CHAIRPERSON: At the close of proceedings yesterday Ms Van Der Walt you were leading your witness. I don’t know if you want to deal with the question of Mr Vlok’s Affidavit at this stage before we start or when we’re finished with this witness but perhaps you can deal with it now. Does anybody have any submissions or any thing to say about Mr Vlok’s Affidavit going in?
MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you Mr Chairman. On behalf of the family Bopape I have received the following instructions. Surely we cannot object against any party putting anything before the Committee in the form of an Affidavit. However, my instructions are clear that the family does not accept the contents of the Affidavit as the truth. The fact that it is made available to this Committee should not be seen or construed as an admission of the contents thereof. We do not accept the contents. Please resume Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Rautenbach. Any further submissions?
MR PRINSLOO: What he said is on record and we have no problems with his objections.
MR VISSER: Just to put the matter in perspective it will take a moment. I refer you to Section 19, Sub Section 4 of the Act, Mr Chairman and it’s in terms of Section 19, Sub Section 4 that the Affidavit is placed before you and I may just briefly read it to you.
"If an application is not dealt with in terms of Sub Section 3 which is the informal dealing with applications for Amnesty the Committee shall conduct a Hearing as contemplated in Chapter 6 and shall, subject to the provisions of Section 33 which in turn deals with in camera proceedings
(a) In the prescribed manner notify the applicant and any victim or person implicated.
Now Mr Vlok has received such a Notice Mr Chairman in terms of (a) and
(b) Inform such persons referred to in Paragraph (a) of their right to be present, first of all at the Hearing and to testify or reduce evidence or submit any article to be taken into consideration.
Now that is exactly what that Affidavit professes to be and if I may be allowed Mr Chairman, lastly, to say that there is no dispute at the moment, there’s no evidence implicating Mr Vlok. Mr Van Niekerk simply said that he thinks, or he believes or he might not believe, that’s not evidence before you sir, it’s basically only on that basis that the Affidavit is placed before you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Visser. In fact, sorry.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Well, even if there were to be anything implicating Mr Vlok, really does it matter? Because as I understand the position, that section was included for the benefit of an implicated person to afford him or her, so to speak, the opportunity to come and clear up his or her name. If he is implicated and he chooses not to do so that’s his or her own problem. At best, what we do have here is no more than a belief that, as far as I understand, he must have been informed. And it seems to me, prima facie that the Affidavit by Mr Vlok is sufficient to deal with that matter.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may, Justice Ngcobo is of course, quite correct. Mr Vlok hasn’t become an implicated person. Once he does he will dealt with in terms of Section 30.
CHAIRPERSON: That is correct. We’ve considered the matter and are of the view that at the moment there’s only an opinion expressed and that the Affidavit can therefore be handed in and of course it’s noted what Mr Rautenbach’s instructions are.
MR RAUTENBACH: I may just point out Mr Chairman that, surely there was nothing to prevent Mr Visser from producing the Affidavit at this stage but maybe the whole is a bit premature at this stage and it’s something that we will have to look at as the evidence proceeds.
CHAIRPERSON: Obviously if evidence proceeds and there is some direct implication, then the matter will be re-visited then that Affidavit then can be Exhibit [intervention]
MR STEENKAMP: Exhibit E, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, it will be then Exhibit E. Ms Van Der Walt would you then like to proceed with the evidence of Mr Mostert?
EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: (cont)
Thank you. Mr Mostert, you testified yesterday that there was certain discussions held with regards to the mock escape that was arranged. Can you tell the Committee when did these discussions take place?
MR MOSTERT: These discussions took place after General Erasmus arrived at John Vorster Square on that specific day and Colonel Van Niekerk and Major Zeelie, having to speak to the Brigadier and when they got back, I’m talking about Zeelie and Van Niekerk now, then these discussions started. It came down to the fact that the General, General Erasmus that is, was in contact with Head Office and somewhere along this line, it was decided to dispose of the corpse at Bronkhorstspruit and a mock escape should be arranged.
MS VAN DER WALT: At any stage, did you at any stage see General Du Toit there?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I saw him there.
MS VAN DER WALT: When was this? Was this after Van Niekerk went to General Erasmus?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, it was after Van Niekerk and Zeelie went to Brigadier Erasmus.
MS VAN DER WALT: You also testified yesterday that you were involved at the mock escape and what you did there. You also made certain statements and in the occurrence books which was not correct. None of them were correct. In one of the occurrence books you showed us an entry and Mr Chairperson in Volume 3, Page 728, that’s also a statement you’ve made with regards to the keys of the cuffs?
MS VAN DER WALT: And that statement was also false?
MS VAN DER WALT: And you also made a further statement in the same Volume on Page 739. It’s also a statement signed by you and it’s also in regards to where you stopped the vehicle and this statement is also false?
MR MOSTERT: That’s correct. It’s also false.
MS VAN DER WALT: You testified yesterday and said that in 1986 you joined the Security Police after you’ve been at the Detective Branch for several years. Is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that’s correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Honourable Committee, was there a difference between what you did at this Detective Branch and what you did at the Security Branch?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, there was a big difference. At the Detective Branch - the Detective Branch is concerned with crime and the Security Branch is concerned with politics.
MS VAN DER WALT: Why do you say it concerns politics, at the Security Branch?
MR MOSTERT: Well. Because I’ve said there’s a big difference between the two of them. At the Detective Branch you work with criminals and court cases and in the case of Security you work with politics and it concerns information to keep the Government of the day in power and to secure the public and there’s really a very big difference between the two branches.
MS VAN DER WALT: Between 1988 - there’s evidence that there was a lot of unrest. A lot of bomb explosions. How did you see it?
MR MOSTERT: For me, at that stage, I considered it a complete onslaught against the Republic of South Africa and it’s people. Bombs were exploding all over the country, specifically in the Pretoria, Johannesburg area. It was an onslaught against the people of South Africa.
MS VAN DER WALT: And during that time, you’re talking about several incidents in Johannesburg. At the Security Branch, did you work normal hours? What was the situation?
MR MOSTERT: No. We had very inconvenient hours. We worked long hours. There was very little time for relaxation.
MS VAN DER WALT: And in your time there at the Security Police considering the investigations you did, did you gain anything from that, yourself?
MS VAN DER WALT: Now you’ve heard the testimony and the cross questioning of Mr Van Niekerk and he was asked intensely about the ways that interrogation was held and the methods used. This method you used to frighten a person, to shock a person, have you heard of it before?
MR MOSTERT: I saw it before then at the Detective Branch. I saw how it happened. I did not partake in it myself then.
MS VAN DER WALT: So it was already practised in the Detective Branch?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, it was generally used but not used every day, only in specific cases when it was thought it was needed.
MS VAN DER WALT: What do you think? Was it only in a closed community, was it only you that knew about this? What was the general view on this in the Police?
MR MOSTERT: The general impression I got was that your senior officials knew about this and they approve of it as long as you get the information and I’m specifically referring to the branch I worked at. As long as we got the information.
MS VAN DER WALT: You are now talking about information - it occurs to me that you must get the information to stop the attacks. Was that the primary goal of the Security Branch?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. To prevent. It was better than cure and it’s what you want to do. For example, if you are at a scene where people was bombed into shreds or shot into shreds, then you realise how important it was to obtain information to prevent such a thing happening again in the future.
MS VAN DER WALT: You said yesterday that you interrogated Stanza Bopape round about an hour to an hour and a half on the Sunday the 12th? So, if I understand your testimony correctly, he was arrested the 9th and only on the 10th he was taken to Johannesburg?
MS VAN DER WALT: The 10th, no questioning, no interrogation was done, only the processing?
MS VAN DER WALT: Then on the 11th, according to you, you did not interrogate him? So the only interrogation you were involved in was the hour and a half to two hours? That was on Sunday the 12th?
MS VAN DER WALT: And you said yesterday that in that hour and hour and a half, you did not assault him in any sense?
MR MOSTERT: That’s correct. I did not.
MS VAN DER WALT: Before you went further in using the shock device you observed him. Did it look to you as if he might have been assaulted the previous day?
MR MOSTERT: No, he seemed quite normal.
MS VAN DER WALT: What was his attitude? Was it the attitude of someone who was broken down psychologically in any sense?
MR MOSTERT: No, I wouldn’t say that. No, he seemed fine.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you already testified that you did, on behalf of the Security Branch?
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions to put to the witness?
EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Honorary Chairperson. Mr Mostert, you said in your testimony that the goal
was to prevent further acts of terror. Was it also your goal to determine who could be other potential attackers?
MR PRINSLOO: You said there was a total onslaught on the people of South Africa. Was that to undermine the Government of the day?
MR PRINSLOO: The goal of these explosions as put in the indictment which is Exhibit C, which is concerned to this case there were several explosions and acts of terror where policemen were shot dead and explosions in the city centre of Pretoria during the day, quite a few, and it’s set out in the list which Exhibit D, specifically in the Johannesburg area. Was it the same group as far as you know?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I know it was the same group that was responsible.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you know that in the indictment there are twelve names but this group had more members, eighteen or more?
MR MOSTERT: It’s possible. I cannot give testimony concerning that.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Honorary Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr Visser, do you have any questions to put to the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Perhaps just one question with your leave Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Mostert, you testified yesterday, Colonel Van Niekerk testified yesterday it was possible that you guys there spoke amongst each other about the possibility of the arrangement of the mock escape before you went to General Erasmus. Can you remember if something like that was discussed amongst you? Between you, Van Niekerk, Zeelie, Engelbrecht, before you went to General Erasmus?
MR MOSTERT: No I cannot remember that. What I can remember is that the discussion was about the consequences of what might happen and was a serious problem and what implications it might hold. That was more what we discussed. And on those grounds I accept the fact that Van Niekerk made the suggestion to go and see General Erasmus.
MR VISSER: But it is so that you guys there felt it was too sensitive to send it through the proper legal channels?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I personally was concerned, I think I was in a shocked condition. If there was a possibility of assistance I would have accepted help wherever I could find it.
MR VISSER: And was it also your observation that the death of Mr Bopape was completely unexpected and unpredictable?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Rautenbach, do you have any questions to put to the witness?
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman there are, at this stage, two issues that I would like to raise. The first one is, it is so that the - and I’ve been instructed to raise this issue with the members this morning, I’ve decided not to do it whilst the witness was actually in chief, so to speak and I thought it would be convenient that the witness finish.
The applications for Amnesty are framed in a manner that they are almost identical. I’m not at this stage criticising the fact that those applications are formulated in that manner.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that came quite clearly [intervention]
MR RAUTENBACH: I don’t want to get back to that type of criticism. The point I would like to make is that one of the important issues here is the whole question about full disclosure. I’ve already pointed to that. I’ve already made mention of the families’ reservations regarding the manner and the exact way in which Stanza Bopape died. In order to investigate that aspect, the family is actually left to cross examination to test these versions.
One thing has become apparent and that is that it’s good and well to cross examine a witness in detail and the other applicants
who are relying on exactly the same type of application is present all the time. It’s a type of thing that would not have been allowed in a court of law that witnesses that are actually part of the same case, so to speak, on the same side, wanting to prove the same thing, that those witnesses would be present in court all the time.
CHAIRPERSON: Say if they all happened to be co-accused.
MR RAUTENBACH: In a situation like that - I realise that as far as these proceedings are concerned it is not exactly the same as in a court of law but Mr Chairman, the very same considerations apply. It is to a certain extent a bit of a senseless exercise to cross examine people on detail regarding this whole aspect of disclosure, while all the applicants are present and it’s my instructions at this stage to ask this forum that the other applicants should be excluded when one of the applicant’s gives his evidence unless there are specific reasons for a specific applicant to be present, of which I’m not aware of but that’s basically what the issue that I would like to raise at this point.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Rautenbach. I’ll ask the other representatives their views on your submission. Mr Prinsloo?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with due respect and the request that the other applicants have to be absent while the other person is testifying, these are different applicants. First of all they have the right to be present to hear what is submitted. In the cases of which they are not giving the truth this is the application in front of the Committee and also as you pointed out correctly, should they be co-accused they should have appeared in the same court while the one was being cross examined while the others are listening and with respect Chairperson if there is any aspect where the family do not agree with, then it can be pointed out by cross examination and in any criminal cases or civil cases whether people have been present or not the truth came forward and there’s no reason where these people have to leave the hall while the others are testifying and with respect Chairperson they have to be present and it is also their right to be present, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Van Der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT: I agree with the submission of Mr Prinsloo. Throughout the Amnesty applications as they have served before the Committee, the applications are drawn up. This is a modern life and that is why the applications are the same and I feel that this is an investigation before the Committee, to get the truth.
You can never put it on the same footing as a criminal case because the rules are different and I feel that every person should be able to hear what the other one says.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Why is it necessary for Van Niekerk, for example, to hear what Mostert has to say?
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, there may be aspects coming to the fore that have to be clarified that Van Niekerk has knowledge of that I don’t have. It must perhaps be necessary that he might call other witnesses or put questions to witnesses. If he is not here, how can I then take that instruction?
So later on I have to go to him and tell him this is what has been said. Now, with respect, what purpose is that going to serve? And he has the right as an applicant to hear what is being said here and all the applications before this forum, the applicants were present and further also Committee, this Committee is in a better position, especially for the family where the Section 29 hearings, where the people were questioned in camera individually and it is given here in a very clear format.
It includes a lot of particulars and the questioning there was in the same way as questioning not really cross examination, it was really interrogation, if I can use the word. And a lot of detail was obtained there and the family is here in a privileged position and with that I can say that the argument does not stand.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, yes I do have at this stage an oblique interest but it may become a real one when my witnesses start giving evidence, so I do believe have locus standi just to point some issues out to you.
There are really basically two issues. The one is that my learned friend Mr Rautenbach’s application is in direct opposition to Section 19(4) which I read to you this morning. Which is very clear that an applicant or any victim or any implicated person is entitled to attend the Hearings. And there’s another fundamental problem which we are going to have Mr Chairman if you should make a ruling in favour of the application by Mr Rautenbach and that is the unfair administrative practise which will then be established in regard to all the other Amnesty applications that have gone before, since October 1996. Because on not one of those, that we are aware of was there ever such an application and were people ever excluded?
In fact, it was pointed out on many occasions that it is an inclusive procedure because it is an enquiry by a Commission of Enquiry. And you know the Law as well as we all do Mr Chairman about the Laws relating to Commissions of Enquiry. You can’t exclude a person, particularly not an applicant from hearing what the other applicants say and hearing what they say in cross examination.
I would submit Mr Chairman that the application is ill founded.
MR STEENKAMP: I have no comment Mr Chairman.
MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I would like to point out firstly that the applicants are still, although the fact on which they are applying for Amnesty are basically the same facts, they are still individual applicants. There is still the possibility that certain of the applicants may qualify for Amnesty and others not.
Secondly, I did not at all propose that if, for instance, witnesses are called on behalf of the family, that the applicants shouldn’t be able to listen to that evidence. Surely they are entitled to that.
Thirdly, my application doesn’t go as far as to say that they shouldn’t take part in these proceedings at all while witnesses are giving evidence. I am actually basing the application on the same considerations that apply in a court of law and that is that a witness that has given his evidence and a witness that has to be tested on certain of the issues, the issue here for instance, full disclosure.
