEN: At what time did you depart from the safehouse that evening when Patrick Mahlangu was killed?
MR RAS: Approximately seven or eight o'clock that evening.
MR VAN HEERDEN: With what was he bound?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you know whether he was bound in any way?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Who bound him?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Who drove the vehicle?
MR VAN HEERDEN: You gave evidence that you then decided to strangle him on the way there, is that correct?
MR VAN HEERDEN: At that stage, was he still placed in the back or the most limited part of the vehicle?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he covered with anything?
MR VAN HEERDEN: When you began to strangle him, did you pull him upright, or was he still on the floor of the kombi?
MR RAS: He was on the floor of the kombi.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he resist in any way?
MR VAN HEERDEN: How long did you strangle him until your hands became tired?
MR RAS: Approximately five minutes before we stopped.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he still conscious?
MR RAS: No, I wouldn't say so.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Who opened the back of the kombi when you stopped?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he lifted out or did he fall out?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall, he fell out.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was it then that Mr Roslee took over?
MR VAN HEERDEN: What did Roslee do?
MR RAS: I have already stated Chairperson, that I cannot recall precisely what he did. I think that I was assisting Snor Vermeulen with the explosives, I helped to carry him, when Roslee was finished, I helped to carry the deceased to the place next to the railway track.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did anyone administer any further injuries to Patrick Mahlangu, that is now before the explosion?
MR RAS: No, as far as I know, the both of us strangled him, I heard today that Roslee stepped on his throat.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did all the other members remain behind when Prinsloo departed in the kombi?
MR RAS: Yes, it was me, Roslee and Vermeulen who remained.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Where were the explosives in the kombi?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did Mr Vermeulen deal with the explosives?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I understand from your evidence that he was then placed next to the railway track?
MR VAN HEERDEN: And the explosives were placed in his lap?
MR VAN HEERDEN: And his head and his hands were then placed over the explosives?
MR VAN HEERDEN: How were the explosives detonated?
MR VAN HEERDEN: How far from the place where the deceased was placed, did the person who detonated the explosives, stand?
MR RAS: We lay behind the embankment which was near the railway track, it was approximately 40 metres away.
MR VAN HEERDEN: The detonation took place by means of an electric cord?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Somewhere in the Bundles I saw that somebody was electrically shocked during the process?
MR RAS: Yes, that was Vermeulen.
MR VAN HEERDEN: How did that take place?
MR RAS: As a result of the shock, some of the wires which ran above the railway line, were effected electrically and this shocked Vermeulen.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he incur any injuries?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did Mr Prinsloo arrive back at the scene after that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: After the detonation?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you know why Mr Prinsloo departed from the scene?
MR RAS: We arrived there in the kombi, he drove off in the kombi, and then he came back.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you know why he drove off somewhere?
MR RAS: Somebody was simply supposed to pick us up and it was decided that he would. I don't know specifically why he was the one who drove off, perhaps Roslee was bigger and stronger than he was and could better assist with carrying the person, so it was decided that he would drove off.
MR MALAN: What my question is, is why did he drive off at all?
MR RAS: The reason for that was to keep driving, in the event of another vehicle passing, that it would not appear to be strange to find another vehicle standing near the railway line and then the next day somebody might be able to connect a vehicle as such with the railway line and so doing, the incident.
MR VAN HEERDEN: When you drove back, where did you go?
MR RAS: We drove back over Warmbaths.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Would that be back to the farm or where to?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you spend the night there?
MR RAS: Snor and I stayed there, but I don't believe that Prinsloo and the others stayed there.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did you spend the night there?
MR RAS: Because that is the point from where we worked Chairperson.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you stay there?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Earlier in your evidence I understood that the house was of such a dilapidated nature that one couldn't really stay there?
MR RAS: At that stage, we would stay in the veld quite often.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, I then have nothing further, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you have any questions to put, Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, do you have any re-examination?
MR JANSEN: Chair, if you could just bear with me one moment, there was one aspect.
CHAIRPERSON: Whilst you are just going through your notes then, can you permit us to put questions through, so that maybe you may be able to deal with them in your re-examination, if there are any questions from the bench. Mr Jansen, can you give us the directive that if there any questions from the bench, we deal with them whilst you are going through your notes?
CHAIRPERSON: Or would you like to have your re-examination before we can put questions to Mr Ras?
MR JANSEN: No, no, I believe it would probably be better, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Be better, yes. Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: Mr Ras, when the deceased was blown up there, was he still bound or cuffed?
MR MALAN: Can you recall that he had been loosened at any point?
MR MALAN: Where did this take place?
MR RAS: Inside the kombi still.
MR RAS: As I recall, it was me.
MR MALAN: What did you untie? Were they handcuffs, was it a rope, what was he bound with?
MR RAS: As far as I can recall, I bound him with shoelaces?
MR RAS: Shoelaces. If one bound a person above his elbows behind his back, the person would not be able to exert any force and would not be able to loosen himself either.
MR MALAN: At his upper arms behind his back?
MR RAS: Yes. If one did this for long enough, it would also be a method that was used in interrogation, because eventually the person would endure quite a bit of pain.
