amntrans JOHANNES WILLEM MOMBERG 1999-05-04 PRETORIA 2 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=53317&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1999/99050313_pre_990504pt.htm JOHANNES WILLEM MOMBERG (sworn states) MR MALAN Thank you. MR ALBERTS Thank you, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Full names please. MR MOMBERG Willem Johannes Momberg. EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS Mr Momberg, you sat here and listened all day to the evidence of Mr Goosen, and you are applying for amnesty for precisely the same incident, is that correct? MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS And is it correct to say that broadly speaking you and he agree concerning the happenings, the occurrences around this incident? MR MOMBERG As far as the broad details are concerned, yes. MR ALBERTS For record purposes can you confirm that the parts of your application for amnesty that are relevant to this incident are contained in bundle 3, the general introductory part from page 553 to page 581, is that correct? MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. Are you familiar with the contents of those pages? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Do you confirm the correctness thereof? MR MOMBERG I confirm it. MR ALBERTS The incident itself is dealt with on page 596 up to page 604, in the same bundle, is that correct? MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS We will get to that now. Then on page 646 and further, up to page 650, that's the concluding part which is relevant? MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Do you confirm the correctness of the contents of that? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Right. Can we come back to page 596. Here you also give the time during which this incident took place, it was approximately January to April 1986, is that correct? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS What happened in this occurrence you find on the next page, that is 597, can you start there and briefly tell the Committee what your version is. MR MOMBERG "Chairperson, during the period mentioned above, I got a telephonic call from Brigadier Jack Cronje, which instructed me to report at his house at approximately 7 o'clock that evening." MR ALBERTS What time did you receive this call? MR MOMBERG Approximately half past five that afternoon. MR ALBERTS And after that? MR MOMBERG "He also told me that I should assist members of Unit B, with identifications that would be done by an MK member who was then in detention and had already been interrogated to some extent." MR ALBERTS Now this detention, Sergeant Goosen referred to as an informal detention which was technically unlawful, do you agree with his opinion on that? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson. What they meant was that the man was brought in for questioning, he hadn't been formally charged or detained formally. MR ALBERTS Can you continue. MR MOMBERG When I arrived at Brigadier Cronje's house I ...(intervention) JUDGE PILLAY Did they intend charging him? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, I cannot comment on that at this stage. When Brigadier Cronje contacted me he just said that Unit B had the man and that he had to go and point out things in Mamelodi. Whether the intention was that he would be charged afterwards, would probably depend on the information that came up. MR ALBERTS Would you please continue. MR MOMBERG "When I arrived at Brigadier Cronje's house I noticed a minibus in his driveway. In this bus, if my memory serves me correctly, the following people were already present; Lieutenant Jaap van Jaarsveld, Sergeant Deon Gouws, Sergeant Wouter Mentz, Sergeant Joe Mamasela, Sergeant Eric Goosen, Sergeant Tiny Coetzer and Brigadier Cronje." MR ALBERTS I just want to interrupt you, Mr Momberg. You will now have a chance, just now, to think again about the reliability of your memory, but let's get to the point immediately, Sergeant Mentz amongst others, what is your attitude now towards the allegation on page 597? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, as in Sergeant Goosen's case, later after we submitted these applications we noticed that we had made a mistake by implicating Sergeant Mentz, and that in fact we actually referred to Sergeant Andre Oosthuizen. MR ALBERTS Now you heard that Mr Goosen's explanation was that he simply confused them, owing to the fact that he thought that at that time, at that specific time they were members of the Murder and Robbery Unit. MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson, I agree with that, that that is where the confusion could have arisen. We did not on a very regular basis work with Murder and Robbery and we could have confused these people, yes. MR ALBERTS Right. Now you're mentioning another name about which you have also thought in the meantime, and that is the name of Sergeant Tiny Coetzer, what is your attitude now in this regard? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, I think I implicated Tiny Coetzer erroneously and with the knowledge available to me now and with the refreshing of my memory, I could to some extent determine why I did that and it was in fact because at previous occasions I had driven the same road with Tiny Coetzer during the day, and the fact that the incident also took place on that road could have let me think that he might have been involved in this incident, which was incorrect. MR ALBERTS Right. ...