amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1999-11-10 PRETORIA 18 GABOUTLWELWE CHRISTOPHER MOSIANE https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=53870&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/1999/99110212_pre_991110pt.htm GABOUTLWELWE CHRISTOPHER MOSIANE (sworn states) CHAIRPERSON Mr Greyling you may proceed. MR GREYLING Thank you Madam Chair. EXAMINATION BY MR GREYLING Mr Mosiane you have applied for amnesty in connection with an incident which took place in Mamelodi with regard to a person by the name of Pat Mahlangu. Is that correct? MR MOSIANE That is correct. MR GREYLING And you have submitted an application which was signed on the 20th of November 1998 in Pretoria. MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR GREYLING And that application was accompanied by an affidavit which was deposed of by you? MR MOSIANE That is correct, yes, Sir. MR GREYLING And that application of yours appears on pages 223 to 237 of bundle 2 in the documents which have been placed before this Committee, is that correct? MR MOSIANE That is correct. MR GREYLING You have had the opportunity to study your application before giving evidence today? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Sir. MR GREYLING Do you confirm the content thereof as correct? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Sir. MR GREYLING Now at a certain stage, you went to Soutpan? I beg your pardon Madam Chair. MR MOSIANE That is correct, Sir. MR GREYLING At which stage did you receive the order to go to Soutpan? MR MOSIANE I cannot recall the exact date. MR GREYLING Who gave you that order? MR MOSIANE The order to go to Soutpan I got from Simon Radebe. MR GREYLING Where there any other askaris who also went to Soutpan with you? MR MOSIANE I cannot recall clearly, Your Honour. MR GREYLING Can you recall the names Moses Nzimande and Colin Khumalo? MR MOSIANE Yes, I recall those two names. MR GREYLING They were at Vlakplaas with you? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Sir. MR GREYLING Do you know whether they were also at Soutpan? MR MOSIANE Yes, that is correct Sir. MR GREYLING Very well. And after you had arrived at Soutpan, did you receive an order at any stage to go to the house of Connie, where Pat Mahlangu was also residing? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Sir. MR GREYLING Can you recall who issued that order to you? MR MOSIANE It's Col Prinsloo, he was a colonel at that time, Chairperson. MR GREYLING What was the order? What were you supposed to do there at Connie's house? MR MOSIANE We were supposed to deliver a letter and hand it to Pat Mahlangu's parents and to also notify them that we have come from Botswana and there we have met Pat Mahlangu and he is in a satisfactory condition, he is still alive. MR GREYLING Who gave you the letter? MR MOSIANE This letter was handed to me by Mr Prinsloo. MR GREYLING Do you know who wrote the letter? MR MOSIANE This letter was written by Patrick Mahlangu. MR GREYLING Do you know under which circumstances the letter was written? MR MOSIANE In brief, I would say this letter was written by Patrick Mahlangu under duress. It was dictated by Mr Prinsloo. INTERPRETER I beg your pardon, Chairperson, could the speaker please repeat his statement, I could not catch him quickly enough. MR GREYLING Did you see when this took place? MR MOSIANE Yes, Sir. MR GREYLING Did you then take the letter and go to the residence of Connie? MR MOSIANE That is correct Sir. MR GREYLING And who was with you at that stage? MR MOSIANE At that time Colin Khumalo was chosen to accompany me. MR GREYLING Was it only the two of you who went there? MR MOSIANE I was only the two of us, Chairperson. MR GREYLING Could you describe briefly what took place once you arrived there? MR MOSIANE On our arrival there, we pretended that we were MK members, who had just arrived from Botswana. The purpose of us going there was to leave that letter and we would request for some accommodation, overnight accommodation. MR GREYLING Did you spend the night there? MR MOSIANE No, Sir. MR GREYLING Where did you spend the night? MR MOSIANE Constance Mahlangu, she arranged an alternate accommodation in Mamelodi, a place called Sibayeni. We were accommodated at Sibayeni, where we over-nighted. MR GREYLING Were any items of clothing ever given to you that you were supposed to take to Pat Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Sir. MR GREYLING Can you recall where you received the clothing? MR MOSIANE We were given these clothes at Patrick's home so that when we go back to Botswana we should hand them to him. MR GREYLING Can you recall whether you had any weapons on you at that stage? MR MOSIANE At that time we were armed with MK rifles and hand grenades and Makarov pistols. MR GREYLING How long did you stay there before returning to Soutpan? MR MOSIANE We spent the night there and the following day we went back to Soutpan. MR GREYLING To whom did you deliver the clothing at Soutpan that you had received for Pat Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE These clothes, I showed them to Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras and I handed them to them. MR GREYLING What was the purpose with your visit to the home of Constance Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE The Special Branch in Pretoria was under the command of Mr Prinsloo and they suspected that there was an MK Unit that was operating here and again Mr Prinsloo also suspected that Constance Mahlangu had knowledge about this MK Unit that was operating underground here. The purpose of us going there was because there was a possibility that Constance Mahlangu could enlighten us about this unit that was operating in Pretoria. MR GREYLING From your evidence I deduce that you went to the home of Connie and that at that stage Pat Mahlangu had already been abducted, is that correct? MR MOSIANE When we went to Patrick Mahlangu's home, we left him at Soutpan and he was an abductee of Mr Prinsloo, or rather a detainee of Mr Prinsloo. MR GREYLING Did you have anything to do with the incident during which Pat Mahlangu was indeed abducted and taken to Soutpan? MR MOSIANE No, Sir. MR GREYLING You request amnesty purely for the fact that after the incident you attempted to conceal the abduction, is that correct? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Sir. MR GREYLING And do you stand by that? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Sir. MR GREYLING Did you ever see Pat Mahlangu again? MR MOSIANE No, Sir. MR GREYLING Do you know what happened to him subsequently? MR MOSIANE I do not know Sir. MR GREYLING The evidence is that later he would have been blown up. Do you know anything about that? MR MOSIANE He was killed thereafter but that is something that I learned at a later stage when I was giving my statement to one of the members of the Special Investigating Unit which was Maj de Lange. That was the first time of learning about that, when I was writing this application of amnesty, that the result of this kidnapping and the abduction of Pat Mahlangu resulted in his killing through explosives. (end of tape) CHAIRPERSON ...is hearsay evidence that we are not interested in. Do you have personal knowledge of whatever happened to Pat Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE No, Sir. MR GREYLING Thank you Madam Chair, I've got nothing further. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR GREYLING CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Greyling. Mr Hattingh? MR HATTINGH Thank you, Chairperson, no fortunately I do not have questions for Mr Mosiane. NO QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH CHAIRPERSON Mr Jansen? MR JANSEN Thank you Chair. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN Mr Mosiane I just want to make sure that I understand your version correctly. It is your evidence that you were not part of the physical, the actual abduction of Mr Patrick Mahlangu. MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR JANSEN Now, can you remember who gave you instructions to go to the farm at Soutpan? MR MOSIANE Yes, Chairperson. MR JANSEN Who was that? MR MOSIANE That is Simon Radebe. MR JANSEN Did Simon Radebe also go to the farm at Soutpan? MR MOSIANE Yes, Chairperson. MR JANSEN Which of the other askaris can you remember being present at Soutpan at that stage? INTERPRETER Will you please repeat your question, we had a disturbance? MR JANSEN Sorry ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON Which other askaris do you recall as having been present a Soutpan during that stage? MR MOSIANE There were many Chairperson. Among them I remember Mfalapitsa, Jeffrey Bosigo. Let me say it is possible that there were many, which means half of the askaris from Vlakplaas were in Soutpan. MR JANSEN Okay. So you're aware of the fact that Mr Ras testified that you were part of a group of askaris that he asked to go to Mamelodi to pretend to be askaris and that ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON To be MK Mr Jansen. MR JANSEN Oh sorry. CHAIRPERSON Can you imagine if they pretended to be askaris? MR JANSEN I wasn't thinking. To pretend to be MK members. This is now prior to Mr Mahlangu's abduction, right. Now what is your comment on that part of his evidence? MR MOSIANE That is not correct, Chairperson. MR JANSEN And were you either, were you part of any group of askaris either infiltrating anywhere in Mamelodi at that stage, or driving around in a kombi? MR MOSIANE May I request to clarify when, Chairperson? Do you mean what time? MR JANSEN Yes, let's try, if possible, to talk about the period before, just tell me this, when you arrived at Soutpan, was Patrick Mahlangu already there? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR JANSEN So are you saying that Ras is mistaken if he says that you were part of a group of askaris that were working in Mamelodi prior to Mahlangu's abduction? MR MOSIANE He is not mistaken, Chairperson. MR JANSEN Do you mean he is mistaken, or he's not mistaken? I didn't hear. CHAIRPERSON He isn't mistaken. MR MOSIANE He is not mistaken Chairperson. MR JANSEN Let me see if I understand this correctly. Before you went to the farm at Soutpan, were you working in the Mamelodi area? MR MOSIANE On many occasions, Chairperson. MR JANSEN Well can you specifically remember working on the case of Patrick Mahlangu prior to the time you went to Soutpan? MR MOSIANE No, Chairperson. MR JANSEN Now you further said in your evidence that you were present when Mr Prinsloo dictated to Patrick Mahlangu the content of the letter that he had to write to his family. MR MOSIANE I remember Chairperson. MR JANSEN Where did that happen? MR MOSIANE It happened at Soutpan. MR JANSEN Who was present? Who else other than Prinsloo was present at that stage? MR MOSIANE There were people in the room where Patrick was put. I saw Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras was there and Simon Radebe was there and Eric Sefadi. I don't remember others and again I was present, I witnessed that when it happened. MR JANSEN Right, just for the record Madam Chair, page 299 of I think, bundle 2. CHAIRPERSON Bundle 1. MR JANSEN Sorry, Bundle 2, that's the Ras application. CHAIRPERSON Oh yes. 289? MR JANSEN 299. CHAIRPERSON 299. MR JANSEN Yes, the third paragraph. Ras' evidence was that he was the person who gave the piece of paper to Mahlangu and who told Mahlangu what to write in that letter. Do you have any comment on that? MR MOSIANE No Chairperson. MR JANSEN You don't have any person or are you saying that is not what happened? MR MOSIANE I have no comment, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Mr Mosiane, your evidence is that you actually witnessed Mr Prinsloo dictating the letter to Mr Mahlangu, that it was Mr Prinsloo who was involved in having to give the paper to Mr Mahlangu and it was Mr Prinsloo who was involved in dictating the content of the letter to Mr Mahlangu. Now what is being put to you is that your version is different from the version given by Mr Ras. Mr Ras says he is the one who gave Mr Mahlangu a piece of paper on which to write the letter that you subsequently took to his family. You must have a comment. Are you saying Mr Ras would be mistaken, he would be lying when he says that, because his version stands in stark contrast to the version given by you. MR MOSIANE Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, I just wanted to comment shortly that I was not in that room up to the point when the letter which was dictated to Mr Mahlangu was completed, so I did not see a lot. I only arrived then I peeped through then at that time I saw that the letter which Patrick Mahlangu wrote was a dictated letter, then again I saw Patrick writing, then I saw that Ras and Mr Prinsloo were responsible, both of them, who compelled that Patrick Mahlangu should write the letter. I did not stay in that room up to the point where the letter was completed, I only peeped through. CHAIRPERSON Do you know who gave Mr Mahlangu a piece of paper on which this letter was subsequently written? MR MOSIANE No Chairperson, I did not see the person responsible for issuing the paper, I only arrived when he was busy writing. CHAIRPERSON Now how are you able to say in your evidence in chief that the letter was written under duress and that Mr Prinsloo dictated what had to be on that letter? MR MOSIANE I'm able to see if a person was compelled to write the letter under the situation which Patrick Mahlangu was and again I'm able to observe when a person is writing freely. CHAIRPERSON Mr Jansen. MR JANSEN Thank you Chair. CHAIRPERSON Before you proceed Mr Jansen, so what are you saying Mr Mosiane, are you saying that you wouldn't therefore disagree with what Mr Ras is saying if Mr Ras says he is the one who gave Mr Mahlangu a piece of paper and he's the one who actually told him what to write on that piece of paper? MR MOSIANE I would not dispute that Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Mr Jansen. MR JANSEN Thank you, Chair. Mr Mosiane I just want to briefly return to the issues I was canvassing with you just now in respect of the abduction of Mr Mahlangu. Were you ever told by any of the other askaris, or other police members, about the abduction of Mr Mahlangu at that time? MR MOSIANE Which time, Chairperson? MR JANSEN At the time that you were at Soutpan. did any of them tell you who was involved in his abduction and under what circumstances he was abducted? MR MOSIANE No, Chairperson. MR JANSEN So you're saying Mr Ras is making a mistake if he either says or implies that you were involved in the abduction? Correct? MR MOSIANE If Mr Ras says I was present during the abduction of Patrick Mahlangu, he's making a mistake. MR JANSEN Yes, I don't think he put it that strongly, but he certainly remembers you better than the other askaris being there prior to the abduction of Mr Mahlangu. MR MOSIANE Should I make a comment, or is it just a statement which doesn't need a reply? MR JANSEN MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR JANSEN And at that stage you seem to have been acting directly under the instructions of Prinsloo, this is now after the Mahlangu incident. MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Where do you glean that information from Mr Jansen? MR JANSEN Well from paragraph 2 on that page 237, paragraph 2, only the name of Mr Prinsloo is mentioned. The name of other Vlakplaas officers are no longer mentioned. CHAIRPERSON Where is your information that he was acting under Mr Prinsloo's instruction in relation to this incident? MR JANSEN Well maybe I should clear that up with him. CHAIRPERSON It's not here. When I read this he seems to have been acting under the command of Mr Radebe. MR JANSEN Alright, let me try and - yes that unit that you were working with, right, that was under the command of Mr Radebe at that stage? MR MOSIANE Which stage are you referring to because are we not talking about Bomber, not about Mahlangu? MR JANSEN Yes, we're talking about the Bomber case, in other words the period after Pat Mahlangu. MR MOSIANE So what about Bomber? MR JANSEN The unit of askaris was functioning under the direct orders, it would seem, of Mr Radebe, at that stage. Am I correct in saying that? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR JANSEN Do you know from whom he was getting his instructions? MR MOSIANE In regard to Bomber's operation, the instructions came from Mr Prinsloo. MR JANSEN Yes. Now can you remember how long after the Patrick Mahlangu incident, were you still deployed and patrolling in Mamelodi? MR MOSIANE I don't remember Chairperson. MR JANSEN Can you remember whether the abduction of any individuals were discussed in that period, other than Bomber now? MR MOSIANE No, Chairperson. MR JANSEN Thank you Chair, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Jansen. Mr Cornelius? MR CORNELIUS Thank you Chairperson, I've got no questions. CHAIRPERSON Ms van der Walt? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT Mr Mosiane, you say that you went to Soutpan. Do I understand your evidence correctly that when you arrived at Soutpan, Patrick Mahlangu was already there, or am I incorrect? MR MOSIANE That is correct. MS VAN DER WALT What were you instructions? What did you have to do there? MR MOSIANE We took this letter that was written by Patrick and we handed it to his parents and we were to pretend that we were from Botswana and we were seeking overnight accommodation and we had to calm them down and to give them guarantee that Patrick is still alive in Botswana and he's in a good condition, we have seen him since we have just come back from Botswana, and that is how we got the letter from him. MS VAN DER WALT So that was your instruction. Where did you receive this instruction from, was it at Vlakplaas? MR MOSIANE We got this instruction at Soutpan. MS VAN DER WALT Very well. But I would like to know, you arrived at Soutpan when Patrick Mahlangu was already there, is that correct? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Sir. MS VAN DER WALT Now were you at Vlakplaas before you went to Soutpan? MR MOSIANE I think so, Your Honour. MS VAN DER WALT Did you then receive your instruction at Vlakplaas as to what you had to do at Soutpan? MR MOSIANE No, Sir. MS VAN DER WALT Why did you go to Soutpan? What was told to you at Vlakplaas? What did you have to go and do at Soutpan? MR MOSIANE There are rules that are very difficult for people who were not involved that they would understand the need-to-know rule applied if you were given instructions that you were supposed to go to Soutpan, you would not question anything but you'll only get further instructions on your arrival there at Soutpan. CHAIRPERSON Were you or were you not advised why you had to go to Soutpan when you were instructed to do so by Mr Simon Radebe? MR MOSIANE No, Sir. MS VAN DER WALT How many people were given instructions at that stage when you went to Soutpan, who were all there when you received that instruction to go to Soutpan? MR MOSIANE I cannot recall how many of us were there when we were going to Soutpan. Further that I can recall that Simon Radebe came to fetch us with a kombi. he was accompanied by Eric Sefadi. MS VAN DER WALT All the askaris at that stage, did they all go to Soutpan at that stage? MR MOSIANE No, Sir. MS VAN DER WALT Your evidence is that half of the operatives at Vlakplaas, meaning the askaris, were at Soutpan when you arrived, is that not so? MR MOSIANE That is correct. MS VAN DER WALT Now I want to know from you, how many accompanied you and who was at Soutpan when you went to Soutpan? MR MOSIANE On our arrival at Soutpan we found Mr Prinsloo's unit there and a part of the operatives of Vlakplaas already there. MS VAN DER WALT Who were they? MR MOSIANE I found Mfalapitsa, Jeffrey Bosigo, Eric Sefadi, Simon Radebe and others that I cannot recall clearly, that they were already present on my arrival at Soutpan. MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSIANE That is possible, Chairperson. MS VAN DER WALT May I ask you then how many askaris were there then in total at Vlakplaas? MR MOSIANE There were many. MS VAN DER WALT So you are saying it is possible that there would only be 5 to 7 at Soutpan? MR MOSIANE There were more than that. MS VAN DER WALT Are you saying Mr Ras' evidence is incorrect? MR MOSIANE Yes at that point he is definitely making a mistake. MS VAN DER WALT When you arrived at Soutpan, who then gave you instructions there? MR MOSIANE What instructions? MS VAN DER WALT The instructions that you had to execute according to your evidence with regard to the letter. MR MOSIANE It's Mr Prinsloo who gave me the instructions. MS VAN DER WALT And at that stage you were under the command of Mr Ras because he was from Vlakplaas? MR MOSIANE The way you put it might confuse us because the institution that I was working for under police had a certain chain of command and when the command flowed down but the way you put it now when you want to say that these two played no role here but when I was given these instructions Mr Ras was with Mr Prinsloo, so he cannot say he had no role in it and this operation was Mr Prinsloo's. MS VAN DER WALT I put it to you that Mr Ras testified that he was in command of the operation there with regard to the askaris and that Mr Prinsloo did not directly give instructions to the askaris. MR MOSIANE I think there is a mistake in that regard, or it might be a deliberate mistake. Mr Prinsloo, he was in charge of the abduction of Mr Pat Mahlangu. If you say that I was under the command of Mr Ras that doesn't carry much weight. CHAIRPERSON May I interpose, Ms van der Walt? Did you understand the situation to be that you were under Mr Prinsloo's command at the time when you were given instructions by Mr Simon Radebe to go to Soutpan? MR MOSIANE At the time, whilst I was still in Vlakplaas, I was not under the command of Mr Prinsloo, but I only fell under his command on my arrival at Soutpan. CHAIRPERSON Why did you believe that you were under the command of Mr Prinsloo and not Mr Ras whilst you were at Soutpan? MR MOSIANE In the police when commands are given by senior officers to junior officers, Mr Ras in this operation was subordinated to Mr Prinsloo, in this operation. CHAIRPERSON Was it customary in operations such as these, where you were transferred from Vlakplaas, to do an operation outside the confines of Vlakplaas, that once you got into a particular operation, you would cease to be under the command of somebody from Vlakplaas and you would then act under the command of the most senior in the place in which you were doing your operations? MR MOSIANE Madam Chair, it was not only customary, it was a tradition. CHAIRPERSON Was Mr Prinsloo known to you prior to this incident? MR MOSIANE That is correct. CHAIRPERSON And you knew him to be much senior than Mr Ras? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Ms van der Walt. MS VAN DER WALT You are saying that Mr Prinsloo, it was his operation to abduct Patrick Mahlangu. MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MS VAN DER WALT Why do you say that? MR MOSIANE You should understand that Mr Prinsloo, he was the Commander of the Special Branch under the Northern Transvaal region and also he was in charge of all the operations that fell in the region of Pretoria. There was no way that Mr Ras as a junior officer, could be in charge in the jurisdiction that was overseen by Mr Prinsloo. MS VAN DER WALT Mr Mosiane, please listen carefully to my question. I ask you, following on what you testified, do you say that Mr Prinsloo was in command of the operation to abduct Patrick Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE Let's get this very clear. I found Patrick already there in Soutpan, already abducted. As to how was he abducted and who gave the orders, that I do not know. MS VAN DER WALT But this follows on an answer that you gave when the Honourable Chairperson asked you and you said Mr Prinsloo was in command of the operation to abduct Patrick Mahlangu. Do you recall that you answered in that manner? MR MOSIANE I do not recall that. Not at all. It's not like that. MS VAN DER WALT Because I want to put it to you that the evidence before this Honourable Committee is that when Mr Prinsloo arrived at the farm, he was very dissatisfied with the fact that Patrick Mahlangu had been abducted. Can you comment? MR MOSIANE I do not have proof that the feelings of Mr Mahlangu, how his feelings were because when I arrived in Soutpan, Patrick Mahlangu was already abducted. MS VAN DER WALT Did you ask your fellow askaris who were there at Soutpan, under which circumstances Patrick Mahlangu had arrived there? MR MOSIANE There was no need for me to ask them such a question because it was quite clear that he was abducted, Patrick Mahlangu. MS VAN DER WALT Did not one of your fellow askaris tell you that they had infiltrated there at Patrick Mahlangu and that as a result of information which had been received by Patrick Mahlangu, they were then exposed as persons who were possibly involved with the police? MR MOSIANE Please explain your question. CHAIRPERSON Wasn't there something wrong with the translation? MR MOTATA Probably something wrong with the translation. MR MOSIANE Please rephrase your question, Ms van der Walt, or repeat your question rather. MS VAN DER WALT Did not one of your fellow askaris tell you, when you arrived at Soutpan, that they had infiltrated Patrick Mahlangu and that after Patrick Mahlangu had received certain information from Botswana, they had been confronted, they would be the persons who had infiltrated and it then appeared that Patrick Mahlangu realised that they were involved with the police? CHAIRPERSON Mr Mosiane, what is it that you do not understand? INTERPRETER Please let me repeat the question to Mr Mahlangu. CHAIRPERSON To Mr Mosiane. Are you translating? INTERPRETER I'm translating. Can I repeat the question to him? CHAIRPERSON Yes, he seems to be having a problem in understanding the question. MR MOSIANE That is not correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Now do you understand the question? MR MOSIANE Very clear, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON And your response is? MR MOSIANE I was never given such information, that is my answer. MS VAN DER WALT However, before the Honourable Chairperson put this question to you, you stated that it was not correct. Is that correct? Did I hear you correctly? Was the interpretation correct? MR MOTATA Ms van der Walt, I think the mistake emanated from the interpreters. CHAIRPERSON Translation. MR MOTATA From the translation. I understood it in Sotho and it's precisely what he said later, you can accept that from me. MS VAN DER WALT So did nobody convey any information to you indicating that they or that their cover-up in Mamelodi had been discovered? CHAIRPERSON He's already responded to that Ms van der Walt. He says he was not given such information. MS VAN DER WALT So if there would be any such evidence indicating that this would be the reason why Mr Mahlangu was abducted, you would also not be able to comment on that? MR MOSIANE No comment on that Chairperson. MS VAN DER WALT You stated that you knew Mr Prinsloo before this incident and that he was also aware that you had participated in certain operations, particularly regarding infiltrations, is that correct? Did you hear the question? INTERPRETER There is a technical problem. You may continue. CHAIRPERSON Do you wish the question to be put to you again Mr Mosiane? You may put the question again Ms van der Walt. MS VAN DER WALT You have already admitted that you knew Mr Prinsloo before this particular incident, is that correct? Do you still have a problem with the interpretation? CHAIRPERSON Are you experiencing some problems in getting the translation, Mr Mosiane? Mr Mosiane? INTERPRETER I think that the problem is solved, you can continue. Ms van der Walt, please repeat your question, he can hear now. CHAIRPERSON Is Ms van der Walt going too fast? INTERPRETER No she is not going too fast there was just a technical problem. CHAIRPERSON Okay. INTERPRETER Ms van der Walt, you can repeat your question. CHAIRPERSON Mr Greyling, are you experiencing some problems on behalf of your client. If you are, won't you please just direct them to the Chair instead of speaking to Mr Mosiane, whilst he is still under cross-examination. MR GREYLING Yes, Madam Chair he just told me that there's some ...(indistinct) in his head phones. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Mr Mosiane if you have a problem, won't you please direct your problem to me and not speak to your attorney, that is not allowed. If you have a problem, just give me an indication and I will try and assist you. MR MOSIANE I understand that Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Is Mr Mosiane's problem sorted out now? MR MOSIANE My problem is solved, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Do you wish the question to be put to you again? MR MOSIANE Please Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON The question was, in your evidence you've testified that Mr Prinsloo was known to your prior to this incident. MR MOSIANE That is correct Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON You may proceed Ms van der Walt. INTERPRETER The speaker's microphone is not on. MS VAN DER WALT And is it correct that Mr Prinsloo was aware of the fact that before this incident you had been involved with infiltrations? MR MOSIANE That might be possible. MS VAN DER WALT In your evidence in chief, you testified very pertinently that you received an order to go to Connie Mahlangu and furthermore you stated that you were to convey a letter to Connie Mahlangu. The letter was written by Patrick Mahlangu under duress upon the instructions of Mr Prinsloo and you saw that he wrote the letter. Do you recall that aspect of the evidence which you gave? MR MOSIANE Yes, I do. MS VAN DER WALT Is it correct? (end of tape) MR MOSIANE It is correct, it is the truth. MS VAN DER WALT Were you present all the time? MR MOSIANE No, not all the time. MS VAN DER WALT Now can you tell the Honourable Committee from precisely which point in time you were present when the letter was being written and what exactly took place during that period of time? MR MOSIANE Whilst this letter was being written, I was shown Pat Mahlangu. He was busy writing and Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras were present. It became very clear that the letter that he was writing, it was being dictated to him by these two people, which is Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras. MS VAN DER WALT So you are saying that it was very clear that this letter was being dictated by Prinsloo and Ras. What were they saying, Messrs Prinsloo and Ras? MR MOSIANE I cannot recall what exactly were they saying, or what they were saying, because I did not stay long in there. I just peeped in, I saw what was happening. MS VAN DER WALT But I want to know. You were there and I want to know who was speaking. Who did the talking while you were there? MR MOSIANE These people were talking and they were not giving each other a chance. MS VAN DER WALT The interpretation was that they did not give each other the opportunity, is that correct? What do you mean by that? MR MOSIANE It was quite clear that, or it seemed that most of the things had to come from both of them simultaneously, like they were talking simultaneously. MS VAN DER WALT Mr Mosiane, do not testify that it appeared to be as such. I want to know from you precisely what took place there. Who spoke, because one cannot dictate a letter to someone if two persons are speaking simultaneously, that is impossible. I don't want to know how things appeared to be, I want to know precisely what happened. MR MOSIANE I saw Patrick who was writing a letter and it was being dictated to him and he was writing this letter under duress. I cannot explain this any further or any other way. CHAIRPERSON May I interpose Ms van der Walt? Is it now your evidence that the person who was dictating the letter was not only Mr Prinsloo, as you have previously alleged, so you are now saying it was both Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Is it also your evidence that you could not hear what was being dictated to Mr Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE That is correct Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON On what basis then did you form an opinion that the letter was being written under duress by Mr Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE In terms of my observations it was Patrick Mahlangu. There's no way I would say that he was writing that letter freely. There is no way I can conclude that that guy was writing that letter free will, out of his own volition, when it is very clear and it was very evident that this letter was dictated to him by Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras. There is no way I cannot make such a conclusion and there is no way that I can say that guy was writing that letter out of his own free will. CHAIRPERSON So what you are saying Mr Mosiane is that the evidence that you are putting forward is as a result of what you were able to deduce from the factors surrounding a person you already knew to have been abducted? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. This person has been abducted and has been put there and he is forced to write a letter by Mr Ras and Mr Prinsloo. CHAIRPERSON And this is your own deduction? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Yes. Ms van der Walt. MS VAN DER WALT You are very well spoken, is that correct, Mr Mosiane? You speak quite easily. CHAIRPERSON We didn't get the translation of Mr Mosiane's response. MR MOSIANE Do you know me better? MS VAN DER WALT I'm observing you as such. MR MOSIANE I'm saying, you know me better. CHAIRPERSON Mr Mosiane, Ms van der Walt is making a comment about you. She's asking if you are well spoken, meaning in English, Ms van der Walt. Do you understand what she is asking? MR MOSIANE Ms van der Walt knows me. She knows me, it's not for the first time that I met her, for the first time here. CHAIRPERSON Are you responding by saying she knows you better? Oh I thought you were asking a question if she knew you better? There is a response, Ms van der Walt. MS VAN DER WALT You see Mr Mosiane, I put it to you that the evidence of Mr Prinsloo was that the fact that an operation was going to be carried out, when this was discussed with Mr Ras, Mr Prinsloo wanted to know which askaris he would bring with and your name was mentioned, that is with regard to the infiltration and Mr Prinsloo expressed his satisfaction because he said that you were the sort of person who could be easily infiltrated because you were easily conversant with people. You could communicate quite easily with people. What do you say about that evidence by Mr Prinsloo? MR MOSIANE I'm saying again that Mr Prinsloo, it was not for the first time I worked with Mr Prinsloo. I worked with Mr Prinsloo in many instances. Therefore I would not question his assessment about me. MS VAN DER WALT I also want to put it to you that it is Mr Prinsloo's evidence that when he arrived on the farm and noticed that Patrick Mahlangu had been abducted, he also came to you and said to you: "What happened here? Why was this man abducted?" and you then said to him that you had been exposed as policemen and that that was the reason, that your lives were in danger. MR MOSIANE It is very preposterous to think that Mr Prinsloo can send me on a preliminary mission to Patrick Mahlangu's place and again send me for the second time to infiltrate at the very same place and pretend to be from Botswana and a freedom fighter. That's not the way it goes, so it is very clear that Mr Prinsloo had sent some people previously to Mr Pat Mahlangu's house and sent me together with Moses Nzimande later, otherwise Mr Prinsloo might be a former police Security person who ...(indistinct) and subject some freedom fighters to abuse, but he was not an idiot. He couldn't have done that, that's not how it works. MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSIANE Then it is very clear that we are talking about several letters here. I'm talking about the letter I gave to Patrick Mahlangu's family personally and he is referring to a letter that I don't know of. MR JANSEN "It is possible that I may have thought about posting the letter in Botswana and that I did not do so and that I gave the letter to Mosiane and requested clothing." CHAIRPERSON MS VAN DER WALT Mr Ras conceded that there is a possibility that he may be mistaken, is that correct? Then in either of the events, we have heard the following from Mr Mosiane. I will leave it at that however, it is not of complete relevance at the moment. MR JANSEN May I just refer to the previous question that Ms van der Walt asked the applicant? She referred to that Mr Prinsloo asked the applicant about the circumstances in which Mr Mahlangu was abducted. She said that Mr Prinsloo testified that they were in danger. As far as I read the evidence of Mr Prinsloo, that was indeed not his testimony. CHAIRPERSON Yes. The danger posed was that... MR GREYLING As far as I see it, he said that and I refer to page 224 of the record that was supplied to me, in the middle of the page, Mr Prinsloo "As far as I can recall, I did not ask him pertinently whether or not he was involved. I simply asked him what they had taken the man and then he explained to me. He did not deny it. He didn't say that he wasn't involved." So that question that was put to the applicant is indeed not correct. CHAIRPERSON Yes. MS VAN DER WALT If you would look at page 150 at the bottom of the page, that is what I am referring to and then it goes over onto page 151 and continues. CHAIRPERSON Mr Greyling have you had an occasion? MR GREYLING Yes, Madam Chair, I've seen the page which Ms van der Walt referred me to. I just want to put on record that although that is more pertinent, the version was changed in cross-examination. CHAIRPERSON Yes. You are not sitting with an issue that's crystal clear. MR GREYLING Indeed. CHAIRPERSON You are treading on slightly turbulent waters. MR GREYLING Indeed. But it was put to my client that it was indeed crystal clear and that's not a fact. CHAIRPERSON Yes. MS VAN DER WALT Mr Mosiane, Mr Ras testified that he gave Patrick Mahlangu an order to compose a letter to his family and that Mr Prinsloo was not at all present. MR MOSIANE It is possible, but it's clear that Ms van der Walt is talking about two letters, that is the letter which Ras says he posted and there is a letter which was given to me to take it to Mahlangu's place. MS VAN DER WALT We are only referring to one letter. Mr Jansen has indicated that Mr Ras stated that it is possible that he may have given the letter to you and not posted it. Did you hear that? Therefore we are only referring to one letter and that is the letter which you have testified about which, according to you, you took to the family. That letter, I put it to you, according to Mr Ras in his evidence was written under his order and Mr Prinsloo was not present during this. Did you get the interpretation? MR MOSIANE I have no problem with the ear phones. CHAIRPERSON If that is so Mr Mosiane, we will appreciate if you could respond to what is being put to you. You are expected to make some comment. MR MOSIANE What I would comment, that even if Ras would take responsibility, that he's the one who dictated the letter, but Mr Prinsloo was present when the letter was written. MS VAN DER WALT Mr Prinsloo as well as Mr Ras testified that he was not present. MR MOSIANE Perhaps he was not present in my absence, but when I was there I saw Mr Prinsloo, that he was present during the writing of the letter. MS VAN DER WALT Nothing further thank you Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT CHAIRPERSON Thank you Ms van der Walt. Mr Wagener? MR WAGENER Chairperson I have no questions to this applicant, thank you. NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Joubert? MR JOUBERT Just a few issues Madam Chair. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT Mr Mosiane you indicate on page 234 of the application that the letter was to be handed to any member of Mr Mahlangu's family. It's at the beginning of paragraph 2. Is that correct? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR JOUBERT Was the instruction not to hand it to the parents of Mr Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE That was not important Chairperson, if they were not there and I found the sister, what could have happened? CHAIRPERSON But what were you told specifically? To whom was the letter to be handed over? MR JOUBERT The letter was supposed to be delivered to members of the Mahlangu's family. It was supposed to be delivered to Mahlangu's family, as to whether I gave it to the uncle or to the father or to anybody, that was not important, but I had to make sure that the letter arrived or was delivered at Mahlangu's place. CHAIRPERSON You may continue Mr Joubert. MR JOUBERT Thank you Madam Chair. Further on in that same paragraph, you indicate that you were taken by Pat Mahlangu's sister, that would now be Connie Mahlangu, is that correct? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR JOUBERT And she took you to a hiding place in Sibayeni? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR JOUBERT Did you at that stage already have the clothing which was provided to you? MR MOSIANE I don't remember, Chairperson. MR JOUBERT Can you recall when you obtained the clothing? MR MOSIANE I don't remember because I went there on two occasions but I think it was on the first occasion. Yes, it was at the first occasion. CHAIRPERSON ...refer to paragraph 2, Mr Mosiane, that's page 234, the paragraph you've already been referred to by Mr Joubert and the last four lines, at the bottom of that paragraph you say you spent the night there and in the morning Pat Mahlangu's sister arrived with a bag containing pat's clothes. MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR JOUBERT Are you quite sure that it was indeed Connie Mahlangu that handed you the clothing and took you to the hiding place? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR JOUBERT Couldn't it have been Queen, the wife of Pat Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE No, Chairperson. MR JOUBERT You see, I'd like to refer you to bundle 3, page 60 thereof. The statement by Constance Busisiwe Mahlangu, paragraph 19 on that page, and I quote "Queen took them to Sister Bongi who also lived in Mamelodi. They also took some of Pat's clothing with them which Queen had given to them." Do you have any comment to that? MR MOSIANE Chairperson, this thing is in this way. Connie Mahlangu took us to Sibayeni and at that place that is where Patrick Mahlangu's wife was staying, that is Queen. That is where we found the clothes there. I don't remember as to whether it was handed to us by Connie or Queen. MR JOUBERT Then with reference to the letter that has been discussed quite considerably, on the same page 60 of bundle 3, at paragraph 18 thereof or paragraph 17 and 18, it is stated that, and I quote "Approximately a month after Patrick's disappearance another letter arrived." Paragraph 18: "A short while after Pat's letter arrived, two men arrived there.' If I understand this correctly, it indicates that this letter was received either by post or by somebody else prior to you arriving there. Do you have any comments on that? MR MOSIANE It is clear therefore that we are now talking about more than one letter. MR JOUBERT Well at no stage does she refer to any letter handed to her by people who approached her. MR MOSIANE How many letters are we talking about, because the letter which I was given, I handed over to Patrick's family. Now it seems there is another letter after a month which was delivered there and I don't know about that one. MR JOUBERT May I also refer you to page 45 of bundle 3? It's a statement by Queen Kene, the wife of Patrick Mahlangu, on paragraph 8 thereof where she refers to this letter and she indicates in the middle of that paragraph, and I quote "The letter had been posted in Botswana but there was no address of the sender." Do you have any comment on this? MR MOSIANE I would say the letter which I received from Soutpan was hand post. MR JOUBERT I have no further questions, thank you Madam Chair. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden. MR VAN HEERDEN Thank you Madam Chair, no questions. NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN CHAIRPERSON Mr Steenkamp? MR STEENKAMP No questions thank you, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON Mr Greyling do you mind it, before you re-examine, I give the opportunity to the Panel to examine. Your re-examination will then take into account any issues that would have been raised by the Panel in their examination. MR GREYLING Madam Chair, I've got no problem with that. CHAIRPERSON Mr Malan, do you have any questions for Mr Mosiane? MR MALAN I have no questions, thank you Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Mr Motata? ADV MOTATA I've got none, Chairperson, thank you. CHAIRPERSON Mr Mosiane, in your evidence in chief and during cross-examination, you were not able to say clearly how many askaris were present at Soutpan on your arrival. Now you mentioned that half of the Vlakplaas operatives were there. Now we don't know what is the full extent of the operatives in Vlakplaas. Can you estimate for us? When you say half of the askaris were already at Soutpan on your arrival, what approximate number are you talking of? MR MOSIANE I request an apology Chairperson. I made a mistake when I mentioned that the askaris who were at Soutpan were half of the total number of the askaris at Vlakplaas. That was a mistake. I was trying to estimate, that I found those people, they were many, it is true that they were many, but to say it was half of the total number, I was not correct, it was not a precise estimation. That is not correct, but there were many when I arrived there at Soutpan. CHAIRPERSON Are you able to estimate in terms of numbers, how many these people were? MR MOSIANE Approximately more than 10. Those who were from Vlakplaas and together with those from Compol, which is the total number of those people who were there would be more than 30. CHAIRPERSON Because I am interested in the Vlakplaas operatives, the askaris. MR MOSIANE There would be approximately 10. CHAIRPERSON When you were initially instructed by Simon Radebe to go to Soutpan, were you all alone or were instructions that you must go to Soutpan given to you whilst you were in the company of other askaris? MR MOSIANE It came to me alone. CHAIRPERSON On your arrival, was Colin Khumalo and Moses Nzimande already at Soutpan? MR MOSIANE Chairperson, I don't remember as to whether we left with them at Vlakplaas or we found them at Soutpan. CHAIRPERSON On your arrival at Soutpan, what did you do? Did you get briefing from any of the white officers? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON And from whom did you receive your briefing? MR MOSIANE I received briefings from Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras. CHAIRPERSON And do you recall what those briefings entailed? MR MOSIANE I remember Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Can you tell us? MR MOSIANE The briefings entailed that I was supposed to take the letter, the letter which I've already mentioned about, to take it to Patrick Mahlangu's place and then lie that I met Patrick Mahlangu in Botswana. He is still alive and then myself and the person who I was with, that is Colin Khumalo, we are MK operatives from Botswana. I've brought a letter. Then again we're looking for an accommodation. CHAIRPERSON Did you receive your briefing immediately upon your arrival at Soutpan, or did you stay a few days before you were briefed by both Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras? MR MOSIANE I received the briefings the following day after we had slept at Soutpan. CHAIRPERSON Is it your evidence that you were briefed by both Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras and the briefings occurred in one session? Is that your evidence? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Why do you resist the idea that you could have acted under the command of Mr Ras? MR MOSIANE That would be something which was wrong, that I was under Ras, that would be wrong. I was under Ras but that does not mean that I'm not under Prinsloo. CHAIRPERSON But Mr Ras gave you a briefing, he instructed you on what to do with the letter. You acted in accordance with those instructions. Doesn't that make him to be a Commander of some sort? MR MOSIANE That is correct. He was my Commander but that does not mean that Mr Prinsloo had no role in the command. CHAIRPERSON I understand what you are saying. Mr Ras gave you instructions in the presence of Mr Prinsloo? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON When you were being instructed by both, did they both tell you what you had to do about the letter? Did they speak to you, both of them, in that session? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON It is obviously a long time ago and one cannot expect you to recall what was said by each of them, I'm just trying my luck. Are you in a position to remember what was said by Mr Prinsloo and what was said by Mr Ras during that briefing session? MR MOSIANE No Chairperson, I am unable to quote them verbatim. CHAIRPERSON We would however, comprehending your evidence correctly, if I were to encapsulate the saying you received instructions from both Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras. MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON In connection with the letter that had to be delivered to the Mahlangu family. MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON When you were given such instructions, did you know Connie Mahlangu by sight? MR MOSIANE No Chairperson, I did not know her. CHAIRPERSON You came to know of her upon delivery of the letter? MR MOSIANE Yes. At the time when I arrived at her place, that was for the first time I saw her. CHAIRPERSON Did she identify herself to you as Connie Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON And later on when you were taken to Sibayeni, did Queen identify herself as Pat Mahlangu's wife? MR MOSIANE I don't remember as to whether she introduced herself to us or it's Constance who introduced Queen to us. CHAIRPERSON But you were later brought up to speed with regard to the fact that the person that you had over-nighted on was Mrs Mahlangu, meaning Pat Mahlangu's wife? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON In your affidavit at page 235 you state that at paragraph 5, third line "Pat Mahlangu's wife told us that she would be leaving for Swaziland soon and instructed us to hand the house keys to her sister-in-law when we leave." Are you referring to the place where you spent a night after having been taken by Connie Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Mosiane, you have already agreed with me that I would be understanding your evidence correctly if I summarised it as follows: That you received instructions with regard to the delivery of the letter to the Mahlangu family from both Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras and these instructions were given to you a day after your arrival at Soutpan. MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON When did you witness the writing of the letter by Pat Mahlangu? At which stage? MR MOSIANE The day before. CHAIRPERSON Now the letter was written on the day of your arrival in Soutpan, is that your evidence? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON By that time, had you been instructed to do anything about the letter by both Mr Ras and Mr Prinsloo? MR MOSIANE No we hadn't got the instructions yet. CHAIRPERSON When you say "we", who else are you referring to? MR MOSIANE I'm referring to Colin Khumalo who accompanied me to Patrick Mahlangu's place for the first time when we delivered the letter. CHAIRPERSON Was Colin Khumalo present during the briefing session you referred to? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON So on the day of your arrival, you had not yet been instructed by Mr Ras and Mr Prinsloo in connection with the delivery of the letter? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. MR MALAN Mr Mosiane, I'm sorry that I'm coming in late now on this. If I understood you correctly you arrived during a specific day. For some reason you peeped in where Khumalo was being, not Khumalo, where Mahlangu was being dictated a letter to, you saw Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras there, they were both speaking. In understood your evidence that that was for a moment. That you did not overhear the trend or the actual words, but that you assumed because he was in captivity, that he was not writing the letter freely. Is that summary correct? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR MALAN Now what - where was Mahlangu at that stage, when he was being dictated the letter to? Where did you find him? MR MOSIANE He was inside a room that was just on the adjacent side, where he was held captive and he was being guarded. MR MALAN Where was he held captive? MR MOSIANE In one isolated separate room. MR MALAN I'm not getting the translation here. Let me try another channel. INTERPRETER It is on 2. Afrikaans is on 1. MR MALAN Can I just get that answer again? Where was he being held captive, sorry Mr Mosiane? MR MOSIANE He was kept in an isolated room. MR MALAN Was this in a house? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR MALAN How did it come about that you went into this house, into this isolated room? MR MOSIANE Eric took me there and he showed me Patrick Mahlangu and he was writing the letter in question at that stage. CHAIRPERSON When you say Eric, are you referring to Eric Sefadi? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson, I'm referring to Eric Sefadi. MR MALAN Therefore Eric Sefadi took you into this isolated room while Mr Prinsloo and Mr Ras were busy with Pat Mahlangu? MR MOSIANE At that stage when he was showing me this room where there was Mr Patrick Mahlangu inside, yes, he had already started writing the letter when he showed me the room. MR MALAN Yes, in other words when he showed the room to you that was the same opportunity that Prinsloo and Ras were busy dictating what Mahlangu had to write, it was not at another opportunity, if I understand you correctly? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR MALAN And you told us that you just quickly peeped inside? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR MALAN Did Eric Sefadi remain there? MR MOSIANE No Chairperson. MR MALAN Did he walk with you? MR MOSIANE I think so, Sir. MR MALAN Can you give us an indication as to how long, how much time had lapsed when you say you peeped him there, you opened the door, Eric said: "There's Mahlangu" and you saw that they were busy with him and closed the door and left. Did you stand there listening for a while? How much time had lapsed? Was it a few seconds, half a minute, five minutes, how long were you there? MR MOSIANE We did not stay there for long in that room. I entered in and I was being shown a person who was sitting in a corner and he was busy writing...(end of tape) I left them there inside. MR MALAN While Prinsloo and Ras were dictating a letter and you walked into this isolating room, did they not tell you: "Listen here, we are busy, go out now"? Is it accepted factors that while officers are busy that anyone can just walk in and hang around for three minutes and then just walk out again without saying anything and without invitation at that? MR MOSIANE Chairperson, this was a different situation. I myself, I was supposed to be part of this operation and therefore it was not surprising, the fact that I walked in there and I was being shown Patrick Mahlangu, there was nothing irregular about that. MR MALAN But with great respect, I understand your evidence and I put it to you, when you walked in there you did not have any instruction. You did not know that you were to be part of this operation because you were only briefed the following morning. That is what you told us. So therefore you would not have walked in there because you knew you were part of the operation. You didn't even know that you were to be part of the operation. MR MOSIANE It happened the way it happened, Sir, as I've already explained. MR MALAN And then I would just like to ascertain in answer to a question. You said it was improbable, it does not work in that manner, that both of you would be sent to infiltrate Pat Mahlangu or that you would be sent to infiltrate and became involved in the abduction of Mahlangu and then be sent back to take a letter. It sounds to me that is a good argument that you're using but do I understand you correctly, is that your argument? MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON That's your response not an argument. MR MALAN That was the answer. You said in answer to a question that: "It does not work that I would be sent in to infiltrate and then Pat Mahlangu be abducted and then I myself be sent afterwards with a letter to deliver it." That's how I understood you. That's what you answered to a question. MR MOSIANE That is correct, Chairperson. MR MALAN I would just like to ask you because we really don't know who executed the abduction and we want to have more information as to who was involved with the abduction because nobody here knows who executed the abduction and it was asked of you earlier: "Do you have no idea whatsoever who was involved in the abduction of Pat Mahlangu?" Do you not get the interpretation? MR MOSIANE I do not know who abducted Pat Mahlangu. MR MALAN Eric Sefadi took you that evening and showed Pat Mahlangu to you, apparently for no reason whatsoever, we cannot surmise why he showed him to you. Did he not tell you why he showed this person to you? MR MOSIANE Chairperson, at that stage there was unrest at that time, during that period. There were a lot of suspicions that Patrick Mahlangu's sister and Patrick Mahlangu, they are involved in those unrest that was in Mamelodi. MR MALAN I do not want that information again. Let me make myself clear. I put myself in the position of the next of kin of Mr Patrick Mahlangu, his spouse, his sister, his parents, his whole family and they came and sat here for quite some time and I don't know if they know anything more than what they knew before we started with this hearing. I think what is of importance, if I was in their position, is how was he abducted and who was involved, can you not assist us at all in this regard? MR MOSIANE Chairperson, unfortunately this question of yours is directed to the wrong person. I cannot be of any assistance in giving information as to who abducted him and when because I was not there when this happened. MR MALAN Do you know who the person is I should put that question to? MR MOSIANE He is in here, the person appropriate, the person you can direct the question to, it's Mr Prinsloo. He's here, he's present. Mr Prinsloo is the appropriate person who can respond to your question, who abducted Mr Patrick Mahlangu to Soutpan, otherwise we'll be very incorrect and very inconsistent that Mr Prinsloo does not know about this operation. MR MALAN MR MOSIANE Chairperson, Mr Prinsloo is here in front of us. He is the head of the North West Transvaal Special Branch. He, there is an operation and he finds Pat Mahlangu there being abducted, he doesn't ask who brought him there, what should be his response, but instead he's angry about the whole thing. He's not even inquired. He knows who are the people who abducted Mr Mahlangu. CHAIRPERSON Let me bring you under my protection. I think you've already responded to the question posed to you by Mr Malan and I don't think you need to go any further. You don't know who abducted, you don't know how the abduction was done, you can be of no help to the family of Mr Mahlangu. I think your response was because of what was put to you, that the family is in no better position than it was prior to these proceedings and your short response is: it is unfortunate, you are not the right person to be able to provide information that would have shed more light about the abduction. That should be sufficient. m MALAN Thank you Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Mr Greyling, do you wish to re-examine? MR GREYLING I've got no re-examination, Madam Chair. NO QUESTIONS BY MR GREYLING CHAIRPERSON Mr Mosiane, you are excused as a witness. MR MOSIANE Thank you, Chairperson. I would like to ask Chairperson whether, will there be a need for me to stay on about this matter or can I be excused? Is my evidence complete? Is there a need for me to stay any longer? CHAIRPERSON I think so, subject of course to what your legal representative is going to say. As far as we are concerned I don't think we will need your attendance anymore. MR MOSIANE Thank you Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON But you are being legally represented and I don't want to overstep my bounds, you have to clear it with your own lawyer. MR MOSIANE Thank you Chairperson. WITNESS EXCUSED CHAIRPERSON Mr Van Heerden, what is the position with regard to the victims? MR VAN HEERDEN Madam Chair, no evidence will be led. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. That being the case, this bring us to the time for legal argument. We have earlier on arranged that after viva voce evidence has been led the legal representatives will be ready and able to address us. Is that still the position, Mr Hattingh? MR HATTINGH Yes, Chairperson, we are ready to proceed. Madam, may I request a brief adjournment before I commence my argument? CHAIRPERSON Yes, I just wanted to ascertain if everyone was ready, if everyone is ready. We'll take a tea adjournment so that your argument can be more pointed after you have had a little bit of a break. We'll take a 15 minute adjournment. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION CHAIRPERSON Before we proceed to hear legal argument, we are going to give Mr van Heerden, who has since been given further instructions by the relatives of the late Mr Mahlangu, to lead evidence on their behalf. Mr van Heerden. MR VAN HEERDEN Thank you Madam Chair. Witness Constance Busisiwe Mahlangu will testify under oath and then the second witness, Sipho Gladwyn Mahlangu to express the sentiments of the family which will not be done under oath. CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr van Heerden. MR VAN HEERDEN After I took further instructions, thank you, Madam Chair. CONSTANCE BUSISIWE MAHLANGU (sworn states) CHAIRPERSON You may proceed Mr van Heerden. MR VAN HEERDEN Thank you Madam Chair. EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN Would you please tell the Committee what your relationship is with the deceased, Mr Patrick Mahlangu? MS MAHLANGU I am his sister. I come after my brother, he was the last born of the males in the household. MR VAN HEERDEN Did you live with the deceased? MS MAHLANGU Yes, we were staying with our parents. MR VAN HEERDEN And where did you live? MS MAHLANGU In Mamelodi. MR VAN HEERDEN When did you see Patrick Mahlangu for the last time? MS MAHLANGU In 1986, that was for the last time I saw him. MR VAN HEERDEN Can you recall the date and month? MS MAHLANGU No. MR VAN HEERDEN If I may place it in context, was it the 18th of March 1986? MS MAHLANGU I could have been round March, but I cannot recall the date. MR VAN HEERDEN Do you recall what happened that particular evening at about 7 o'clock? MR MAHLANGU There was a knock at the sitting room round about 7 in the evening. I went out and three males came in, after I had opened the door. All of them were wearing leathers. They had come in a blue car and they started by saying: "We are looking for Patrick Mahlangu" and I went out to call him. He came in and when he came, they started asking the whereabouts of Constance and I identified myself as Constance and then went out, actually Pat went out with them and I accompanied them outside and they identified themselves as member of the ANC from Swaziland and they had come here looking for an overnight accommodation. Pat then said to them that we did not have accommodation at home and he offered that he was going to look for an overnight accommodation for them at ...(indistinct) at his friend's place. This blue car was parked on the road, I could not identify the figures who were inside the vehicle. They then said we should all go along, then Pat pushed me and he started inquiring as to why I should come along and he suggested that I should remain behind and one of these people then said I should remain behind. They then left with Pat. That was the last time we saw him, we never saw him again. MR VAN HEERDEN Did you recognise any of the persons who were there? MS MAHLANGU It has been a long time since. You see we went to the verandah, it was a little bit dark, I could not make them out quite well. MR VAN HEERDEN Is it any of the applicants here before the Committee today? MS MAHLANGU Yes, that is Chris. Chris was not there that evening, I only saw him when he came for the second time to pick up the clothes. MR VAN HEERDEN Is that Chris Mosiane? He was just there to collect the clothing? Can you explain? MS MAHLANGU That was after he'd been abducted. It could have been two to three weeks if I'm not mistaken and we received a letter through the mail to the effect that two people were going to come from Botswana and they would seek accommodation and we should help them out. Indeed Chris as well as another person, I think his name is Ipimbi, that's how he identified himself and when they came, they introduced themselves and they said they wanted Pat's clothing. I indicated to them that we had received the letter and they asked for his clothing. I, however, cannot recall what the exact contents of the letter were but I think mention was made of his boots and an old T-shirt and I went to inform his wife about these people who wanted clothing. She gave me the clothing and they then said they were asking for an overnight accommodation because they were proceeding. Myself, as well as Pat's wife, then went to her sister in D4 at the shacks, that is where we accommodated them. Then Pat's wife left. I remained behind with them for a while and left them later that evening. That is where they put up. MR VAN HEERDEN I've got no further questions, thank you Madam Chair. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr van Heerden. Mr Hattingh? MR HATTINGH Thank you, Chairperson, I have no questions. CHAIRPERSON Mr Jansen? MR JANSEN Just one question thank you Chair. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN Ms Mahlangu, can you remember what type of a car it was? MS MAHLANGU Type of what? MR JANSEN The car, the blue car that you saw, can you remember what ...? MS MAHLANGU No, it was dark. I could make out that the car was blue but it was dark. It was a small vehicle. MR JANSEN Thank you Chair, no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN CHAIRPERSON Mr Cornelius? MR CORNELIUS Thank you Chair, I've got no questions. NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS CHAIRPERSON Ms van der Walt? MS VAN DER WALT No questions thank you. NO QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT CHAIRPERSON Mr Wagener? MR WAGENER I have no questions, Chairperson. NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER CHAIRPERSON Mr Joubert? MR JOUBERT I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair. NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT CHAIRPERSON Mr Greyling? MR GREYLING Singular aspects, Chairperson. CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GREYLING Madam you have seen Chris Mosiane here at these proceedings today. MS MAHLANGU That is correct. MR GREYLING And you recognise him as the person who came to your house the second time to collect the clothing? MS MAHLANGU That is correct. MR GREYLING And if I understand your statement that you made to the police correctly, he was not the person, when Pat disappeared, he was not the person who came there the first time? MS MAHLANGU No, he's not the one. MR GREYLING Thank you Chairperson, nothing further. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR GREYLING CHAIRPERSON Mr Steenkamp? MR STEENKAMP No questions, thank you Madam Chair. NO QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP CHAIRPERSON I suppose Mr van Heerden, there is no re-examination? MR VAN HEERDEN No re-examination thank you Madam Chair. NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN CHAIRPERSON Ms Mahlangu, you are excused as a witness. Thank you for attending. Mr van Heerden, who is the next person that we must now give an opportunity to express the sentiments of the family? MR VAN HEERDEN Thank you Madam Chair. It is Sipho Gladwyn Mahlangu. SIPHO GLADWYN MAHLANGU: CHAIRPERSON Mr Mahlangu would you be expressing the sentiments in English or in Zulu? MR MAHLANGU I will express myself in English so as to save time, even though I'm not quite conversant in English, but I'm gong to express myself in that language. CHAIRPERSON Proceed. MR MAHLANGU Okay. I'm happy to be here at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, precisely for the reason that we want to find out what really happened to our brother and I was happy that now the proceedings, I expected them to go smoothly, but anyway highly and slightly disappointed by the applicants because now most of them who did not show as to whether they realise that what they were saying was to the benefit, was going to benefit them in any way, but they merely said things that they did not even think they would say. When asked questions they mostly forgot about more important issues like who delivered the letter, who gave instruction and one other thing, there is this one that is so central to the whole issue, as to who abducted Pat. They don't remember who abducted Pat, more especially the guys who are the officials, most of them tried to pass the buck. And then the family, along these lines, is very disturbed but we are not here to judge because now what we are here to listen to, is as to how Pat was abducted and how he died and then we would have sort of found ourselves in a better position, a forgiving position but sorry to say that now the family is not here to give it's sentiments as to whether it forgives of it does not, we are here to listen. But when coming to the issue of forgiving, that, I am sorry to say, we are not forgiving anyone and we would like the Committee and the Attorney-General to take that matter and decide as to whether these guys get amnesty or not. But as for myself, I'm sorry to say that now the applicants will know of their fate as soon as the Attorney-General has learned their evidence, has gone through their evidence, because we are not here to judge as we are, as a family, we are here to listen. I'm sorry, I'm about to repeat myself. But thank you very much. We have stayed here for quite some time. In fact this amnesty hearing is long overdue. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Mahlangu. You may step down now. Mr van Heerden? MR VAN HEERDEN Thank you Madam Chair, there's no further evidence. CHAIRPERSON Yes. We shall now proceed to hear legal argument. Mr Hattingh, will you be the first to start? MR HATTINGH IN ARGUMENT Thank you Chairperson, I'm going to be very brief. Chairperson, we submit that Mr de Kock, his version was not discredited, nor was it contradicted by any of the witnesses, in fact it was corroborated to a large extent by the evidence of Mr Vermeulen. Nobody controverted his version and we submit therefore that there is no reason why this Committee should not accept his evidence as testified by himself. If you are prepared to accept his version, then we submit that he's made out a clear case for amnesty, Chairperson. His evidence is to the effect that he received a request from the Commander of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch to send some of the askaris and members of Vlakplaas to assist with the identification and apprehension of so-called terrorists. In order to enable him to decide how many men he had to send and which men he had to send, he was given documents from which it appeared that there were several so-called terrorists active in the area and e then sent a certain number of people under the command of Mr Ras, to assist the Northern Transvaal branch in this regard. He testified that he was satisfied that they were going to assist with the combating of terrorism. He also testified Chairperson, that any interrogations that were going to take place, as far as he was concerned, would have been aimed at eliciting information about so-called terrorist activities and that was the reason why he wasn't prepared to accede to the request to send some of his men to render assistance to the Northern Transvaal Branch. Clearly therefore, he had a political motive in sending these men to assist the Northern Transvaal branch. He was thereupon approached by one of the men who was sent to Soutpan and informed, this is Mr Vermeulen, and informed that a person had died under interrogation and that they needed some explosives to get rid of the body. At first he was not prepared to accede to the request but on reconsideration and upon reflection, he decided that it was in the interest of the Security Police and the police in general that assistance should be given in this regard otherwise it would have caused great embarrassment to the Security Police and more particularly the Northern Transvaal branch. He then gave permission to Mr Vermeulen to take the necessary explosives in order to destroy the body of Mr Mahlangu. He didn't even know the identity of the person who had been interrogated and who died as a result of the torture upon him, he merely accepted that the man had been interrogated in connection with his alleged terrorist activities. He was later informed that the body had been destroyed by Mr Vermeulen. He was not in a position to recall that Mr Ras showed him a newspaper clipping about the incident, but he conceded that it is possible and that he may have forgotten about that. Clearly therefore, Chairperson, Mr de Kock has made out a case for amnesty. We submit that he has made a full disclosure. He was hardly cross-examined at all by any of the other applicants and he had no - he did not receive any compensation or remuneration for the role that he played and we submit therefore that amnesty should be granted to Mr de Kock for all offences and delicts arising from the abduction and killing and then the destruction of Mr Mahlangu's body. Thank you, Chairperson, that is all that I have to say. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Jansen? MR JANSEN IN ARGUMENT Thank you Madam Chair. I will confine myself to deal with the facts of the matter. Those facts which were controversial or was to some extent in dispute in this matter. Firstly I believe Madam Chair, the Committee must consider the context of this incident at the time, both the context of what was happening in Pretoria and specifically Mamelodi as far as the Security situation is concerned there and secondly the context of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch and it's methods of dealing more specifically with the Mamelodi situation. Now, it would appear that this incident took place in March 1986. That was if you look at the reported case of State versus Masinga, it would seem to be a few months before the main individuals were arrested in that very active MK cell in Mamelodi, being Mr Masinga, Mr Masango and Ting-ting Masango and Mr Masinga. I don't have that case unfortunately with me today but I remember that that date of arrest was in June 1986 and all these incidents that you have been hearing in this cluster seem to start more or less at this stage in 1986 and they follow through in 1987 and 88 with quite a few abductions of various other activists and they all follow a very similar pattern. There's an abduction, there's an interrogation and then there's a killing and disposal of the body and I believe the strongest, as it were, underpinning of the arguments in favour of amnesty in this case, is that this case in a certain sense, falls in that pattern. "I can recall Mosiane, who I tasked" and then it goes on to talk about the infiltration etc. So he seems to have a clear recollection that it was Mosiane. The same with Prinsloo. Prinsloo also has a clear recollection that it was Mosiane. Now I agree that there will be a lot of criticism against, or a lot of criticism can be levelled against the evidence in general of Mr Prinsloo and to some extent maybe even of Ras, but on this important aspect Madam Chair, they are also supported by Mathebula in his application, that's page 142 bundle 1 paragraph 3. That was that evidence where he clearly places Mosiane as part of the group that was sent to Mamelodi and returned with Patrick Mahlangu a day or two later. Now it is so that that was the part or one of the parts of Mathebula's evidence where he, in my respectful submission, made a half-hearted attempt to make a concession during hearing his evidence. I don't have a problem with that concession, it's made the concession fairly made, but unfortunately we do have that context that it was happening under circumstances where on the one hand it was important for some of the applicants that they be corroborated on this aspect, but on the other hand, it happened in a context where the conflict that they had with Mosiane - would happen in the context where the attorney had a clear conflict of interest and it's unfortunate that it happened there because obviously the suggestion may be levelled that the reason why Mathebula makes the concession is to protect Mosiane, but it may not be. There may be a valid reason for the concession and I will myself concede that there are pointers in favour of Mosiane although there is criticism in respect of Mosiane's evidence, he clearly, the way he approaches all his amnesty applications, he clearly wants to sort of distance himself as much as possible from these deeds, but it is so that it would appear to be maybe more probable that he was only sent on one occasion, then on two occasions. It would - there's no apparent reason why he would want to deny his involvement there, or certainly no patent reason, to say for this and that specific reason he's denying his involvement there. It could simply be that on this aspect they were wrong or that the other people that were - the other askaris that were in the kombi were responsible for the abduction. I don't know and I don't believe a definitive finding on that is needed. The fact of the matter is, Mahlangu was abducted. The next controversy is then whether he was abducted on the orders of Ras and/or Prinsloo, either/or, or both, or whether he was abducted contrary to the initial instructions. And finally on this aspect, there is nothing - because we don't know who the abductors were, because they have not come forward, they can't throw any light on this and as far as that is concerned, I therefore submit that there is nothing on record which can lead you not to find that the abduction as it were, was not strictly speaking in terms of - the order wasn't initially given for the abduction to take place at least at that stage but in any event, it was certainly condoned afterwards and as it were, ratified but what it does show to some extent is, it did place Ras and Prinsloo in a somewhat difficult position. It placed them in a situation where, I believe, that evidence that de Kock at some stage gave that in certain circumstances, one must leave room for operational discretions. It did, to some extent place them in a situation like that and that explains the evidence why the operation probably wasn't discussed in detail with de Kock beforehand because the initial intention was that it was more of a routine kind of, do observation, make an infiltration, see what information you can get up with, we will plan operations at a later stage. Something like that. So the operation, as it were, fell on them. It is therefore my submission that you should in fairness deal with this incident, taking proper cognisance of, or giving a fair amount of leeway for this problem that they faced at the time. The abduction itself, not only was it, although Prinsloo was very unhappy, it was quite clearly also ratified by Prinsloo because he was, I mean he led the whole operation continued from there and the same with the death. The order to kill came from Prinsloo, so I respectfully submit that Ras is covered in both those aspects. There is the issue of Cronje's involvement although that doesn't affect Ras directly. To some extent the issue was canvassed with Ras, but what did de Kock know and what did de Kock tell you, what must you go and do at Mr Prinsloo? Firstly Ras would not normally, or a person in the position of Ras would not ordinarily know what is discussed between his Commander and the Commander of the other unit. There's nothing wrong, in my respectful submission, in de Kock telling Ras: "Go to Mr Prinsloo, he'll tell you what's going to happen." Under those circumstances where it was initially probably only intended to be fairly routine work, it's even more probable, but even if there had been a specific operation in mind, if I make reference to some of the other incidents, it seems to appear, or it seems to be, at least from time to time, and quite plausible, that de Kock would tell his operatives: "Report to Mr so-and-so of that unit, there's going to be an operation. You'll get your instructions and the details from that person" without any specifics of the operation being discussed. What I do find a bit strange of Cronje's attitude in this specific incident is that he has it placed on record in quite strong terms, that Prinsloo is talking nonsense but in the very same cluster he admits to a whole long list of incidents that he must have given the orders, but that he simply cannot remember, so again, I believe that even a finding that Cronje may have known, is not unjustified. MR MALAN Sorry to interrupt you, may I just ask on this score, did Cronje not explain that it was on the basis of that, in that specific period there was this ill blood between Head Office and Vlakplaas and that he would not have consented and that wasn't challenged as far as I remember. MR JANSEN Yes, I think you're correct there. There was that, he said that, I think he also explained because he has the recollection of it being mentioned at a later stage or somewhere, I'm not exactly sure, I'm also starting to confuse the different incidents with each other as far as Cronje is concerned, but I ...(intervention) MR MALAN I really don't want to interrupt you, but you said we should - I understood from you that you would request us to make a finding that Cronje did know, but you haven't substantiated that. MR JANSEN Well on the basis that there is the direct evidence of Prinsloo in that regard. MR MALAN Thank you, you may continue. MR JANSEN Thank you Chair. The next issue which was canvassed to some extent with Ras was the chronology of the events from the point where Mahlangu was abducted and brought to the farm up to the point where he was killed and his body was disposed of. There was obviously some uncertainty about whether the initial people that infiltrated Mamelodi, whether they went there once or twice, whether they came back within 24 hours and then sent again, or whether they only came back after a few days. My simple and single submission on this is that that part of the evidence does, to some extent, enter detail which one cannot expect people to be very clear on at this stage. I don't think it affects, in any way, the main points and the main issues in this case and that, with respect, brings me to what I regard as probably the main issue that you have to decide in this case and that is whether the decision to kill Mahlangu was justified in the sense that it complies with the provisions of Section 20 (iii). "Now based" it's sort of to the last third of the page. "Now based on your own version that there was no corroboration between you and Ras, the second explanation should be acceptable as the true explanation. "In other words it is highly improbable that independently of each other, you could make this mistake? "Yes, that is correct." But then he goes on and he keeps on insisting that both his written statement and his oral statement are both correct and for some or other reason he doesn't seem to realise the strange dilemma he is in and instead of just making an ordinary and a natural and a fairly simple concession, he continues in this path of what then becomes an extremely convoluted story about how he came to realise that Mahlangu had to be killed and who was in danger, etc. etc. CHAIRPERSON Even though Mr Prinsloo was in command. MR JANSEN CHAIRPERSON Which relates to the identity of the informer? MR JANSEN Yes. I don't believe, even though and I concede that at the beginning, even though Prinsloo's evidence and the quality of his evidence, raises a lot of question marks over this issue, those question marks should be Prinsloo's problem at the best, but it should not be used as a basis...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON To discredit the version given by Ras, yes. MR JANSEN Again one can probably go into a long and detailed analysis of the evidence and try knit-pick here and there and I'm not asking you to speculate about motives or what were the reasons, etc., but there is nothing to suggest, if there had been another reason, why Ras would not testify about what that reason was. It's very clear that Mahlangu was an ANC supporter or that he was active in the ANC activities in Mamelodi at the time. So he was certainly a person that was going to attract the attention of the Security Police, so his abduction was in that sort of perverted sense, justified and to come back to my initial argument, once one is abducted in that context, it often leads to the death of that person for whatever reason. CHAIRPERSON Or that the identity of the informer would be disclosed, or not. MR JANSEN Yes. Certainly that's a plausible reason under many circumstances and my argument is that that was in fact the reason and that that reason does, in terms of the Act and in terms of how other applications have been dealt with, that again I use it in inverted commas "justifies" the killing or at least makes it qualify for amnesty. CHAIRPERSON Yes. We've previously had evidence where once a person was classified as a high profile activist, that person qualified for elimination. MR JANSEN I believe and I submit that the only cogent and reasonably believable evidence before you as to why Mahlangu was killed, was because of a perceived danger to an informer and on that basis it should be accepted for purposes of granting amnesty to Ras. That's the crucial aspect. Here the rest almost follows just chronologically after that decision. There's nothing in the actual killing or the disposal of the body, which I believe is so gross or so questionable that it can detract from the fact that this incident qualifies for amnesty. I believe the incident involved the kidnapping of Mr Mahlangu, it involved a series of assaults, which I suppose one would describe as assault with intention to do grievous bodily harm over a period of time and then the killing and the destruction of his body and I would ask you to grant Mr Ras amnesty in respect of all, again the wording, I know there's a far amount of uncertainty as to the wording of it, but you have the categorisation of the offences. If you believe they must be listed then they must be listed as the abduction, torture and killing and both the criminal and the civil liability aspects are ... I don't know if there's anything else that you want to hear me on specifically. Those are my submissions. Thank you, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON I think we've heard you in respect of all that you needed to be heard. MR JANSEN Yes, thank you, Chair. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Cornelius, before going to you, I'm going to request that I hear Ms van der Walt and thereafter resort to you. MR CORNELIUS As you please. CHAIRPERSON You may proceed Ms van der Walt. MS VAN DER WALT IN ARGUMENT Honourable Chairperson, I have listened to Mr Jansen's argument and I wish to point out the problems and I think that is what you want to hear me on. I agree with Mr Jansen that with regard to the reason as to why Mr Mahlangu was killed was definitely not clear from Mr Prinsloo's evidence. I also wish to argue that Mr Prinsloo had a notion during his examination and I think several times he was returned to the point by Mr Malan where he tremendously elaborated and had lost the point as to what it was all about with regard to the aspect which appears on page 330 of his application in the first bundle, the top paragraph. That is the reason that he submits in his application that he has already handed in before the cut-off date and I agree there with Mr Jansen that I cannot say word for word, but there is no difference in his application than the application of Mr Ras. Mr Ras drew up his application under entirely different circumstances and this was also with the member of the Amnesty Committee's investigative unit, whereas Mr Prinsloo went to another place and completed his with other legal representatives. I know during the questioning of Mr Prinsloo, Mr Malan specifically pointed out that paragraph to him and told him that his written statement agrees with the evidence that Mr Ras had delivered. However Mr Prinsloo conveyed his evidence differently and with respect I would submit that if one and, if there is criticism about his evidence, but if one has regard in depth for his evidence with regard to this point, there are differences as to how he heard of this informer and how this informer had been exposed and with respect I would submit that you cannot reject his evidence on that point just because he, in his verbal evidence, had submitted that he had read it from documents and it was not verbally conveyed to him or in the manner that Mr Ras had testified and I would request of you that you judge his application as it appears on page 330 and that you do not penalise him because in his oral evidence, he diverted from exactly how he heard that this informer had been exposed with regard to the fact in his evidence and in his application, as Mr Ras has testified, it was that the reason for killing Mr Mahlangu was the danger to the informant. This is what is prominent, although I concede that there is some criticism to his evidence and I would submit that one could not say that he has not made a full disclosure with regard to the fact as to why Mr Mahlangu was killed. Then I would take it further with regard to another aspect which was not addressed by Mr Jansen. This is not applicable to his client but this is criticism that can be brought in against Mr Prinsloo's evidence and that is with regard to after Mr Mahlangu was loaded into the mini bus when Mr Prinsloo was the driver of the mini bus. It is indeed so that Mr Prinsloo in his evidence initially, or he told the Committee that he did not know what was going on in the back of the mini bus. It is correct that he drove and if one has regard for his evidence, it would appear as if he wanted to distance himself from what had happened in the back of the mini bus. But at the end of this aspect, Mr Prinsloo said he associates himself and he also takes responsibility for what happened in the back of the mini bus, that Mr Mahlangu was there strangled by Mr Ras and I would argue on this point that although there could be criticism levelled at him he did not try to cover it up. He told you that he, as Commander, takes responsibility for the death of Mr Mahlangu, that he had indeed been strangled. And then if I may return to the abduction. Once again Mr Prinsloo had taken the responsibility after the abduction of Mr Mahlangu. It is unfortunate that Mr Prinsloo cannot assist the family with what had happened there and the evidence and there is no other evidence contrary to this, that definitely there was no planning that Mr Mahlangu had to be abducted. Everybody agreed who testified, that Mr Prinsloo was deeply dissatisfied because this defeated the whole purpose. They wanted to know much more of the groups who were involved in acts of terror in the Pretoria vicinity, but after Mahlangu had been abducted, Mr Prinsloo summarised the situation and further instructions were then issued. What concerns me somewhat is the affidavit of Mr Cronje which I would submit to you, was handed to us on the 22nd of October, after the applicants had already given evidence. Mr Cronje was not represented and he was not present himself. There was an aspect which was addressed by one of the Committee Members that the aspect of bad blood between the two divisions was not disputed, but it is mentioned in here, that there was no opportunity for the applicant to answer to this, but there is the evidence of Mr de Kock and of Mr Ras, that contradicts the affidavit of Mr Cronje and Mr Ras, Mr de Kock and Mr Prinsloo. Evidence with regard to the affidavit of Mr Cronje was not challenged that Mr Prinsloo had indeed received permission from Mr Cronje for the operation and that Mr Cronje had requested Mr de Kock to be of assistance and furthermore, Mr Prinsloo's evidence is that after Mr Mahlangu had been abducted and he had been assaulted, that Mr Prinsloo once again went back to Mr Cronje and had requested from him that Mr Mahlangu be eliminated. That evidence was also not challenged. Furthermore, on the relevant facts I would submit to you that Mr Prinsloo had made a full disclosure. I have pointed out the two problems to you and he also told the Committee that he takes full responsibility for the persons who were under his command in this operation but I would submit to you that he had permission from Mr Cronje, who was his Commander, to continue with the operation. Under these circumstances I would submit to you that he does meet the requirements of the Act and that he has satisfied or convinced you that he has made a full disclosure and that under the circumstances amnesty should be granted to him indeed for the abduction because it was done in that operation as well as the killing and the destruction of Mr Mahlangu's corpse and any offence which might emanate from this as well as any delict which might flow from this. If there is anything else which I need to address you on, then I will do so. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Cornelius. MR CORNELIUS Thank you Chairperson. I shall be brief. MR CORNELIUS IN ARGUMENT Basically I concur with the argument as tendered by my learned colleague Adv Hattingh. My client, Vermeulen, submitted an application as prescribed and formatting Section 18 and complies with all the formalities of the law and regulations. He is an employee as envisaged in Section 20 (ii) (b) and Section 20 (ii) (f) as far as implied authority is concerned, of the same Act. There's very, very intensive evidence tendered as far as the operation between Vlakplaas and the different Security Branches are concerned and requests for the operation and intervention of Vlakplaas as well as the control that should be then taken and responsibility by the different heads of the Security Branches. It is furthermore clear, it is my submission, that the acts and omissions and offences in this application relate to political objectives where were sought by my client, which he committed in the course of the conflicts of the past. My client, it is also furthermore my submission, complied with the requirements laid down in Section 29 (iii) as far as proximity is concerned and motive and so forth. It is furthermore my submission that my client, Mr Vermeulen, was a foot soldier in this specific instance, that although there was confusion initially, if he was a leader of the group, it became very clear in the evidence of Ras that he was in fact longer in services and more senior and he in fact took the responsibility of this operation. My client, as far as he was implicated, worked on a need-to-know basis in certain instances. My client has also clearly received no reward as envisaged above his normal remuneration in terms of Section 20 (iii) (f) (i). Furthermore my client did not act out of ill will or spite against the victim and at all times acted bona fide. If I refer you, with respect Chairperson, to the record on page 302, I ask him the following question: Mr Cornelius: "Very well. Did you trust the discretion and judgement of Col Prinsloo" Answer: "Yes, I did." "Did you believe that you were acting against the enemy of the national government at that time?" "Yes, Chairperson." And on page 303: "Did you believe that you acted within the scope of your duties and in the interest of the country?" "Yes, Chairperson." Now I think that very clearly displays the attitude of our client as well as his subjective thoughts regarding this incident. He was a credible witness. There was virtually no cross-examination and Mr Hattingh cleared up one point as far as the requests for the T N T was concerned and there was a little incident regarding the landmine which was obviously T N T which was used to blow up the body. As far as full disclosure is concerned, it is my submission he made an absolute full disclosure. There was no indication whatsoever that this cannot be accepted, although we do find that, if we look at relevant facts, they do not need to correspond in every minute detail. It is clear that the applicant associated himself with the commission of this operation and obviously with common purpose so I think there can be no doubt about that. That is clearly an indication of his full disclosure. I therefore apply for amnesty for the murder of Mr Mahlangu, secondly for the desecration of the body, thirdly for illegal possession of explosives, fourthly for the illegal transportation of the explosives, which we should not forget. I have gone through the Explosives Act and I can make a virtual endless of offences. CHAIRPERSON Of the various offences, yes. MR CORNELIUS And then obviously all delicts applied and flowing from the acts and omissions he associated himself with. Thank you, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Wagener. MR WAGENER IN ARGUMENT Chairperson, my client Adriaan Rosley committed a most horrific crime. He killed a man in a gruesome way and he gave vivid evidence in this regard. Chairperson had this been a criminal court of law, no-one would hesitate in convicting him on his own evidence. Yet, this is an Amnesty Hearing and the question remains whether Rosley has satisfied you of the requirements of Section 20 (i) of your Act, that is Act 34 of 1995, because if so, the same section further says you "shall grant him amnesty as applied for". In respect of the first requirement, that is Section 29 (i) (a), Chairperson, I do not intend addressing you. I think the facts speak for themselves. I do intend however to address you on the other two issues, namely sub sub-sections (b) and (c). The question and I'm now dealing with (c), the question of full disclosure, we have an applicant here who has a bad memory. I have heard the testimony by the family. The unsatisfactory nature of evidence of this nature, where an applicant says: "I can't remember." Does that mean that no full disclosure has been made or not? Chairperson, Rosley has tendered evidence of his severe psychiatric condition. He testified to this effect last year in Durban, you will find that in Exhibit B handed up to you in this Hearing. You will also find it in the present record, I think it was page 318, where he told you about his problems in this regard and how over the last number of years, he has positively tried to expunge certain facts and incidents from his memory, incidents like this. Therefore, Chairperson, I would submit that he made mistakes, yes, in his written application, what he could remember at the time when the application was drawn in 96. Possibly he made mistakes again at this hearing but my submission is that regarding a full disclosure, he tried his best and on this score, I would like to remind you Chairperson, for what it's worth, that we have had an instance previously where an applicant came before you and said: "I can remember absolutely nothing." You, Chairperson would remember that Jaap Hechter before your Committee, or the full Committee, in one of his incidents, maybe I can refer you to it, it was his schedule 9 of his written Judgement, where he said: "I can remember absolutely nothing about this incident, yet he was granted amnesty on the basis of evidence by other applicants, on the basis of his own psychiatric problems and that it was found that he could do not better than that, in his condition and he was granted amnesty, amongst others, for certain murders. Therefore, Chairperson, my submission is that in the present instance, Mr Rosley tried his best. He told you what he can remember, he said to you while he can't remember all the facts, I submit he has complied with the provisions of Section 20 (i) (c). In respect of Section 20 (i) (b), that is the question whether his act is to be regarded as associated with a political objective and committed during the conflict of the past, I would firstly like to refer you to Exhibit A, Chairperson. That is the document dealing with general background and which was incorporated into the evidence of Rosley, specifically I would like to request you before finally deciding in this matter, again read pages 1 to 17 thereof and perhaps also the last two pages dealing with the question of informers, the importance of informers and the importance to protect them, even at all costs, even if it would mean killing someone. While I'm on this last point, Chairperson, I would also like to refer you to a previous Judgment even though we do not work on a system of precedent but for mere consistency to the Judgment in the matter of Siswe Kondile, where five people applied for amnesty, I can give the full particulars to Mr Steenkamp afterwards if you haven't got the Judgment, but briefly there a detainee who was also brutally murdered by the Security Branch for the one reason and that was that certain informers had become compromised and therefore he was killed. Those applicants all received amnesty for that crime. I would also wish to refer you again, Chairperson, to Exhibit D, which was handed up to you in this matter where, during a previous hearing, Rosley gave evidence about his own personal background, his own personal experiences of the conflict of the past, about his psychiatric situation and most importantly where I will refer you only to one page, Chairperson, and that is page 178 of the typed document before you, where he was asked for comment on an act, a crime that he committed in that matter and where he said, in the middle of the page: "We refer to evidence given by Gen van der Merwe" and I would like to quote you only this one part: "My understanding is that Gen van der Merwe said that we were practically being in a war situation and it was understandable that members of the Security Branch, that the distinction between what is legal and illegal, would become a very grey area and he could understand how members who were involved in this political war, could well believe or have bona fide belief, that if they did something," that's now including himself, "illegal for the government, it fell within the parameters of our duties because we were doing what was expected of us." Also, Chairperson, I would like to refer you to only one sentence in the Judgment of Jack Cronje, that is the Judgment of the full Committee of February this year. CHAIRPERSON Last year. February last year. MR WAGENER This year, Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Is it this year? MR WAGENER Yes, 1999. Time is flying. CHAIRPERSON It's not flying if it's this year, Mr Wagener. MR WAGENER The only quotation I would like to read to you is on page 6 of the typed Judgment of Cronje, the second paragraph, which I think is very much applicable to this very case and to all the applicants here. CHAIRPERSON Is this the second cluster of the Cronje applications? MR WAGENER Chairperson, this was the first cluster, the judgment handed down on the 17th of February 1999 by the full Committee, I think that was the initial first cluster of Cronje. CHAIRPERSON Yes, if it's the full Committee. MR WAGENER Yes. The quote goes as follows "The Committee is of the opinion, after hearing all the evidence about the total onslaught, the words used to convey instructions or suggestions to counter the tacit condonation of illegal methods and subsequent praise and declarations extended, that