If Colonel Van Niekerk, for instance, he gave his evidence yesterday, if Colonel Van Niekerk, the moment he completed his evidence and he sits inside this hall with his representatives, I don’t have any objection against that. The only purpose of the objection is to see to it that people could be properly tested without having a situation where all the cross examination of all the issues are actually, the witness is put in a situation as a witness in a court of law where he’s actually the second witness to be called and he sits there with the benefit of actually listening to the evidence.
It actually means at the end of the day that if his evidence is assessed afterwards it’s - to a certain extent that assessment becomes a problem and that’s the basis of this application. I can’t take that any further.
MR DE JAGER: Could you answer the situation where they were [inaudible] co-accused [inaudible] evidence should also be assessed at the end of the day to come to a decision whether they’re speaking the truth or not.
MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, that is a difficulty in criminal cases, definitely, at times can lead to some difficulties as one accused listens to the evidence of another accused but it’s in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act that that has been arranged. As far as these proceedings are concerned we don’t have a situation where all accused are necessarily charged in the same matter, under the same case number, under the same charges, in one case, we’re still dealing with different applicants.
MR DE JAGER: They’re the implicated persons in terms of Section 19, and the Act says they’re entitled to be present. Section 19(b).
MR RAUTENBACH: I submit that to - in terms of (b) to say, of their right to be present at the hearing and to testify, that that caters for the normal situation that a person should have the - should be entitled to appear at his or her own Hearing. To be there, to give evidence, that it makes provision for that type of situation but that this Committee still has the power, in certain instances to order that certain people should not be present when evidence is adduced.
MR DE JAGER: No. But if they’ve got the right to be present. If the Legislature only intended to say they’ve got the right to testify, why should he use the word "to be present"? You could have solved the problem by saying at the Hearing he would have the right to testify.
MR RAUTENBACH: I say Mr Chairman that surely the applicant should have the right to be present at his or her Hearing. I also say, if for instance there’s evidence that clearly implicating that specific person, the Committee can, in those instances, direct that that person be present. But this Committee surely has the right to lay down directives as far as the presence of other applicants are concerned where they have to be tested on issues of credibility and disclosure. I still say that this Committee has that right.
MR DE JAGER: You told us that you probably would intend to call Mr Nkosi?
MR RAUTENBACH: That is correct.
MR DE JAGER: Did he attend the Hearing?
MR RAUTENBACH: No, he didn’t attend the Hearing.
MR DE JAGER: Would he be entitled to sit here?
MR RAUTENBACH: If he wants to be here. He would be entitled to sit here.
MR DE JAGER: Even though he’s giving evidence later?
MR RAUTENBACH: It depends on whether that issue is raised by the applicant’s representatives. They are of the view that he shouldn’t be here. They can ask this Committee for a directive in that regard and this Committee will have to consider it. If this Committee is of the view that it’s in the interests of justice in a broad sense, then a witness like that could be excluded. It is one of those matters, Mr Chairman, that this Committee will have to consider from a set of facts to another set of facts.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Isn’t the problem really a practical one? Because what one has here, you have these applicants who are implicating one another. If one accepts that they implicate one another, the mere fact that the others are being implicated by one applicant would, I would have thought entitled the others who are implicated to be present. Would you agree with that proposition?
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, the only evidence that was lead here that created the impression of a possible implication, according to my notes, were the evidence, were the questions at some stage asked by Mr Visser, on behalf of his clients to Mr Van Niekerk. That was the only [intervention].
CHAIRPERSON: I think what my brother’s getting at is, Mr Van Niekerk said Mr Mostert interrogated and tortured or was present at the torture and Mr Du Preez actually tortured and Mr Engelbrecht tortured and Mr Van Loggerenberg got rid of the body, so Mr Van Niekerk has implicated those other applicants. I think that is what my brother is getting at.
MR RAUTENBACH: The difficulty there Mr Chairman is that those facts are all common cause on the applications for Amnesty.
JUDGE NGCOBO: But does that matter. The fact of the matter is that each of these applicants does implicate the others and to the extent that that is the case I would have thought that they would be entitled to be present, to hear what that particular applicant has to say of and concerning their role in the interrogation or in this episode. I accept that apart from the fact that they are applicants they may well have additional reasons why they are here. Unless of course you can point to us something in the Statute which would authorise us, under these circumstances to exclude either one or the others of the applicants, in circumstances where they implicate one another.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, it seems that, at the end of the day, that will be my submission, is that on the one hand, you have the difficulty that yes, there are applicants here implicating each other. They implicate each other in the Amnesty applications. That is common cause. On the other hand, you have the full disclosure problem where you have witnesses, you have people sitting together listening to evidence under cross examination and I submit that the Committee should actually weigh up these considerations and then come to a conclusion as to whether it is in the interest of the truth in these proceedings to actually exclude the people or don’t do so. But that is something that the Committee will have to consider.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Obviously we have to make a ruling on your application. At this stage we can’t continue before having done that and I would like to take a short adjournment so the panel can deliberate on what we’ve heard and then we will reconvene as soon as possible.
Mr Rautenbach who appears to the family of the deceased has made application that the applicants, other than the applicant giving evidence be excluded from the Hearing and not be in the hall because of the fact that their presence, in his submission makes his cross examination to a large extent meaningless insofar as it’s exploring the credibility of the witness and testing fully the credibility of witnesses because the presence of witnesses or of the other applicants makes the purpose of cross examination extremely difficult.
The application made by Mr Rautenbach has been opposed by Mr Prinsloo, Ms Van Der Walt and Mr Visser who represent between them all the applicants. The panel has taken a short adjournment and has considered the application and all the submissions made by the parties or on behalf of the parties and the panel is unanimous in it’s view and that view is that this panel is not in a position to rule or order that the other applicants be excluded while one of their fellow applicants is giving evidence and the reason for this is contained in Section 19 (4) of the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation Act No. 34 of 1995 of which I would just like to read Sections 4(a) and Sections 4(b). Sections 4(a) and 4(b) read as follows:
"If an application has not been dealt with in terms of Section 3,
the Committee shall conduct a Hearing as contemplated in Chapter 6 and shall, subject to the provisions of Section 33;
(a) in the prescribed manner notify the applicant and any victim or person implicated or having an interest in the application of the place where and the time when the application will be heard and considered, and;
(b) inform the persons referred to in (a), namely victims, implicated persons or family or interested persons of their right to be present at the Hearing and to testify, adduce evidence and submit any article to be taken into consideration."
It is quite clear, in our view from these Provisions that an applicant certainly has the right to be present at a Hearing and while the difficulty raised by Mr Rautenbach is appreciated and understood by the Committee, we feel that if an applicant is excluded, it would constitute a gross intrusion of his statutory right to be present to such an extent that such a ruling could well be subject to a successful review. It is also our view that even if each applicant in this application had a separate application and a separate Hearing and was not a composite Hearing as this one is of ten applicants that the same ruling would have to apply because, as we know, the applicants in this matter all implicate each other in various unlawful acts and if each applicant had his own application then all the other applicants would be implicated people and be one of the persons covered by Section 19, 4(a) and in turn have a like right or a similar right to be present at the Hearing of the other applicant.
Our ruling therefore is that the proceedings will proceed in the presence of all the applicants.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, the second point I would just like to raise was, fortunately this one doesn’t call for a ruling of any nature, is that I just want to place it on record that the family intends to call the witness who has been referred to as Bheki Nkosi. I have already made arrangements with the investigating team for possible consultation with this witness but I just want to place this on record at this early stage that we intend calling him.
MR CHAIRMAN: Yes, thank you very much Mr Rautenbach. Obviously it’s the right of the family to call the witness who they desire to call who will give relevant evidence in this matter.
FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: I will then proceed with the questioning of the witness. Mr Mostert, I want to take you to page 745, I think it is bundle 4. Do you have the page in front of you? It’s page 745.
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I have it in front of me.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert, and I understand, and you understand it as well that this is a typed version of the occurrence book. Is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I accept that.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert, under Item 5, the entry is as follows, 399, then it’s 20h05, I think that would be 5 past 8 in the evening in June 1988, detainee Masha Johannes Bopape, Section 29 Internal Security Act 1982 was brought by Warrant Officer Mostert, W4574T and medication was also brought along and is placed in cell number 228. Is this correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I accept it to be correct.
MR RAUTENBACH: Is it possible for you to just expand with regard to the medication that was brought along? What was this all about?
MR MOSTERT: I don’t have the vaguest idea of what this medication was all about. This person was seen by the District Surgeon on the 10th. I didn’t take him away, so I accept that medication came along. If that is the entry, that might be the case.
MR RAUTENBACH: Is your testimony that you can’t remember that there was medication when he was booked into the cell?
MR RAUTENBACH: You can’t recall?
MR RAUTENBACH: And then with regard to the same document, I want to ask you the entry under Item 8, that was 13h00, 11 June 1988. Reference is made to Syvert, Engelbrecht and Wilkin who visited Bopape on the 11th. I know your testimony is that at that day you were busy with a meeting. Did you have any knowledge about this visit?
MR MOSTERT: I accept that I had knowledge. It was arranged by me and Engelbrecht. He would have visited Mr Bopape on that specific day.
MR RAUTENBACH: Now if this has to do with a visit, could you just tell us what this visit was all about?
MR MOSTERT: It’s a normal procedure with such a visit. You determine whether such a person is still okay, whether there are any requests.
MR RAUTENBACH: It seems that Syvert was involved with the interrogation of Nkosi. Do you have any knowledge about that?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I also heard of that.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert, the fact that Engelbrecht, as well as Syvert and Wilkin, all three of them visited Stanza Bopape on the 11th June, I can perhaps assume that that had to do with pertinent questions that they wanted to put to him? [end of side ‘A’].
[side ‘B’] clarity if I can ask you, if we have a look at page 747, 748 and 749, I just want to ask you, we just want to compare that with the typed version, the first item. Let’s have a look at the first item, that’s under Item 5. That was 5 past 8, the evening, 10 June 1988, could you just tell me where that would be on 747, would I be correct in saying it’s towards the bottom of the page and the number is 399. Would that be the same one that was typed under 5. Is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. That is correct.
MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to ask you, the next entry, with relation to Bopape, where would that appear?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, I don’t know there might be one prior to 456.
MR RAUTENBACH: Could you find it Mr Mostert?
MR MOSTERT: No. I don’t know what you’re referring to.
MR RAUTENBACH: We’re looking at the typed version. It seems as if that refers to Mr Bopape up to Item 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.
CHAIRPERSON: It’s 748, Item 418.
MR DE JAGER: But Item 414 seems to be left out. Because we are stopping at Item 400 and we’re starting with Item 415 on Page - we’re stopping with 400 on 747 and starting on Page 748 with Item 415. So there seems to be a page missing.
MR RAUTENBACH: One of these is why the question was asked. It didn’t really tie up and I just thought maybe it will be - Mr Mostert will be able to assist us but I’ll leave it at this moment then. It didn’t make much sense to me, that’s why I thought it was necessary to actually ask Mr Mostert about it. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
I want to know the following from you Mr Mostert, these persons, we know from the testimony that these people were - or your unit became involved with the interrogation of Stanza Bopape and Mbeki Nkosi. What was conveyed to you with regard to Mbeki Nkosi? Who was he?
MR MOSTERT: I have no knowledge of Mbeki Nkosi, who he is and where he is of any importance. I think that is the person that I saw on the evening of the 9th when the two were arrested.
MR RAUTENBACH: You were present when the arrests were made. I think you have already testified.
MR RAUTENBACH: I remember you also said that there were several people present with the arrest, especially police officers?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, there were many people, many police officers.
MR RAUTENBACH: Did you in any way - were you able to determine why two people were arrested?
MR MOSTERT: No. It wasn’t important for me at that stage because I wasn’t really involved in the situation. I was there to support.
MR RAUTENBACH: And while the people were being arrested - I’m referring now to the arrest, where were you precisely when the people were arrested?
MR MOSTERT: It’s a long time ago. It’s difficult for me to say precisely where I was but I can remember it wasn’t a very big flat, I remember at some stage it was in the flat but I think the work must have been completed by then.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert, did you see the arrests or didn’t you?
MR MOSTERT: Not as far as I can remember, no.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can I deduce from that, that if you were in the flat, that according to your memory that you would only have seen the people once they had been arrested?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is quite possible.
MR RAUTENBACH: Do you remember any assaults during the arrest?
MR MOSTERT: No. Not as far as I can recall.
MR RAUTENBACH: Two people were arrested and you already said that with regard to Mbeki Nkosi you didn’t really have anything to do with him. What was conveyed to you with regard to Mr Stanza Bopape?
MR MOSTERT: The first time that I heard anything about Stanza Bopape was the next day on the 10th when I was instructed by Colonel Van Niekerk to interrogate Mr Bopape with Engelbrecht. That was the first time that I heard anything about him.
MR RAUTENBACH: What was the first time? Well then with regard to the interrogation what was told to you? What was the interrogation to be all about - who was this man?
MR MOSTERT: I was informed by Colonel Van Niekerk that he had discussions on the 10th June 1988 with Major Jan Kleynhans of the Security Branch West Rand who then apparently informed him that Mr Stanza Bopape was involved with a terror group known as the Maponye Group and that there was a possibility that he was trained locally and that he probably participated in acts of terror in and around Pretoria and the West Rand. That was more or less the background that I got on the first day, that was on the 10th June 1988.
MR RAUTENBACH: With regard to the 10th, when you started talking to Stanza Bopape, the picture that you had - it was some or other person who was involved with acts of terror and participated?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that’s correct.
MR RAUTENBACH: On the 10th that you’re referring to Stanza Bopape was taken to John Vorster Square, is that correct?
MR RAUTENBACH: Were you involved with that?
MR RAUTENBACH: You got him there, he was already at John Vorster. You don’t know what happened to the other person?
MR RAUTENBACH: Didn’t you even have knowledge that this other person, that he was - or where he had been detained?
MR MOSTERT: I can explain it in this way. I came to know on the 10th at some stage that the two who had been arrested on the night of June 1988, that they had been transferred to Johannesburg, to John Vorster Square. But precisely where Mr Nkosi was detained whether it was at John Vorster Square or any other station, I don’t know.
MR RAUTENBACH: If we look at the 10th you already said that you had a discussion with Stanza Bopape, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR RAUTENBACH: Did I also understand you correctly that you at no stage had a discussion with Bheki Nkosi?
MR RAUTENBACH: You’ve seen the statement, Bheki Nkosi’s statement, is that correct?
MR RAUTENBACH: Did you see what he alleges with regard to the events of the 10th June?
MR RAUTENBACH: He describes on Page 648, it’s also in bundle 3. He describes interrogation that took place on the 11th June, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: That is correct. I have it.
MR RAUTENBACH: And in paragraph 40 he refers to the fact that Security Policemen was apparently questioning Bopape, it is spelt here Mosi. I think what is referred to here is Mossie, it was just misspelt but it seems to be Mossie, that was his comment there. Were you known as Mossie?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I was known as Mossie.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can you perhaps think of a reason why Nkosi would refer to your nickname to be involved with his interrogation?
MR MOSTERT: No, I have not the slightest idea.
