amntrans AMNESTY HEARINGS 1998-02-25 PRETORIA 3 https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/hearing.php?id=54867&t=&tab=hearings https://sabctrc.saha.org.za/originals/amntrans/pta/bopape3.htm JACOBUS HERMANUS ENGELBRECHT (s.u.o.) (cont) MR ENGELBRECHT What I said is that I talked a bit harder than I would normally. And I would expect that would now be a way to intimidate the witness. MR ENGELBRECHT Yes, that is correct. And then you went further and you also said, that's now the first time that we're getting to this point, I want some clarity, " And I threatened him that if he didn't want to go along, co-operate, this and this would happen". Can you remember? MR ENGELBRECHT Yes. Can you explain what this, this, this would mean? MR ENGELBRECHT He knows section 29, he knows that he can be interned for a long time. I can't remember precisely what I told him at that point, perhaps I could have said that to him. But it is important, Mr Engelbrecht, if threats were used, then it's usually a very important part of interrogation, and perhaps also a part of the legal things that happened. Now when you threatened him that this or this would happen, could you just give us more detail what you said to him, what would happen if he didn't co-operate, because it's really an integral part of this application? MR ENGELBRECHT As I said, I threatened him and perhaps said that he knew that the section 29, he could be detained for a long time, he would have been taken from the community and so forth. What I could also perhaps have said to him, well I can't really remember what it was, but I - that would be the instrument that we could use, that section 29. But we know at a later stage the electrical shock device was used. I can assume that at some stage before you used the device, that you could have told him, "If you're not going to co-operate, we're going to make you work"? MR ENGELBRECHT Yes. Did you tell him that you're going to use the shock device, did you say to him, "If you're not going to co-operate, I'm going to shock you", can you remember if you said something like that? It could be possible, perhaps not, I can't remember what I said. You can't remember? Yes. Is it possible, Mr Engelbrecht, that you could have threatened him with other tools of, methods of coercion, "If you don't listen, I'm going to put a tube over your head", something like that, or you could have told him about the so-called helicopter method, can you remember anything like that? I have never made use of any other methods, besides the shock and then also interrogation, that was what I have experienced in my career, that's the only methods that I used as interrogator. So you can't remember whether you threatened him with assaults? Well I threatened him. Did you threaten him with assaults No, not with assault, possibly, but I didn't assault him. Mr Engelbrecht, let's not be here at cross-purposes, the shocks would also be assaults. Did you threaten him with electrical shocks, or can't you remember? I can't remember, but I would not have threatened him, I would perhaps just have told him that there would be certain consequences, that he would be detained for longer under section 29. JUDGE NGCOBO You say, "Ek het hom gedreig"? What I meant is that I threatened him with section 29, that he would be detained for longer, and would have been taken from the society. JUDGE NGCOBO He knew that he was being detained under section 29, didn't he? That is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO Did you threaten to use the shock device on him? It's possible that I've threatened him, I can't remember, but it could be possible. JUDGE NGCOBO That is the only method, as I understand it that you had used before, the shock device, is that right? As investigator, the method that I have used was interrogation and then the shock device if it was necessary. JUDGE NGCOBO Now you don't remember whether you threatened him with this shock device? No, I can't remember. JUDGE NGCOBO Did you threaten him in any other manner, other than that he was going to be detained further in terms of section 29? Not that I know of. JUDGE NGCOBO Did you threaten to assault him? No, I would not assault a person. Mr Engelbrecht, at this stage, when Stanza Bopape was interrogated, you urgently wanted this information, you wanted this information and urgently? That is correct. What would it have helped you to threaten him with section 29 detention, at that stage it would not have had the desired results? Those are interrogation methods, to interrogate a person that is what you used, that was what was at your disposal to let a person talk, to get him to co-operate. With regard to the interrogation methods, it appeared that the electrodes of this device was moved across his body, you personally moved it across his body, is that correct? Yes. Can you explain to us why you chose this method? I have heard of cases where the electrodes are placed on a person's body and he was shocked. Why is it moved across his body? That is the method that was used on that day, I can't explain why, but that was the method that was used. If you say "that was the method that was used", you used it that day, can you say why you did it? I can't explain to you why, but it was just used that day. If you used it on that day, to move it, the electrodes over the body, what would have been the difference to have it stationary at one point or to move it? As I said, there was cloth on the points and it was soaked in water, and then it clings to a person's body, and when you pull it over the body - well that's how it was done that day. Why was it soaked in water? Well that person could go back to the cells, he would be visited by district surgeons, by magistrates, and that was just to prevent any injuries, any marks. Isn't it more effective if it's wet? I don't think it's more effective. Let's go back to the previous question, you're the person who did it, you moved the electrodes, is there a difference when the electrodes are moved or when it's stationary? I can't tell you whether there's a difference between movement and being kept still. And then I also want to determine, concerning the urgency, what was conveyed to you on that particular day, did you have to get the information on the Sunday, why was it urgent, what was told to you? I was informed he was a part of the Maponya group, who were involved with the bomb explosions, and that he was involved and that we had to get information as soon as possible, so that we could get other people who were involved, so that we could investigate this issue further, and then to prevent the onslaught. With regard to the urgency, did you understand it that you had to get the information on that day? My personal opinion was that the sooner the better. The information that was at your disposal was that he was involved with acts of terror? It was that he was part of the Maponya group. I