(intervention) MR MALAN The same road, which road are you talking about? MR MOMBERG That is the Pienaarsrivier. MR MALAN Pienaarsrivier. MR MOMBERG That's correct, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Now you continue on page 597, by mentioning that there was a possibility that other people were there, but you weren't sure about that, is that at present still the position? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson, it's as if there's something there that there was someone else, but I cannot for the life of me say who it was and if it was in fact so. MR ALBERTS Now lastly, in the second paragraph on page 597, you mention an unknown black man in the bus and you say that you assumed that this was the MK member involved, that Brigadier Cronje mentioned earlier on. MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. On my arrival at Brigadier Cronje's house I did not see the black man at first and only when I walked closer to the minibus I saw that there was person lying right at the back in the back seat, in fact between the seat and the back door of the bus. MR ALBERTS Now what took place after you left Brigadier Cronje's house? MR MOMBERG "Chairperson, after that we left for Silverton and at a road cafe we met Captain Hendrik Prinsloo. Captain Prinsloo was from Unit C. From there, from Silverton we drove directly to Mamelodi and on the way there, in order to give the MK member a chance to orientate himself and to determine where he was so that as soon as we got into Mamelodi he could start with identifications, we let him come over from the back to the seat, the back seat." MR ALBERTS And then, did he sit on the seat? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, we let him sit between myself and Captain Prinsloo on the back seat of the bus. MR ALBERTS Then according to your application, between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock you arrived in Mamelodi. MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Will you please continue. MR MOMBERG "According to what I was told and what I could deduce from conversations it was clear to me that the MK member was tasked to identify safe-houses for future terrorist operations and to make further logistic arrangements for a specific terrorist operation planned in Mamelodi. This operation would have been aimed at eliminating policemen and to commit other acts of terrorism." CHAIRPERSON I don't want to interfere with your leading of evidence, but is it necessary to read out all of this, can't he merely confirm certain portions and merely deal with those that are in issue? MR ALBERTS I will try and limit the evidence to that, Mr Chairman. Do you agree with the aim of this visit to Mamelodi, as set out further in this application, namely that it was to make identifications and to acquire further information relating to that? MR MOMBERG I agree with that, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS You already know what Mr Goosen testified to that, do you agree with what he said? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS If we carry on to the next page, that is 599 of the application, there you tell the story of what actually started happening with the attempts to make identifications in Mamelodi. As Mr Goosen said you also say that the outcome was that you felt that you were being misled by this MK member, owing to his inability to do what he was in fact taken there to do. MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. I would go further and say that we could determine that he was busy misleading us because as a result, and this refers once again back to the reference in my application where I said that I could deduce from discussions what the MK member's task and purpose was and what happened then while we were in the minibus, it was clear to us that he was busy misleading us and that he was doing his best to avoid identifying any safe-houses and other places. MR ALBERTS And if I understand your application correctly, that state of affairs gave rise to the fact that you amongst others, assaulted him, is that correct? MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS And also Captain Prinsloo? MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Can you say shortly what was the nature of the assault at that stage, initially? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, the assault at that stage was limited, as already testified, fist blows on the fact, elbow on the upper body, in the limited space that was there with three people of the bus. So it wasn't a severe assault. JUDGE PILLAY ...