MR VISSER: [inaudible] in this matter but I just want to point out to my learned friend that this paragraph doesn’t refer to the questioning of Nkosi at all. It refers to Bopape.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman I’m going to leave that there. I’m not going to at this stage enter into a debate, it’s exactly what it means, I’ve indicated that the witness will be called. I think we will have all the time to actually consider that situation, I’m not going to proceed on this line of questioning in any event.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Rautenbach but I think that was fair to ask whether the nickname was Mossie.
MR DE JAGER: The only point is, is the man questioning Bopape, was Mossie? Not questioning himself?
MR RAUTENBACH: As I see it, I think after consultation with the witness, maybe reading the statement as a whole, there are possibly different interpretations. I don’t want to go into - I think those - it is possible that there are different interpretations as to what exactly he wants to say. I’m not going to take that any further now, if it pleases you.
Mr Mostert, I then want to get to the events. First of all, the 10th where you talked to Stanza Bopape. You refer to the processing on the 10th. This is where you talk to him about his background, the fingerprints, possible palm prints and so forth, is that correct?
MR RAUTENBACH: Background information was then needed that would also be relevant?
MR RAUTENBACH: Did you in any way obtain or ascertain that he had been detained previously?
MR RAUTENBACH: With regard to the interrogation that took place on the 12th, it seems from the investigation diaries that he was booked out approximately 9.30 in the morning?
MR RAUTENBACH: And the interrogation session would have started during that time in your office?
MR MOSTERT: It wasn’t really my office, it was in an office on the 10th Floor of John Vorster Square on the eastern side of Colonel Van Niekerk’s office. I accept that it was Mr Engelbrecht’s office.
MR RAUTENBACH: Would you agree that booking out of the cells and taking into the office, the time that it takes, up to when you start with interrogation, how long does it take, five, ten minutes?
MR RAUTENBACH: So you would agree with that?
MR RAUTENBACH: The processing has been done, with regard to the interrogation, would I be correct that you would now focus yourself on what this man knows?
MR RAUTENBACH: As I have already stated, on the 11th there were discussions where it was put in more detail. It was information about Mr Stanza Bopape, so I now have more background information and the interrogation was focusing on those issues. Am I correct that you focused on the possible involvement of Stanza Bopape with these acts of terror?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I have focused my attention on that.
MR RAUTENBACH: As well as on other people who might have been involved as well, is that how the interrogation started? The session. Did it start where you basically moved to the relevant question, told him, "well we have information about your involvement with the Maponye Group, we want to know, where were you involved, who was involved." Was that more or less the line of questioning?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. That could have been.
MR RAUTENBACH: And one also notices that it was on a Sunday. Is that correct?
MR RAUTENBACH: But it was viewed to be important enough that you would work on a Sunday in order to get this important information?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I can remember, I’m not quite sure but I think that specific weekend we were on call, in other words anything important that happened, we had to give attention to.
MR RAUTENBACH: And on the Saturday, the previous Saturday you already - the previous day you already got the I information about - the information that was needed?
MR RAUTENBACH: It’s approximately a quarter to nine in the morning in an office on the 10th floor John Vorster Square and you put it quite early to the person, Stanza Bopape what information you need?
MR RAUTENBACH: What was his initial answer, early in the morning?
MR MOSTERT: As I said yesterday, the questions put to him about his, him personally, his background, where he lives but when it gets to questions about acts of terror he just said that he knew nothing.
MR RAUTENBACH: I just want to get clarity on this. We already gave attention to the processing, that’s on the 10th. That would include things such as what is his address. You said it was quite a lengthy document, can you remember that? The detail that you had to get there was for example, where he was working, his age, who is he, his family members, for example his parents, information with regard to the person, is that the lengthy document that you referred to?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. It goes a bit further. To give you an idea, with fingerprints, palm prints, if it’s only one set, if we refer to a set it’s a full set of the man’s fingers, a full set of his palms, it’s not only one set, there are several sets taken, it takes a long time. Because it must be correct. If the prints have not been taken properly then you can’t use it.
So there are many prints for Institutions who would need it. Then there’s documentation that has to be completed. I won’t be wrong if, only when we get to the start of the interrogation, then we get to the whole issue of his parents, where he grew, where he was born, where he went to school and the rest of his life. His personal background and then you go further as in this case. "Do you know someone like Mr Maponye from Pretoria?" That’s more the line of the whole questioning and that’s how it proceeds through the rest of the day.
MR RAUTENBACH: Let’s just go back. If we now accept what you’ve just said, we go back to an answer that you gave earlier, you said that early during the interrogation you asked him about how he was and whether he was involved with Maponye?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, it’s part of the interrogation.
MR RAUTENBACH: Could you perhaps tell us his reaction. As I understand you testimony, was right from the start, it was that, "I know of nothing, I don’t want to say anything." Could you just give us an indication. I think your testimony was, "I don’t want to say anything" or was it a question that he denied everything, did he say that he wasn’t talking?
MR MOSTERT: It was a question that he denied everything and he denies, he says "I know nothing of this."
MR RAUTENBACH: This was, as we have established early in the interrogation. What did you say when he said, when he told you the first time, "I have no knowledge of this, I don’t know, I deny, I wasn’t involved." What was your initial reaction?
MR MOSTERT: What can I say. That’s the answer of the man. I have to accept it and I have to try and see whether I can get anything from him.
MR RAUTENBACH: Who played the role of the interrogator? Who put the questions, yourself or Engelbrecht?
MR MOSTERT: Engelbrecht and myself. Both of us.
MR RAUTENBACH: It would not have been the case that one of you had a leading role, both took responsibility for the interrogation?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I can remember, I also took notes of the questions asked and answers given as well as what Engelbrecht asked and also noted that.
MR RAUTENBACH: What happened to the noted, the minuted questions and answers?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I know it was left at John Vorster Square. I don’t know what happened to it. Perhaps it’s still available.
MR RAUTENBACH: Could you perhaps just tell us Mr Mostert, we now get to the main aim of your task and that is to get the information and his answer early in the morning already was that "I deny, I know nothing." What was your reaction to him, what did you say to him?
MR MOSTERT: It’s difficult to answer now because it’s almost ten years ago but it could have been that I told him there are allegations, information concerning your involvement. It could have been possible that I’ve said that to him.
MR RAUTENBACH: And I take it that while I have information about the fact that you have been involved, that’s my information that I got from my colleagues, whatever you have said, and still he denies any involvement?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I presume. As I said it’s almost ten years ago and really to give you every little bit of detail is impossible.
MR RAUTENBACH: This is a process, I can’t expect of you to say that the interrogation followed the following lines precisely but let’s just look at what we know. You now have a person who denies the allegations. You told him, let’s accept you told him you have information and he denies it. He says he knows nothing. Now you go a step further, you say, "I have information that says you’re involved." He still denies it, what’s the next step?
MR MOSTERT: You continue with the questions as far as you possibly can. You try to get the questions from different angles to get answers. That’s how you continue. It’s an intricate process as you question. If it happened yesterday or the day before I could have perhaps precisely given you the details about how it happened or if I had my file with me but it’s very difficult for me to tell you now what happened every second.
MR RAUTENBACH: I understand that. The point is [intervention]
JUDGE NGCOBO: As I understand the evidence, you were questioning Bopape on his involvement with the Maponye Group, is that right, amongst other things?
MR MOSTERT: That is correct, your Honour.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you ask him whether he was involved with that Group?
MR MOSTERT: I asked him whether he was involved at some stage, that is correct.
JUDGE NGCOBO: What was his answer?
MR MOSTERT: He made me understood that he was not involved.
JUDGE NGCOBO: What was his response to that?
MR MOSTERT: My response, I would have accepted that there was information that would have alleged that you were or was or is involved and he kept on denying that he wasn’t involved with these people.
JUDGE NGCOBO: He kept on denying and what did you do?
MR MOSTERT: As I’m saying, it’s very difficult for me to say exactly what we did. There was a lot of talking. I didn’t interrogate on my own, Mr Engelbrecht also questioned and the questions and answers were minuted, so I can’t tell you in the correct order what we did but we talked about the acts of terror and asked questions about that. Whether the man had any knowledge, whether he could help us with any other information and whether he knew the people, to perhaps give more information. What I can remember is that at some stage he mentioned that he knew Mr Maponye and I think he told me that at some stage he looked for a place to live for Mr Maponye, somewhere in Mamelodi. But with regards to being involved with acts of terror or that he implicated Mr Maponye, where he could have been involved with similar acts, he denied that right through.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert, what I understand from that is that he continued from the beginning of the questioning, to deny everything, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR RAUTENBACH: You returned to the same question to him, we’ve just dealt with that. I’ve got information that he denies it. What would be the next step?
MR MOSTERT: As I said before, you would carry on with another question which has regards to that specific area.
MR RAUTENBACH: And what seems to me that happens, is that he keeps denying.
MR MOSTERT: Yes, he kept denying all the way, all the way.
MR RAUTENBACH: How long does it take Mr Mostert before you get the message that he is not going to admit it? That he’s going to deny involvement.
MR MOSTERT: Well we weren’t busy very long before I realised he was not going to cooperate.
MR RAUTENBACH: I think it’s quite clear to everybody and quite important to everybody to place an estimate to what you say, "we weren’t busy very long", and what is apparent that he was going to deny his involvement, that "I wasn’t busy very long". How long exactly was that?
MR MOSTERT: Well it’s very difficult for me to say how long it took. If I had my notes here I could be able to tell you but it’s too difficult for me. It could’ve been an hour, it could have been less than an hour or more than an hour, I don’t want to speculate.
CHAIRPERSON: I just want to briefly interject here, while you’re on this point. Mr Mostert, if you take a look at, what page is it? This entry where, I think it’s page 745. Yes, entry number 456, on page 746. On the 12th June, have you got that?
CHAIRPERSON: Is that from the Register?
MR MOSTERT: Yes your Honour. I accept it’s from the occurrence book.
CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn’t there be a entry or shouldn’t there have been an entry when he was returned to his cell? Because you said that, it came out yesterday that there was a proper and full record was kept in a register, for obvious reasons, when there were visits etc. So is there not an entry when he was returned? Although that as you say, goes false after that. The entries after that are now false?
MR MOSTERT: Your Honour, to make it clear, what I referred to yesterday, we have two aspects here. One is kept in the cells, called the occurrence book and the cell registers. If somebody is booked out, an entry is made as we have here on page 746, paragraph 10, that’s an entry in the occurrence book when the person is booked out and it’s signed for him, somebody signs the book for him.
What I referred to yesterday was a file, extra to this which we keep up to date where all entries are made about what time the person is booked out and the date and why he was booked out and as he is questioned, the questions are noted in that file and thus we carry on. That’s the one I referred to yesterday.
MR RAUTENBACH: I think if we can just carry on, Item 11 then has nothing to do with Mr Bopape, it’s also an out of date entry, I don’t understand it. But then 2 o’clock in the afternoon of the 12th June and then submission Section 29 Bopape. 228 must have been the cell number.
MR MOSTERT: I accept it as such.
MR RAUTENBACH: What does that entry mean?
MR MOSTERT: That’s when two groups doing shift work, they work shifts and as the shifts change and I accept that’s when the new shift takes over from the morning shift.
MR RAUTENBACH: And they go around saying the cell was empty, what does it mean?
MR MOSTERT: What this means is a record is given which detainees are in the cells and which detainees are booked out for enquiries.
MR RAUTENBACH: The next item, it says Item 13, the evening, quarter to nine, transferral Section 29 Bopape, enquiry VB456228.
MR MOSTERT: That’s when the transfer takes place, the person doing the transfer specifies that Bopape 142A is out for investigation, VB456, and if you then look at paragraph 10, you’ll see it’s the same reference number in the occurrence book, where the person was booked out. And then Item 14, the one following that, that’s where the entry was made concerning the escape, that’s a false entry. The person who made that entry did not know that it was false but that’s the false information they received.
MR RAUTENBACH: But there’s an entry, A O Mostert reports. So you reported to someone and he made the entry?
MR RAUTENBACH: I was busy Mr Mostert, concerning what happened on the 12th June and the questioning you did then. You said you reached the stage, you don’t know how long it took to get there but if we put an estimate to it, half an hour to an hour and then you realised the person is not going to give you any information, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I accept it like that.
MR RAUTENBACH: At that stage, you and Engelbrecht were speaking and realised that it would not help to continue carrying on asking questions?
MR MOSTERT: Well I accept that that was the case but as I said in my testimony, Colonel Van Niekerk was there and he also spoke to Mr Bopape and he made sure he understood the seriousness of Section 29 and said that he should cooperate and we struggled more, we asked more questions but nothing happened.
MR RAUTENBACH: This was after this that the drastic step was taken. Would I be correct to say that in this type of questioning or interrogation it happens, the following. A lot of people are in custody and several other interrogators in other areas receive information which is relevant on someone, for example say Stanza Bopape who you were busy questioning, is that correct?
MR RAUTENBACH: I understand there must be a contact between the different units on a continual basis and when such an interrogation is finished and you then receive information that this person that you interrogated and that another person was interrogated said something relevant to the one that you were interrogating at that point, is that correct?
MR RAUTENBACH: To a great extent then you are dependant on new information coming forth in the investigation?
MR RAUTENBACH: So what made it so urgent that you, on that specific day despite the fact that you had no such device, you had to phone someone, at his home who then had to drive into Sandton to get a device and bring it all the way to John Vorster Square on Sunday in order to shock him right then to get the information. Why was this so urgent?
MR MOSTERT: I did not phone the person. And at the end of the day I also did not make the decisions that I went with it, that I agreed to it is one thing but I didn’t have the last say in this matter, Colonel Van Niekerk was in command and he was present. That was the decision that was taken and which was executed.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert, it’s difficult for me to understand, looking at Mr Van Niekerk’s testimony, you and Engelbrecht and Van Niekerk and possibly Zeelie decided that the shock device had to be used. Can you remember in that discussion, because he says the decision was taken together, why did you find it necessary to go over to the shock techniques, why was it so urgent?
MR MOSTERT: I can try and answer it like this. It wasn’t something that was used everyday but at certain times and in certain cases where you found it was necessary, then you used it. That was the feeling I had then. That was the first day that I got involved with it, at the Security Branch but as investigating officials speak about it, it becomes apparent that sometimes it’s used.
MR RAUTENBACH: The question really is Mr Mostert, why was it so urgent that he had to be shocked then and there? There wasn’t a device to use but you had to get one, even if you had to go through trouble, somebody must be found to go to Sandton and bring it back.
MR MOSTERT: As I’ve said, I did not make that decision myself or on my own. I don’t know where the machine was obtained. I don’t know who brought the machine. I do not know.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert did you partake in the decision that he had then to be shocked and that he had to be tortured in order to obtain information at that moment?
MR MOSTERT: Sir, I did not say torture. We had to give the man a fright.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert, are you saying that the applying of the shocks on a person does not constitute torture?
MR MOSTERT: Yes it is torture, but there’s something that I have to point out. There has to be an extent to which it is applied. If you do it in too gross a way then it might have serious implications and the person might get hurt but if you do it in a light manner, then you might obtain your goal, you might achieve your goal.