MR MALAN: How did you untie the shoelaces, did you cut them loose or did you untie the knots?
MR RAS: I cannot recall, I know that he was unfastened because we placed him with his hands in front of him. I recall that I unfastened the bind.
MR MALAN: You can recall that it was you?
MR MALAN: But earlier you could not recall how he had been bound?
MR RAS: There are so many things to remember, I cannot.
MR MALAN: No, you don't have to, I am just asking whether you do remember, just for the sake of clarity?
MR RAS: It is now returning to me that that is the manner in which I tied him up. That is how he lay inside the vehicle and after he stopped struggling ...
MR MALAN: Did you then place the explosives on his lap and then put him in an upright seated position, bent over the explosives, did you prop him up in any way?
MR RAS: We struggled for a while to get him in that position, if I refer to a while, it would be 20 to 30 seconds or a minute, to get him in that position that he would be seated.
MR MALAN: But he was seated upright?
MR RAS: Yes, we achieved this.
MR MALAN: A body could actually be seated upright?
MR RAS: Yes, we managed to do so, it was a fresh corpse, the person had not died very long ago, he wasn't falling over. Initially he fell over, but later we managed to seat him in an upright position.
MR MALAN: Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Motata, do you have any questions?
ADV MOTATA: Just one for clarity sake. Mr Ras, I don't know if I followed very well, but I just want clarity in my mind about in your evidence when you refer to that reports kept by Prinsloo about the infiltration or information received, and you had to take decisions, do you recall that or am I mistaken?
MR RAS: No Chairperson, he simply gave it to me in order to provide further information about the person's involvement and about persons who had been used for the infiltration, to brief such persons who would be used in the infiltration so that they would have a better background knowledge about the person.
ADV MOTATA: And about Mr Mahlangu, did you have written reports or were reports compiled by somebody else about him?
MR RAS: Yes Chairperson. That is the report that the informer wrote for Mr Prinsloo, I don't know if it was Mr Prinsloo who wrote the report, but this information that was provided by the informer, was placed in a report, explaining the person's involvement in Mamelodi, with the ANC.
ADV MOTATA: Who had contact with this person, that is the informer between you and Mr Prinsloo, who was the informer reporting to about the infiltrations of information gathered about people?
MR RAS: Chairperson, it was Mr Prinsloo.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ras, you have stated that the reason why you decided to eliminate the informer was because, no, sorry to eliminate Mr Mahlangu was because he had disclosed his knowledge of the identity of the informer to you?
MR RAS: Chairperson, when Mr Prinsloo arrived there, he also told me that the person was identified as an informer, that a plan had to be made with the interrogation, I also obtained the name of the person in the notes which I made, the notes were also conveyed and confirmed along with the name. I cannot recall the name today, I cannot recall all the particulars that I put in the notes, but this was handed to Mr Prinsloo and he said "yes, his informer, he knew about it and that this was the right person, and that we were supposed to continue with the operation".
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I would prefer that you simply keep your responses short, least you confuse yourself if you further elaborate. So the reason why you killed him was because he knew of the identity of the informer used by Mr Prinsloo?
MR RAS: That and in conjunction with that, his involvement with the ANC at that stage. But the primary motivation was that the lives of the informer and his family, were in jeopardy.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought I understood your evidence-in-chief to be saying that the primary reason was because of the identity of the informer which was known to Mr Mahlangu and in order to protect the identity of the informer, you had to kill Mr Mahlangu?
CHAIRPERSON: What precisely did he disclose to you, Mr Mahlangu, with regard to this informer?
MR RAS: He gave the name of the person, it was an aspect of the notes which I gave to Mr Prinsloo and it was Mr Prinsloo's first reaction when he saw that the person had been picked up, he said that the result would be that his source would be exposed, the informer would be exposed.
CHAIRPERSON: How did it come about that Mr Mahlangu should tell you about the name of the informer?
MR RAS: During the interrogation certain points were recorded in the notes and I put certain points to him and as a result of these points, he said with this it was just he and that person or that he and that person were together at that instance, and that is when he mentioned the name of the person as well.
CHAIRPERSON: So it was in the context of your line of interrogation that the name of the informer came up?
CHAIRPERSON: You also mentioned in your evidence that you received information from the askari during the infiltration period, the first infiltration period and that the reports you received were at Silverton post office, did I hear you properly there?
MR RAS: That is correct, that is where we would have met each other, that is how I recall it.
CHAIRPERSON: That is where you met?
MR RAS: Yes. The two persons who were involved in the infiltration, I met there, or at least one of them at a time.
CHAIRPERSON: And you had one meeting?
MR RAS: No, I cannot say how many meetings we had, today, but as far as I can recall it wasn't just one meeting. It was alternatively due to the fact that persons did not make use of transport, they had to make use of public transport and go to a place where they could be seen with a white person without drawing any unnecessary attention, I couldn't exactly go and meet them in Mamelodi. That is why we decided that the post office was a general place and it would just appear to be two people who were having a brief discussion.
CHAIRPERSON: So you had more than one meeting with the askaris for the purposes of reporting?