put it to you again, was the information that he was involved with acts of terror? Yes, that he participated and that he was possibly trained, part of acts of terror and then also part of the Maponya group. So he was possibly trained, possibly participated in acts of terror, am I correct? Yes. And that he was part or possibly part of the Maponya group? He was part of - a member of the Maponya group. So he had contact with them? Yes. The visit, your visit to Mr Stanza Bopape on the 11th of June 1988, can you remember at what time it was? If I remember correctly, it was at approximately one o'clock the afternoon. Could you just tell us again, what was the purpose of this visit? As I said yesterday, it is possible that when you have a section 29 detainee that sometimes you have to go to their cells to ask them whether there's anything that they want or what they want to say. That is the way we did it with section 29. Let's have a look at this particular entry. At approximately one o'clock the afternoon on the 11th of June, you visit Bopape. Why did you have to go and visit -or did you visit him on that particular day? Not in general. I want to know why you went to see Bopape on the Saturday? As I've already said, I was on duty and I came on duty the Saturday, I finished at 12:00, and then at one o'clock I went to him because I played rugby the afternoon. Did you go to him because you were going to play rugby? I want to know why you went to him? That was the only time that was available, that was Saturday afternoon at one o'clock. What did you do there? As I've already told you, I asked him whether there was something that he wanted to say to me or what he wanted, that was the only thing. You already testified that you went into the cell, is that correct? Yes. Why do you go into the cell, what are you doing there? Yes. What's the purpose of this visit? Just to see whether he needs anything, and whether he wants to tell me something, if he's going to co-operate, that was the purpose of the visit. So it was about the whole issue of co-operation? Yes. So I assume the visit was not to purely ask him how it's going with him, but once again to ascertain whether he is going to co-operate? Yes. I don't think it's just to be friendly, a friendly visit and just ask him how it's going, at that stage we were busy with the onslaught against us and I think we go there to ask a person, "Are you going to co-operate, do you need anything, and so forth". Your version with regard to the visit on the 11th now makes a bit more sense. If we look at this in context, then we know that on the 10th, where he was basically processed, you had not really started with the interrogation, whether he was going to co-operate or not? With the processing, you get a lot of background information about the person, where he lived, where he was involved, and then you can more or less determine that he is, for example, involved with banned organisations, and then you can ask him, "Are you going to co-operate or not?" Please listen to the question, on the 10th, there wasn't really focus paid about his involvement, it's, from testimony of others, it's about getting background information. On the 11th, you go and see Stanza Bopape, with the purpose to determine whether he's going to co-operate with the police? Yes. At that stage he already why he was being detained? Because the reasons have been given to him and that he was detained under section 29, so he was told that he was being detained under section 29. That was on the previous day, the 10th? Yes. Now it's the 11th, you go to him, and what do you say to him about co-operation, could you just tell us, that's now on the 11th? I can't remember which words I used, but I asked him, he knew what he was there for, and perhaps I told him, you know, "You're here, are you going to co-operate?" If you ask him if he's going to co-operate, well it would be senseless to ask him, "Are you going to co-operate?", the question would have been, "Are you prepared to talk, are you going to tell us about your involvement with Maponya or these different acts of terror?", is that correct? I don't think that would have been the line that was followed, because I have not yet had all the information. We got the information on the Sunday morning that was conveyed to me by Mostert. What would this co-operation entail on the 11th? I don't understand it? What did you mean, is he going to co-operate or not, is he going to talk or not? I thought that he knew why he was there, and it was possibly so that he could tell me why he did it, why he was involved, that's part of the interrogation technique or a way of communication that you have with the person. What was his answer on the 11th of June when you told him or asked him if he's going to talk? To be honest, I don't know I wasn't there for a long period. How can you say you don't know, you should have had the idea that this is a person who's going to co-operate, this is a person who's not going to talk, or ...(intervention). I think if he had said that, if he said that he would co-operate, I would have contacted Mostert and said this man was going to co-operate. But you can't remember what his attitude was? No. On this point still, with this visit on the 11th, what did, why was Syfert(?) and Wilken there? As I said, they were also on duty, and perhaps they went to Nkosi, I don't know, Nkosi was detained at the same place. If we look at the occurrence book, and I want to refer you to page 748, if we look at entry No 418, this refers to the 11th of June 1988, and the entry is "Visit - Warrant Officer Wilken" and then also Syfert and Constable Engelbrecht, they visit Bopape, that is the entry. Is that your signature? The first one is my signature, that is correct. And the others? If I can remember, it is Wilken and Syfert. Mr Engelbrecht, if we look at the document, then it is clear that this visit was a visit that was minuted in regard to Bopape? Yes, that is what I can infer here. And this was made at the cells? But they get certain information before they write it in. It is quite clear, Mr Engelbrecht, that if Nkosi was visited then it also had to be entered? It's possible, it could have been possible that I went in first and said that I'm visiting Bopape and that they made this entry, that's all that I can gather from this. Let's stay away from the possibilities, let's have a look at what you can recall. Concerning this visit to Bopape, did you, Syfert and Engelbrecht, did you visit Bopape? As I said, they weren't involved with Bopape, I was, and as I can gather, they visited Nkosi and not Bopape. Can't you remember whether they were present when you visited Bopape? Possibly they could have been with me, I can't really say. Would you agree with me that if there had been a visit by Nkosi by these two people, then it would have been entered into the occurrence book? It should have been entered that they visited Nkosi. So you say this is an error? No, I won't say it's an error, it might have been perhaps wrongly entered, they could have been with me. Do you say that it could have been entered incorrectly, so your version is that what is here does not reflect the truth, because Syfert, Engelbrecht and Wilken did not visit Bopape? Perhaps they were with me. I think they didn't have an interview with him, they didn't talk to him like I did, he was our subject that we had to handle. It becomes more suspicious now and I will tell you why, Nkosi said in his statement that he was interrogated by these people and how he was tortured by them, especially Syfert. I have no knowledge of that. And it also appears from his statement that Mostert was also involved with him at some stage? I have no knowledge of Mostert being involved with him, Mostert was involved with me with Bopape. Just tell us, Mr Engelbrecht, was there any reason why Syfert and Wilken ...