MR RAUTENBACH: How do you apply a shock on a person in a light manner but it still has the effect that the person changes his mind? It doesn’t make a lot of sense.
MR MOSTERT: I’m not an expert at this but I know that it causes a certain amount of pain.
MR RAUTENBACH: I’ve just noticed that it’s - I don’t know if this is a convenient time.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Rautenbach. We’ll take a short adjournment for tea.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert before I return to - or let me rather put it in this way, you said that you didn’t take the decision that Du Preez had to be phoned?
MR MOSTERT: No, I was not involved in that.
MR RAUTENBACH: You decided together to use an electrical device?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR RAUTENBACH: At some stage it must have been reached where you realised that something like that was not available at John Vorster Square?
MR MOSTERT: I don’t want to say anything about that but I accept that whoever contacted Mr Du Preez knew where to get the necessary device.
MR RAUTENBACH: Who contacted Du Preez?
MR RAUTENBACH: On the same issue, when you have a person who denies involvement, is there then the danger that such a person would then concede and admit involvement, even if he wasn’t involved just not to experience the pain?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, it could be possible.
MR RAUTENBACH: Could you give us an indication when that device arrived at John Vorster on the 10th floor?
MR MOSTERT: It must have been in the afternoon, I would say it was between 11, half past 11, I’m not quite sure.
MR RAUTENBACH: If you had to guess, how long do you think Du Preez was there up to the point that Stanza Bopape died?
MR MOSTERT: Once again it’s very difficult for me. I can’t tell you precisely how long he was there but as far as I can remember, it wasn’t long after Du Preez arrived that preparations were started and then it started.
MR RAUTENBACH: Could you tell us Mr Mostert after the electrical stream was placed on Stanza Bopape and applied what his reaction was? That is now his reaction whilst experiencing the electrical stream, not afterwards, whilst.
MR MOSTERT: It seemed to me that there was some kind of a jerk in the body. This is more or less what I saw.
MR RAUTENBACH: So you saw that he was jerking, he was tied to the chair. How long did this first shock take?
MR MOSTERT: It was not very long.
MR RAUTENBACH: And after he had been shocked, what was said to him?
MR MOSTERT: Someone said something, I think it might have been Colonel Van Niekerk who asked him whether he had anything to say. That was more or less what was said.
MR RAUTENBACH: What was his reaction?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I know, he was still, he didn’t answer.
MR RAUTENBACH: Didn’t he still deny?
MR MOSTERT: I can’t remember whether he denied but as far as I know there wasn’t a positive answer.
MR RAUTENBACH: What you say is you can’t remember whether he denied or he just kept silent but what you can remember is he didn’t give what he had to give?
MR RAUTENBACH: And then another electrical shock was applied?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. As far as I can remember it wasn’t very much of a shock or for too long a time, to say two, three shocks, that’s possible, it could have been more. I don’t know.
MR RAUTENBACH: Let’s accept for arguments sake that he was shocked for the second time with the device, the second time he jerked where he was sitting on the chair, it happened twice. Now we’re at that point. As I understood it he still did not co-operate?
MR RAUTENBACH: If I listen to your previous answer, it wasn’t a question that he denied or just kept silent, you don’t know?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I know he didn’t say anything.
MR RAUTENBACH: I want to ask you Mr Mostert, you reach this point. It was the second time that he had been shocked, it’s the second time that he had jerked and still there is no co-operation. How would it proceed now? What was in your mind? What were you thinking?
MR MOSTERT: I can’t say what was in my thoughts at that stage, it was many years ago.
MR RAUTENBACH: Why did you shock him again. He was shocked twice, he’s still not answering, he’s still not co-operating.
MR MOSTERT: I put it to you that I don’t even know whether he was shocked twice or three times, I don’t know how many times the handle was turned.
MR RAUTENBACH: But you have to agree Mr Mostert, the handle was turned and still he did not co-operate after he had already received an electrical shock, correct?
MR RAUTENBACH: Why did you shock him some more?
MR MOSTERT: He is not co-operating.
MR RAUTENBACH: I accept that one tries further. Do you agree with the statement made by Mr Van Niekerk that the idea was - let me put it in this way. If he didn’t die, the intensity of the shocks would have been increased to get his co-operation?
MR MOSTERT: Well that would have been considered further on but I can’t say to you that that would have taken place. What I can say is that if there was a possibility
MR RAUTENBACH: have the machine, it gives electrical shocks, you shock the person and you say that you would now continue? Could you just give us an indication how long you would have continued?
MR MOSTERT: It’s difficult to say. It would perhaps depend on the person’s condition.
MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just give us a further explanation on that? In other words how these shocks were affecting him?
MR MOSTERT: I think that is the degree that you would use.
MR RAUTENBACH: Now if it would have looked that the person was actually performing quite well with these shocks, he still remains confident and he’s still giving a clear message that he is not going to co-operate, then perhaps you would have continued, to see whether he changes his mind? You started with it. What would it now help and to go for only a little while further and what would that help?
MR MOSTERT: I believe that I would have continued with it, according to his condition.
MR RAUTENBACH: Now you didn’t have the knowledge Mr Mostert to know where the limits would be reached where the life would be threatened, is that correct?
MR RAUTENBACH: I also want to ask you Mr Mostert, if I refer to a status, it is now a status in detention, that is now the status of Stanza Bopape, do you know why he was arrested in the first place? According to which legislation?
MR MOSTERT: I came to know, it was only later that I found this out, on the 10th, that he was arrested under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
MR RAUTENBACH: Did you know what the charge was? Did you know what the allegations were?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. I was informed by Colonel Van Niekerk and I mentioned this earlier, it was the Maponye Terror Group and the acts of terror.
MR RAUTENBACH: I want to refer you to Page 678, it’s in bundle 3. It’s a letter from the Commissioner. It is from the commanding Officer of the Security Branch, General Van Der Merwe. Have a look at paragraph 2. I’m going to read it to you. This was a letter written to the attorneys of Stanza Bopape, that was Cheadle Thompson & Haysom in Johannesburg that was in reaction to a letter written from the South African Police on 10 June 1988 in terms of Section 29(1) of the Internal Security Act 1982 and held at the John Vorster Square Police cells at Johannesburg. His detention arose from a police investigation which had revealed that he allegedly received military training under the auspices of the banned African National Congress.
Your information you say, was that he was arrested because of involvement with certain acts of terror?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR RAUTENBACH: Which incidents - did you have any information this man was arrested because there was information under oath that he was involved in a specific incident and therefore he could be arrested in terms of Section 50?
MR MOSTERT: As I have already answered, if you refer to certain incidents, I have already referred to the Pretoria explosions, in Pretoria, around Pretoria, on the West Rand, Vaal Triangle.
MR RAUTENBACH: The information that you received, you Mr Mostert, was that there was information that he was involved in some of those incidents, he himself.
MR MOSTERT: The information that I referred to what we firstly obtained was on the 10th. It was in discussions with Kleynhans and Van Niekerk, that these people were possibly involved with these incidents that I have just mentioned. The discussions held on the 11th, on the Saturday, there it was also - more details were given that these people, the specific person then, Mr Bopape, according to information was apparently involved in some of these acts of terror.
MR RAUTENBACH: Was that new information that they obtained between the 10th and the 11th?
MR RAUTENBACH: You don’t know. The Section 29 story, in your testimony you referred to the fact that he was - informed that he was being detained under Section 29 when Du Toit came on the scene. General Du Toit would have personally informed him with regards to his detention?
MR RAUTENBACH: That he was being detained in terms of Section 29?
MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just tell me, you weren’t present were you?
MR RAUTENBACH: You were present when Du Toit did this?
MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just tell me, there’s a document that is used when a person is warned that he - or informed that he is detained under Section 29?
MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know what happened to that document?
MR MOSTERT: I accept that the document is in the person’s detention file.
MR RAUTENBACH: You don’t know whether it still exists?
MR RAUTENBACH: And then I also want to ask you, with regard to your application for Amnesty and as far as it concerns the family and the family asks you whether it is possible, it is done in the form of an invitation, perhaps a challenge, to make available any document that gives an indication to the fact that Stanza Bopape, during that time of his detention, that he was detained in terms of Section 29. Can you think of any documentation to prove that he was detained in such a way?
MR MOSTERT: As I said earlier, if the documents were filed in that file, it is out of my reach. I have not been in the Police for many years so it’s not at my disposal. As much as I would like to help in this regard, I can’t. Mr Rautenbach, did you perhaps try to get it from the Police?
MR RAUTENBACH: What I did, I liased with Mr Steenkamp concerning this matter and he informed me that he could not obtain or find any such documentation and from our side it made it meaningless for us to think that we’re going to start again with the whole process. And what you refer to is, with regard to the leading of evidence and also the Truth Commission?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Steenkamp could you perhaps assist us. Which steps have you taken to assist and why can’t the documents be obtained?
MR STEENKAMP: Chairperson, just shortly the investigation team of the Truth Commission had some time ago, approximately a year ago started to investigate the Bopape incident. We enquired at different sources, at the Police, the former attorneys, the Department of Justice, at some stage they were also obliged to have documents concerning Section 29 detainees but we received no answers.
Every time we were informed the documents have been destroyed, they don’t exist anymore. We also enquired at the National Archives. We got no answers there. We also contacted the Bopape family, we could get no documentation. We subpoenaed some of the applicants and to ask them to provide documentation, as far as I know we never received any documentation from any of the applicants.
MR RAUTENBACH: That would have been Police documents so that would have been official documents that should be in the Police offices and Justice had files on Section 29 so it’s not private property?
MR STEENKAMP: That’s correct. The information that was given to us was that the documents don’t exist.
MR RAUTENBACH: Weren’t there any documents or were there documents but that they have been destroyed or that they have been lost? What was your information?
MR STEENKAMP: Our information was that, at some stage there was a list of people who were detained under Section 29. We could not determine whether Bopape was ever detained or if any such documents ever existed. We couldn’t get any information concerning this case. We could get no information from nowhere.
MR RAUTENBACH: Did you get information that documents of this nature, I’m not referring to this particular documentation that documentation had been destroyed?
MR STEENKAMP: No I could not obtain any such information.
MR RAUTENBACH: Could I perhaps just ask, were any enquiries made at West Rand because they initially arrested the person and it was according to their recommendation that he should be placed under Section 29?
MR STEENKAMP: I’m not quite sure, as far as I know we enquired at all the places but the problem was, as you can remember that we often asked the applicants to assist us to give us an indication who at West Rand could help us and as far as I know, none of the applicants could give us any names or any particulars. I think that was also the testimony in front of the Commission.
MR RAUTENBACH: Just to continue on that point, the whole issue on Section 29. We already heard what Mr Van Niekerk had said and that is at Head Office and this was an arrangement that was made at Head Office, it goes through Head Office whether it was a recommendation or he referred to a Warrant made available after such a recommendation was made, were you aware of the whole factor of Head Office?
MR RAUTENBACH: So with regard to Head Office, you will agree with me, there must be some proof that this was a person who was detained in terms of Section 29?
MR RAUTENBACH: You will recall that in the time that you had to deal with people in terms of Section 29, can you remember what the stipulations were with regard to how often a District Surgeon had to visit people in detention under 29?
MR MOSTERT: I’m not quite sure anymore but I think it was at least once a week. And if the District Surgeon couldn’t visit or if the person had needed some medication or a doctor then the person was taken to the District Surgeon.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember what the stipulations were with regard to the visit by a Magistrate?
MR MOSTERT: To the Section 29 detainees, yes there was something of that nature. There were people appointed who had to visit the Section 29 detainees at certain times.
MR RAUTENBACH: How often did they visit these people?
MR MOSTERT: I’m not quite sure anymore. It could have been every week or every two weeks, I’m not quite sure.
MR RAUTENBACH: The suggestion that’s made on behalf of the family is that Stanza Bopape was never detained in terms of Section 29.
MR MOSTERT: I can’t agree with you. As surely as I’m sitting here, that person Stanza Bopape was detained. What I have conveyed to you here, is the truth. I am under oath.
MR RAUTENBACH: Did you see the medical report of the District Surgeon after his visit to the District Surgeon?
MR MOSTERT: I believe that I would have done that.
MR RAUTENBACH: You can’t remember?
MR MOSTERT: No, I can’t recall but I accept that I would have done it.
MR RAUTENBACH: Did you immediately after he died, did you have a look at this report?
MR MOSTERT: No. Not that I know.
MR RAUTENBACH: Why didn’t you?
MR MOSTERT: I can’t give you a reason why.
MR RAUTENBACH: I’m putting it to you, it’s a possibility that such a report did not exist and that’s why you didn’t look at it because this person was not detained in terms of Section 29?
MR MOSTERT: I deny this. The person was detained.
MR ?: Isn’t it the case Mr Rautenbach that according to the Law, in those days, that the District Surgeon had to see him within seven days after he was detained? Could it also have been fourteen days?
MR RAUTENBACH: I think later the Law was changed and it was within four days after detention. I don’t think there was an obligation that he had to be seen before his or at the start of his detention but this is something that is in the Act and I think this is something that we can in fact find out. Just a question for clarity, Mr Mostert, were you aware of a practise that existed with regard to Section 29 detainees that when the person was detained that they should be taken to a District Surgeon as quickly as possible so that the District Surgeon’s Report could be obtained?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR RAUTENBACH: With regard to the body of Stanza Bopape in your testimony you gave an explanation, you referred to black bags and a blanket?
MR RAUTENBACH: Where did these black bags come from?
MR MOSTERT: I’m not quite sure where they came from. I didn’t work with that but I helped late in the afternoon, I think it was Du Preez and myself to put this person into the bags.
MR RAUTENBACH: Who brought the bags?
MR MOSTERT: I’m not quite sure whether it was Mr Du Preez or Mr Zeelie. It could have been one of those two.
MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just explain to us how these black bags, how the body was placed into the black bags. A bag is a bag, how were they tied, exactly how did you do it?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I can remember, on the side of the head we placed a bag and then also at the end, the bottom part and then we pulled them together.
MR RAUTENBACH: Did you just pull it over one another, did you tie it, what did you do?
MR MOSTERT: I can’t remember that it was tied.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can’t you remember whether the bags were tied?
MR RAUTENBACH: As far as you can remember, the body with the two black bags, one from the top, one from the bottom was put into the boot of the car?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. The person was just taken to the boot. The blanket, I don’t know what happened with the blanket. I don’t know whether it went along with the body or whether the blanket stayed behind. I accept it might have gone along with the body.
MR RAUTENBACH: Well what would you do with the blanket in the cellar?
MR MOSTERT: I suppose it would have been put into the car as well.
MR RAUTENBACH: As far as you can remember the bags weren’t tied to the body?
MR RAUTENBACH: You say you and Du Preez?
MR MOSTERT: I think it was Du Preez and myself and perhaps also Mr Zeelie. I’m not quite sure but I think we worked with it.
MR RAUTENBACH: You say two bags were used, one at the top, one at the bottom to cover the body?
MR RAUTENBACH: With regard to the body, earlier in your testimony this morning you indicated that you were extremely shocked about this?
MR RAUTENBACH: I take it that you were also very concerned and worried?
MR RAUTENBACH: How did you feel about the decision that was taken that the body should be disposed of?
MR RAUTENBACH: What did you feel about it Mr Mostert?