(indistinct) MR MOMBERG Chairperson, I saw my role as supportive of Captain Prinsloo, who took the lead with the interrogation. Firstly, while this man was being interrogated, to keep him off balance, not to give him a chance to think of answers, not to give him a chance to gather his wits. MR ALBERTS And would that be with regard to his active misleading as you've already said? MR MOMBERG Yes, that was also a result of his misleading tactics that we started trying to get him to leave these tactics and to give his co-operation. MR ALBERTS Now we know that what happened afterwards was that the scene changed somewhat to a relatively empty piece of open ground or veld in the immediate vicinity of Mamelodi, do you agree with that? MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS And there you get the impression that the level of aggression in the interrogation and the assault increased somewhat, is that correct? MR MOMBERG To an extent yes, Chairperson. At that stage when we stopped there, we realised, or I got the feeling that we were now at a point where we would have to convince this man to give his co-operation and as such we spoke hard to him and the assault was intensified. MR ALBERTS And did this have any positive fruits? MR MOMBERG No, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Now what happened next, what was the next step? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, to the best of my knowledge we then got back into the minibus, after the man had been told that he would be given a last chance to give his co-operation, and we followed some of the same routes again in Mamelodi. JUDGE PILLAY But what did you mean by "his last chance"? MR MOMBERG It was a threat, Chairperson. JUDGE PILLAY What would he have thought? MR MOMBERG He should have thought that what happened to him up till now was very mild compared to the extent that we would go with this type of interrogation. JUDGE PILLAY Does that include killing him? MR MOMBERG No, not at this stage, Chairperson. MR MALAN The question is, what should he have thought, should he have thought that he's getting a chance to talk or he would be killed? MR MOMBERG Not necessarily killed. I can't say what he should have thought, Chairperson. What we wanted to achieve was that this man should realise that what had happened to him up till now could become worse. MR MALAN Yes, how bad, that he could be killed? MR MOMBERG The possibility should possibly have been foreseen, but at that stage that wasn't my observation. MR MALAN You don't understand the question correctly. we don't ask if you had the intention of killing him, we are asking if he could have deduced from this threat that he might be killed? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson. MR MALAN That was a simple question, but you say he should have had that in his head as well, that if he didn't talk he might be killed, to get him to talk. MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Mr Momberg, we now know that what happened after that was that the vehicle with everybody inside drove to a certain place in the Pienaarsrivier vicinity. MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS And it is clear from your application that it took place in an isolated farm environment. MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson, it was a rural area. MR ALBERTS Can you briefly just inform the Committee what happened there after you arrived there. MR MOMBERG Chairperson, on the road that we have already testified to, when we stopped most of the people got out of the bus, the MK member was taken out of the bus to the back of the bus where Captain Prinsloo still took the lead with the interrogation, or continued the interrogation. During this interrogation the man was again assaulted by hitting him, by pushing him around and at a stage in that process, Captain Prinsloo then also grabbed him around the throat and started strangling him in order to put the man in an uncomfortable position, because I think someone who has a lack of oxygen will start struggling, and Captain Prinsloo pushed the man back into the back baggage compartment, the boot of the bus. This strangulation continued until the man became limp and ended up on the ground. MR ALBERTS Now did you take part in that part of the assault in Pienaarsrivier? MR MOMBERG No, Chairperson, I was not part of the assault there. MR ALBERTS Now we have already heard Mr Goosen's account concerning the happenings thereafter, namely that you and he received an instruction from Brigadier Cronje, do you also remember it as such? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS What was the nature of the instruction? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, Brigadier Cronje told, instructed me and Goosen to take a landmine which was in the vehicle and prepare it for detonation. When he gave this instruction, Brigadier Cronje was standing at the side door of the bus and with a hand gesture and with a movement of his head he showed a sports bag to me, which was inside the bus. I then - the bag was in the far side of the bus, on the far side of the side door, I pulled it closer to me and felt that it was quite a heavy bag, I opened it and saw that there were various explosive devices in this bag. Apart from the landmine, I can remember that there were limpet mines and also a few handgrenades, how many I can't remember precisely. MR ALBERTS Now how did you carry out this instruction of Brigadier Cronje further? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, I took this landmine and a capped fuse, I took these and walked away from the bus, in the lights of the bus. I would say approximately 15 to 20 metres away from the bus, in the light of the bus I prepared the landmine for detonation. This preparation included to see whether this landmine would have any affects that could influence the explosion and whether the capped fuse was proper and was properly attached. MR ALBERTS And were you assisted by Mr Goosen during this process? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson, Mr Goosen was with me. MR ALBERTS And what did you do when the preparation with the landmine was completed? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, we walked back to the bus, the prepared landmine with the capped fuse on one side next to it. We put it down in front of the bus, still in the lights of the bus. Brigadier Cronje then gave us an instruction to make sure that we destroyed the body so that identification would not be possible. I and Sergeant Goosen then went to the back of the bus where this black person was lying on his back. We picked him up, Goosen on the foot end and myself on the shoulders, the upper end of the body and we carried him from the back of the bus to the front of the bus where the landmine was. Thereafter we turned the body around so that the body's stomach was at the bottom and the head and hands were positions on top of the landmine. I then instructed Sergeant Goosen to go back to the bus. He walked away from me. I took the capped fuse and put it into the landmine, made sure that it couldn't slip out. I looked around to see if the bus was at a safe distance away. According to my recollection the bus was in that stage in the process of turning and I was satisfied that they were far enough away to be safe, but close enough for me to get to the bus easily enough after I had lit the capped fuse. I did this then and I walked away from this scene towards the bus and climbed in. The bus then moved away slowly. We went around a slight turn and to me it was as if it took a little bit long for this explosion to take place and I started looking back. I became a bit worried. If I can just explain here, a capped fuse time factor is determined according to the length of the fuse. If I remember correctly, 15 centimetres gives you approximately a minute's time, but I'm speaking under correction. But in any case it started to feel a bit long and I looked back. It's difficult to say, one or two seconds after I looked back the explosion took place. I first saw the glow and then I heard the bang. We then went back to Pretoria. MR ALBERTS Mr Momberg, can I just ask you a few more questions. At the time when Captain Prinsloo was busy with the interrogation at the Pienaarsrivier leg of this operation, if I can express it as such, where did you take up your position relative to the interrogation of this MK person? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, this interrogation took a while and at certain given times I was behind, to one side, almost next to Captain Prinsloo, then I would have moved away and moved back, but in the process, at the time when the strangulation took place I was behind to one side of Captain Prinsloo. MR ALBERTS And did you observe how he strangled this person? MR MOMBERG That is correct, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Now what was your observation during this strangling process, did you at any stage realise that if it was a, if they continued with this strangling that a possible death could take place? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson, when I started noticing that it was really carrying on for a long time, then I realised that the person could die. MR ALBERTS And was that apparent to everybody present there that were looking at what was going on? They would have seen the same as what you saw, is that correct? MR MOMBERG Yes, to a large extent, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Now did anybody in this company, did anybody make any attempt to stop the strangling? MR MOMBERG At no stage, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions at this stage. Excuse me, Mr Chairman, can I just for purposes of caution, ask one more? Mr Momberg, you haven't - this schedule in which this evidence is contained, you haven't read everything out orally, will you just confirm that what you haven't repeated verbally is correct? MR MOMBERG I confirm that, Chairperson. MR ALBERTS Thank you, Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS CHAIRPERSON Well when you say this evidence, this is what you have written down in your application? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Momberg, I listened to your evidence regarding the explanation you gave in your application that Mr Coetzer was not involved in this incident. Can I ask you regarding that aspect, more specifically regarding the basis of that evidence you've presented here, if you think back about this whole incident, if you think of that and recollect that, can you see the role from Compol to Pienaarsrivier, where Coetzer played any role at all? - as you recollect it. MR MOMBERG No, Mr Chairman. MR ROSSOUW Thank you. Then for the sake of clarity, I want to put to you the question of confusion between Sergeant Mentz and Sergeant Oosthuizen at that stage. I put it to you and I ask you whether you accept that Mr Oosthuizen and Gouws during this incident, were on seconded service at the Security Branch and were not members of Murder and Robbery, do you accept that? MR MOMBERG Yes, Mr Chairman. MR ROSSOUW At that stage, did you hear any rumours that they could be transferred to Murder and Robbery? MR MOMBERG No, Mr Chairman, at