the ordinary lower rank policeman, ..." and if I may interject there Chairperson, I would submit that Rosley can be seen as one and even the other applicants in this matter as well, "that the ordinary lower rank policemen bona fide believed that any act, even illegal ones, could be carried out if the purpose was to frustrate the revolution and to keep the government in power." This is to address the legal question whether the applicant was acting within the course and scope of his duties and with his authority or if he could reasonably have believed in terms of subsection (f) of 20 (ii) that he was doing so. CHAIRPERSON You must be relying though, Mr Wagener, on Section 20 (ii) (d) are you not? MR WAGENER Sorry, I didn't hear Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON You must be relying specifically on Section 29 (ii) (b) and sub section 20 (iii) (e) with regard to Mr Rosley? MR WAGENER Well slightly more than that, Chairperson. It would be sub section 20 (ii) (b) read with (f) thereafter. CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR WAGENER Should the question arise about the authority. CHAIRPERSON As well as Section 20 (iii)(e). MR WAGENER That's correct, Chairperson. Regarding the facts of this incident Chairperson, we have here a constable, the most junior person around, working with his or accompanying his senior, Mr Prinsloo. In this process what he heard was, or what he came to know was that there was a detainee, one Mahlangu, suspected of being a member of MK, a trained member or at least, of the ANC and most importantly Chairperson, this is on page 323 of the record before us, the record of the previous Hearing, of the previous part of this Hearing, he says very bluntly: "My recollection is that an informer or informers had been comprised or were about to be compromised and that there was a fear that the deceased also again recognised some of the askaris." He also heard, Chairperson, that because of that, the detainees had to be eliminated and he says on the bottom of the same page over to the next page, he fully associated himself with that idea. He says, on the top of 324: "I supported the idea that he should be eliminated for the reasons we were given." Furthermore Chairperson, in view of his junior position, he was hardly in a position to dispute these suggestions or instructions but he goes further. He frankly tells you: "I associated myself, I went along, I was not unhappy." Chairperson, he saw Ras strangling the deceased in the vehicle. Obviously this was in the process of killing the man, when he was removed from the vehicle near the railway line. You heard his evidence. Without anyone telling him, without anyone specifically instructing him, he went over to where the deceased was. Although Ras was of the opinion that he'd already died, Rosley tells you he was still alive and he killed him there. He saw that as part of the initial instruction that this man had to be eliminated and he was aware that the body was to be destroyed by explosives. Chairperson, there are certain disputes of fact, or there seem to be certain disputes, I haven't tried to note them all but I've noted basically four issues. The question of who abducted the deceased. In the second instance, did Cronje authorise the operation or the elimination or not? Thirdly, to what extent was the informer compromised? And fourthly, the whole issue of the letter sent to the family afterwards. My submission is, Chairperson, that all of this has got nothing to do with the merits of the application of my client. Whatever you find on any of these issues, has no impact on the result of his application. In view of what I've said, I submit to you and I argue to you that Mr Rosley has in fact complied also with the provisions of Section 20 (i) (b), that is him satisfying you in respect of the detail of the crime committed and that he should therefore be granted amnesty. I will ask ...(intervention) CHAIRPERSON Yes, for which acts? MR WAGENER I would ask, Chairperson, that should you agree that Rosley be granted amnesty for, in the sense that he may have been an accessory to the abduction and detention, which must have been unlawful, for that, for the murder of Mr Mahlangu, for his part in the destroying of the body, I am not sure whether it can be said that he committed any crimes, he himself, in terms of the Explosives Act of 1956, to me this has always been a tricky question, whether it can or can't be said, but for purposes of this hearing I would also request that should that be applicable, that he would also be granted amnesty therefore, obviously for defeating the ends of justice, in the sense that he never came forward and reported the matter to the police and also for all other offences based upon his evidence before you in this Hearing and also for all delicts on the same basis. Thank you Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Wagener. When you commenced your argument and compared Mr Rosley to Mr Hechter, I was a little disturbed because if I recollect Mr Rosley's evidence, I think he was far much more vivid in his explanation of his own involvement in how Mr Mahlangu was killed. MR WAGENER Chairperson, yes. The only reason why I raised that point is the question is being asked often whether an applicant has made a full disclosure or not and yes, I accept that Rosley was quite vivid on certain issues, but on some others, he was quite unsatisfactory and the question of whether a full disclosure has been made or not, is obviously for you to decide. I merely thought it correct to bring to your attention that it has even occurred in the past where someone has received amnesty for remembering absolutely nothing. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. MR WAGENER Thank you. CHAIRPERSON Mr Joubert? MR JOUBERT Thank you Madam Chair. MR JOUBERT IN ARGUMENT Madam Chair I will submit that the issues pertaining to Section 20 (i) (a) and (b) have been dealt with extensively and I will merely confine myself to the issues pertaining to full disclosure and the credibility that will come under the spotlight pertaining to Mr Mathebula. I will also submit that Section 20 (ii) (b) and (f) have been complied with. As to the issue of credibility, it is sad to say that a problem did arise at the previous hearing where Mr Mathebula was represented by a different legal representative but notwithstanding this, I would submit that even though, conceding that there may be some criticism pertaining to parts of his evidence, the problems that did arise were sufficiently dealt with by Mr Mathebula and proper explanations were provided for the issues or the disputes that arose pertaining to his application and the verbal viva voce evidence that he gave. I respectfully submit that explanations were provided pertaining to a possible problem that may have arisen as to a language problem, although he did concede that he was fluent in Afrikaans. The issue was also canvassed during cross-examination and certain amount of leeway would have to be given to the applicant in this regard. I submit that even at the outcome or at the start of his evidence, he did indicate that he would be amending certain issues of his written application. Be that as it may, I submit that the discrepancy pertaining to whether Mr Mosiane had been involved in the being sent for the abduction and returned with Mr Mahlangu, has been sufficiently clarified in the sense that Mr Mathebula indicated that he could not take the matter one way or the other. There was indeed no collusion between Mr Mathebula or Mr Mosiane in this regard. Mr Mathebula merely indicated that as far as his memory was and his recollection, he could not say in all certainty and in all fairness, whether Mr Mosiane had been sent or had been involved in this abduction, or not. He did not attempt to provide any protection or corroboration to Mr Mosiane, or any of the other applicants. He indicated that he might as well have been sent and might as well have been involved in the abduction. He could not take the matter one way or the other. Be that as it may, I submit that these discrepancies can be attributed to poor memory, possible poor recollection and then obviously the possible language problem. In conclusion, with relation to these discrepancies, I submit that they have been sufficiently dealt with and I would request the Committee to accept the explanation provided in this regard by Mr Mathebula. I would also request the Committee to find that there has indeed been full disclosure by Mr Mathebula pertaining to his involvement in this incident. He has given a clear indication of his involvement pertaining to the questioning and interrogation of Mr Mahlangu and also the fact that he partook in an assault during this interrogation. Pertaining to the issues regarding whether Connie Mahlangu or Patrick Mahlangu were to be abducted and what he overheard during the discussion by Mr Prinsloo and other members, I think there has been sufficient corroboration from the evidence of all the applicants as a whole, that Connie Mahlangu was also a person who was to be, or who was being investigated by the Security Branch at that stage. The uncontested evidence is that the letter to which was referred, that will be the initial letter received from Swaziland, made mention of Connie Mahlangu as well as Patrick Mahlangu. It may very well be that the issue could have been raised, or the discussion could have related to Connie and thereafter further decisions could have been made regarding Patrick Mahlangu in the absence of Mr Mathebula. He was however, non-committal in this regard and he indicates that he cannot remember or have a clear recollection of the detail and also indicates that the detail of any operation or action that had to be taken would not have been discussed with him. It is to be borne in mind that he was really a constable at that stage and that these decisions were taken by superior officers and he was in no position to question this at all. Be that as it may, I submit that there has been a full disclosure by Mr Mathebula and the evidence has, to the best of his ability, been placed before this Committee. In the light thereof I would request that amnesty be granted to Mr Mathebula for any possible crime relating to abduction or kidnapping, unlawful detention and assault upon Mr Mahlangu, defeating the ends of justice and I'm not quite sure whether this would be applicable, but in so far as it may be found that he may be charged as an accessory after the fact, to murder, that this also be granted to him, as well as for any other offence which may be apparent from the facts and any delictual liability which may arise therefrom. If there's anything specific that you would like to hear me on, I'd be prepared to address you thereon, otherwise this would be the totality of my argument. Thank you Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Joubert. Mr Greyling. MR GREYLING IN ARGUMENT Chairperson, on this I would wish to work rapidly with the record. I submit that the applicant, Chris Mosiane, has made a case in terms of the relevant Acts, or relevant sections of the Act and certain questions with regard to him need to be answered, is whether he has disclosed the full facts to you and I would submit that his evidence follows from behind in chronological order and is quite clear that the only objective piece of evidence that there is against which Mr Mosiane's evidence can be evaluated, is the evidence of Connie Mahlangu. She has, a long time ago, made a police statement and as she has said today that Chris Mosiane was not present at the stage when the three men arrived there and that he had indeed on the second occasion been present when they approached her for accommodation and clothing and I would submit that his evidence fits in and concurs with those events. The other evidence that could water down Chris Mosiane's evidence or place it in a bad light, is the evidence of Prinsloo and Ras and Mr Mathebula. That evidence is however vague. Mr Prinsloo testified that although he had known of Mr Mosiane and had worked previously with him, and the fact that he participated in the operation, he does not know whether Ras sent Mosiane at this stage when the abduction had taken place and the evidence of Mr Ras in that regard is also unclear. He does not know. Apparently no-one observed the three persons at the stage when they brought Pat Mahlangu there. Nobody can give any clear evidence with regard to that, so I would submit that Chris Mosiane's version before you could be objectively evaluated with regard to the evidence of Connie Mahlangu and that there is no contradictory evidence that breaks down his evidence and because of this, that he has made a complete submission and without omitting any facts, has presented his case to you. The evidence that he has given today was a simple version and that is basically that in the light of the position that he occupied at Vlakplaas as an askari, he only received information to go to Soutpan, he would receive his further instructions there. When he arrived there he received further instructions and executed them in the light of the fact that he took a letter to the Mahlangu house and had taken clothes back to Soutpan. I cannot think that there is any version that would water down this version, that you could not accept his word, so I would submit that the applicant has presented a proper case before you and he should receive amnesty for the following offences: abduction, accessory, defeating the ends of justice, and then any offence in terms of the Act which might emanate from the offences and then any civil or delictual prosecution which might follow. If there's anything else you would like me to address you upon, those are my submissions. CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden? MR HEERDEN Thank you Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON Yes, do you wish to say anything? MR HEERDEN Madam Chair, I have no specific instructions to oppose any application. The family will abide by the decision by the Committee. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON Mr Steenkamp, do you wish to address the Committee on any issues? MR STEENKAMP No. Madam Chair, maybe just to confirm that there was a question raised regarding the reference to a Mr Khumalo and the other askari. I've gone through certain steps to confirm and I can confirm that those two people were indeed killed and they are actually deceased. Exactly when and under what circumstances I could not find out, but they were implicated and they actually are deceased. CHAIRPERSON Yes, that's Colin Khumalo and Moses Nzimande. MR STEENKAMP Yes, thank you Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON We thank you for the assistance that you, the legal representatives, have rendered to the Committee. Our decision in respect of these applications is reserved. Hopefully you'll be advised thereof before the end of next year. Thank you. For tomorrow we shall be commencing at 9.30. COMMITTEE ADJOURNS