(intervention) Could you just refer me to where he also said that Mostert was also involved with him? CHAIRPERSON Yes, but he doesn't say he was with him, he says Mossie was with - I think it's paragraph 40, but I'll leave it there. You are saying to the witness as a fact, and you can't put it as a fact if you're not sure of the facts. It was your interpretation of what was written there. Would you please interpret it and tell us how you interpret it and how you reached that conclusion that Mostert interrogated Nkosi? It seems that there was no contact between Bopape and Nkosi. What's written there is "...who was apparently questioning Bopape, called Mossie, a white tall policeman who is very aggressive." That gives the impression that he was also involved in the interrogation of Nkosi. Nkosi is a witness you want to call, so I accept that you'll clarify this, because otherwise it's a bit confusing. Yes, we'll have to get good instructions from him. JUDGE MILLER If I could just intervene briefly, it's on the same point, Mr Engelbrecht, if you take a look at page 753 of the papers, volume 3, you will see that Simon B Nkosi was only admitted on the 13th of June. My recollection of previous evidence was that prior to that he was at Sandton or detained somewhere else, but if you look at page 753, third from the bottom, it says "Simon B Nkosi - admitted 13 June", whereas M J Maisha J Bopape was admitted on the 10th of June. So from this entry, unless it's wrong, it would appear that Nkosi wasn't at John Vorster Square on the 11th of June. Do you have any comment about that? As I've already said, now that I look at the SAR(?) register, it's possible that these two people were with me when I went to Bopape, and that they did not visit Nkosi and the reason was that they were not involved in the interrogation of Bopape, that's why I told you they might have visited Nkosi, but I can see that Nkosi wasn't then there, so maybe it's my mistake, but as I've already said, they were not involved in the Bopape interrogation. MR MOLOI Now you're talking about, I mean if you look at entry 418, which would seem to indicate that Wilkens, Syfert and yourself visited Bopape, is that the entry you're talking about? That could be correct. MR MOLOI On its face this entry indicates that all three of you visited Bopape at the time stipulated, which is 13:00. Is that entry correct, did the three of you visit Bopape on the 11th of June 1988 at one o'clock in the afternoon? If I look at this entry, it seems correct. The reason I'm saying this is because we were on duty, Syfert, Wilken, myself, and that's why as a service group we went together to the cells and that they accompanied me there. MR MOLOI To visit Bopape? Would that have been the purpose of their going to the cells? That's correct. MR MOLOI You now recall that they were there to visit Bopape? As I said, they accompanied me to the cells, so they must have, they must have went into the cell with me. MR MOLOI Do you now recall that is what happened? As I said, it must have happened, because if I look at the entry, they did accompany me, they were with me at the cells. MR MOLOI Thank you. Mr Mostert (sic), the next aspect that I'd like to touch on is the question of the chair that was used and which was placed in the corridor. Why do you think the chair was placed in the corridor? The reason the chair was placed in the corridor was because the chair was taken from Mr Van Niekerk's office, which was quite small, and the corridor was bigger, there was more space in the corridor than there was in Mr Van Niekerk's office, and also it was his chair. Why did you need more space when he was being shocked? It would have been difficult to do that in the office where the chair was. Why? Because, as I said, it was too small. Well what's relevant about a small office when it comes to shocking someone, why didn't you want to shock him in a small office? Because in the office there was a lot of furniture and the space was small and we decided to do it in the corridor. Are you referring to the fact that the man jerks a lot when he's shocked and that's why you needed more space? As I already said, he was tied on the chair, and that when his muscles contracted, that he wouldn't have jerked so much that there would have been massive injuries when he was jerking. The reason why we put the chair in the corridor was solely for the purpose of more space. Mr Engelbrecht, you said earlier in your testimony that it was the only method of coercion that you've used, is that correct? Yes. At previous incidents did you use this on other people? When I was in the detective branch, yes. When were you in the detective branch? I came to the security branch in '85. When did you join the South African Police? In the detective branch it was used to gain witnesses for a court case to get them into the court and to prove your case, that's why those methods were used. Did you use this on accused in order to obtain information? On who did you use this method? On accused. Only on accused? Yes. Not on witnesses, only on those that were accused? Only on the accused. Okay. And you said you did it in order to obtain information. What type of information? I said I did it in order to get testimony, so that you could have a better case, so that you could find the man guilty in the court. Do you mean that the one side you wanted information with regards to other people who might have been involved, and secondly also to obtain your admissions in such a way? It could have been like that as well, yes. Am I to understand, these applications, it seemed to have been a general practice in the South African Police to torture them in order to obtain either information or admissions, is that correct? I wouldn't say it was generally used, but it was, it was done, it was done in the police. Surely you must have learnt this method. Did you learn it from other people? It's something you pick up whilst you're in the police force. Would you say it was a practice within the police? Not a practice, but it was used in the police force. Was it a practice in the security branch? It wasn't a practice, but it was, once again, used in the security branch. Let's look at page 55, volume 1, look at the top of the page, I'll just tell you which document this is. Let me just clarify this, page 54, is this part of your amnesty application? According to the index, it does seem the case. This is where I made the amendment. Yes. That is why I did not want to put it to the witness, I had some doubts. CHAIRPERSON Yes, Annexure A ...