that stage I was under the impression that they were already at Murder and Robbery. MR ROSSOUW Was that impression perhaps created because there were rumours that they were going to be transferred there? MR MOMBERG That's a probability. MR ROSSOUW I'm just putting it to you that they were not members of Murder and Robbery at that stage, they were on seconded service to the Security Branch and that they received their instructions from Captain Hechter and Brigadier Cronje. Do you know where their offices were? MR MOMBERG No, Mr Chairman. MR ROSSOUW So you will not able to shed any light or testify that they shared an office with Hechter? MR MOMBERG I knew where the offices of Murder and Robbery were, but I've listened to Goosen's evidence and I was not aware that these two persons were with Hechter in his office, that they shared an office with him. MR ROSSOUW You also listened to the statements I've put to Mr Goosen regarding these aspects regarding Mr Goosen and Gouws, where they cannot recollect for example, that they went to Brigadier Cronje's house or that they picked up Mr Prinsloo at Silverton, and also the movement of the vehicle when the landmine was planted. You've heard that? MR MOMBERG I heard that. MR ROSSOUW I'm just repeating, I'm putting it to you that they cannot remember those specific details and their versions regarding the planting of the landmine and the movement of the vehicle differs. MR MOMBERG I note that, Chairperson. MR ROSSOUW Mr Chairman, I've no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Momberg, can you tell the Honourable Committee what kind of vehicle did Captain Prinsloo drive at that stage? MR MOMBERG No, Mr Chairman, I can't. MR PRINSLOO Do you have any independent recollection that you met him at Silverton Road Cafe? MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, yes, I remember the road cafe, and also the fact that Captain Prinsloo, before he got into the bus he spoke through the window with one or two of the people who were already in the bus. MR PRINSLOO I'm putting it to you that Captain Prinsloo met you at the Silverton Police Station, where he also parked his vehicle. MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, it could be so. The probability exists that Captain Prinsloo followed us from the road cafe and that we returned to the Silverton Police Station and parked the car there, but as far as I can recollect we picked him up at the road cafe. MR PRINSLOO Would Prinsloo leave a government vehicle at a road cafe? MR MALAN No, that was not his evidence, it was said that possibly he could have gone from the road cafe to the police station to park the car there. MR PRINSLOO I'll leave it there then. This specific place at the Pienaarsrivier, who proposed that place? MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, I'm not aware who proposed that we should drive to the Pienaarsrivier. MR PRINSLOO You also mentioned that Tiny Coetzer was well-known, that area was well-known to him. MR MOMBERG That is correct. MR PRINSLOO And according to Mr Prinsloo's version, Tiny Coetzer was in the bus, what do you say about that? MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, with the compilation of this application my first reaction was to say that Coetzer was in involved, but with hindsight I'm sure that he was not there. MR PRINSLOO Who in this vehicle knew how to get to that specific area, who knew that area? MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, from the nature of the work of Unit B, because they also operated in Boputhatswana, and that specific area of the road between the Pienaarsrivier to the western part is a residential area in Boputhatswana, that told me that the people of Unit B knew about that area. MR PRINSLOO Who are the people from Unit B who were in the vehicle? MR MOMBERG As I've already mentioned it was van Jaarsveld and Mamasela, they were from Unit B, and also as I've heard now, on seconded leave, Mr Oosthuizen and Mr Gouws. MR PRINSLOO And Mr Tiny Coetzer was also a member of Unit B and so also Mr van Jaarsveld. MR MOMBERG That is correct, yes. MR PRINSLOO According to Mr Prinsloo, Mr van Jaarsveld was also in the vehicle, what do you say about that? MR MOMBERG According to my recollection he was in the bus and he was the driver of the vehicle. MR PRINSLOO Regarding this specific person, the deceased, there would have been under these circumstances intelligence about an informer who would give intelligence regarding this person's involvement and also the knowledge he was supposed to have regarding safe-houses and MK members. Do you understand what I mean? Shortly, was it because of intelligence from an informer? MR MOMBERG No, as far as I know it was based on intelligence from Mamasela and with a provisional interrogation it was obtained by people from Unit B. MR PRINSLOO But this intelligence, did it come from an informer? MR MOMBERG That's probable, yes. MR PRINSLOO If such a person such as the deceased was confronted with this intelligence which he had regarding safe-houses and MK members' involvement, and taking into consideration how the ANC and the MK's functioned, that somebody conveyed information regarding him, do you agree? MR MOMBERG That is correct. MR PRINSLOO What then was the situation regarding the life of that informer who conveyed this