MR MOSTERT: It wasn’t right. It was against my principles. But here we had a big problem. I don’t know but in that time with the former dispensation it would not have been proper for me to rebel against it so I had to follow it.
MR RAUTENBACH: What do you think the consequences would have been should the body have been found, let’s say perhaps the next day with the black bags and all?
MR MOSTERT: That would have been a problem and a big problem.
MR RAUTENBACH: For you personally?
MR MOSTERT: For all of us involved.
MR RAUTENBACH: For you personally as well?
MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to know, what did you think would happen to the body?
MR MOSTERT: I was not informed. I had no idea what happened to the body.
MR RAUTENBACH: You didn’t know Van Loggerenberg at that stage?
MR RAUTENBACH: He was a stranger for you, except that he was part of the Security Branch?
MR RAUTENBACH: You didn’t know how well Van Loggerenberg executed his duties daily?
MR RAUTENBACH: And you also saw the body was put into a vehicle that he was driving?
MR RAUTENBACH: What did you do to find out, perhaps just to satisfy yourself that the problem had been addressed?
MR MOSTERT: I knew Brigadier Visser, I worked under his command and I trust him. I later on talked to Van Niekerk and asked him about the other person who was also present and he told me that this person could be trusted and I had to accept it. We took our chances, we couldn’t do anything else.
MR RAUTENBACH: In approaching Van Niekerk and that discussion there, it was clear that you wanted to get clarity for yourself, that everything was okay?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
MR RAUTENBACH: Did you ask Van Niekerk, he was an Officer, he was senior, did you ask him what happened to the body? Exactly what happened, did you ask him like that?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. I talked to him. I asked him and he gave me the following answer, he said he also doesn’t know.
MR RAUTENBACH: It must not have been enough for you. You must have said, how are we ever going to have any certainty about it. Couldn’t you find out?
MR MOSTERT: That’s a problem. Trying to find out. You can’t do any enquiries, you have this problem, how do you do it.
MR RAUTENBACH: But Mr Mostert you had so much trust in Brigadier Visser, as I understand it, surely if it really worried you, not even necessarily telephonically but you could have contacted Visser, talked to him, asked him or just told Visser and said, well we had gone through such a lot of effort to arrange this whole escape and to cover up everything, I made false entries, just put me at ease, what happened to the body, just so that I can be at ease about this, so that this doesn’t bother me everyday.
MR MOSTERT: I have to be quite honest with you, as far as possible I tried to stay away from Visser. My enquiries were made among this little group of ours.
MR RAUTENBACH: Just to have it clear for record purposes, it is something the family can’t understand, that so much effort was made to cover the death of Stanza Bopape that a mock escape was designed, that false entries were made, but that his body was purely handed to a policeman who apparently only had to use his own discretion with what he was going to do with the body. I just want to put it on record so that you know.
MR MOSTERT: All I can say to that is that is exactly what happened.
MR RAUTENBACH: That’s what you heard what happened Mr Mostert.
MR MOSTERT: When I mean when I say what happened, everything I told you, how it started, up to the point where we handed the body over, that’s exactly what happened.
MR RAUTENBACH: If I say to you Mr Mostert that when you heard afterwards - you say that you know that Van Loggerenberg left with the body and he would have disposed of the body. When you heard that the body was disposed of by Van Loggerenberg, using his own discretion where he dumped it into a river as such, there are allegations that there are crocodiles and hippopotamus in this river. When you heard that he decided to throw the body in the river, did it not come as a surprise that he would have decided on doing that to the body?
MR MOSTERT: Only during consultation with my legal representative I only heard that. And that’s quite a long time afterwards.
MR RAUTENBACH: So it must have come as a surprise to you. Wasn’t it unusual to follow such a method?
MR MOSTERT: I can’t answer on behalf of him.
MR ?: Mr Rautenbach how do you dispose of a body?
MR RAUTENBACH: At this stage, it’s a very debatable story but when it comes to the relevant witness, I think it’s one of the things that we have to look at because of the fact that the applicants are not excluded of the - what happens during cross questioning.
I cannot find fault with the rule that was made by the Committee. I had my instructions on that point but because of that point, I don’t want to get involved on a debate concerning this question.
MR ?: But all I mean is, you decide to get rid of a body, some will blow the body up, others threw the remains in the river. This testimony has been given where different methods have been followed. It’s a question of debate and I’ll take it up with the witness.
MR RAUTENBACH: With regards to the interrogation Mr Mostert, if you can go back to the Sunday, if I understand the testimony correctly, you never left the room where Mr Bopape was interrogated, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I know, no. But in all honesty I cannot answer that because it could have happened that one left for the toilet but as far as I remember, I did not leave the room.
MR RAUTENBACH: As far as you remember, you were involved in the interrogation constantly?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I was present all the time.
MR RAUTENBACH: In your own words, was it Lieutenant or Captain Zeelie?
MR MOSTERT: He was Lieutenant.
MR RAUTENBACH: What was his role during the interrogation?
MR MOSTERT: Lieutenant Zeelie, as far as I remember, at the end, if he was on the floor in the meantime I do not know but when I became aware of him, at the end, when we decided to shock him, then he arrived at our office.
MR RAUTENBACH: Was Lieutenant Zeelie involved all the time whilst the shocks were applied?
MR MOSTERT: He was present as far as I remember.
MR RAUTENBACH: Zeelie, like Major Van Niekerk, did he also every now and then pop in at the interrogation, if I can put it like that, whilst you were busy with it?
MR MOSTERT: It’s possible, but as far as I remember, he was there only the one time. It’s a very long time ago.
MR RAUTENBACH: What would he have been doing there? What do you think he wanted to know?
MR RAUTENBACH: Why, as far as you are concerned, why was Lieutenant Zeelie present, when the shocks were applied, even when he was not present at the interrogation?
MR MOSTERT: Like I’ve said, maybe he was present at some point during the interrogation, I cannot tell you with certainty. I also do not know why he was there when the shock was applied. It’s impossible for me to answer that. I think he himself could answer that.
MR RAUTENBACH: Well, let me put it this way. Here are two officers, what was Engelbrecht’s rank at that stage?
MR MOSTERT: I think he was a constable.
MR RAUTENBACH: Here are two inferior officers, one constable and yourself which is Warrant Officer and you are busy questioning someone and at some point you decide on applying electrical shocks and now the officers appear when it comes to electrical shocks and they were not present during the interrogation. Is there a reason for this?
MR MOSTERT: As far as Colonel Van Niekerk is concerned [end of Side ‘A’]. - the same for Lieutenant Zeelie, he was in the command the evening of the 9th and with the arrests and he might have had an interest in it. But I cannot answer on behalf of him, neither for Mr Van Niekerk.
MR RAUTENBACH: I also accept that there was a certain amount of interest for them in this issue, the question is this though, what was this interest? Why did it come down to the fact that they had a big interest when it came to the electrical shocks but not when it came to the interrogations? Can you explain this or not?
MR MOSTERT: No, I cannot. I cannot explain his interest.
MR RAUTENBACH: So you also did not have any information, which information had to be obtained from Nkosi who was also arrested?
MR MOSTERT: I suppose it must have been similar kind of information I had to obtain.
MR RAUTENBACH: You were not aware of this personally?
MR RAUTENBACH: On Page 305, I think it’s in the first volume. This is part of a record which exists in accordance to the testimony you would have given under Section 29, questioning, I would like you to look at Page 305 but at the bottom of the page and at the top, also 23,
"taken to the Attorney General subsequent to his arrest for investigations or prior to his death?"
"He was taken to the Attorney General, but not by myself but I do know that he was taken. Constable Engelbrecht and one of our black members took him to the Attorney General on, I believe, the 10th June 1988."
Do you remember this testimony?
MR MOSTERT: [Afrikaans answer]
MS VAN DER WALT: [inaudible] here, that during the conference it was said and was put that Mr Visser said that at previous times there was the same problem. In this record, the witness spoke in Afrikaans and this is an English version of the Afrikaans and when this happens there’s quite a few language mistakes and Mr Steenkamp knows about this.
MR RAUTENBACH: I do not want to - I think if the question relates about a certain word or the meaning of that word and a dispute arises about the use of a word or a meaning of a certain sentence and there’s a dispute about that then surely it should be taken into account but as far as my cross examination at this stage is concerned I basically, I think if we are - we’re at the stage where I basically want the witness to either confirm or not to confirm what is being put to him as long as if the witness requires the assistance of the translater then I’ll accept that as well.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Van Der Walt, I believe that the question is a fair one, it’s on record the witness can - should answer it. So you may proceed with that question Mr Rautenbach.
MR RAUTENBACH: I understand there’s a - maybe Mr Steenkamp should - there is some difficulty here.
MR STEENKAMP: Maybe Mr Chairman I can help here. I think the word that was used here was "DG", meaning District Surgeon, not "PG", which is Attorney General, I think that was the word that was used.
CHAIRPERSON: But I think nevertheless let’s here from the witness himself whether he used that word or whether it was the Attorney General.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert I just want to determine - maybe it’s wrong in the records. I would just like to know from you, was there, in any sense, a question of the fact that Mr Bopape was taken to the PG which refers to the Attorney General after his detention?
MR MOSTERT: Not as far as I know.
MR RAUTENBACH: That’s the end of that then. This velcro cords which you referred to which was used, that was issued by Mr Zeelie, is that correct? What do you use it usually for?
MR MOSTERT: I have no idea. I think Mr Zeelie would be able to tell you.
MR RAUTENBACH: And at that point you weren’t at the Security Branch for a very long time, at Sandton, although this interrogation took place at John Vorster, afterwards did you all interrogate other people at John Vorster?
MR RAUTENBACH: Did you once again make use - now after this incident of - did you make use of shock devices again? Did you make use of this at Security Branch?
MR MOSTERT: I never made use of them. I was present in certain cases. But that was during my career at the Detective Branch.
MR RAUTENBACH: Tell me Mr Mostert, with referral to Sandton, Du Preez was at Sandton as well, is that correct?
MR RAUTENBACH: So you know Du Preez well?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, we know each other.
MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know, on that day - how did it come about or how did it become clear, amongst the persons present that you decided that Sandton’s device had to be obtained?
MR MOSTERT: I think I already answered that question.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can you answer it again please?
MR MOSTERT: I had no part in the obtaining of the device. I did not phone anybody.
MR RAUTENBACH: But you were from Sandton, did you know that Sandton had such a device?
MR MOSTERT: No, I didn’t know about it.
MR RAUTENBACH: You did not know about it?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mostert when - you say it was discussed as a group, how the deceased should be frightened and it was decided that shocks should be applied, electric shocks should be applied, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: That’s correct your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: During that discussion was there any suggestion made as to where a machine or device to apply the shocks would be obtained?
MR MOSTERT: Not that I know of your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: After that discussion, what did you do? Did you stay in each other’s company or did you all go your separate ways for a while?
MR MOSTERT: Your Honour, me and Engelbrecht stayed at the office but - where Mr Bopape was. I’m not sure, I think Colonel Van Niekerk and Zeelie went to their offices.
MR RAUTENBACH: The decision to get the shock device, I understand that - maybe I’m wrong but you yourself, as well as Engelbrecht, as well as Van Niekerk made this decision?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, it was a mutual decision. Mr Zeelie was also present.
MR RAUTENBACH: Oh, he was present too? He also took part in the decision?
MR RAUTENBACH: I would just like to give you a general proposition and put it to you Mr Mostert and that’s the fact that this process in which Mr Bopape was tortured, it’s the family’s attitude that this process went on for a long time and it must have entailed more shock and torture than what you are saying to the Committee?
MR MOSTERT: I do not agree with that.
MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Steenkamp do you have any questions?
MR STEENKAMP: No questions thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Steenkamp. Ms Van Der Walt do have any re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Mr Mostert, it was mentioned, this is concerning the question that Mr
Bopape was not held concerning Section 29. There’s an occurrence book which was referred to and it’s Volume 3, it’s on Page 747, if you would just like to have a look at it, Page 747. This occurrence book - Mr Chairperson I would also like to ask Mr Steenkamp if he can have a look at the occurrence book in a whole because these are just extracts but it seems to be an occurrence book which was kept in the cells at John Vorster Square, is that correct?
CHAIRPERSON: Is the original book available, the original register?
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman unfortunately not. These documents we obtained from different sources, from attorneys, from previous records, from the Torka matter. I believe that certain documents was handed in that matter as well, but the original documents is not in existence anymore, as far as we could establish sir.
CHAIRPERSON: What we have on record here is that a selection of pages of information available or do you have further pages in the undiscovered bundles and documents that you have?
MR STEENKAMP: No sir. No Mr Chairman. In this instance these are the only documents we could trace on the [inaudible] of the book, it’s not a selection.
MR CHAIRPERSON: And perhaps if you could make enquiries to see if there are any and if it’s possible, if it does come to hand, if it can be made available. I think that’s as best we can do at the moment Ms Van Der Walt.
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. But it seems to be the occurrence book which was kept in the cells?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. It’s parts of the occurrence book at the cells and the charge office.
MS VAN DER WALT: Referring to entry 399, there you signed, is that your signature?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that’s my signature but it’s not my handwriting.
MS VAN DER WALT: So the entry, if I understand it correctly was made by the charge office’s sergeant and then you only sign?
MS VAN DER WALT: And he’s responsible to note if a person is taken out or brought back, is that correct?
MS VAN DER WALT: And there it’s stipulated that the detainee, Mr Bopape, that he was a detainee under Section 29?
MS VAN DER WALT: Now the charges office was manned by Uniform Branch personnel, is that correct?
MS VAN DER WALT: Did they have anything to do with Security Branch?
MS VAN DER WALT: They worked independently?
MS VAN DER WALT: And then I would also like to refer you to the cell register, in the same volume Mr Chairman, Page 753 and 754, 753 is page 1, 754 page 2 and if you look at the cell register, it’s always these two pages which is opposite each other, so 753 is the left side but the information carries through to 754. This cell register Mr Mostert is kept at the cells, is that correct?
MS VAN DER WALT: And the cells are also controlled by the Uniform personnel. At the bottom of page 753 it says that Bopape was detained. He was a black man and a warrant and then if you carry on to the next page, under remarks it said Section 29, is it so Mr Mostert that when a person was detained in a cell then for this detainee a warrant if sanctioned which the Uniform personnel keep because the person in command should know why that person is detained. So somewhere at the Uniform personnel there should be documents that he was detained under Section 29?
MS VAN DER WALT: So if the family says that he was not detained in terms of Section 29 then there had to be a plot between yourself and the personnel staff.
MS GCABASHE: But if you could explain on the very same page Mr Mostert, Page 753, that entry, why is the entry, the last two columns, you’ve got "vrygelaat" as a heading for those two columns. "Vrygelaat" is at the top of Column 6, you don’t seem to be understanding what I’m saying?
MR MOSTERT: No, I don’t understand the question.
MS GCABASHE: I’m asking you if you can see the word "vrygelaat" in Column 6, at the top of Column 6?
MS GCABASHE: I know you have said that you did not make this entry but why would they say that Mr Bopape was released. Why was he released? Wouldn’t there be a different entry because the man you told that the man escaped? I just want an explanation why would they put it under "vrygelaat"? He wasn’t released.