(intervention). 59? 59, from page 59 onwards. CHAIRPERSON But then the Annexure A for Mr Engelbrecht was from page, because it might be Annexure A, that's page - Annexure A of Mr Engelbrecht's application is from page 24 onwards and Annexure B of Mr Engelbrecht is from page 59 onwards. So it might be... MS GCABASHE You're looking for page 38, Mr Rautenbach. "It was practice in the security branch, and head office knew about this, when people denied or refused to co-operate, to make use of these methods." So would you now admit that it was practice? It was not written practice, but it was well-used. You say you learnt yourself how to use this within the police force, and these are methods that you can use in case the person does not want to co-operate or you do not have enough proof, then you can use this method in order to obtain more proof, and whilst you were, when you landed in the security branch you were still using these methods, is that correct? That's correct, yes. You also told us earlier that the only method of coercion you used in order to obtain information from people was by means of electric shocks? That's correct, yes. So this shock device, this was the only method you used? That's correct. But you already used it in the detective branch and when you got to the security branch you kept on using it, is that correct? Yes. You referred yesterday to the times that you did use this shock device on accused people, when you wanted to prove certain cases, that had nothing to do with politics, is that correct? No. You used, this method to obtain information had nothing to do with politics? That's correct, yes. It was in order to prove a case, to find witnesses for testimony, and when you got to the security branch, you still used this method? Like I said, it was an onslaught on the government, it was, we had to fight violence with violence, at that stage I felt it was a war between the government and the ANC. But it was already your way of doing things, whether it had political implications or not, that was the way you worked, you operated? It wasn't the only method I used, I made use of section 29. What I'm trying to say to you, sir, is that you used those methods, you were taught those methods? No, I was not taught them, it's something I just picked up. So then you learnt how to use them, and whether the person was a politician or not, you always used this method, because you always used, you only used one method, which is electrical shocks? I think you misunderstood me, it was a method I used, but firstly I always interrogated first and my method was then to find testimony from the person. At that stage who did you consider to be the enemy? As far as I was concerned, it was the ANC, Umkhonto se Sizwe, and the parties who wanted to undermine the government. You're referring to the left factions? Who were the left factions that you fought against? The ANC, who else, or was it only the ANC? And also the PAC, to a lesser extent. Are there other parties, or is that the only one you remember? What about the opposition? Which opposition? The official opposition of the government. Who, the DP? No, no, they didn't want to undermine the government, it was only the ANC that used violence and terror, who wants to undermine the government then. What about Inkatha, were they seen as a potential enemy at that stage? I never dealt with Inkatha at that stage. When you were dealing with people who were relevant to ANC activities, did you think that those, and those people that you electrically shocked was not involved and that your information was wrong? Can you repeat the question? Did you ever take it into consideration that those people you tortured, did you ever think about it that some of those people that you might have tortured might not have been involved in these activities, or did it not matter? I think the security branch would not have picked up someone if they did not have enough evidence that this person was involved in these activities and then to torture him afterwards. So the fact that the security branch picked up these people, to you it was a clear indication that he had to be involved and that you should get the information from them with interrogation? Yes. Do you have any idea about the amount of times you used this device, you can give us an estimate, within the security branch? In security branch, I only used it the one time, and that was with Stanza's death. Let's look at the previous times. Okay, once in the security branch, how many times did you use it in the detective branch? If I have - I do not know. Give us an estimate. That would be difficult. So you're sure you only used it once in the security branch, that's the truth? I used it only once. Why were you the person to move the cords across the body, you, completely green and only arrived at security branch some time before? It's because I used it in the detective branch, it wasn't new to me, I have been involved in such cases before. But you took the initiative to use the electrodes and to shock the person? I cannot say why it was me exactly who did this, all I know is that I did it. Can you just tell me the methods? Were you aware of other methods of coercion that was used on people in detention? The people, they would talk of methods, but in my presence I never saw the practice of these other methods. Which other methods were spoken of? As you already said, there was spoken of the tube and - but in reality and in my presence, I was never involved in such a method. So then you placed the body of Bopape in the boot and he was driven to Eastern Transvaal, and there you took him out the boot and he was placed into another vehicle, is that correct? That's correct. That was the vehicle driven by Van Loggerenberg, is that correct? Yes, I learnt that, but only later. Who were the people who took the body - were you one of the people who took the body out of the car? No. But you say it was done? Yes. Is it possible for you to tell us which kind of a vehicle it was in which the body was placed into? I couldn't remember what kind of vehicle it was. Mr Chairman, just a moment, there's just some - an entry that I just want to look at? Thank you. CHAIRPERSON Certainly, Mr Rautenbach. MACHINE SWITCHED OFF Mr Engelbrecht, I'd just like to clarify something. You say you were on duty the Saturday, 11th of June, and you were on duty till about 12 o'clock, is that correct? Correct. So we can accept that 12 o'clock you'll go off duty? That's correct. And that afternoon you spoke about rugby? That's correct, yes. How far did you live from John Vorster Square at that stage? I lived in Germiston at that stage. Did you go home first, when you got off duty? I can't remember if I went home. I suppose I did go home first and then to the rugby game. Where did you play the rugby? (Indistinct). How far is that from John Vorster? It's at the back of John Vorster, is that correct? Yes. With regards to Syfert and Wilken, did they play rugby? I don't think they would have played, they were a bit old. They couldn't play rugby. They were too old to play rugby, is that correct? Yes. Do you know until what time they worked that specific day? I don't know until what time they worked, but they were on duty, so I suppose they went home the same time I did. Now why would they have returned at 1:00, and as you say, they probably, they've been off duty already then, why would they return to see Bopape at one o'clock in the afternoon? I'm saying we had to work until 12:00, but maybe we stayed there and then went to Bopape, we only, we got off duty at 12:00. But you cannot tell us whether you went home first or not, you say it's possible? That I went home, yes. MS GCABASHE He said it was possible that he went home first before he played rugby. So it's possible you first went home and then you saw Bopape before you went to play rugby? No, I wouldn't have done that. That's not possible? That's correct. You don't know with regards to Syferts and Wilkens, and whether they would have gone to see Bopape at one o'clock as well? It's probably because we were still at our office then. Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAUTENBACH CHAIRPERSON Thank you. ADV DE JAGER Mr Mostert, can I just mention this ...[End of tape 1A - no follow-on sound] ...interrogated him, then you are justified to ask these questions, but I do have a problem that you ask this unless we know that it's a fact. MR MOSTERT I understand your concern and as soon as possible I'll try to receive a proper instruction as far as that's concerned, thank you. RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT Mr Engelbrecht, you were referred to page 748 in volume 3 and the entry, this is entry 418, when you went to visit Bopape at one o'clock in the afternoon. It seems that you were not sure exactly what happened there with Syferts and Wilken. Were Syferts and Wilken with you in the cell? I assume that they did enter the cell with me. Is this into the cell, are you sure or are you not quite sure? Maybe I cannot remember if they actually went into the cell with me, I'm not sure. This visit, if you look at the occurrence book, was it a short visit? Yes, it couldn't have been longer than five minutes. I want to refer you to entry 419, it's five past one when he was given food to the detainees and then entry 420 it's ten past one and Stanza Bopape received his medication. Yes, I see that. Were you present when his medication was given? No, I was not there. Then I want to refer you Mr Nkosi's statement, this is on page 646, Mr Chairperson, and it's in volume 3, where he himself says that he, on the 11th, on the morning of the 11th, he was at John Vorster Square and he was questioned by Syferts and Wilken, you cannot comment on that? No, I cannot. Do you know exactly who were the last people to deal with the body of Stanza Bopape, you said that you were present when the black bags were put over him, do you know if other people then dealt with him afterwards? After the black bags were placed over him, he was taken to the vehicle, and that was just before we went to Bronkhorstspruit. So the black bags were placed over him just before you went to Bronkhorstspruit? That's correct. Thank you, no further questions. CHAIRPERSON Mrs Gcabashe, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the witness? Just a few. On the 12th, when you were interrogating Mr Bopape, was he blindfolded at any stage? At no stage he was blindfolded. As far as I know, he was not blindfolded. I might have misunderstood you, did you say that during the interrogation, in the passage water was poured over Stanza Bopape? Can you clear that up for me? The water that was used was to wet or to make wet the material, the cloth, over the cords. You were also asked a question about the bags and how they fitted, how the body rather fitted into the bags, was your response that the whole body fitted into the two bags, one brought from the top and the other from the bottom? That's correct. To your knowledge, at no stage did either one of these bags slip off? It was pulled over his body in the office, and it didn't slip off. Then the body was transferred to Mr Van Loggerenberg's car? I wasn't present myself when he was transferred, but I didn't assist with that, but it seemed to me that the bags were still covering the body. That is correct. Do you recall at about what time you arrived at the spot where you met the Eastern Transvaal officers, how long did it take you to get there essentially? Then how much time did you spend first on the freeway and then on the little road, roughly, just estimate that time for me please? The time that we were there wasn't very long. On the highway we just stopped and on the dirt ground we just stopped and the body was transferred. I can't tell you precisely, it could have been ten minutes, I can't really tell you precisely how long. An estimate really, it's just an estimate, 15 minutes, 10 minutes, that's all I want, just an estimate, it is an estimate? It could have been that long or perhaps even shorter. That is correct. So you must have been back in Johannesburg, and please correct me if I'm wrong, say at about what, ten o'clock, half past ten, is that correct? Possibly, yes, that could have been the time we arrived at John Vorster. And by twenty to one roughly you had planned the mock escape and executed it, yes, is that correct, by about twenty to one in the morning you had planned and executed the mock escape? That is correct, yes. Then one final question, just stemming from the question about Mr Nkosi and the page 647 that you were referred to, 646 to 647, where he says that he was brought to John Vorster Square, I'm looking at paragraph 28, 29, 30 roughly, is it procedural for people who are being interrogated to be interrogated in the cells, or do you take them, as you did, to the 10th floor, what is the procedure? There are different procedures, but the procedure that we followed was to book the person out and then to interrogate him in your office. Most unusual to interrogate somebody in the cells, because there are other prisoners right there? It would not have been unusual, but it wasn't practice to do it in the cells. But if it were a fairly lengthy interrogation, it would normally be done in a secluded place like the 10th floor? That is correct, it would have been done in the person's office, the person who did the interrogation. Then one final, final, final question, it's very minor, you mentioned the 7th floor and the 10th floor, right at the outset, I think possibly in your evidence in chief, what happened on the 7th floor, I know what's happened on the 10th, in terms of the interrogation, but you seemed to mention the 7th floor as well, I'll find the reference if you need it, what happened, whose office was on the 7th floor, what happened on the 7th floor? At that stage, Brigadier Erasmus's office was on the 7th floor and the investigation unit's office was on the 10th floor. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr Moloi, do you have any questions? Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Engelbrecht, it has been confirmed over and over that there was a war situation, and you have also confirmed that, is that correct? That is correct. And you have also pointed out that the ANC and the activists were seen as a threat to peace and stability in the country then? That is correct. And you in the security forces were actually intended to forestall any occurrence of terror in the country? That is correct. We had to get the necessary information, in other words, to stop it. And activists, as well as the organisations for which they worked or were linked to, were seen and treated as enemy of the government then? That is correct. And you were sitting here on the 12th of June 1988 with an enemy of the government then, from whom you needed information and needed the information urgently? That is correct. And during the course of the interrogation, you also formulated an opinion that this particular person is stubborn? Yes, he was stubborn and he didn't want to co-operate, yes. And somewhat out of your supernatural restraint and control of yourself, you did not do anything to this stubborn individual? I didn't do anything physically to him, only with the interrogation before we went over to the shock device. You made certain threats to him as well? That is correct. And you are quick to add that much as you could have threatened him with assault, what is a fact is that you did not assault him? As I have explained, I would not have assaulted a person, knowing that he was a section 29 person. Quite. The fact that you could have threatened him with assault, but you would not go over to executing the assault itself? That is correct. Then you also might have threatened him, you used the expression "uitgeneem word uit die samelewing" ...(intervention) Taken from the community. ...words, didn't you? That is correct. What was the context of the words, because they are vexed words, they perplex me actually? If I can explain with the community, he is detained under section 29, he can't have contact with his family, so he's taken from the community, so that he couldn't live his life normally as he would in the community. And thereby? That is correct. And then another threat that was directed to Stanza Bopape on this particular day was to be given electric shocks? That is correct. All the other threats that were directed to him on the day were not carried out and of that you are positive, but the electric shocks were threatened and carried out? That is correct. After we had deliberations, we decided to proceed to that step. Why, if there's any reason, would the other threats not be carried out, but this one specifically be carried out? The main reason, as I have said, it was not to assault the person, it wasn't possible to assault the person, because he was a section 29 detainee, and because he received visits, he had to go to the district surgeon and the district surgeon could visit such a person at any time. Let's leave it at that. And another aspect of your evidence which is unclear to me is, when it was put to you by Mr Rautenbach that it was practice in the security force at that time to apply these shock treatments, you denied it was a practice, admitted however that it did happen, but it was not practice, do you recall that? It wasn't a written practice, but it was used. When that was put to you, you denied it was practice and said it was, however, used, am I right? That is correct. And you were referred to your own documents on page 28 that you yourself said it was practice, then a new dimension came it that it was not a written practice? Do you recall that? I can remember that. Ja. Why first of all it's not practice, and confronted with the facts, it was not a written practice? Perhaps I didn't understand it correctly, it wasn't, you weren't told specifically that you had to do it in the police, but it was in fact used in the police. Also asked you if Mr Bopape was blindfolded on that day of the questioning, the 12th of June, and your reply was a categoric no. You recall that? That is correct. And then, she then pointed out that somebody else, in the person of Zeelie, would say that she was blindfolded, do you recall that? Yes, I can recall. Immediately when that was stated to you, your version was then "sover ek weet" ...(intervention) As far as I know, he was not blindfolded, that is correct. It shifted from that categoric no, he was not blindfolded, do you agree with me? As I said, I know that he was not blind-folded. But when somebody else says he was blindfolded, then your version changes to "Inasfar as I know, he was not", no longer positive that he was not, as before? Well, that man has to explain why he was blindfolded, as I know he wasn't blindfolded. You finally agree that you and the two other applicants that testified before must have explained the above human, must have exercised the above human restraint in dealing with this stubborn individual that you were handling that day? You did not want to do anything but talk nicely to him and you would not even lay your hand on him? I don't say superhuman, but we interrogated him and he just didn't want to co-operate. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. Mr De Jager? ADV DE JAGER The use of this shock device, in the cases that you had to do with it or that you heard of, did it provide speedy results? In some cases it happened that it resulted in speedy results. ADV DE JAGER If a person had been shocked once or twice, did you find that he immediately started talking, that he was frightened? That is correct. ADV DE JAGER And it was a method that left no marks? That is correct. ADV DE JAGER You said that you didn't assault the person because the district surgeon could visit him at any time. Which kinds of assault did you refer to there? As I refer to as physical assaults, he could just allege that he was assaulted and he could have been taken to the district surgeon, or the district surgeon could go to the cells, and with the electric shock method, no marks were left, that is correct. ADV DE JAGER So the district surgeon would not find any marks, and it would have been your word against his if he said that he was assaulted and you said no? That is correct. CHAIRPERSON Judge Ngcobo? JUDGE NGCOBO If you manhandle him and push him to the floor, he's unlikely to sustain any injuries? If I pushed him, I would have physically had to touch him to push him to the floor. Perhaps he could have obtained injuries. JUDGE NGCOBO But it could have been done in such a manner that it leaves no injuries, couldn't have been done? I can't answer you. According to me, when you push a person and he falls to the floor then he could be injured. JUDGE NGCOBO Why do you believe that you're entitled to be granted amnesty? The reason why I believe that, as it was put to me, I acted because I believed that I was doing it for the government of the day, and that I was doing the right thing. I'm telling the truth. There's no need for me to sit here and tell something that did not happen. I believe that what I'm doing now is right, and that is why I believe that I should get amnesty. JUDGE NGCOBO You and your colleagues who testified before you were part of a deliberate cover up to conceal the fact that you had killed a human being? That is correct. JUDGE NGCOBO Some of your colleagues went to the extent of, I think one of them it was, to make a statement under oath which was a false statement? Do you accept that? Personally, I also made a statement concerning the mock escape, that is correct. A deliberate attempt to mislead everyone else? That is correct. And you knew, did you not, that you had, you could be disciplined by your employer for what you did, did you not? That is correct, I knew that. And you could have been discharged from the force for your part in the killing of the deceased? That is correct. Did you consider it necessary to protect yourself against those consequences? I deemed it necessary to protect myself, but that was because I believed that that what we did and what had happened at that stage, that we did it at that point to, because the security unit was a part of the government and that it was there to maintain the government of the day. It wasn't because it was something that I enjoyed, but I did my duty and the government and the security branch, well we wanted to prove to them that we did our work. Yes, I understand that you did not want to kill the deceased. That is correct, I didn't go there to kill the person, I wanted information from him. And you resorted to this shock device because you wanted, to use the word used here, to "skrik hom", to frighten him? That is correct. Why didn't you consider it necessary, for example, before resorting to the shock method, to threaten him with assault? I already explained with regard to the assault, assault didn't occur to me, but to use the shock method. Now did I understand you to say before using the shock device, you didn't threaten him with it? I could possibly have threatened him with it, but I can't remember, it's possible. So is it possible that you could have said to him, "Unless you co-operate, I am now going to use a shock device", did you say that? It is possible. You see, Mr Engelbrecht, you were the person who was involved in the interrogation, please think carefully, did you tell him, did you threaten him with the use of the shock device (indistinct), if you remember? As I've said, it is possible that I could have threatened him, I can't tell you, I can't remember. Between the decision to go and get this shock device and the time when it arrived, how much time elapsed? As I've said, it was approximately 45 minutes to an hour that we still interrogated him. Okay. So after the decision to resort to the shock device, you then continued to interrogate him, whilst waiting for the shock device to arrive? That is correct. And during that part of the interrogation, he was not threatened with assault? No, I can't say that he was threatened with assault at that stage. What I - I can't tell you exactly, I can't tell you whether he was threatened with the shock device, I can't say whether I did it or not. So no-one, as far as you can remember, said to him, "We're now waiting for the shock device"? I can't say that we told him that we were waiting for the shock device, I could possibly, or someone could have told him possibly that the shock - well I can't remember, but it could be that we told him that we're going to shock him, I don't know. Well, finally, in view of the previous false statement that you had made, in an attempt to cover up the death of the deceased, why should we now believe that you've been candid with us, you're telling us the truth? You've made false statement before to save yourself, why should we now believe that you're being candid with us? My reason is, why you should believe me or that you believe me, because I'm telling the truth now, and the reason why we did the false statement, I didn't want to kill the person, but the false statements were made to let the government of the day continue. I didn't get any benefit from this, any gain. It is something that I have to live with for the rest of my life, what happened on that day. I'm telling the truth, there's no need for me to come and tell you a story or something that didn't happen, I'm telling you the truth, I can't give you more than that. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON Mr Engelbrecht, you said that when you were preparing the deceased for the shock treatment, attaching him to the chair, that his shirt was removed and his shoes were removed, is that correct? As far as I remember, yes. CHAIRPERSON I can understand why the shirt might have been removed, because you say that afterwards the electrodes were moved across his chest, but why did you take the shoes off, or why were the shoes taken off? The only reason why the shoes had to be removed was when we tied him to the chair, that's all that I can think of. CHAIRPERSON Did he have socks on? That is correct, he had socks. CHAIRPERSON Were his socks removed? No, not as far as I can remember. CHAIRPERSON And then you said that after the shock treatment and when the deceased had in fact died, you put his shirt back on, or his shirt was put back on. Why weren't the shoes put back on? I don't know, but his shirt was put on. His shirt was put on back, I can't explain whether his shoes were put on or not. CHAIRPERSON Well if his shoes were put on and then the plastic bags were put over the body of the deceased and it was then put in the boot of the car and transferred and thrown into the Crocodile Pool in the Kumati(?) River, the shoes wouldn't have been available for the mock escape, when they were put on by Mr Zeelie and ran through the veld with them so that the dogs could pick up the scent, so the shoes were obviously not put on, would you agree with that, put back on the body? That is correct. CHAIRPERSON Now, do you know what happened with the shoes