CHAIRPERSON: And all these meetings to your recollection, were held at Silverton post office?
CHAIRPERSON: In your affidavit therefore you would be wrong if you stated that you met at the safehouse, that is where they reported, because that is how that information stands in your affidavit, that is the reason why I am asking you, I simply wanted to get clarity with regard to this issue.
MR RAS: Chairperson, that is correct. As stated, there were two groups, that is why I cannot say specifically today that the other group drove in the kombi, must also have had contact with the person with the second incident, especially when the person was abducted and the first instance, when they came out with the person, and met at a place and made use of the kombi and returned to the safehouse. After the very first meeting when they returned to report and stated that the information which I had conveyed to them, was indeed correct. But it could not have been the same kombi every time, I decided not to use the same kombi or the same mode of transport every single time. With the second infiltration, when they went in, we made use of the post office, that is where we met.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ras, I think in my questioning I made it quite clear that I was asking questions with regard to the first infiltration, not the second infiltration.
MR RAS: Chairperson, with the first incident they returned with the kombi. That is how I recall it, they returned and reported back and confirmed that the information that we had conveyed to them, was indeed correct, that this person was involved in such activities.
CHAIRPERSON: When was the report done, at Silverton post office?
MR RAS: No, as far as I can recall, the first instance was back at the safehouse.
CHAIRPERSON: So you were incorrect when you said the meeting was, the report was done at Silverton post office? That relates to the second infiltration?
MR RAS: That is correct, that is the second infiltration which I made use of the post office.
CHAIRPERSON: With regard to the first infiltration, how soon after you had instructed them to infiltrate, was the report done to you at the safehouse?
MR RAS: Chairperson, if I can recall correctly, it was within the first day, that is how I recall it though.
CHAIRPERSON: Within the first day?
MR RAS: The first evening, they went out the first evening, and the next day, they returned to confirm the information. They stayed there for a day and then returned. In fact there were three times, the second time they went back to the people, that was when the person was abducted and then for the third time, they returned to take the letter and to fetch the clothing and so forth.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's not confuse issues Mr Ras, and this is really meant to assist you, and don't give us information relating to different issues. My questioning again is specifically in relation to the first infiltration, the letter evidence, relates to the second infiltration, is that not so, when they went back with the letter, that was in relation to the second infiltration?
MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's stick to the first infiltration, how soon after you had given them instructions, was a report made to you at the safehouse?
MR RAS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, the first infiltration, they reported back after a day and confirmed that the person was involved, I cannot recall whether it was half a day that they spent there and then returned to the premises, where they spent a day or two with the person after which they abducted the person, this is all part of the first infiltration.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so where there has been an inclination by you that during Mr van Heerden's cross-examination, that they returned to you after two to three days, it is incorrect?
MR RAS: That is correct. No, the first time they returned and reported back and then they went back, after they had returned and reported back, they returned back to the person and abducted him after two or three days, that is part of the first infiltration.
CHAIRPERSON: I am confused, we are not on the same page. I am trying to relate the evidence you gave during his cross-examination, I am trying to clarify issues. You have just stated now that the report was made within a day of infiltration?
CHAIRPERSON: They went there the evening and the next day came back and gave you a report at the safehouse?
MR RAS: Yes, that is what happened the first time. And then the legal representative asked after how many days when they went back, did they bring the person in and that is when I said they went in again, this was the second time that they went in. After they had reported the first time, they went in again and after they had gone in, the person made enquiries according to them and then that is when he found out that they were not really working in Mamelodi and as a result of that discovery, they abducted the person and that was approximately two days later.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So we now want to understand you, it was a day or two of infiltration, they came back to give you a report?
CHAIRPERSON: And two days thereafter you see them rocking up with this person, Mr Mahlangu, and then they explained to you that it was because the information from Botswana had revealed that they were not known in Botswana?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Jansen?
MR JANSEN: I have no questions, thank you.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jansen, I take it that you close your case in relation to Mr Ras' application?
MR JANSEN: Yes, just one matter that I wish to raise at this stage Chair, is that it was raised at the pre-trial that, I think not only this applicant, but all the applicants at that stage enquired as to firstly whether the application is being opposed and if so, on what basis, and we still haven't had an indication to that extent from the other side, so I close my case, subject to that. I don't even foresee calling something, but I just think it is correct that formally the victims place on record whether they oppose and what is the basis of their opposition, thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van Heerden, I take it that you are in a position to give us an indication whether you are opposing, and what is the substance of your opposition?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Chairperson, there is no formal opposition to this application, it is just on the basis of full disclosure must be made by the applicants.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And a clear political motive must be established, there is no evidence which will be presented by the victims.
CHAIRPERSON: So you will be seated there to see if the applicants have made a full disclosure?
MR VAN HEERDEN: That is indeed my position.
CHAIRPERSON: And you will be able to determine that once they have as they presented their viva voce evidence?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Particularly I think in relation to Mr Mosiane, who Mr Lamey has not had time to sufficiently consult with a view of indicating whether the application as it stands, is going to be supplemented in a substantive fashion or not, am I correct in assuming that?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair, that assists, and that is all, we have no further evidence, thank you.