MR MOSTERT: I can answer you in this way, if you have a look on Page 753, on the right hand side in the last column and you go up to Mr Bopape, you will see that the time there, the second last column, 05h05 and the date, the last column is 13, that refers to the occurrence book number, that’s the false occurrence book entry that I made, that the man had escaped. That is what is referred to here with the release.
MS GCABASHE: As a police officer, I’m asking you to explain the contradiction for me. He had escaped, he was not released. I’m simply asking, can you explain this to me?
MR MOSTERT: I’m trying to explain but I didn’t make the entry. Perhaps if we can just go back to the occurrence book that is Page 749 and it refers to an entry 488, it’s the 5th one from the top. There you see the time is also given as 05h05 on the 13th and then it is a late entry according to the occurrence book and it says that Warrant Officer Mostert, W, it’s 45 - it should be 35774T, that was my force number reported that M Bopape at 00h10 escaped in the vicinity of Dedeur while he was out on investigation, Dedeur MR129/06/88.
MR RAUTENBACH: Perhaps if you have 753 and 754, if you put it next to one another, so that the last column which then continues, then there is an ABC under release, then it continues on Page 754. If you put the pages next to one another then next to 13, where we had the date and the 5h05, what are the words in the same column as released?
MR MOSTERT: It would seem to appear that it is "snap" which refers to escaped and then Dedeur MR and 0688, the numbers.
MR RAUTENBACH: Is it correct that these two pages, one page form, it’s part of the pages 753 and the other part on 754, is that correct?
MS GCABASHE: That’s exactly what I was asking about, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van Der Walt, have you got any further questions under re-examination?
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Gcabashe, any questions?
MS GCABASHE: Yes, I have a few Mr Mostert. Let’s go back to the 10th June, the 10th June, and if you again look at the entry on Page 745 of Volume 3, 745, Volume 3.
MS GCABASHE: No, 745 of Volum 3. I’m simply looking at that entry, 399. You brought Mr Bopape to John Vorster Square, that’s what it says, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
MS GCABASHE: What personal effects did he have on him?
MR MOSTERT: I can’t remember, all that I can see here is that there was medication and it was handed in at the cells.
MS GCABASHE: You don’t know about the medication, you are reading about it here, aren’t you?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct, I didn’t have any knowledge about that.
MS GCABASHE: When he was arrested, he had personal effects on him. Do you know whether he had those personal effects when you were handling him at 20h05, at 5 minutes past 8 on the 10th June. Did he have a bag, did he have a little suitcase, did he have anything on him at all?
MR MOSTERT: I can’t give you an answer. I take it that when he was arrested and when he was taken to John Vorster on the 10th, I didn’t detain him. The detention that you see here, that was after interrogation and where he was booked back into the cells the evening, so I cannot answer whether he had anything with him at the stage when he was booked in at John Vorster Square, at the cells.
MS GCABASHE: And do you know nothing at all about what personal effects he may have had in the cell?
MR MOSTERT: Not that I can remember.
MS GCABASHE: Coming to the 12th, because you did not talk to him at all on the 11th. Coming to the 12th, you and Mr Engelbrecht interrogated Mr Bopape. Now before the interrogation, did you sit down to have a planning meeting? Did you say this is the line of questioning that we are going to follow? Can you just explain what exactly you did before you started interrogating?
MR MOSTERT: It’s a long time ago. I can’t remember. I accept that perhaps we discussed how we would interrogate the line of questioning. Would we first ask questions about this or that person. I take it that that could have been the case.
MS GCABASHE: You don’t remember whether you did that or not?
MS GCABASHE: Do you remember whether you had a strategic planning meeting with Mr Van Niekerk, your commanding officer? For exactly the same reason, to plan how you are going to approach this interrogation?
MR MOSTERT: No. I can’t remember that I had such a discussion with him.
MS GCABASHE: So essentially you walked into the room, ready to interrogate on the basis of what you had learnt at Krugersdorp, at that meeting?
MR MOSTERT: Could you please repeat the question?
MS GCABASHE: You walked into the interrogation room and started interrogating Bopape on the basis of the information you received at Krugersdorp, is that right?
MR MOSTERT: That is correct, yes.
MS GCABASHE: Did you discuss that information with Mr Engelbrecht because he wasn’t at Krugersdorp?
MR MOSTERT: No, Mr Engelbrecht wasn’t in Krugersdorp but the Sunday morning we came in together to John Vorster Square and I think we did the necessary discussions before we went to the cells to get Mr Bopape. If I look at the time I accept that it possibly could have taken place. Usually we start work before 8 but at 8 you had to report for duty and according to the occurrence book it seems that Mr Bopape was booked out at 9.30, so I think it could have been possible.
MS GCABASHE: So your response is you assumed you did have a planning session with Mr Engelbrecht so you could work as a team when interrogating? That was common practise?
MS GCABASHE: Now, somewhere in these documents there’s reference to Mr Bopape being blindfolded. What do you know about that?
MR MOSTERT: I have no knowledge.
MS GCABASHE: Not blindfolded at any stage?
MR MOSTERT: Not where I was present.
MS GCABASHE: And you were present all of the time during the interrogation?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. But I don’t know which dates you refer to, was it on the 9th of the arrest? There is a possibility that that could have been the case, I didn’t have anything to do with him there.
MS GCABASHE: Mr Mostert I understood that you only interrogated him on the 12th, that was what I understood. I mean what you did on the 10th was preliminary, adman processing, but the serious interrogation took place on the 12th, is that right?
MS GCABASHE: I am talking about the interrogation that you participated in which is the interrogation of the 12th June, yes?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. I don’t know of any point where he was blindfolded.
MS GCABASHE: When you had to put him into that chair in the passage, did he offer any resistance?
MR MOSTERT: Not that I know of.
MS GCABASHE: Did you have to force him into it at any stage?
MR MOSTERT: No, I can’t remember that I had to force him.
MS GCABASHE: Did he ask you why he had to sit in that particular chair in the passage?
MS GCABASHE: Now the decision to place the body in a foetal position, you have spoken about that, so you could put it into the boot of the car, readily put it into the boot of the car, who took that decision and why, at that point in time?
MR MOSTERT: I’m not quite sure but I think Mr Du Preez, Mr Zeelie and myself as far as I can remember we put the person down in that position, but who took the decision, that I don’t know. It could have been anyone, any of the three of us.
MS GCABASHE: You see because I’m trying to visualise what must have happened then or what might have happened then. You were all shocked by this accidental death, you had not expected it but then to be able to think so quickly about putting a body into a foetal position because rigor mortis is going to set in, I just wonder who was that really fast thinker?
MR MOSTERT: I don’t know. I can’t remember but that is what happened. [end of Tape 2]
MS GCABASHE: Now talking about the disposal of the body, I know you have said it was against your principles to dispose of the body in this particular manner, what other options did you moot, did you consider?
MR MOSTERT: I didn’t really even consider any options. I was in a situation where a decision was taken and I just went along for that period if you can see it in such a way. It would have been foolish of me to disagree with it.
MS GCABASHE: Right, then coming to the driving up to Bronkhorstspruit, you left in two vehicles. Were you in the vehicle that Mr Van Niekerk was in? Can you just describe those arrangements to me, driving up?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. I was in the vehicles with Mr Zeelie as the driver, Colonel Van Niekerk as the one passenger and myself as the other passenger and the body was in the boot.
MS GCABASHE: And in the other vehicle?
MR MOSTERT: The other vehicle as far as I know was manned by Mr Engelbrecht and Mr Du Preez.
MS GCABASHE: Now plan ‘A’, regarding the disposal of the body, in the Eastern Transvaal fell through because the commander there refused to have any part of this.
CHAIRPERSON: The disposal of the body?
MS GCABASHE: I beg your pardon, the escape plan. Thank you. The escape plan fell through, the original escape plan. You then had to work on plan ‘B’, the mock escape. When did you start discussing plan ‘B’, the mock escape?
MR MOSTERT: I accept while we were on our way to Bronkhorstspruit and there we started working on this idea. What were we going to do?
MS GCABASHE: Who knew of the Dedeur site? Whose idea was it?
MR MOSTERT: Sorry, I can’t remember, I don’t know.
MS GCABASHE: But I’m not wrong in assuming that one of you, in that motor vehicle would have known that this particular place is a convenient place to have the mock escape?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I agree but this information or knowledge could also have come to the fore at John Vorster Square where we discussed this escape.
MS GCABASHE: And then just one final question. When were Bopape’s shoes removed?
MS GCABASHE: Can you place it before the trip up to the Eastern Transvaal or at the time that you transferred the body? You have no idea at all?
MR MOSTERT: I have no idea but there must have been something that was done beforehand for the following reason. Perhaps the shoes were taken where we handed it over at Bronkhorstspruit. Perhaps Mr Zeelie already had something in mind with the shoes. Perhaps the shoes were lying in his car, I don’t know.
MS GCABASHE: This is why I ask because those shoes were critical to plan ‘B’, the mock escape. You needed those shoes to have this track and create this scent for the dogs to follow or am I wrong?
MR MOSTERT: You are quite correct but as I say, I don’t know at what stage the shoes were taken from Mr Bopape but you have to remember, that the actual planning took place on the way back and at John Vorster Square, so I assume that the shoes should have been left somewhere in the back of Mr Zeelie’s car and perhaps Mr Zeelie can give us more information on that.
MS GCABASHE: Was there any other item of Mr Bopape’s clothing removed from him, before you transferred the body?
MR MOSTERT: Not that I know of.
MS GCABASHE: No further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Moloi, any questions?
MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mostert I’m sitting here with a sort of confused picture. If I understand, the arrest of Mr Bopape came at a time when the tension between the ANC and the activists on the one hand and the Government of the day on the other hand were at their height. Do you understand me correctly?
MR MOLOI: Do I understand correctly that the Security Forces in particular were to act and deal decisively and ruthlessly with any political activists at that time?
MR MOLOI: You had in fact the support and encouragement of the Government of the day to deal decisively and ruthlessly with such activists?
MR MOSTERT: I assume that to be the case.
MR MOLOI: To deal the activists a deathly blow, information was to be gathered and according to you this information was to be gathered urgently, to forestall any occurrence of terror acts in future?
MR MOLOI: On the 12th June you were already armed with information obtained from the conference or briefing session you had at Krugersdorp?
MR MOLOI: And you had no doubt to disbelieve that information you had, did you?
MR MOLOI: You are sitting here in an office with a person who is alleged to be in possession of all this information, Stanza Bopape?
MR MOLOI: You desperately need this information he is possessed of because you will find use for that information?
MR MOLOI: From the onset this person indicates he is not prepared to share this information with you. Actually he denies knowledge of any of the alleged deeds?
MR MOLOI: At the stage a senior officer in the person of Van Niekerk also intervenes and points out to this person the importance of divulging this information?
MR MOLOI: Nonetheless this person persists and denies any knowledge of that which is alleged against him?
MR MOLOI: And you believe and have no reason to doubt the information you received at the briefing session at Krugersdorp?
MR MOSTERT: I had no reason for that no.
MR MOLOI: For hours on end you asked this person and beg him to give the information and he refuses?
MR MOLOI: You keep on asking him, "please let’s have this information, we need it and please assist us", is that what was happening?
MR MOSTERT: I won’t say and this is talking of myself that I pleaded with him but we spoke in a courteous manner with one another and how I saw it was to get the persons co-operation voluntary and to win him over to my side. As I said, he didn’t want to co-operate in any way.
MR MOSTERT: Yes, more or less two hours but I also have to say that during such an interrogation you sometimes talk about something else, perhaps that isn’t really of interest in this particular case and then you return and you talk about another aspect, for example where he lives, why do you live there, your friends and then time just flows and we play with words.
MR MOLOI: The essence of the interrogation and the importance thereof to you coupled with the urgency of your need for the information, would you really, for two hours on end, keep on asking this person nicely and in a civilised manner to produce the evidence you need. Would you?
MR MOSTERT: Your Honour, for this time we talked and that is how it happened. I really cannot give you anything else. We were there to assist the Security Branch, the West Rand Security Branch and from my side I tried my best.
MR MOLOI: I believe then you resorted to using a tough measure on him. The shock treatment in order to extract that information which he so tenaciously held to himself?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. As I had explained it was a joint decision.
MR MOLOI: And given the utmost fear that prevailed at the time that you would have all that patience really Mr Mostert, to keep on begging this person for information, for two hours on end. He is resolute, he is not prepared to advance it and the next stage you jump to is the extreme stage of applying shock treatment?
MR MOSTERT: Your Honour, it is very difficult to answer these questions today after such a long period of time. I’m trying my best to give you the information. Perhaps at some stage I could have talked quite harshly to the person but as far as I know, I tried to be courteous.
MR MOLOI: What could have happened then was to put your foot down and talk hard with him? Is that the worst that could have happened in the two hour period?
MR MOSTERT: As I have explained we talked. We talked a lot. I accept that it’s possible that I talked hard to him but I did not assault the person at this stage but we talked. What I wanted to maintain was to get something from this man for feedback. It is difficult to give a particular rendition.
What I said earlier, if you get to explosions, where people have been shot to pieces, that in itself does something to you as a person, you have to do the work there and then with this case, well I can’t deny it, we tortured this man and I want to say this in all honesty to you, we did not do it with the intention of killing him.
MR MOLOI: But what I’m more concerned about in order to clear this picture that I have is what transpired before the actual torture of applying the electrical shock was applied?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I can remember Colonel Van Niekerk came to talk with the deceased and pointed out the seriousness of the Section 29 to him and we continued. I’m trying to convey this to you as I can remember. We continued for some time to interrogate in the direction of the acts of terror and if you don’t get any information then you try something else that’s perhaps not even relevant and we continued and then later on I was asked whether we had any success and we said no and then the decision was taken that this man must be frightened. That is how I can convey it to you.
MR MOLOI: And throughout, you and your colleagues that were involved in the interrogation kept your cool, despite this person’s denials of what was then to you obvious. You kept on begging him and asking him nicely to produce the evidence?
MR MOSTERT: As I have said, as far as I possibly could, I stayed calm and also negotiated with Mr Bopape in a very calm manner.
MR MOLOI: He deserved was now the worst that could happen to extract information?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. None of us, well I can’t talk on behalf of the other people, I’m just now talking on my own behalf, I did not believe that what happened that it would happen.
MR DE JAGER: I think what my learned colleague means, he refers not to the death, he refers to the next method that was used. There was a jump from just plain interrogation to a point where electric shocks were used and he refers to the electric shocks as the worst, most serious method that you could apply.
MR MOSTERT: I don’t understand quite well.
MR DE JAGER: I think the essence of the question is, how do you get from a nice calm way and the next moment you just decide to use electric shocks?
MR MOSTERT: I can answer it in this way. As I have already said quite a few times, my commander came in once again and he asked after he had talked to the person again and he asked whether this person is co-operating and I said no and then it was decided because at this stage Mr Zeelie was also present and it was decided to take this step. That’s the closest I can get to an answer.
MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman. I notice 1 o’clock almost. I have only one further question, if you will allow me?
MR MOLOI: According to Nkosi’s evidence which you have read, he must have received worst treatment at the hands of the Security Police than did Stanza Bopape, if Nkosi’s evidence is true. Do you agree with me?