information? MR MOMBERG His life was worthless, he would definitely have been a target. MR PRINSLOO Mamasela according to you, was part of Unit B. MR MOMBERG That is correct, Mr Chairman. MR PRINSLOO And then somebody from Unit B had to obtain the intelligence from the informer. MR MOMBERG That is correct. MR PRINSLOO You also testified that the deceased gave misleading answers and tried to mislead you intentionally, was that part of the tactic, to mislead you, to get time on their side, or to be able to release them? MR MOMBERG That is correct. MR PRINSLOO If such a person would already have been interrogated, if he was released, what would happen then? MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, many things could happen, but it was mainly negative consequences for the Security Branch and the country as a whole. It could cause that MK members could go underground, it could result in informers having negative consequences. MR PRINSLOO Mr Momberg, in the bus while you were driving around in Mamelodi and this person was assaulted there, Mr Prinsloo would say he grabbed this person by his throat and strangled him in the bus, but that was not serious harm. MR MOMBERG It could possibly be, I did not see it. MR PRINSLOO At the Pienaarsrivier where this person was strangled by Mr Prinsloo, where was Brigadier Cronje at that stage? MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, according to my recollection, Brigadier Cronje was standing by the side door of the bus for most of the time. The largest portion of the people were standing by the side door of the bus. MR PRINSLOO Would you say, as you've seen the situation, these people were observers? MR MOMBERG That is correct. MR PRINSLOO Just a moment please, Chairperson. Mr Momberg, Mr Prinsloo will testify that he was not aware of any explosives in the bus until they arrived at Pienaarsrivier when it was taken from the bus. MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, I agree with that. I myself only saw the bag with the explosives after Brigadier Cronje nodded with his head and a hand gesture in the direction of the bag and instructed me. MR PRINSLOO Thank you, Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Momberg, how sure are you that Mr van Jaarsveld was involved at all in this incident? MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, I am reasonably satisfied in this respect that I remember well and that Captain van Jaarsveld was there. MR MEINTJIES Do you agree that there was a certain confusion with you regarding certain persons who were initially involved and then in the end you realised they were not involved? MR MOMBERG Yes, Mr Chairman, that is so. MR MEINTJIES Is the possibility excluded that this confusion can also be applied to Mr van Jaarsveld? MR MOMBERG I have peace in my mind and I believe that van Jaarsveld was there. JUDGE PILLAY We're not talking of peace in your mind, we're talking about facts. Are you sure that he was there or do you just concede that he was not there? That is very important. MR MOMBERG I say he was there. MR MEINTJIES Thank you, Mr Chairman. MR MEINTJIES And then only a statement to you, Mr Momberg, my instructions are that Mr van Jaarsveld was not involved in this incident and that he has no recollection of that. Do you want to comment on that? MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, yes, I can just repeat, I hear what Mr van Jaarsveld's legal representative is saying, I stand by what I have said. MR MEINTJIES I have no further questions, Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEINTJIES CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Momberg, you've read Brigadier Cronje's evidence and you've seen that he refers to du Plessis' involvement. MR MOMBERG That is correct, yes. MR DU PLESSIS Can I ask you in this manner, as far as you recollect, or is your recollection the same as Mr Goosen's regarding Mr du Plessis' involvement in this unit? MR MOMBERG No, I can't remember it as well as Sergeant Goosen, he's much younger than I am, but I know Captain du Plessis was not involved in this incident. MR DU PLESSIS The only aspect that I wish to mention to you is the fact that if you look Brigadier Cronje's evidence on page 11, this is the first page of the evidence, you will see that according to him his evidence refers to Captain du Plessis, where he says "Captain du Plessis who was under my command, brought in a male activist for questioning and he would have been involved in a number of serious acts in Mamelodi." This starts a bit earlier than most of the, before the time of the people involved here. If you can't state unequivocally that Captain du Plessis was not involved in the unit, you would concede that that part of the evidence you cannot deny or dispute, that is that Captain du Plessis brought this specific person in for interrogation. MR MOMBERG I will dispute that because Captain du Plessis, excluding when he started at the Security Branch or not, he was a member of Unit A, he would not have brought in a black man for interrogation. MR DU PLESSIS In other words, you say the same as Mr Goosen regarding du Plessis's identity, that Brigadier Cronje made a mistake? MR MOMBERG Yes, Chairperson. MR DU PLESSIS And you also saw that Brigadier testified that the purpose was not to kill this person and that his death was just by chance, an accident. Do you agree that Hechter was not involved? MR MOMBERG No, he was not involved. MR DU PLESSIS Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS CHAIRPERSON Re-examination? MR PRINSLOO Mr Chairman, before re-examination, may I be permitted to put one question to the witness which I omitted, Mr Chairman? - with the leave of the Committee. CHAIRPERSON Certainly. FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Momberg, Mamasela was under the direct control of Mr van Jaarsveld, is that correct? MR MOMBERG Yes. MR PRINSLOO And if Mr Mamasela had intelligence regarding a source, then that information would have been conveyed to van Jaarsveld? MR MOMBERG That is correct. MR PRINSLOO Thank you, Mr Chairman. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO MR ALBERTS Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no re-examination. NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS CHAIRPERSON Sorry, I didn't ...(inaudible) MR MALAN Mr Momberg, you say a member of Unit A would not bring in a black person for interrogation. MR MOMBERG Not easily. MR MALAN You said he will not, you did not say not easily, he would not. Now tell me, what is the division of the work, how can all the units be involved in interrogation, elimination, follow-up operations, but they never ask whether he is brown or black or pink? Then if something, intelligence, comes to them in Unit A, why not a black man? MR MOMBERG Firstly, if a member of Unit A has information or intelligence regarding a black person, he will clear it out with somebody from Unit B. MR MALAN Was that the rule? MR MOMBERG Yes, because 80% of the time the people in Unit A did not have any background knowledge of the structures with which Unit B operated, in other words the black structures. He could bring him in and after he had brought him in he would discuss that with somebody from Unit B, he would not act independently. MR MALAN In other words, Brigadier Cronje would not know about that? MR MOMBERG I beg your pardon? MR MALAN Would Brigadier Cronje not know these facts, when he gave his evidence that du Plessis brought in this person? MR MOMBERG He knew these facts. MR MALAN Now why did he say du Plessis brought in this person? MR MOMBERG Chairperson, I ...(intervention) MR MALAN Why do you keep on disputing it when he is saying that directly? MR MOMBERG I dispute it based on the knowledge I have and I can remember because du Plessis was not in that vehicle that evening. MR MALAN I'm not referring to the vehicle, Mr du Plessis indicated that and he say he is referring to actions which took place before your operation, that is bringing in the person for interrogation. Before this operation, that is what Mr du Plessis referred you to, was it page 11 of the evidence? MR DU PLESSIS Yes, that's correct. MR MALAN He says that Captain du Plessis brought in a person. MR MOMBERG Chairperson, I see that Brigadier Cronje testified in this way and I cannot agree with that. It does not make sense that Captain du Plessis could have been involved in this. MR MALAN All that he is saying is that he brought him in. MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, I want to explain. Captain du Plessis, although he was attached to the branch, it wouldn't have been common for him to have received information regarding black people. His informer network was geared to white, Indian and coloured affairs and his whole modus operandi was geared to those types of operations and individuals. It was just in extraordinary circumstances that du Plessis could identify a black MK member and bring him in. And according to what he said, du Plessis brought in this person without consulting with B or C, that part is not there. MR MALAN That is the point which is being made. Could he not bring him in after he had discussed it with somebody in Unit B or C, or perhaps together with somebody else, perhaps a junior person in one of the other units? MR MOMBERG Perhaps he could, yes, but I stand with what I have said, that du Plessis could not bring in a black person, that was unusual. MR MALAN If I understand it correctly, you drove in the direction of Pienaarsrivier and in Pienaarsrivier you turned down a gravel road in a western direction. MR MOMBERG To be more precise, we crossed a train bridge, about 800 metres further on you turn from the old Warmbaths Road and then there is a gravel road which continues from the east to the west through a black township, to Boputhatswana. MR MALAN How far did you drive down this road? MR MOMBERG I would say about 10 to 15 kilometres. MR MALAN How far is that from the black township and to which township does this lean? Are there no directions? MR MOMBERG No, I can't remember the town's name, Chairperson. MR MALAN But the road led to a black township? MR MOMBERG Yes. In the meanwhile I drove along that road just by chance and there at that spot where we were, that was about right in the middle of the old gravel road that's between Warmbaths and the black township. MR MALAN In other words, the black township is about 30 kilometres from Warmbaths. Now when you move from the one point to the other point you have to cross that point where you stopped. MR MOMBERG There is a detour here and there. MR MALAN But there is always traffic on that road? MR MOMBERG And I've just