then, the shoes were taken off, were they in the passage or in the office when they were taken off? His shoes were taken off when his shirt was taken off, that was when the shoes were taken off. He took the shoes off and his shirt on his own, so I don't know where the shoes were. We covered the person with the black bags just before we went to Bronkhorstspruit. CHAIRPERSON And when did you next see the shoes, that you can remember, after they were taken off and after the body was put in the bags, when did you next see the shoes, where were the shoes when you next saw them? I can't recall whether I saw it again, but I know that Lieutenant Zeelie had the shoes on at that stage when the mock escape was executed. CHAIRPERSON And do you know what happened with the electric device, the device used to generate electricity, the torture machine? No, I don't know what happened to it. CHAIRPERSON It would seem, from what we've heard, that that machine was obtained from the security branch offices at Sandton. Would you agree with the proposition that the mere fact that a police office has a device like that and it's kept at the police offices, is an indication that it was practice to use the thing, otherwise why would it be there? Do you agree with that proposition or not? As I said, I know the machine came from Sandton and Sergeant Du Preez brought it, that's all, where it was, I don't know. CHAIRPERSON Thank you. I think, would this be a convenient time to take the tea adjournment, then I'll give counsel an opportunity to ask if there's questions on any matters arising, after tea. We'll take a short tea adjournment now. MEETING ADJOURNS CHAIRPERSON Yes, Ms Van der Walt, do you have any questions arising out of questions put to the witness by the panel? (cont) Mr Engelbrecht, you were asked, with regards to your application where you said it was practice in the police force that such a device was used, and specifically in the security branch, can you remember that? That's correct. It struck me that you used the word "used" quite often? That's correct. And I also took notice that in your application, that it was practice that methods of coercion was used? That's correct. What did you mean, do you know the difference between "used" and "practised"? Well practises was something that was suggested, and it was something used when you want to use something, as I understood it. Did you understand that the shock device was used in the security branch but not on a regular basis? That's correct. You said, or rather it was put to you that you disposed of the body of Stanza Bopape in order to protect yourself, and you gave false affidavits according to this? That's correct. These false statements and the complete mock escape, did you do this because Major Van Niekerk told you to do this, or did you do it from out of your own incentive? We did it as an instruction from Mr Van Niekerk and I believe he was instructed from a higher officer to do this. No further questions. CHAIRPERSON Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions arising? Mr Engelbrecht, you replied on a question to the advocate that you used a shock device which did not leave marks? That's correct, yes. And the committee also asked you why you did not threaten the man with assault, can you remember that? Yes. Do you think it would have helped if you had threatened the person with assault and then not to assault him? It does not make sense to threaten a person with assault and then not assault him. If you assaulted him, there would have been signs of that, is that correct? Yes. CHAIRPERSON Mr Visser, do you have any questions arising? Mr Engelbrecht, this so-called practice that was put to you, to shock people with a shock device, seems to me was such a practice in the security force that you did not even have your own shock device? At John Vorster Square we did not have a device. Also in your testimony you told us on several occasions that the senior officials was aware of what was happening, and then you also said that "the senior officers knew what we did". What did you mean by that? What I meant by that was that during interrogation we do use methods and it's not that they said you shouldn't do it or you should do it, but they knew about it, and that's why we did what we did in those circumstances, considering the politics. The fact is they knew about this. This is actually what I wanted to as, so in other words you had the perception that these extreme measures, which you felt obliged to practise, that the senior officers must have known about them? That's correct. But at the same time it's also true that there were no official sanctioning of these methods, they did not give you instructions to use these extreme measures, or neither did they approve of them, would you agree to that? I wouldn't say that's exactly so, often there were talk and people saying that you can use it? Who said this? I cannot say who said this, but it was said that you can carry on using these methods. But, sir, if you say it was said, I'm asking you who said it? In which cases? I'm asking you. I cannot remember specific incidents, but it was said that you could do it. It would be denied by the people I appear for. Let me ask you like this, any of the people that I appear for, you know who they are, did any of them give you sanctioning to use these irregular measures when interrogating people? To interrogate people? Yes. You're talking about torture or coercion? Shock devices. I never received instructions from them personally, but the officers that were, who commanded me, gave me these instructions, yes, Van Niekerk, yes, Van Niekerk asked me to do this, but it's the first time I used a method of coercion in the security branch. Yes, but then you went further and you said you think that Mr Van Niekerk got instructions from higher authority, that's what you said? I believe that they might have told him to do this, I don't think he would have decided to do this if he did not know that we were allowed to do it. No, I think you are speculating now, I'm asking you simply that you think that Van Niekerk got instructions from higher authority to use the shock device? I think so, yes. Why do you think that? I don't think he would have agreed to do this if he did not carry...(tape ends) CHAIRPERSON Mr Rautenbach, do you have any questions arising? Mr Chairman only one question. With regards to the availability of this shock device, who made the decision that Du Preez should be contacted in order to get the shock device? To answer that question, I do not know who decided to contact Du Preez, but I knew that Du Preez arrived there with the device. So you are saying you do not know who contacted Du Preez? I do not know who contacted him. And why it was exactly Du Preez that was contacted? No, I do not know. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP CHAIRPERSON Thank you, Mr Engelbrecht. WITNESS EXCUSED