MR MOSTERT: I was not present during Mr Nkosi’s interrogation so it’s very difficult for me to answer a question in that regard.
MR MOLOI: You did not need to be present. I say you read his evidence and if that be true, he must have received much more harsher treatment at the hands of the Security Forces than Bopape did, if that be true?
MR MOLOI: Have you read Nkosi’s evidence?
MR MOSTERT: Yes I read the statement.
MR MOLOI: Then if you say you don’t agree, that Bopape received equal treatment or even worse than did Nkosi?
MR MOSTERT: I really cannot judge that.
MR MOLOI: Mr Chairman, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr De Jager, do you have any questions?
MR DE JAGER: During the interrogation, what was Mr Bopape’s position? What did you know about his position, among the activists?
MR MOSTERT: I don’t know what his position was but according to the information he was locally trained in acts of terror, as far as I was informed by a Mr Maponye.
MR DE JAGER: What I mean is, do you know whether he was a leader, a chairperson, a secretary or that he served in any body?
MR MOSTERT: No, I can’t remember.
MR DE JAGER: Where did he live?
MR MOSTERT: If I can remember correctly, we arrested him in Johannesburg or the group who arrested him of which I was a member, I assumed that it was his flat where he was arrested. But his parents address is in Mamelodi.
MR DE JAGER: Do you know whether he still lived in Mamelodi or worked? What kind of work he had?
MR MOSTERT: I’m not quite sure what kind of job he had but I assumed that perhaps he lived in Johannesburg where we got.
JUDGE NGCOBO: We’ve heard that it was common practise by the Security Branch to resort to some form of torture in order to get the information from detainees. Do you accept that?
JUDGE NGCOBO: I do understand that you yourself did not believe in that practise?
MR MOSTERT: Could you perhaps just repeat the question?
JUDGE NGCOBO: If I understand your evidence, you yourself did not engage in that practise? In principle you disagreed with that practise?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. I didn’t agree with it but under the circumstances, you know it was almost like a big family, the other one helps the other and so it continues. If you would not have agreed, it would have been the possibility that you would have made yourself very unpopular, it’s not that I want to present myself as an angel but it was not something that I really condoned.
JUDGE NGCOBO: And I think you mentioned somewhere in your evidence that part of the reason was that your commander was very close by to where the interrogation was taking place and that’s the reason why you didn’t assault Bopape prior to the administration of the shock?
MR MOSTERT: I don’t think that I would have in any case assaulted the man. But perhaps let’s say it could have proceeded in that direction then it would have been foolish of me to do something next to my commander’s office where there are windows that you can see through - it’s a kind of glass but you can still see from the one office to the next.
So I think it would have been presumptuous of me to in fact do something like this in the view of my commanding officer but as I take it how things are done, that if you’re out of sight then you don’t really have to go and ask permission from your officers if you want to do this.
JUDGE NGCOBO: As I understand the practise, the commanders sanctioned the use of force against detainees? Why did you have a problem?
MR MOSTERT: Even if you had the tacit approval, I would not have done it, not in the presence of my commanding officer or other seniors, if I had to torture someone. Not in their presence, no, definitely not.
JUDGE NGCOBO: We were told yesterday that there are police regulations which prohibit torture as a method of interrogation, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE NGCOBO: We were also told that from time to time there were warnings from the commanders that police officers should desist from resorting to torture as a method of interrogation?
JUDGE NGCOBO: We were also told that if a police officer were to be found to have engaged in those prohibited methods of interrogation he may well have been disciplined?
JUDGE NGCOBO: So would I be correct in assuming that had you been found out by your higher officers that you had in fact been part of a torture which resulted in the death of Bopape, you would have been subject to some form of discipline?
MR MOSTERT: Your Honour, I will try to answer it in this way. At the Detective Branch the situation would work in that way and there would also be a possibility that the accused there would also be helped but at the Security Branch, if you look at the surrounding circumstances where this assistance was given and we now refer to where you could now be charged or be disciplined, reprimanded.
I don’t know how to put it but this incident occurred and we were still assisted and the body was disposed of doesn’t this perhaps have a lot to say. It’s not to say that you can just continue as you would wish but I don’t think you would have a lot of problems if you, in certain situations perhaps worked a bit hard. With Security it has to do more with the political situation pertaining to the Government of the day. The Government has to look after it’s Security Branch. The Security Branch has to look after the Government, that’s more or less how I see it.
JUDGE NGCOBO: You’ve testified a couple of minutes ago that because of the death of Bopape, the officers that were involved and the torture would have been in, I think you may have used the word "moelikheid", you will have been in problems, personally, because of the death that resulted from the torture. Did you say that?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I said that. That is exactly how I felt.
JUDGE NGCOBO: What "moelikheid"?
MR MOSTERT: I referred to a situation where we had - [end of side ’A’] - and at this stage I don’t know which route we going to follow. What are we going to do about this? How are we going to address the issue? That is why I referred to the big problems that I foresee and today it’s still a problem for me.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Let’s put it this way. You could have been charged with culpable homicide, arising from the death of the deceased, correct?
JUDGE NGCOBO: The same applies to the other officers who were involved in the torture and the killing of the deceased?
JUDGE NGCOBO: So it was therefore necessary for you and your colleagues to come up with a plan which will protect you from such charges, correct?
MR MOSTERT: Your Honour, I think that is exactly what happened later on.
JUDGE NGCOBO: So when you engage in this elaborate process of making false entries, making false statements, some of which were made under oath, that was intended to protect yourself from this prosecution, correct?
JUDGE NGCOBO: You were of course relieved because your commanders were prepared to help you out?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Now, you do understand, I take it, the implications of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act, do you? In other words it allows the Police to detain a detainee until such time that the detainee provides the Police with the information they require, is that right?
JUDGE NGCOBO: So, if a detainee does not co-operate with the Security Branch it would have been an easy matter for the Police simply to let the chap rot in the cells? If he was prepared to co-operate, correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. But on the other hand, this person has to be interrogated on a daily basis as I experience the system.
JUDGE NGCOBO: What I’m trying to establish this, you see, you employer, the Government, of that day, provided you with a mechanism of extracting the truth from a detainee, namely, you put the person in communicado, you interrogate him. If he doesn’t co-operate, if he doesn’t give you the information that you require, you continue to detain him, that’s the method provided to you by your employer, is that right?
JUDGE NGCOBO: Your employer has personally prohibited the use of torture, right? Correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, that is correct.
JUDGE NGCOBO: So when you tortured the deceased, you went against the express instructions of your employer?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. But on the other hand, I would like to add it might have been the case but if you look at situations that we referred to earlier. Let’s take the criminal section who only work with criminals. Here you have a totally different spectrum, it’s more in the region of the politics.
This same employer, by means of, for example his powers, for example the Security Forces, he has to salvage his own case and he has to make himself acceptable in the eyes of the electorate and also attention has to be given to the internal security situation and that is the feeling that we had and as we talked to one another, he doesn’t give it in writing to me that I give you permission that you may continue these kinds of irregularities but on the other hand you can also say this is how we interpreted it.
It was unwritten rule. This is what you should do. That is how I understood it.
JUDGE NGCOBO: What gave you that impression?
MR MOSTERT: As investigating officers where we talked to one another and sometimes your commanders also give you the same impression and it’s not that you have to apply it to everyone everyday but there are certain cases where you can apply it. I think there are certain people who can testify in this regard.
JUDGE NGCOBO: I thought that you were, according to your evidence, at any rate, you could not have tortured a person in front of your commander?
MR MOSTERT: I didn’t want to and I don’t think I ever will do something like this in front of my commander.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Is it possible that during the heat of the interrogation, you may have lost your temper? That is on the 12th June 1988.
MR MOSTERT: No, I can’t imagine that I lost my temper.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Is it possible that you could have spoken harshly to the deceased?
MR MOSTERT: Earlier yes, I said that it was a possibility but I can’t imagine.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me just ask you a general question now. Previously, you have been part of a decision to cover up the fact that the deceased died as a result of torture that yourself and your colleagues perpetrated on the deceased, to that extent you made false entries, and did you make any statement under oath, in regard to the cover up? I think you did. You did make a sworn statement which was also false.
JUDGE NGCOBO: And that statement was made under oath?
JUDGE NGCOBO: Now, in light of that, what - why should we now believe you? Why should this Commission believe that you have told us everything that occurred on the 12th June 1988?
MR MOSTERT: I willingly came to this Commission with the idea to assist. I cannot take part in the new South Africa with this that I carry. I am trying to give the truth as far as I can remember. It goes back a long time but I have tried to present to you in such a way. There’s nothing else that I can offer you except the truth.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I see that it’s 25 past 1. I think this would - we’ll continue after the lunch break. If we could reconvene at 2 o’clock or so soon thereafter as possible.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mostert, you said that on the 11th June, you received information relating to the deceased at a meeting that was held at Krugersdorp, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: That’s correct your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: And that information related to certain alleged activities in which the deceased was involved in?
MR MOSTERT: That’s correct your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know what the source of that information was? Were you told, were you shown statement by witnesses or were you told where that information came from that was given to you?
MR MOSTERT: Our information came, as I said earlier from the information branch West Rand where we had talks with them on that specific Saturday morning and where certain information concerning these aspects given to all of us your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: [inaudible] disclosed what the source of that information was? Did they say, well look we’ve got information from an informer or here’s the docket, here’s statements and witnesses who say that?
MR MOSTERT: As far as I remember your Honour it was presented by several members of the Security Branch of the West Rand and I accept they might have had statements and information.
CHAIRPERSON: [inaudible] it is, you then said that you know when you interrogated the deceased he denied participating in any acts of terror I think you referred it as. Now what made you believe that he was perhaps not telling the truth when he denied that? If you didn’t know precisely the strength of the source of the information to the contrary.
MR MOSTERT: Your Honour I did not know the strength of the source which gave the information. We went according to what was presented to us by the Security Investigators at West Rand.
CHAIRPERSON: So it may be in fact that your conclusion that the deceased was not co-operating might have been an incorrect conclusion. He might have been telling the truth when he was denying it.
MR MOSTERT: Your Honour, I’ll try and answer in this way. I was convinced that the information we received was the correct information as it was presented. I cannot remember whether it was with affidavits or just information received.
CHAIRPERSON: [inaudible] you also said that during the course of the interrogation you kept notes of questions and answers, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: That’s correct your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: And you also said that as far as you know those notes might still be in John Vorster Square?
MR MOSTERT: That’s correct your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: Those notes clearly, from what I’ve heard here would have been inconsistent with the faked escape would they not have. Because in the fake escape it was said that the deceased was taken to this place near Dedeur for purposes of pointing out etc., which means that one, I think can reasonably infer from that that prior to that he must have given information about going to point out stuff. Whereas these notes of yours would have been just a long list of denials. Why wasn’t that list destroyed? That question and answers?
MR MOSTERT: Your Honour, to conceal, it would have been negative for us to get rid of those notes because as I said it was a fake escape and the false entries made according to that goes hand in hand with the story which we gave by means of statements.
CHAIRPERSON: If the investigating officer in the escape case came and said well look you know, have you got notes of your interview prior to proceeding to Dedeur and you handed them over and they read that, wouldn’t their next question have been well why did you go to Dedeur, this chap has denied everything and now suddenly you say he’s going there to point out evidence. Wouldn’t that have been inconsistent with the story about the escape?
MR MOSTERT: The particulars, this specific part of the document is the truth. At the beginning of the questioning or interrogation and the processing on the Sunday’s interrogation up to the point where an entry is made that the detainee would now show us a certain place in Sebokeng from that point onwards everything is false. That would link up to the escape, it was particular like this, it would link up to the escape should you be asked questions then you have those particulars to explain why we were on our way to Sebokeng and what goes hand in hand with that.
So it would have been consistent with the escape.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Van Der Walt, do you have any questions arising from the questions that have been put by the panel.
FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Mostert, you were asked, you have to comment on Mr Nkosi’s statement and you told the Honorary Committee member that you read the statement and this statement is in Volume 3, it’s quite a lengthy statement. Can you remember what’s written in that statement?
MR MOSTERT: I went through the statement. I can’t remember exactly what’s written there. Not everything. I know that the man was tortured.
MS VAN DER WALT: I just want to refer you to the statement specific - it’s on Page 653, Paragraph 64 where Mr Nkosi says that his eyes were closed with a rubber and a balaclava was pulled over his head. That was one bit. That was part of his assault and then he goes on and says, whilst he was tied on the chair, he was still blindfolded and the shock device was placed onto him on his wrists and his legs and his private parts and then he was shocked and these shocks or the shock period was quite lengthy and quite severe.
He screamed a lot, he experienced a lot of pain and now the Honorary Committee member asked you - he didn’t ask you to give comment on this assault but he specifically asked you if this statement of Nkosi is correct. If it’s the truth and we accept it’s the truth. What do you say with regards to that assault of Mr Nkosi, was it worse than what happened with Mr Bopape?
MR MOSTERT: I think I understood that question incorrectly. I would say it was much more severe. Mr Nkosi’s assault was much worse.
MS VAN DER WALT: He goes further and he says, something was pushed underneath his nose which smelt like chloroform to revive him. Did anything like that happen to Mr Bopape?
MS VAN DER WALT: And just another aspect, you were also asked and you said you were not very long at the Security Police and you thought it was a big family. It was not your principles to assault someone but you didn’t want to feel an outsider and you also said it was done to cover that offence. If these were not your principles, you could have walked away, surely?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. Let me put it this way. Afterwards the way I have experienced it, the country was in disorder, there were bomb explosions and the Security Forces and the Security Police and the Government, it was difficult for them to deal with all of these things.
I would like to say also that after this person fell away, that I did go along with it, it was only a few days away from commemoration of the unrest of 16 June and if something like that was made known - [inaudible] death cases, it could have caused further bloodshed, further unrests and several problems for the Government of the day and would have put the politicians in the Government of that day in a very bad light, was it made known.
MS VAN DER WALT: So if I understand you correctly that even though you coming from the Detective branch, it was not your personal feeling to do something like this but because of the circumstances you took part in them.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP: Mr Mostert, Mrs Gcabashe asked you a question with regards to what happened to his personal property. Is it procedure that the Charge Office where the person is placed in detention that these things are taken away from him by the person in the Charge Office and then a receipt is written out? Do you know those procedures?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I know them. That’s exactly how it worked. But when it comes to Section 29 they were held separately, I don’t know if the same process was applied to them.
MR STEENKAMP: But a receipt would have been written by a uniform personnel, kept by them?
MR STEENKAMP: So if there was property, a receipt would still exist today, if the books were not destroyed?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, it would be found.
MR STEENKAMP: Thank you, your Honour.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser do you have any questions arising?
MR VISSER: I have no questions thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, do you have any questions arising?
FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mostert, I’d just quickly like to go back to those pages 753 and 754. As I understood these two pages 753 and 754, this place next to each other is actually one page and it’s read from left to right and you carry on from 753 to 754 and you read it across.
Let’s just look at it in that sense and look at the entries made next to the name Bopape. It seems that in the 4th line from the bottom of the page, is that correct or the 4th space possibly.
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I see there are spaces.
MR RAUTENBACH: The first bit there, something is written in, it refers to race and gender and the next column refers to MR or CR is that correct? At CR we find the letters LB which probably refers to a Warrant, so there was no MR at that point.
MR MOSTERT: No, there’s no MR.
MR RAUTENBACH: The next column refers to the time and we see 20h05 [inaudible] this before, is that correct? Then we have the date 10.6, which probably refers to the time of arrest.
MR MOSTERT: No, the arrest took place on the 9th. The 10th is the detention.
MR RAUTENBACH: So what does 10.6 stand for? Which date’s that?
MR MOSTERT: That refers to the date of detention.
MR RAUTENBACH: The next column refers to SAP 22.
MR MOSTERT: That’s the prisoner’s property receipt.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can you read what’s written there? At SAP 22.
MR MOSTERT: I can’t make out, maybe MU4 or it could be nil. I cannot read that.
MR RAUTENBACH: It could be NIL, is that correct?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, beneath it it’s also NIL, so I accept that.
MR RAUTENBACH: And at the time, we already dealt with it. Time of release 05h05 and the date, the 13th. Let’s go to the next column. It seems it’s written there, escape at Dedeur and the number and that’s an MR - is that MR number?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I accept that.
MR RAUTENBACH: And the next item is under 7 and that’s meals. What - can you explain to us how, what is written underneath meals?
MR MOSTERT: I accept it’s the weekly meals. I never worked with that, I don’t know. But I do know it’s written down.
MR RAUTENBACH: Also whether maybe the person is - is that the amount of meals he received whilst he was there?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, it could be that.
MR RAUTENBACH: So could we assume there were 6 meals - he had 6 meals whilst he was in detention?
MR MOSTERT: That’s possibly so.
MR RAUTENBACH: Then there was also emphasis placed on the question of Section 29 which would have been written down by you or someone else. What is written on the right of the column, 4th from the bottom, 4th from the bottom? The last column on the right, underneath remarks, everywhere it says Section 29 and then next to Bopape there’s something written, can you read that?
MR MOSTERT: It looks like Section 29 - it’s not very clear. It looks like Section 29.
MR RAUTENBACH: Which form is used when a person is released, that Warrant, what do you call that form, that document?
MR MOSTERT: I don’t know if I’m correct but I think it’s SAP 304.
MR RAUTENBACH: So it’s not quite apparent but what’s written in that column, you say you think it’s Section 29 - it could also be something else?
MR MOSTERT: Yes. Because we do not have the original it’s difficult to determine what’s written there.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can you just tell us, how long was Mr Bopape detained? Let’s just make a small sum, 5 past 8 on the evening of the 10th and the Sunday between 12 and 1 he died, is that correct?
MR RAUTENBACH: Is there any reason why underneath "meals" you could say it’s six, "only six meals received"?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, but like I say, it was written by the uniform people.
MR RAUTENBACH: You mentioned that the information was that Bopape was locally trying in act of terror by Mopanya. Who gave you that information and when?
MR MOSTERT: That was the information, it was given to me on Saturday the 11th by members of West Rand.
MR RAUTENBACH: Those members of West Rand did not give you the sources of the information?
MR MOSTERT: No, not that I can remember.
MR RAUTENBACH: Can you tell me if the people known as Kleynhans, I think JP Kleynhans, as well as Bezuidenhout, were they present at that meeting?
MR MOSTERT: I do not know. I only know Mr Kleynhans.
MR RAUTENBACH: At this stage I would just like to tell you that I have received statements of Kleynhans as well as Bezuidenhout and these affidavits seems to have been taken down on the 22nd of February 1998 and is relevant to the Stanza Bopape case and I would like to tell you from looking at these affidavits which was made available to me, it seems that the information that they had was that Bopape was in contact by telephone with a certain Helen Mogale. You didn't have this information, did you?
MR MOSTERT: No, no, I didn't have it.
MR RAUTENBACH: And I put this as a hypothetical question because the factual situation is not complete, what would have been your situation, would you have acted in a different manner if the only information you had was that Bopape was in contact by telephone with Helen Mogale who had contacts with people in the Mopanya group.
If this was the only information you had, a phone conversation, would you have acted differently?
MR MOSTERT: In this case, I doubt it strongly if a person would be arrested just because he had a phone conversation with someone.
MR RAUTENBACH: That is the question, if that is the information you had, would it have influenced your behaviour?
MR MOSTERT: What I am trying to say is in those circumstances, I cannot see how somebody can be arrested because of a telephone conversation of someone.
So I cannot see how that could influence me.
MR RAUTENBACH: So you would have acted exactly the same, you would have continued with the interrogation as was expected of you?
MR MOSTERT: I believe that if the person was detained, I would have interrogated him. But how far can you go when it comes to interrogation or questioning on a telephone, it is difficult for me to accept it.
MR RAUTENBACH: I want to put it to you according to what you said earlier in response to a question placed by a member of the Committee, your answer was we had to do with people who had been shot to shreds, innocent people died because of terror.
Can I understand from that answer that you would have in any case, were that person given to you for interrogation, you would have carried on trying to get information from him, even if the information concerning him, was small, you would have kept on with the interrogation?
MR MOSTERT: I would have went as far as possible to obtain the information.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert, your application for amnesty was signed in 1996?
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I don't want to interrupt, but I don't know if this question flows forth from the questions of the panel?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach with this question you are now referring to the application that was lodged by the applicant, is that matter arising out of questions put by the panel?
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, there was a question by one of the members specifically relating to the application for amnesty and whether the contents of that application should be due to the background f the matter, due to certain things that happened before.
All I am trying to establish in relation to that question, was whether there was any other event that actually happened before the filing of the application for amnesty, that may or may not have influenced the witness in telling the truth or not.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mrs Van der Walt, I am going to allow that question, we are not in a court of law after all and I don't think it is such a deviation as to disallow it, so I am going to allow the question.
MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Mostert, I just want to make sure, it seems that your specific amnesty application was signed on the 12th of December 1996?
MR RAUTENBACH: Before the 12th of December 1996, can you remember if you were approached by the Investigation Unit and if you signed an affidavit or rather signed a warning statement?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I did sign a warning statement. No, it wasn't a warning statement, it was a normal statement as far as I can remember.
MR RAUTENBACH: With regards to this issue?
MR MOSTERT: No, no, not with regards to this issue.
MR RAUTENBACH: So are you saying that this issue was not investigated by the Attorney General's Investigation Unit?
MR MOSTERT: I assume that they were taking part in such investigation, but the statement that I had to sign, I had to do something completely different.
MR RAUTENBACH: Just one last aspect that I would like to talk about, did you at any stage become aware of the fact that any of your fellow applicants became State witness with regards to the Bopape incident?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, information did come about. I can't remember exactly when, that Mr Du Preez contacted someone or spoke about this, with someone outside of our group, but that was also a long time ago, it was shortly after the incident.
MR RAUTENBACH: Let me ask you this, did you obtain any information concerning Zeelie's position as far as he might have been a State witness?
MR MOSTERT: I do not know if he is going to be a State witness, but I knew that he had interviews with the Attorney General.
MR RAUTENBACH: This took place before the application for amnesty?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I accept it must have taken place before the application for amnesty.
MR RAUTENBACH: I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH: .
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions arising?
MR STEENKAMP: Sir, no questions, but if you allow me a moment, just with reference to the statement which my colleague, Adv Rautenbach referred to, the statement of Johannes Petrus Kleynhans, I made available copies of statements of Johannes
Petrus Kleynhans, and the statement of a person called Mr Bezuidenhout, Cornelius Johannes Bezuidenhout, to all the parties concerned yesterday.
I asked if there was any objection to any of the documents, I think accept Adv Prinsloo indicated that he will indicate to me whether he had a problem or not. I have copies of the document in my possession, so I don't know, I would like to ask if that can be handed in as well at this stage, because there had been mention about those documents, and those documents are not before the Committee at this stage, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: I think I would prefer that they be handed in only after Mr Prinsloo's objection has been dealt with, because if we get it and read it and he successfully objects, and we give it back, there is not much point in the objection.
I don't know when Mr Prinsloo will be ready on that aspect, but I think we must deal with that before we as a panel receive those statements. Do you agree Mr Prinsloo?
ADV PRINSLOO: I agree Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as far as the statement is concerned, at this stage we are not accepting the contents of the statement. First of all, and the statement itself does not contain the detail that is in our possession, so for that reason we don't accept it, and other detail as well Mr Chairman, so this witness will have to testify in order for us to ask him questions, unless they are going to file a statement which contains further detail.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, is it the intention that Kleynhans be called as a witness as presently advised?
MR STEENKAMP: Sir, I had indications from Adv Rautenbach...
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, and Bezuidenhout?
MR STEENKAMP: Yes, and Bezuidenhout sir. At this stage I have indications from victims' Attorneys that they would like to call both these witnesses.
I can just for record purposes say that I was not able to contact or get hold of Mr Kleynhans until Thursday. We were only able to get statements this last Sunday of him, so that is the reason why I only have the statements now in my possession.
CHAIRPERSON: And who is Bezuidenhout, what is his role?
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, Mr Bezuidenhout apparently was present when Mr Bopape was arrested, and Mr Kleynhans is the Mr Kleynhans which is referred to by applicant number 1, I think.
CHAIRPERSON: Is he the West Rand Kleynhans?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach, is it the intention to call these people as witnesses at some stage?
MR RAUTENBACH: In the light of the objection on the basis of Mr Prinsloo not accepting the contents of the affidavit, the family therefore intend calling those two witnesses. May I just make the following suggestion as well, that as far as the affidavit, that the affidavit goes in on exactly the same grounds as was the affidavit of Mr Vlok, the contents are not admitted, but I can see no reason for not provisionally allowing the affidavits in the light of the fact that we have given notice now that we are going to call these witnesses so that the affidavits may be used in cross-examination when necessary Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Prinsloo, in the light of the information that these two deponents will be called as witnesses, do you still object to them being handed in to the panel at this stage, those statements?
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, what would be the purpose of handing in the statement if it is not accepted, if the witness will be called as a witness, then obviously the statement can be put to him by Mr Rautenbach and he can then prove the statement?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well it seems to be before this matter was heard, we were given a huge bundle containing numerous statements just so that the panel can be aware more or less, before it starts, of what the nature of the evidence is going to be.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, this statement as Mr Steenkamp indicated, was only handed to us late yesterday and I only had time after that, to peruse the statement and to consult with one witness with regard to this statement.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't believe and I will consult with my fellow members of the panel, that it is either urgently or required at all that we as a panel see the statement before the evidence is led. I personally, I am saying this specifically, personally believe that I need only see the statement if at all, if a witness is giving evidence, (indistinct) I don't really have to see it at all. If it is handed in at that stage, it doesn't bother me, I am not particularly bothered by not having that statement as a panel member, now.
If you could just bear with me.
JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Prinsloo, is your objection to the handing in of the statement, based on the fact that you do not admit the contents of the statement, or do you say that the statement was not made by the person who purports to have made the statement, because these are two issues as I see them.
One you can object to it on the basis that it was not made by the person who purports to have made the statement, which is one thing in which event, the statement would have to be proved in the normal course of events, on the other occasion, you can object to the contents of the statement, which is a different matter all together. What is the basis of your objection?
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, the objection is to the contents of the statement. On the face of it, it appears to have been made by the person.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Prinsloo, I think in the past we possibly had similar cases. The ruling that was given and I don't say that will be the case here as well, it cannot serve as evidence against your clients except if you have the opportunity to cross-examine them.
But a statement can be handed in and if there is no objection, then it can serve as evidence. If the content in any way is contested, then the person has to give evidence and anyone who object to it, should then have the opportunity to cross-examine, otherwise that statement can never be used as evidence against a person who did not have the opportunity to cross-examine.
If that is applied here, then this statement could possibly be handed in, but it could not serve as any evidence against your clients, except if you did not have the opportunity or have the opportunity to cross-examine or test the evidence, or if you then allow it to be used as evidence against them.
ADV PRINSLOO: With respect Chairman, it is so we contest the content and you are correct that there have been similar cases in the past, but it must be put clearly here that we do not accept the content.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Vlok's affidavit for example, was submitted in the same way on the basis that they don't agree with the content.
ADV PRINSLOO: That was from the family's side, yes, that is correct.
MR MOLOI: In the bundle we also have the affidavit I think it is, of Nkosi, I think it is, which was made available to us well before this hearing.
ADV PRINSLOO: On the same basis, with respect Mr Chairman, as indicated by the Chairman, there was indication that these people will be called as a witness in any event Mr Chairman, so if he comes to testify, then we will put to him the version which we agree or disagree with. That will be the way of dealing with that.
JUDGE NGCOBO: To avoid to have a look at this statement for the first time when the witness is just about to give the evidence, why can't we have a look at the statement well beforehand, if the person comes in to give the evidence, then we know beforehand what the witness is going to say, but if the person doesn't give you know, doesn't come up to give the evidence, then the statement will have to be dealt with on those basis, unless you can point out it seems to me, to some form of prejudice that you know, your client is likely to suffer if it is handed in at this stage.
Bearing in mind, you see, this is an enquiry, you know, where all the facts have to be put before this Committee so as to enable it to make a proper decision, and if the witness is going to give evidence, and if your objection is with regard to the context, he will come testify before us, you will test his version as set out in the statement.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, in view of the undertaking that the witness will be called as a witness, and on the basis that the statement will merely be received by the Committee in order to receive it prior to the witness testifying, I have no objection to that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Prinsloo.
MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, thank you Mr Chairman, I have provisionally unfortunately marked these documents just for indication purposes, provisionally E and F. It is one document, that of Johannes Petrus Kleynhans and that of Mr Bezuidenhout.
ADV DE JAGER: It should be F and G in any event.
MR STEENKAMP: Yes, it must be F and G sir. They are marked E and F, but actually it must be F and G.
ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, I see this affidavit was taken before a person described as Amnesty Committee, TRC. I really want to ask the Amnesty Committee workers not to take affidavits taken down by themselves, before a person working for the Committee.
There are numerous decisions saying that a person shouldn't be asked to take an affidavit before a firm of Attorneys dealing with the matter, I think it is applicable here too.
MR STEENKAMP: I do apologise Mr Chairman.
MR MOLOI: Mr Mostert, I just want to make a follow up on the statements that you have made in response to the questions by Mr Rautenbach, and that is in regard to your application for amnesty which I gather you signed in December 1996, is that right?
MR MOLOI: I beg your pardon, it is directed at the witness. You said in December 1996?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I accept that.
MR MOLOI: Prior to that date, had you made any statement in regard to the Bopape death?
MR MOSTERT: Except for the false statements, no.
MR MOLOI: The statement that you referred to which you signed, was that the false statement that you are referring to?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I referred to the statement in the escape docket.
MR MOLOI: Okay, were you aware of any - this is prior to you sending off the amnesty application - were you aware of any investigation that was being conducted by the Attorney General in connection with the Bopape matter?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, I learnt of something like that, but no one made any enquiries.
MR MOLOI: How did you become aware of that, where did you
MR MOSTERT: I think one of my friends, Mr Engelbrecht, informed me about this.
MR MOLOI: Would that be one of the applicants?
MR MOSTERT: Yes, it is one of the applicants.