testified that just by chance I travelled along this road for other purposes and I travelled on that road during a weekday and I want to say there were only 10 vehicles during the day on that gravel road. MR MALAN And that same road you travelled with Tiny Coetzer during the day. Did you travel on that specific road or only to the Pienaarsrivier? MR MOMBERG No, I travelled on that same road. MR MALAN Was that for an operation? MR MOMBERG No, Tiny Coetzer had a contact person. If I can remember correctly the member of agriculture or the foreman of the Minister of Agriculture, he was farming in that vicinity. He was a contact person for Coetzer and at one stage I accompanied Coetzer to this person. MR MALAN On his farm? MR MOMBERG On the farm, yes. MR MALAN How far from this point where the incident took place was that farm? MR MOMBERG I would say about five/six kilometres further. MR MALAN Is the farm five/six kilometres further on? So you stopped just a little way from the farm. MR MOMBERG Yes. MR MALAN But you stopped on this gravel road? MR MOMBERG That's correct. MR MALAN And if I understand correctly, this interrogation took about 15 minutes after you had stopped and then you prepared the landmine, you prepared the capped fuse and at no stage were you worried that a car would pass. You also regarded it as a low risk area that contained fewer risks than the open field near Mamelodi. MR MOMBERG That's correct, Chairperson. In the open field near Mamelodi, if I can remember correctly, that was a place where there were still lights and from my point of view there was a greater danger that somebody could walk along that open veld and find us, while on that road surely you would have heard a car at night, you could have seen the lights or heard the car and we could then have made another plan. MR MALAN Or could people move along that road from farm to farm? MR MOMBERG There are farms, so people could move along that road, yes. MR MALAN Thank you, Chairperson. JUDGE PILLAY As I understand your evidence, in this vehicle this person, this person was assaulted in the vehicle, he was knocked against his head with an open fist, with elbows and according to you he was taken to this remote place because the assault would be intensified because he did not co-operate. Now can you describe this intensified assault, what would you do to him? MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, there were worse manners of assaulting a person than hitting him. I did not have anything in mind, Captain Prinsloo took the lead in the interrogation. I knew of various methods to be used in assaults and that is the tyre method where you suffocate the person, when you bent their arms and the fingers and if you took that far enough somebody would scream. Now while you just hit a person with an open hand some people with that type of assault would just keep quiet, they were too proud to talk, but there comes a stage where you can't keep quiet anymore. JUDGE PILLAY And these implements to suffocate this person, were those in the vehicle? MR MOMBERG I did not see that. JUDGE PILLAY I see. Now I want to pose another question. Now I understand you've left the police service. MR MOMBERG That is correct. JUDGE PILLAY How do you feel about what happened and what you did? MR MOMBERG Mr Chairman, I'm ashamed. You can't take something away which has happened, but if it was humanly possible I would want to turn the clock back, if it was possible. JUDGE PILLAY Why would you do that? MR MOMBERG Because in the end everything was unnecessary because there was a political negotiation and that is why this mechanism has been created for us to come and say what happened during that time. JUDGE PILLAY Do you think that it is possible that you would do something like that again? MR MOMBERG No, Mr Chairman. JUDGE PILLAY Not at all? MR MOMBERG Not at all. JUDGE PILLAY And if we knew who he was and his family was here, would you say something to them? MR MOMBERG I would have asked them for forgiveness. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. WITNESS EXCUSED MR ALBERTS Mr Chairman, might I suggest that that concludes the proceedings for the day. CHAIRPERSON We've only got a few minutes left and it would mean interrupting someone at the commencement of his ... MR ALBERTS Indeed. And then might I further enquire, Mr Chairman, yesterday you intimated that the previous incident would stand down till to-morrow for the appearance of Mr van Jaarsveld, is that still the intended modus operandi tomorrow? CHAIRPERSON Yes. We will start that one - has he been notified 9 o'clock? ADV STEENKAMP Yes, Mr Chairman, that was the arrangement with his legal representative. CHAIRPERSON Right. We'll start with that one at 9 o'clock. No, I don't think we need to start this one till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. MR ALBERTS Thank you, Mr Chairman, so this matter stands down till 10 then. CHAIRPERSON 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. The other matter will start at nine. Does that suit everybody? Very well, we'll adjourn this matter till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, but the hearing itself will commence at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning to conclude the matter we heard on Monday. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS