amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1998-02-24 PRETORIA 2 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54865&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/pta/bopape2.htm CHAIRPERSON MR RAUTENBACH Thank you Mr Chairman. On behalf of the family Bopape I have received the following instructions. Surely we cannot object against any party putting anything before the Committee in the form of an Affidavit. However, my instructions are clear that the family does not accept the contents of the Affidavit as the truth. The fact that it is made available to this Committee should not be seen or construed as an admission of the contents thereof. We do not accept the contents. Please resume Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you Mr Rautenbach. Any further submissions? MR PRINSLOO What he said is on record and we have no problems with his objections. MR VISSER "If an application is not dealt with in terms of Sub Section 3 which is the informal dealing with applications for Amnesty the Committee shall conduct a Hearing as contemplated in Chapter 6 and shall, subject to the provisions of Section 33 which in turn deals with in camera proceedings (a) In the prescribed manner notify the applicant and any victim or person implicated. Now Mr Vlok has received such a Notice Mr Chairman in terms of (a) and (b) Inform such persons referred to in Paragraph (a) of their right to be present, first of all at the Hearing and to testify or reduce evidence or submit any article to be taken into consideration. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you Mr Visser. In fact, sorry. JUDGE NGCOBO MR VISSER CHAIRPERSON MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON Obviously if evidence proceeds and there is some direct implication, then the matter will be re-visited then that Affidavit then can be Exhibit [intervention] MR STEENKAMP Exhibit E, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Thank you, it will be then Exhibit E. Ms Van Der Walt would you then like to proceed with the evidence of Mr Mostert? EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT (cont) Thank you. Mr Mostert, you testified yesterday that there was certain discussions held with regards to the mock escape that was arranged. Can you tell the Committee when did these discussions take place? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT At any stage, did you at any stage see General Du Toit there? MR MOSTERT Yes, I saw him there. MS VAN DER WALT When was this? Was this after Van Niekerk went to General Erasmus? MR MOSTERT Yes, it was after Van Niekerk and Zeelie went to Brigadier Erasmus. MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT And that statement was also false? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT Can you tell the Honourable Committee, was there a difference between what you did at this Detective Branch and what you did at the Security Branch? MR MOSTERT Yes, there was a big difference. At the Detective Branch - the Detective Branch is concerned with crime and the Security Branch is concerned with politics. MS VAN DER WALT Why do you say it concerns politics, at the Security Branch? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT No. We had very inconvenient hours. We worked long hours. There was very little time for relaxation. MS VAN DER WALT And in your time there at the Security Police considering the investigations you did, did you gain anything from that, yourself? MR MOSTERT No, nothing. MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT I saw it before then at the Detective Branch. I saw how it happened. I did not partake in it myself then. MS VAN DER WALT So it was already practised in the Detective Branch? MR MOSTERT Yes, it was generally used but not used every day, only in specific cases when it was thought it was needed. MS VAN DER WALT What do you think? Was it only in a closed community, was it only you that knew about this? What was the general view on this in the Police? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT You are now talking about information - it occurs to me that you must get the information to stop the attacks. Was that the primary goal of the Security Branch? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT You said yesterday that you interrogated Stanza Bopape round about an hour to an hour and a half on the Sunday the 12th? So, if I understand your testimony correctly, he was arrested the 9th and only on the 10th he was taken to Johannesburg? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT The 10th, no questioning, no interrogation was done, only the processing? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT Then on the 11th, according to you, you did not interrogate him? So the only interrogation you were involved in was the hour and a half to two hours? That was on Sunday the 12th? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT And you said yesterday that in that hour and hour and a half, you did not assault him in any sense? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT Before you went further in using the shock device you observed him. Did it look to you as if he might have been assaulted the previous day? MR MOSTERT No, he seemed quite normal. MS VAN DER WALT What was his attitude? Was it the attitude of someone who was broken down psychologically in any sense? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT And you already testified that you did, on behalf of the Security Branch? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT No further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT CHAIRPERSON Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions to put to the witness? EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO Thank you Honorary Chairperson. Mr Mostert, you said in your testimony that the goal was to prevent further acts of terror. Was it also your goal to determine who could be other potential attackers? MR MOSTERT MR PRINSLOO You said there was a total onslaught on the people of South Africa. Was that to undermine the Government of the day? MR MOSTERT MR PRINSLOO MR MOSTERT As far as I know it was the same group that was responsible. MR PRINSLOO Do you know that in the indictment there are twelve names but this group had more members, eighteen or more? MR MOSTERT MR PRINSLOO Thank you Honorary Chairperson, no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr Visser, do you have any questions to put to the witness? CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER Perhaps just one question with your leave Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Mostert, you testified yesterday, Colonel Van Niekerk testified yesterday it was possible that you guys there spoke amongst each other about the possibility of the arrangement of the mock escape before you went to General Erasmus. Can you remember if something like that was discussed amongst you? Between you, Van Niekerk, Zeelie, Engelbrecht, before you went to General Erasmus? MR MOSTERT No I cannot remember that. What I can remember is that the discussion was about the consequences of what might happen and was a serious problem and what implications it might hold. That was more what we discussed. And on those grounds I accept the fact that Van Niekerk made the suggestion to go and see General Erasmus. MR VISSER But it is so that you guys there felt it was too sensitive to send it through the proper legal channels? MR MOSTERT As far as I personally was concerned, I think I was in a shocked condition. If there was a possibility of assistance I would have accepted help wherever I could find it. MR VISSER And was it also your observation that the death of Mr Bopape was completely unexpected and unpredictable? MR MOSTERT That is correct. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Rautenbach, do you have any questions to put to the witness? MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON Yes, that came quite clearly [intervention] MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON Say if they all happened to be co-accused. MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON MR PRINSLOO CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you. Ms Van Der Walt? MS VAN DER WALT I agree with the submission of Mr Prinsloo. Throughout the Amnesty applications as they have served before the Committee, the applications are drawn up. This is a modern life and that is why the applications are the same and I feel that this is an investigation before the Committee, to get the truth. You can never put it on the same footing as a criminal case because the rules are different and I feel that every person should be able to hear what the other one says. JUDGE NGCOBO Why is it necessary for Van Niekerk, for example, to hear what Mostert has to say? MR PRINSLOO So later on I have to go to him and tell him this is what has been said. Now, with respect, what purpose is that going to serve? And he has the right as an applicant to hear what is being said here and all the applications before this forum, the applicants were present and further also Committee, this Committee is in a better position, especially for the family where the Section 29 hearings, where the people were questioned in camera individually and it is given here in a very clear format. It includes a lot of particulars and the questioning there was in the same way as questioning not really cross examination, it was really interrogation, if I can use the word. And a lot of detail was obtained there and the family is here in a privileged position and with that I can say that the argument does not stand. CHAIRPERSON Mr Visser? MR VISSER Mr Chairman, yes I do have at this stage an oblique interest but it may become a real one when my witnesses start giving evidence, so I do believe have locus standi just to point some issues out to you. I would submit Mr Chairman that the application is ill founded. CHAIRPERSON Mr Steenkamp? MR STEENKAMP I have no comment Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Mr Rautenbach? MR RAUTENBACH Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman I would like to point out firstly that the applicants are still, although the fact on which they are applying for Amnesty are basically the same facts, they are still individual applicants. There is still the possibility that certain of the applicants may qualify for Amnesty and others not. MR DE JAGER MR RAUTENBACH MR DE JAGER MR RAUTENBACH I submit that to - in terms of (b) to say, of their right to be present at the hearing and to testify, that that caters for the normal situation that a person should have the - should be entitled to appear at his or her own Hearing. To be there, to give evidence, that it makes provision for that type of situation but that this Committee still has the power, in certain instances to order that certain people should not be present when evidence is adduced. MR DE JAGER MR RAUTENBACH MR DE JAGER You told us that you probably would intend to call Mr Nkosi? MR RAUTENBACH That is correct. MR DE JAGER Did he attend the Hearing? MR RAUTENBACH MR DE JAGER Would he be entitled to sit here? MR RAUTENBACH If he wants to be here. He would be entitled to sit here. MR DE JAGER MR RAUTENBACH JUDGE NGCOBO MR RAUTENBACH Mr Chairman, the only evidence that was lead here that created the impression of a possible implication, according to my notes, were the evidence, were the questions at some stage asked by Mr Visser, on behalf of his clients to Mr Van Niekerk. That was the only [intervention]. CHAIRPERSON MR RAUTENBACH The difficulty there Mr Chairman is that those facts are all common cause on the applications for Amnesty. JUDGE NGCOBO But does that matter. The fact of the matter is that each of these applicants does implicate the others and to the extent that that is the case I would have thought that they would be entitled to be present, to hear what that particular applicant has to say of and concerning their role in the interrogation or in this episode. I accept that apart from the fact that they are applicants they may well have additional reasons why they are here. Unless of course you can point to us something in the Statute which would authorise us, under these circumstances to exclude either one or the others of the applicants, in circumstances where they implicate one another. MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION R U L I N G "If an application has not been dealt with in terms of Section 3, as is in this case, the Committee shall conduct a Hearing as contemplated in Chapter 6 and shall, subject to the provisions of Section 33; (a) in the prescribed manner notify the applicant and any victim or person implicated or having an interest in the application of the place where and the time when the application will be heard and considered, and; (b) inform the persons referred to in (a), namely victims, implicated persons or family or interested persons of their right to be present at the Hearing and to testify, adduce evidence and submit any article to be taken into consideration." It is quite clear, in our view from these Provisions that an applicant certainly has the right to be present at a Hearing and while the difficulty raised by Mr Rautenbach is appreciated and understood by the Committee, we feel that if an applicant is excluded, it would constitute a gross intrusion of his statutory right to be present to such an extent that such a ruling could well be subject to a successful review. It is also our view that even if each applicant in this application had a separate application and a separate Hearing and was not a composite Hearing as this one is of ten applicants that the same ruling would have to apply because, as we know, the applicants in this matter all implicate each other in various unlawful acts and if each applicant had his own application then all the other applicants would be implicated people and be one of the persons covered by Section 19, 4(a) and in turn have a like right or a similar right to be present at the Hearing of the other applicant. Our ruling therefore is that the proceedings will proceed in the presence of all the applicants. MR RAUTENBACH MR CHAIRMAN FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, I have it in front of me. MR RAUTENBACH Mr Mostert, and I understand, and you understand it as well that this is a typed version of the occurrence book. Is that correct? MR MOSTERT Yes, I accept that. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, I accept it to be correct. MR RAUTENBACH Is it possible for you to just expand with regard to the medication that was brought along? What was this all about? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT No, not at all. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH And then with regard to the same document, I want to ask you the entry under Item 8, that was 13h00, 11 June 1988. Reference is made to Syvert, Engelbrecht and Wilkin who visited Bopape on the 11th. I know your testimony is that at that day you were busy with a meeting. Did you have any knowledge about this visit? MR MOSTERT I accept that I had knowledge. It was arranged by me and Engelbrecht. He would have visited Mr Bopape on that specific day. MR RAUTENBACH Now if this has to do with a visit, could you just tell us what this visit was all about? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH It seems that Syvert was involved with the interrogation of Nkosi. Do you have any knowledge about that? MR MOSTERT Yes, I also heard of that. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes. That is correct. MR RAUTENBACH And then I want to ask you, the next entry, with relation to Bopape, where would that appear? CHAIRPERSON MR RAUTENBACH Could you find it Mr Mostert? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON MR DE JAGER MR RAUTENBACH I want to know the following from you Mr Mostert, these persons, we know from the testimony that these people were - or your unit became involved with the interrogation of Stanza Bopape and Mbeki Nkosi. What was conveyed to you with regard to Mbeki Nkosi? Who was he? MR MOSTERT I have no knowledge of Mbeki Nkosi, who he is and where he is of any importance. I think that is the person that I saw on the evening of the 9th when the two were arrested. MR RAUTENBACH You were present when the arrests were made. I think you have already testified. MR MOSTERT Correct. MR RAUTENBACH I remember you also said that there were several people present with the arrest, especially police officers? MR MOSTERT Yes, there were many people, many police officers. MR RAUTENBACH Did you in any way - were you able to determine why two people were arrested? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Not as far as I can remember, no. MR RAUTENBACH Can I deduce from that, that if you were in the flat, that according to your memory that you would only have seen the people once they had been arrested? MR MOSTERT Yes, that is quite possible. MR RAUTENBACH Do you remember any assaults during the arrest? MR MOSTERT No. Not as far as I can recall. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT The first time that I heard anything about Stanza Bopape was the next day on the 10th when I was instructed by Colonel Van Niekerk to interrogate Mr Bopape with Engelbrecht. That was the first time that I heard anything about him. MR RAUTENBACH What was the first time? Well then with regard to the interrogation what was told to you? What was the interrogation to be all about - who was this man? MR MOSTERT I was informed by Colonel Van Niekerk that he had discussions on the 10th June 1988 with Major Jan Kleynhans of the Security Branch West Rand who then apparently informed him that Mr Stanza Bopape was involved with a terror group known as the Maponye Group and that there was a possibility that he was trained locally and that he probably participated in acts of terror in and around Pretoria and the West Rand. That was more or less the background that I got on the first day, that was on the 10th June 1988. MR RAUTENBACH With regard to the 10th, when you started talking to Stanza Bopape, the picture that you had - it was some or other person who was involved with acts of terror and participated? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH Were you involved with that? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT No. Not at all. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH If we look at the 10th you already said that you had a discussion with Stanza Bopape, is that correct? MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. MR RAUTENBACH Did I also understand you correctly that you at no stage had a discussion with Bheki Nkosi? MR MOSTERT No, I did not. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Did you see what he alleges with regard to the events of the 10th June? MR MOSTERT Yes, I saw that. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT That is correct. I have it. MR RAUTENBACH And in paragraph 40 he refers to the fact that Security Policemen was apparently questioning Bopape, it is spelt here Mosi. I think what is referred to here is Mossie, it was just misspelt but it seems to be Mossie, that was his comment there. Were you known as Mossie? MR MOSTERT Yes, I was known as Mossie. MR RAUTENBACH Can you perhaps think of a reason why Nkosi would refer to your nickname to be involved with his interrogation? MR MOSTERT No, I have not the slightest idea. MR VISSER MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you Mr Rautenbach but I think that was fair to ask whether the nickname was Mossie. MR DE JAGER The only point is, is the man questioning Bopape, was Mossie? Not questioning himself? MR RAUTENBACH Mr Mostert, I then want to get to the events. First of all, the 10th where you talked to Stanza Bopape. You refer to the processing on the 10th. This is where you talk to him about his background, the fingerprints, possible palm prints and so forth, is that correct? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH Background information was then needed that would also be relevant? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH Did you in any way obtain or ascertain that he had been detained previously? MR MOSTERT No, I did not. MR RAUTENBACH With regard to the interrogation that took place on the 12th, it seems from the investigation diaries that he was booked out approximately 9.30 in the morning? MR MOSTERT I accept that. MR RAUTENBACH And the interrogation session would have started during that time in your office? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Would you agree that booking out of the cells and taking into the office, the time that it takes, up to when you start with interrogation, how long does it take, five, ten minutes? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH So you would agree with that? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH The processing has been done, with regard to the interrogation, would I be correct that you would now focus yourself on what this man knows? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH As I have already stated, on the 11th there were discussions where it was put in more detail. It was information about Mr Stanza Bopape, so I now have more background information and the interrogation was focusing on those issues. Am I correct that you focused on the possible involvement of Stanza Bopape with these acts of terror? MR MOSTERT Yes, I have focused my attention on that. MR RAUTENBACH As well as on other people who might have been involved as well, is that how the interrogation started? The session. Did it start where you basically moved to the relevant question, told him, "well we have information about your involvement with the Maponye Group, we want to know, where were you involved, who was involved." Was that more or less the line of questioning? MR MOSTERT Yes. That could have been. MR RAUTENBACH And one also notices that it was on a Sunday. Is that correct? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH But it was viewed to be important enough that you would work on a Sunday in order to get this important information? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH And on the Saturday, the previous Saturday you already - the previous day you already got the I information about - the information that was needed? MR MOSTERT Yes, I did. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH What was his initial answer, early in the morning? MR MOSTERT As I said yesterday, the questions put to him about his, him personally, his background, where he lives but when it gets to questions about acts of terror he just said that he knew nothing. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT It was a question that he denied everything and he denies, he says "I know nothing of this." MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Who played the role of the interrogator? Who put the questions, yourself or Engelbrecht? MR MOSTERT Engelbrecht and myself. Both of us. MR RAUTENBACH It would not have been the case that one of you had a leading role, both took responsibility for the interrogation? MR MOSTERT As far as I can remember, I also took notes of the questions asked and answers given as well as what Engelbrecht asked and also noted that. MR RAUTENBACH What happened to the noted, the minuted questions and answers? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Could you perhaps just tell us Mr Mostert, we now get to the main aim of your task and that is to get the information and his answer early in the morning already was that "I deny, I know nothing." What was your reaction to him, what did you say to him? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH I understand that. The point is [intervention] JUDGE NGCOBO As I understand the evidence, you were questioning Bopape on his involvement with the Maponye Group, is that right, amongst other things? MR MOSTERT That is correct, your Honour. JUDGE NGCOBO Did you ask him whether he was involved with that Group? MR MOSTERT I asked him whether he was involved at some stage, that is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO What was his answer? MR MOSTERT He made me understood that he was not involved. JUDGE NGCOBO What was his response to that? MR MOSTERT JUDGE NGCOBO He kept on denying and what did you do? MR MOSTERT JUDGE NGCOBO Thank you. MR RAUTENBACH Mr Mostert, what I understand from that is that he continued from the beginning of the questioning, to deny everything, is that correct? MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT As I said before, you would carry on with another question which has regards to that specific area. MR RAUTENBACH And what seems to me that happens, is that he keeps denying. MR MOSTERT Yes, he kept denying all the way, all the way. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT CHAIRPERSON MR MOSTERT Yes I do. CHAIRPERSON Is that from the Register? MR MOSTERT CHAIRPERSON MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT I accept it as such. MR RAUTENBACH What does that entry mean? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH And they go around saying the cell was empty, what does it mean? MR MOSTERT What this means is a record is given which detainees are in the cells and which detainees are booked out for enquiries. MR RAUTENBACH The next item, it says Item 13, the evening, quarter to nine, transferral Section 29 Bopape, enquiry VB456228. MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, I accept it like that. MR RAUTENBACH At that stage, you and Engelbrecht were speaking and realised that it would not help to continue carrying on asking questions? MR MOSTERT Well I accept that that was the case but as I said in my testimony, Colonel Van Niekerk was there and he also spoke to Mr Bopape and he made sure he understood the seriousness of Section 29 and said that he should cooperate and we struggled more, we asked more questions but nothing happened. MR RAUTENBACH This was after this that the drastic step was taken. Would I be correct to say that in this type of questioning or interrogation it happens, the following. A lot of people are in custody and several other interrogators in other areas receive information which is relevant on someone, for example say Stanza Bopape who you were busy questioning, is that correct? MR MOSTERT Correct. MR RAUTENBACH I understand there must be a contact between the different units on a continual basis and when such an interrogation is finished and you then receive information that this person that you interrogated and that another person was interrogated said something relevant to the one that you were interrogating at that point, is that correct? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH To a great extent then you are dependant on new information coming forth in the investigation? MR MOSTERT Yes, of course. MR RAUTENBACH So what made it so urgent that you, on that specific day despite the fact that you had no such device, you had to phone someone, at his home who then had to drive into Sandton to get a device and bring it all the way to John Vorster Square on Sunday in order to shock him right then to get the information. Why was this so urgent? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Mr Mostert did you partake in the decision that he had then to be shocked and that he had to be tortured in order to obtain information at that moment? MR MOSTERT Sir, I did not say torture. We had to give the man a fright. MR RAUTENBACH Mr Mostert, are you saying that the applying of the shocks on a person does not constitute torture? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT No, I was not involved in that. MR RAUTENBACH You decided together to use an electrical device? MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. MR RAUTENBACH At some stage it must have been reached where you realised that something like that was not available at John Vorster Square? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Who contacted Du Preez? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, it could be possible. MR RAUTENBACH Could you give us an indication when that device arrived at John Vorster on the 10th floor? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH If you had to guess, how long do you think Du Preez was there up to the point that Stanza Bopape died? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Could you tell us Mr Mostert after the electrical stream was placed on Stanza Bopape and applied what his reaction was? That is now his reaction whilst experiencing the electrical stream, not afterwards, whilst. MR MOSTERT It seemed to me that there was some kind of a jerk in the body. This is more or less what I saw. MR RAUTENBACH So you saw that he was jerking, he was tied to the chair. How long did this first shock take? MR MOSTERT It was not very long. MR RAUTENBACH And after he had been shocked, what was said to him? MR MOSTERT Someone said something, I think it might have been Colonel Van Niekerk who asked him whether he had anything to say. That was more or less what was said. MR RAUTENBACH What was his reaction? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH And then another electrical shock was applied? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT That is correct. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH But you have to agree Mr Mostert, the handle was turned and still he did not co-operate after he had already received an electrical shock, correct? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH Why did you shock him some more? MR MOSTERT He is not co-operating. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT [end of Tape 1] [Tape 2] MR RAUTENBACH have the machine, it gives electrical shocks, you shock the person and you say that you would now continue? Could you just give us an indication how long you would have continued? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Could you just give us a further explanation on that? In other words how these shocks were affecting him? MR MOSTERT I think that is the degree that you would use. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT I believe that I would have continued with it, according to his condition. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH I also want to ask you Mr Mostert, if I refer to a status, it is now a status in detention, that is now the status of Stanza Bopape, do you know why he was arrested in the first place? According to which legislation? MR MOSTERT I came to know, it was only later that I found this out, on the 10th, that he was arrested under Section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Law. MR RAUTENBACH Did you know what the charge was? Did you know what the allegations were? MR MOSTERT Yes. I was informed by Colonel Van Niekerk and I mentioned this earlier, it was the Maponye Terror Group and the acts of terror. MR RAUTENBACH Your information you say, was that he was arrested because of involvement with certain acts of terror? MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. MR RAUTENBACH Which incidents - did you have any information this man was arrested because there was information under oath that he was involved in a specific incident and therefore he could be arrested in terms of Section 50? MR MOSTERT As I have already answered, if you refer to certain incidents, I have already referred to the Pretoria explosions, in Pretoria, around Pretoria, on the West Rand, Vaal Triangle. MR RAUTENBACH The information that you received, you Mr Mostert, was that there was information that he was involved in some of those incidents, he himself. MR MOSTERT The information that I referred to what we firstly obtained was on the 10th. It was in discussions with Kleynhans and Van Niekerk, that these people were possibly involved with these incidents that I have just mentioned. The discussions held on the 11th, on the Saturday, there it was also - more details were given that these people, the specific person then, Mr Bopape, according to information was apparently involved in some of these acts of terror. MR RAUTENBACH Was that new information that they obtained between the 10th and the 11th? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH That he was being detained in terms of Section 29? MR MOSTERT Correct. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes I was. MR RAUTENBACH You were present when Du Toit did this? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH Do you know what happened to that document? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH And then I also want to ask you, with regard to your application for Amnesty and as far as it concerns the family and the family asks you whether it is possible, it is done in the form of an invitation, perhaps a challenge, to make available any document that gives an indication to the fact that Stanza Bopape, during that time of his detention, that he was detained in terms of Section 29. Can you think of any documentation to prove that he was detained in such a way? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. MR RAUTENBACH MR STEENKAMP Chairperson, just shortly the investigation team of the Truth Commission had some time ago, approximately a year ago started to investigate the Bopape incident. We enquired at different sources, at the Police, the former attorneys, the Department of Justice, at some stage they were also obliged to have documents concerning Section 29 detainees but we received no answers. MR RAUTENBACH MR STEENKAMP MR RAUTENBACH MR STEENKAMP MR RAUTENBACH MR STEENKAMP No I could not obtain any such information. MR RAUTENBACH Could I perhaps just ask, were any enquiries made at West Rand because they initially arrested the person and it was according to their recommendation that he should be placed under Section 29? MR STEENKAMP MR RAUTENBACH Just to continue on that point, the whole issue on Section 29. We already heard what Mr Van Niekerk had said and that is at Head Office and this was an arrangement that was made at Head Office, it goes through Head Office whether it was a recommendation or he referred to a Warrant made available after such a recommendation was made, were you aware of the whole factor of Head Office? MR MOSTERT Yes I was. MR RAUTENBACH So with regard to Head Office, you will agree with me, there must be some proof that this was a person who was detained in terms of Section 29? MR MOSTERT Yes, I agree. MR RAUTENBACH You will recall that in the time that you had to deal with people in terms of Section 29, can you remember what the stipulations were with regard to how often a District Surgeon had to visit people in detention under 29? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Can you remember what the stipulations were with regard to the visit by a Magistrate? MR MOSTERT To the Section 29 detainees, yes there was something of that nature. There were people appointed who had to visit the Section 29 detainees at certain times. MR RAUTENBACH How often did they visit these people? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Did you see the medical report of the District Surgeon after his visit to the District Surgeon? MR MOSTERT I believe that I would have done that. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Did you immediately after he died, did you have a look at this report? MR MOSTERT No. Not that I know. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT I deny this. The person was detained. MR ? MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. MR RAUTENBACH With regard to the body of Stanza Bopape in your testimony you gave an explanation, you referred to black bags and a blanket? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH Where did these black bags come from? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Who brought the bags? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Could you just explain to us how these black bags, how the body was placed into the black bags. A bag is a bag, how were they tied, exactly how did you do it? MR MOSTERT As far as I can remember, on the side of the head we placed a bag and then also at the end, the bottom part and then we pulled them together. MR RAUTENBACH Did you just pull it over one another, did you tie it, what did you do? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT No. MR RAUTENBACH As far as you can remember, the body with the two black bags, one from the top, one from the bottom was put into the boot of the car? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Well what would you do with the blanket in the cellar? MR MOSTERT I suppose it would have been put into the car as well. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT No. MR RAUTENBACH You say you and Du Preez? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH You say two bags were used, one at the top, one at the bottom to cover the body? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH With regard to the body, earlier in your testimony this morning you indicated that you were extremely shocked about this? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH I take it that you were also very concerned and worried? MR MOSTERT Yes I was. MR RAUTENBACH How did you feel about the decision that was taken that the body should be disposed of? MR MOSTERT I agreed with it. MR RAUTENBACH What did you feel about it Mr Mostert? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT That would have been a problem and a big problem. MR RAUTENBACH For you personally? MR MOSTERT For all of us involved. MR RAUTENBACH For you personally as well? MR MOSTERT Yes, personally. MR RAUTENBACH And then I want to know, what did you think would happen to the body? MR MOSTERT I was not informed. I had no idea what happened to the body. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT That is correct. MR RAUTENBACH He was a stranger for you, except that he was part of the Security Branch? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH And you also saw the body was put into a vehicle that he was driving? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH What did you do to find out, perhaps just to satisfy yourself that the problem had been addressed? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH In approaching Van Niekerk and that discussion there, it was clear that you wanted to get clarity for yourself, that everything was okay? MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. MR RAUTENBACH Did you ask Van Niekerk, he was an Officer, he was senior, did you ask him what happened to the body? Exactly what happened, did you ask him like that? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT I have to be quite honest with you, as far as possible I tried to stay away from Visser. My enquiries were made among this little group of ours. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT All I can say to that is that is exactly what happened. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH If I say to you Mr Mostert that when you heard afterwards - you say that you know that Van Loggerenberg left with the body and he would have disposed of the body. When you heard that the body was disposed of by Van Loggerenberg, using his own discretion where he dumped it into a river as such, there are allegations that there are crocodiles and hippopotamus in this river. When you heard that he decided to throw the body in the river, did it not come as a surprise that he would have decided on doing that to the body? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR ? Mr Rautenbach how do you dispose of a body? MR RAUTENBACH MR ? MR RAUTENBACH With regards to the interrogation Mr Mostert, if you can go back to the Sunday, if I understand the testimony correctly, you never left the room where Mr Bopape was interrogated, is that correct? MR MOSTERT As far as I know, no. But in all honesty I cannot answer that because it could have happened that one left for the toilet but as far as I remember, I did not leave the room. MR RAUTENBACH As far as you remember, you were involved in the interrogation constantly? MR MOSTERT Yes, I was present all the time. MR RAUTENBACH In your own words, was it Lieutenant or Captain Zeelie? MR MOSTERT He was Lieutenant. MR RAUTENBACH What was his role during the interrogation? MR MOSTERT Lieutenant Zeelie, as far as I remember, at the end, if he was on the floor in the meantime I do not know but when I became aware of him, at the end, when we decided to shock him, then he arrived at our office. MR RAUTENBACH Was Lieutenant Zeelie involved all the time whilst the shocks were applied? MR MOSTERT He was present as far as I remember. MR RAUTENBACH Zeelie, like Major Van Niekerk, did he also every now and then pop in at the interrogation, if I can put it like that, whilst you were busy with it? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH What would he have been doing there? What do you think he wanted to know? MR MOSTERT I do not know. MR RAUTENBACH Why, as far as you are concerned, why was Lieutenant Zeelie present, when the shocks were applied, even when he was not present at the interrogation? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT I think he was a constable. MR RAUTENBACH Here are two inferior officers, one constable and yourself which is Warrant Officer and you are busy questioning someone and at some point you decide on applying electrical shocks and now the officers appear when it comes to electrical shocks and they were not present during the interrogation. Is there a reason for this? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH I also accept that there was a certain amount of interest for them in this issue, the question is this though, what was this interest? Why did it come down to the fact that they had a big interest when it came to the electrical shocks but not when it came to the interrogations? Can you explain this or not? MR MOSTERT No, I cannot. MR RAUTENBACH You cannot? MR MOSTERT No, I cannot. I cannot explain his interest. MR RAUTENBACH So you also did not have any information, which information had to be obtained from Nkosi who was also arrested? MR MOSTERT I suppose it must have been similar kind of information I had to obtain. MR RAUTENBACH You were not aware of this personally? MR MOSTERT No. MR RAUTENBACH "taken to the Attorney General subsequent to his arrest for investigations or prior to his death?" Your answer was, "He was taken to the Attorney General, but not by myself but I do know that he was taken. Constable Engelbrecht and one of our black members took him to the Attorney General on, I believe, the 10th June 1988." Do you remember this testimony? MR MOSTERT [Afrikaans answer] MS VAN DER WALT MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON MR RAUTENBACH MR STEENKAMP Maybe Mr Chairman I can help here. I think the word that was used here was "DG", meaning District Surgeon, not "PG", which is Attorney General, I think that was the word that was used. CHAIRPERSON MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Not as far as I know. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT I have no idea. I think Mr Zeelie would be able to tell you. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, I have. MR RAUTENBACH Did you once again make use - now after this incident of - did you make use of shock devices again? Did you make use of this at Security Branch? MR MOSTERT I never made use of them. I was present in certain cases. But that was during my career at the Detective Branch. MR RAUTENBACH Tell me Mr Mostert, with referral to Sandton, Du Preez was at Sandton as well, is that correct? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH So you know Du Preez well? MR MOSTERT Yes, we know each other. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT I think I already answered that question. MR RAUTENBACH Can you answer it again please? MR MOSTERT I had no part in the obtaining of the device. I did not phone anybody. MR RAUTENBACH But you were from Sandton, did you know that Sandton had such a device? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH You did not know about it? MR MOSTERT CHAIRPERSON Mr Mostert when - you say it was discussed as a group, how the deceased should be frightened and it was decided that shocks should be applied, electric shocks should be applied, is that correct? MR MOSTERT CHAIRPERSON During that discussion was there any suggestion made as to where a machine or device to apply the shocks would be obtained? MR MOSTERT Not that I know of your Honour. CHAIRPERSON MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, it was a mutual decision. Mr Zeelie was also present. MR RAUTENBACH Oh, he was present too? He also took part in the decision? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT I do not agree with that. MR RAUTENBACH I have no further questions Mr Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Steenkamp do you have any questions? MR STEENKAMP No questions thank you Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Steenkamp. Ms Van Der Walt do have any re-examination? RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT Thank you. Mr Mostert, it was mentioned, this is concerning the question that Mr CHAIRPERSON Is the original book available, the original register? MR STEENKAMP Mr Chairman unfortunately not. These documents we obtained from different sources, from attorneys, from previous records, from the Torka matter. I believe that certain documents was handed in that matter as well, but the original documents is not in existence anymore, as far as we could establish sir. CHAIRPERSON What we have on record here is that a selection of pages of information available or do you have further pages in the undiscovered bundles and documents that you have? MR STEENKAMP MR CHAIRPERSON MS VAN DER WALT Thank you. But it seems to be the occurrence book which was kept in the cells? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT Referring to entry 399, there you signed, is that your signature? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT Now the charges office was manned by Uniform Branch personnel, is that correct? MR MOSTERT Yes. MS VAN DER WALT Did they have anything to do with Security Branch? MR MOSTERT No, nothing. MS VAN DER WALT They worked independently? MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT And the cells are also controlled by the Uniform personnel. At the bottom of page 753 it says that Bopape was detained. He was a black man and a warrant and then if you carry on to the next page, under remarks it said Section 29, is it so Mr Mostert that when a person was detained in a cell then for this detainee a warrant if sanctioned which the Uniform personnel keep because the person in command should know why that person is detained. So somewhere at the Uniform personnel there should be documents that he was detained under Section 29? MR MOSTERT Yes. MS VAN DER WALT So if the family says that he was not detained in terms of Section 29 then there had to be a plot between yourself and the personnel staff. MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT Released, yes. MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Perhaps if you have 753 and 754, if you put it next to one another, so that the last column which then continues, then there is an ABC under release, then it continues on Page 754. If you put the pages next to one another then next to 13, where we had the date and the 5h05, what are the words in the same column as released? MR MOSTERT It would seem to appear that it is "snap" which refers to escaped and then Dedeur MR and 0688, the numbers. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes it is. MS GCABASHE CHAIRPERSON Ms Van Der Walt, have you got any further questions under re-examination? MS VAN DER WALT No. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT CHAIRPERSON Mrs Gcabashe, any questions? MS GCABASHE MS VAN DER WALT Is it 753? MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. MS GCABASHE What personal effects did he have on him? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE When he was arrested, he had personal effects on him. Do you know whether he had those personal effects when you were handling him at 20h05, at 5 minutes past 8 on the 10th June. Did he have a bag, did he have a little suitcase, did he have anything on him at all? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE And do you know nothing at all about what personal effects he may have had in the cell? MR MOSTERT Not that I can remember. MS GCABASHE Coming to the 12th, because you did not talk to him at all on the 11th. Coming to the 12th, you and Mr Engelbrecht interrogated Mr Bopape. Now before the interrogation, did you sit down to have a planning meeting? Did you say this is the line of questioning that we are going to follow? Can you just explain what exactly you did before you started interrogating? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE Do you remember whether you had a strategic planning meeting with Mr Van Niekerk, your commanding officer? For exactly the same reason, to plan how you are going to approach this interrogation? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE So essentially you walked into the room, ready to interrogate on the basis of what you had learnt at Krugersdorp, at that meeting? MR MOSTERT Could you please repeat the question? MS GCABASHE You walked into the interrogation room and started interrogating Bopape on the basis of the information you received at Krugersdorp, is that right? MR MOSTERT That is correct, yes. MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE So your response is you assumed you did have a planning session with Mr Engelbrecht so you could work as a team when interrogating? That was common practise? MR MOSTERT That is correct. MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT I have no knowledge. MS GCABASHE Not blindfolded at any stage? MR MOSTERT Not where I was present. MS GCABASHE And you were present all of the time during the interrogation? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE Mr Mostert I understood that you only interrogated him on the 12th, that was what I understood. I mean what you did on the 10th was preliminary, adman processing, but the serious interrogation took place on the 12th, is that right? MR MOSTERT That is correct. MS GCABASHE I am talking about the interrogation that you participated in which is the interrogation of the 12th June, yes? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE When you had to put him into that chair in the passage, did he offer any resistance? MR MOSTERT Not that I know of. MS GCABASHE Did you have to force him into it at any stage? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE Did he ask you why he had to sit in that particular chair in the passage? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE Nothing at all? MR MOSTERT No. MS GCABASHE Now the decision to place the body in a foetal position, you have spoken about that, so you could put it into the boot of the car, readily put it into the boot of the car, who took that decision and why, at that point in time? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE Now talking about the disposal of the body, I know you have said it was against your principles to dispose of the body in this particular manner, what other options did you moot, did you consider? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE Right, then coming to the driving up to Bronkhorstspruit, you left in two vehicles. Were you in the vehicle that Mr Van Niekerk was in? Can you just describe those arrangements to me, driving up? MR MOSTERT Yes. I was in the vehicles with Mr Zeelie as the driver, Colonel Van Niekerk as the one passenger and myself as the other passenger and the body was in the boot. MS GCABASHE And in the other vehicle? MR MOSTERT The other vehicle as far as I know was manned by Mr Engelbrecht and Mr Du Preez. MS GCABASHE CHAIRPERSON The disposal of the body? MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT I accept while we were on our way to Bronkhorstspruit and there we started working on this idea. What were we going to do? MS GCABASHE Who knew of the Dedeur site? Whose idea was it? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT Yes, I agree but this information or knowledge could also have come to the fore at John Vorster Square where we discussed this escape. MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE Can you place it before the trip up to the Eastern Transvaal or at the time that you transferred the body? You have no idea at all? MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT MS GCABASHE MR MOSTERT Not that I know of. MS GCABASHE No further questions. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Moloi, any questions? MR MOLOI MR MOSTERT Yes. MR MOLOI Do I understand correctly that the Security Forces in particular were to act and deal decisively and ruthlessly with any political activists at that time? MR MOSTERT I accept that. MR MOLOI You had in fact the support and encouragement of the Government of the day to deal decisively and ruthlessly with such activists? MR MOSTERT I assume that to be the case. MR MOLOI To deal the activists a deathly blow, information was to be gathered and according to you this information was to be gathered urgently, to forestall any occurrence of terror acts in future? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR MOLOI On the 12th June you were already armed with information obtained from the conference or briefing session you had at Krugersdorp? MR MOSTERT That is correct. MR MOLOI And you had no doubt to disbelieve that information you had, did you? MR MOSTERT No. MR MOLOI You are sitting here in an office with a person who is alleged to be in possession of all this information, Stanza Bopape? MR MOSTERT That is correct. MR MOLOI You desperately need this information he is possessed of because you will find use for that information? MR MOSTERT That is correct. MR MOLOI From the onset this person indicates he is not prepared to share this information with you. Actually he denies knowledge of any of the alleged deeds? MR MOSTERT That is correct. MR MOLOI At the stage a senior officer in the person of Van Niekerk also intervenes and points out to this person the importance of divulging this information? MR MOSTERT That is correct. MR MOLOI Nonetheless this person persists and denies any knowledge of that which is alleged against him? MR MOSTERT That is correct. MR MOLOI And you believe and have no reason to doubt the information you received at the briefing session at Krugersdorp? MR MOSTERT I had no reason for that no. MR MOLOI For hours on end you asked this person and beg him to give the information and he refuses? MR MOSTERT That is correct. MR MOLOI MR MOSTERT MR MOLOI Two hours? MR MOSTERT MR MOLOI The essence of the interrogation and the importance thereof to you coupled with the urgency of your need for the information, would you really, for two hours on end, keep on asking this person nicely and in a civilised manner to produce the evidence you need. Would you? MR MOSTERT Your Honour, for this time we talked and that is how it happened. I really cannot give you anything else. We were there to assist the Security Branch, the West Rand Security Branch and from my side I tried my best. MR MOLOI I believe then you resorted to using a tough measure on him. The shock treatment in order to extract that information which he so tenaciously held to himself? MR MOSTERT Yes. As I had explained it was a joint decision. MR MOLOI And given the utmost fear that prevailed at the time that you would have all that patience really Mr Mostert, to keep on begging this person for information, for two hours on end. He is resolute, he is not prepared to advance it and the next stage you jump to is the extreme stage of applying shock treatment? MR MOSTERT MR MOLOI What could have happened then was to put your foot down and talk hard with him? Is that the worst that could have happened in the two hour period? MR MOSTERT MR MOLOI MR MOSTERT MR MOLOI MR MOSTERT As I have said, as far as I possibly could, I stayed calm and also negotiated with Mr Bopape in a very calm manner. MR MOLOI He deserved was now the worst that could happen to extract information? MR MOSTERT MR DE JAGER I think what my learned colleague means, he refers not to the death, he refers to the next method that was used. There was a jump from just plain interrogation to a point where electric shocks were used and he refers to the electric shocks as the worst, most serious method that you could apply. MR MOSTERT MR DE JAGER I think the essence of the question is, how do you get from a nice calm way and the next moment you just decide to use electric shocks? MR MOSTERT MR MOLOI CHAIRPERSON Yes. MR MOLOI MR MOSTERT MR MOLOI You did not need to be present. I say you read his evidence and if that be true, he must have received much more harsher treatment at the hands of the Security Forces than Bopape did, if that be true? MR MOSTERT No. I differ. MR MOLOI MR MOSTERT Yes I read the statement. MR MOLOI MR MOSTERT I really cannot judge that. MR MOLOI Mr Chairman, thank you. CHAIRPERSON Mr De Jager, do you have any questions? MR DE JAGER MR MOSTERT MR DE JAGER What I mean is, do you know whether he was a leader, a chairperson, a secretary or that he served in any body? MR MOSTERT MR DE JAGER Where did he live? MR MOSTERT If I can remember correctly, we arrested him in Johannesburg or the group who arrested him of which I was a member, I assumed that it was his flat where he was arrested. But his parents address is in Mamelodi. MR DE JAGER Do you know whether he still lived in Mamelodi or worked? What kind of work he had? MR MOSTERT CHAIRPERSON Judge Ngcobo? JUDGE NGCOBO MR MOSTERT Yes, I accept it. JUDGE NGCOBO I do understand that you yourself did not believe in that practise? MR MOSTERT Could you perhaps just repeat the question? JUDGE NGCOBO If I understand your evidence, you yourself did not engage in that practise? In principle you disagreed with that practise? MR MOSTERT JUDGE NGCOBO MR MOSTERT JUDGE NGCOBO As I understand the practise, the commanders sanctioned the use of force against detainees? Why did you have a problem? MR MOSTERT Even if you had the tacit approval, I would not have done it, not in the presence of my commanding officer or other seniors, if I had to torture someone. Not in their presence, no, definitely not. JUDGE NGCOBO We were told yesterday that there are police regulations which prohibit torture as a method of interrogation, is that correct? MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO We were also told that from time to time there were warnings from the commanders that police officers should desist from resorting to torture as a method of interrogation? MR MOSTERT That is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO We were also told that if a police officer were to be found to have engaged in those prohibited methods of interrogation he may well have been disciplined? MR MOSTERT That is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO So would I be correct in assuming that had you been found out by your higher officers that you had in fact been part of a torture which resulted in the death of Bopape, you would have been subject to some form of discipline? MR MOSTERT Your Honour, I will try to answer it in this way. At the Detective Branch the situation would work in that way and there would also be a possibility that the accused there would also be helped but at the Security Branch, if you look at the surrounding circumstances where this assistance was given and we now refer to where you could now be charged or be disciplined, reprimanded. JUDGE NGCOBO MR MOSTERT Yes, I said that. That is exactly how I felt. JUDGE NGCOBO What "moelikheid"? MR MOSTERT JUDGE NGCOBO MR MOSTERT That is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO The same applies to the other officers who were involved in the torture and the killing of the deceased? MR MOSTERT That is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO So it was therefore necessary for you and your colleagues to come up with a plan which will protect you from such charges, correct? MR MOSTERT Your Honour, I think that is exactly what happened later on. JUDGE NGCOBO So when you engage in this elaborate process of making false entries, making false statements, some of which were made under oath, that was intended to protect yourself from this prosecution, correct? MR MOSTERT Yes that is. JUDGE NGCOBO You were of course relieved because your commanders were prepared to help you out? MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO Now, you do understand, I take it, the implications of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act, do you? In other words it allows the Police to detain a detainee until such time that the detainee provides the Police with the information they require, is that right? MR MOSTERT That is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO So, if a detainee does not co-operate with the Security Branch it would have been an easy matter for the Police simply to let the chap rot in the cells? If he was prepared to co-operate, correct? MR MOSTERT Yes. But on the other hand, this person has to be interrogated on a daily basis as I experience the system. JUDGE NGCOBO MR MOSTERT I agree. JUDGE NGCOBO Your employer has personally prohibited the use of torture, right? Correct? MR MOSTERT Yes, that is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO So when you tortured the deceased, you went against the express instructions of your employer? MR MOSTERT It was unwritten rule. This is what you should do. That is how I understood it. JUDGE NGCOBO What gave you that impression? MR MOSTERT JUDGE NGCOBO I thought that you were, according to your evidence, at any rate, you could not have tortured a person in front of your commander? MR MOSTERT JUDGE NGCOBO Is it possible that during the heat of the interrogation, you may have lost your temper? That is on the 12th June 1988. MR MOSTERT JUDGE NGCOBO Is it possible that you could have spoken harshly to the deceased? MR MOSTERT JUDGE NGCOBO Let me just ask you a general question now. Previously, you have been part of a decision to cover up the fact that the deceased died as a result of torture that yourself and your colleagues perpetrated on the deceased, to that extent you made false entries, and did you make any statement under oath, in regard to the cover up? I think you did. You did make a sworn statement which was also false. MR MOSTERT That is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO And that statement was made under oath? MR MOSTERT That is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO Now, in light of that, what - why should we now believe you? Why should this Commission believe that you have told us everything that occurred on the 12th June 1988? MR MOSTERT JUDGE NGCOBO Thank you Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON COMMITTEE ADJOURNS ON RESUMPTION CHAIRPERSON Mr Mostert, you said that on the 11th June, you received information relating to the deceased at a meeting that was held at Krugersdorp, is that correct? MR MOSTERT CHAIRPERSON And that information related to certain alleged activities in which the deceased was involved in? MR MOSTERT CHAIRPERSON Do you know what the source of that information was? Were you told, were you shown statement by witnesses or were you told where that information came from that was given to you? MR MOSTERT Our information came, as I said earlier from the information branch West Rand where we had talks with them on that specific Saturday morning and where certain information concerning these aspects given to all of us your Honour. CHAIRPERSON MR MOSTERT As far as I remember your Honour it was presented by several members of the Security Branch of the West Rand and I accept they might have had statements and information. CHAIRPERSON MR MOSTERT Your Honour I did not know the strength of the source which gave the information. We went according to what was presented to us by the Security Investigators at West Rand. CHAIRPERSON So it may be in fact that your conclusion that the deceased was not co-operating might have been an incorrect conclusion. He might have been telling the truth when he was denying it. MR MOSTERT CHAIRPERSON [inaudible] you also said that during the course of the interrogation you kept notes of questions and answers, is that correct? MR MOSTERT CHAIRPERSON And you also said that as far as you know those notes might still be in John Vorster Square? MR MOSTERT CHAIRPERSON MR MOSTERT Your Honour, to conceal, it would have been negative for us to get rid of those notes because as I said it was a fake escape and the false entries made according to that goes hand in hand with the story which we gave by means of statements. CHAIRPERSON MR MOSTERT So it would have been consistent with the escape. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Ms Van Der Walt, do you have any questions arising from the questions that have been put by the panel. FURTHER RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT MS VAN DER WALT He goes further and he says, something was pushed underneath his nose which smelt like chloroform to revive him. Did anything like that happen to Mr Bopape? MR MOSTERT No. MS VAN DER WALT MR MOSTERT Yes. Let me put it this way. Afterwards the way I have experienced it, the country was in disorder, there were bomb explosions and the Security Forces and the Security Police and the Government, it was difficult for them to deal with all of these things. I would like to say also that after this person fell away, that I did go along with it, it was only a few days away from commemoration of the unrest of 16 June and if something like that was made known - [inaudible] death cases, it could have caused further bloodshed, further unrests and several problems for the Government of the day and would have put the politicians in the Government of that day in a very bad light, was it made known. MS VAN DER WALT So if I understand you correctly that even though you coming from the Detective branch, it was not your personal feeling to do something like this but because of the circumstances you took part in them. MS VAN DER WALT No further questions thank you. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT CHAIRPERSON [inaudible] CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP Mr Mostert, Mrs Gcabashe asked you a question with regards to what happened to his personal property. Is it procedure that the Charge Office where the person is placed in detention that these things are taken away from him by the person in the Charge Office and then a receipt is written out? Do you know those procedures? MR MOSTERT MR STEENKAMP But a receipt would have been written by a uniform personnel, kept by them? MR MOSTERT I accept, yes. MR STEENKAMP So if there was property, a receipt would still exist today, if the books were not destroyed? MR MOSTERT Yes, it would be found. MR STEENKAMP Thank you, your Honour. CHAIRPERSON Mr Visser do you have any questions arising? MR VISSER I have no questions thank you Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Mr Rautenbach, do you have any questions arising? FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, I see there are spaces. MR RAUTENBACH The first bit there, something is written in, it refers to race and gender and the next column refers to MR or CR is that correct? At CR we find the letters LB which probably refers to a Warrant, so there was no MR at that point. MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH The next column refers to the time and we see 20h05 [inaudible] this before, is that correct? Then we have the date 10.6, which probably refers to the time of arrest. MR MOSTERT No, the arrest took place on the 9th. The 10th is the detention. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT That refers to the date of detention. MR RAUTENBACH The next column refers to SAP 22. MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH It could be NIL, is that correct? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, I accept that. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Also whether maybe the person is - is that the amount of meals he received whilst he was there? MR MOSTERT Yes, it could be that. MR RAUTENBACH So could we assume there were 6 meals - he had 6 meals whilst he was in detention? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH Which form is used when a person is released, that Warrant, what do you call that form, that document? MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH MR MOSTERT Yes, but like I say, it was written by the uniform people. MR RAUTENBACH You mentioned that the information was that Bopape was locally trying in act of terror by Mopanya. Who gave you that information and when? MR MOSTERT That was the information, it was given to me on Saturday the 11th by members of West Rand. MR RAUTENBACH Those members of West Rand did not give you the sources of the information? MR MOSTERT No, not that I can remember. MR RAUTENBACH Can you tell me if the people known as Kleynhans, I think JP Kleynhans, as well as Bezuidenhout, were they present at that meeting? MR MOSTERT I do not know. I only know Mr Kleynhans. MR RAUTENBACH At this stage I would just like to tell you that I have received statements of Kleynhans as well as Bezuidenhout and these affidavits seems to have been taken down on the 22nd of February 1998 and is relevant to the Stanza Bopape case and I would like to tell you from looking at these affidavits which was made available to me, it seems that the information that they had was that Bopape was in contact by telephone with a certain Helen Mogale. You didn't have this information, did you? MR MOSTERT No, no, I didn't have it. MR RAUTENBACH And I put this as a hypothetical question because the factual situation is not complete, what would have been your situation, would you have acted in a different manner if the only information you had was that Bopape was in contact by telephone with Helen Mogale who had contacts with people in the Mopanya group. If this was the only information you had, a phone conversation, would you have acted differently? MR MOSTERT In this case, I doubt it strongly if a person would be arrested just because he had a phone conversation with someone. MR RAUTENBACH That is the question, if that is the information you had, would it have influenced your behaviour? MR MOSTERT What I am trying to say is in those circumstances, I cannot see how somebody can be arrested because of a telephone conversation of someone. So I cannot see how that could influence me. MR RAUTENBACH So you would have acted exactly the same, you would have continued with the interrogation as was expected of you? MR MOSTERT I believe that if the person was detained, I would have interrogated him. But how far can you go when it comes to interrogation or questioning on a telephone, it is difficult for me to accept it. MR RAUTENBACH I want to put it to you according to what you said earlier in response to a question placed by a member of the Committee, your answer was we had to do with people who had been shot to shreds, innocent people died because of terror. Can I understand from that answer that you would have in any case, were that person given to you for interrogation, you would have carried on trying to get information from him, even if the information concerning him, was small, you would have kept on with the interrogation? MR MOSTERT I would have went as far as possible to obtain the information. MR RAUTENBACH Mr Mostert, your application for amnesty was signed in 1996? MS VAN DER WALT Mr Chairman, I don't want to interrupt, but I don't know if this question flows forth from the questions of the panel? CHAIRPERSON Mr Rautenbach with this question you are now referring to the application that was lodged by the applicant, is that matter arising out of questions put by the panel? MR RAUTENBACH Mr Chairman, there was a question by one of the members specifically relating to the application for amnesty and whether the contents of that application should be due to the background f the matter, due to certain things that happened before. All I am trying to establish in relation to that question, was whether there was any other event that actually happened before the filing of the application for amnesty, that may or may not have influenced the witness in telling the truth or not. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you. Mrs Van der Walt, I am going to allow that question, we are not in a court of law after all and I don't think it is such a deviation as to disallow it, so I am going to allow the question. MR RAUTENBACH Mr Mostert, I just want to make sure, it seems that your specific amnesty application was signed on the 12th of December 1996? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR RAUTENBACH Before the 12th of December 1996, can you remember if you were approached by the Investigation Unit and if you signed an affidavit or rather signed a warning statement? MR MOSTERT Yes, I did sign a warning statement. No, it wasn't a warning statement, it was a normal statement as far as I can remember. MR RAUTENBACH With regards to this issue? MR MOSTERT No, no, not with regards to this issue. MR RAUTENBACH So are you saying that this issue was not investigated by the Attorney General's Investigation Unit? MR MOSTERT I assume that they were taking part in such investigation, but the statement that I had to sign, I had to do something completely different. MR RAUTENBACH Just one last aspect that I would like to talk about, did you at any stage become aware of the fact that any of your fellow applicants became State witness with regards to the Bopape incident? MR MOSTERT Yes, information did come about. I can't remember exactly when, that Mr Du Preez contacted someone or spoke about this, with someone outside of our group, but that was also a long time ago, it was shortly after the incident. MR RAUTENBACH Let me ask you this, did you obtain any information concerning Zeelie's position as far as he might have been a State witness? MR MOSTERT I do not know if he is going to be a State witness, but I knew that he had interviews with the Attorney General. MR RAUTENBACH This took place before the application for amnesty? MR MOSTERT Yes, I accept it must have taken place before the application for amnesty. MR RAUTENBACH I have no further questions, thank you Mr Chairperson. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH . CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions arising? MR STEENKAMP Sir, no questions, but if you allow me a moment, just with reference to the statement which my colleague, Adv Rautenbach referred to, the statement of Johannes Petrus Kleynhans, I made available copies of statements of Johannes Petrus Kleynhans, and the statement of a person called Mr Bezuidenhout, Cornelius Johannes Bezuidenhout, to all the parties concerned yesterday. I asked if there was any objection to any of the documents, I think accept Adv Prinsloo indicated that he will indicate to me whether he had a problem or not. I have copies of the document in my possession, so I don't know, I would like to ask if that can be handed in as well at this stage, because there had been mention about those documents, and those documents are not before the Committee at this stage, Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON I think I would prefer that they be handed in only after Mr Prinsloo's objection has been dealt with, because if we get it and read it and he successfully objects, and we give it back, there is not much point in the objection. I don't know when Mr Prinsloo will be ready on that aspect, but I think we must deal with that before we as a panel receive those statements. Do you agree Mr Prinsloo? ADV PRINSLOO I agree Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as far as the statement is concerned, at this stage we are not accepting the contents of the statement. First of all, and the statement itself does not contain the detail that is in our possession, so for that reason we don't accept it, and other detail as well Mr Chairman, so this witness will have to testify in order for us to ask him questions, unless they are going to file a statement which contains further detail. CHAIRPERSON Mr Steenkamp, is it the intention that Kleynhans be called as a witness as presently advised? MR STEENKAMP Sir, I had indications from Adv Rautenbach... CHAIRPERSON Sorry, and Bezuidenhout? MR STEENKAMP Yes, and Bezuidenhout sir. At this stage I have indications from victims' Attorneys that they would like to call both these witnesses. I can just for record purposes say that I was not able to contact or get hold of Mr Kleynhans until Thursday. We were only able to get statements this last Sunday of him, so that is the reason why I only have the statements now in my possession. CHAIRPERSON And who is Bezuidenhout, what is his role? MR STEENKAMP Mr Chairman, Mr Bezuidenhout apparently was present when Mr Bopape was arrested, and Mr Kleynhans is the Mr Kleynhans which is referred to by applicant number 1, I think. CHAIRPERSON Is he the West Rand Kleynhans? MR STEENKAMP Yes sir. CHAIRPERSON Mr Rautenbach, is it the intention to call these people as witnesses at some stage? MR RAUTENBACH In the light of the objection on the basis of Mr Prinsloo not accepting the contents of the affidavit, the family therefore intend calling those two witnesses. May I just make the following suggestion as well, that as far as the affidavit, that the affidavit goes in on exactly the same grounds as was the affidavit of Mr Vlok, the contents are not admitted, but I can see no reason for not provisionally allowing the affidavits in the light of the fact that we have given notice now that we are going to call these witnesses so that the affidavits may be used in cross-examination when necessary Mr Chairman. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Prinsloo, in the light of the information that these two deponents will be called as witnesses, do you still object to them being handed in to the panel at this stage, those statements? ADV PRINSLOO Mr Chairman, what would be the purpose of handing in the statement if it is not accepted, if the witness will be called as a witness, then obviously the statement can be put to him by Mr Rautenbach and he can then prove the statement? CHAIRPERSON Yes, well it seems to be before this matter was heard, we were given a huge bundle containing numerous statements just so that the panel can be aware more or less, before it starts, of what the nature of the evidence is going to be. ADV PRINSLOO Mr Chairman, with respect, this statement as Mr Steenkamp indicated, was only handed to us late yesterday and I only had time after that, to peruse the statement and to consult with one witness with regard to this statement. CHAIRPERSON I don't believe and I will consult with my fellow members of the panel, that it is either urgently or required at all that we as a panel see the statement before the evidence is led. I personally, I am saying this specifically, personally believe that I need only see the statement if at all, if a witness is giving evidence, (indistinct) I don't really have to see it at all. If it is handed in at that stage, it doesn't bother me, I am not particularly bothered by not having that statement as a panel member, now. If you could just bear with me. JUDGE NGCOBO Mr Prinsloo, is your objection to the handing in of the statement, based on the fact that you do not admit the contents of the statement, or do you say that the statement was not made by the person who purports to have made the statement, because these are two issues as I see them. One you can object to it on the basis that it was not made by the person who purports to have made the statement, which is one thing in which event, the statement would have to be proved in the normal course of events, on the other occasion, you can object to the contents of the statement, which is a different matter all together. What is the basis of your objection? ADV PRINSLOO Mr Chairman, with respect, the objection is to the contents of the statement. On the face of it, it appears to have been made by the person. ADV DE JAGER Mr Prinsloo, I think in the past we possibly had similar cases. The ruling that was given and I don't say that will be the case here as well, it cannot serve as evidence against your clients except if you have the opportunity to cross-examine them. But a statement can be handed in and if there is no objection, then it can serve as evidence. If the content in any way is contested, then the person has to give evidence and anyone who object to it, should then have the opportunity to cross-examine, otherwise that statement can never be used as evidence against a person who did not have the opportunity to cross-examine. If that is applied here, then this statement could possibly be handed in, but it could not serve as any evidence against your clients, except if you did not have the opportunity or have the opportunity to cross-examine or test the evidence, or if you then allow it to be used as evidence against them. ADV PRINSLOO With respect Chairman, it is so we contest the content and you are correct that there have been similar cases in the past, but it must be put clearly here that we do not accept the content. ADV DE JAGER Mr Vlok's affidavit for example, was submitted in the same way on the basis that they don't agree with the content. ADV PRINSLOO That was from the family's side, yes, that is correct. MR MOLOI In the bundle we also have the affidavit I think it is, of Nkosi, I think it is, which was made available to us well before this hearing. ADV PRINSLOO On the same basis, with respect Mr Chairman, as indicated by the Chairman, there was indication that these people will be called as a witness in any event Mr Chairman, so if he comes to testify, then we will put to him the version which we agree or disagree with. That will be the way of dealing with that. JUDGE NGCOBO To avoid to have a look at this statement for the first time when the witness is just about to give the evidence, why can't we have a look at the statement well beforehand, if the person comes in to give the evidence, then we know beforehand what the witness is going to say, but if the person doesn't give you know, doesn't come up to give the evidence, then the statement will have to be dealt with on those basis, unless you can point out it seems to me, to some form of prejudice that you know, your client is likely to suffer if it is handed in at this stage. Bearing in mind, you see, this is an enquiry, you know, where all the facts have to be put before this Committee so as to enable it to make a proper decision, and if the witness is going to give evidence, and if your objection is with regard to the context, he will come testify before us, you will test his version as set out in the statement. ADV PRINSLOO Mr Chairman, in view of the undertaking that the witness will be called as a witness, and on the basis that the statement will merely be received by the Committee in order to receive it prior to the witness testifying, I have no objection to that. CHAIRPERSON Yes, thank you Mr Prinsloo. MR STEENKAMP Mr Chairman, thank you Mr Chairman, I have provisionally unfortunately marked these documents just for indication purposes, provisionally E and F. It is one document, that of Johannes Petrus Kleynhans and that of Mr Bezuidenhout. ADV DE JAGER It should be F and G in any event. MR STEENKAMP Yes, it must be F and G sir. They are marked E and F, but actually it must be F and G. ADV DE JAGER Sorry, I see this affidavit was taken before a person described as Amnesty Committee, TRC. I really want to ask the Amnesty Committee workers not to take affidavits taken down by themselves, before a person working for the Committee. There are numerous decisions saying that a person shouldn't be asked to take an affidavit before a firm of Attorneys dealing with the matter, I think it is applicable here too. MR STEENKAMP I do apologise Mr Chairman. MR MOLOI Mr Mostert, I just want to make a follow up on the statements that you have made in response to the questions by Mr Rautenbach, and that is in regard to your application for amnesty which I gather you signed in December 1996, is that right? MR MOSTERT Yes. MR MOLOI I beg your pardon, it is directed at the witness. You said in December 1996? MR MOSTERT Yes, I accept that. MR MOLOI Prior to that date, had you made any statement in regard to the Bopape death? MR MOSTERT Except for the false statements, no. MR MOLOI The statement that you referred to which you signed, was that the false statement that you are referring to? MR MOSTERT Yes, I referred to the statement in the escape docket. MR MOLOI Okay, were you aware of any - this is prior to you sending off the amnesty application - were you aware of any investigation that was being conducted by the Attorney General in connection with the Bopape matter? MR MOSTERT Yes, I learnt of something like that, but no one made any enquiries. MR MOLOI How did you become aware of that, where did you learn that? MR MOSTERT I think one of my friends, Mr Engelbrecht, informed me about this. MR MOLOI Would that be one of the applicants? MR MOSTERT Yes, it is one of the applicants. MR MOLOI Thank you. CHAIRPERSON Thank you Mr Mostert. Ms Van der Walt? WITNESS EXCUSED MS VAN DER WALT Mr Chairperson, I call Mr Engelbrecht.