CHAIRPERSON: I understand we are now going to proceed with what could perhaps be called "The Pienaarsrivier Incident".

ADV STEENKAMP: I can confirm that, Mr Chairman, we will indeed start that matter. The first person who will be testifying will be Mr Goosen, and he is being represented by Advocate du Plessis. For that reason we can start immediately, Sir. Sorry, Mr Alberts, I'm sorry, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I can see heads being shaken. Perhaps for the sake of the record, where there have been alterations in representations or additional representations, they should be placed on record.

MR ALBERTS: As it please, Mr Chairman. There is no change as far as the applicants, Goosen and Momberg are concerned.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My surname is Rossouw, I still represent applicants Oosthuizen and Gouws and the implicated party, Coetzer.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I act on behalf of Brigadier Cronje. He has already received amnesty. I'm here to safeguard his interests. And insofar as Captain Hechter is mentioned by some of the other parties, I'm here to deny that, Mr Chairman.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, Roelf Meintjies on behalf of Mr J J H van Jaarsveld, who is also implicated by some of the applicants.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I represent H J Prinsloo, an applicant, Mr Chairman. My name is H J Prinsloo, I'm not the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: And the Leader of Evidence remains the same.

ADV STEENKAMP: I confirm that, Mr Chairman.

MR ALBERTS: With your leave, Mr Chairman, I call the first applicant, Mr Eric Goosen.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, just before the first applicant is called, an additional affidavit was submitted by the applicant, H J Prinsloo, to the Amnesty Committee in Cape Town, and I'm not sure as to whether it is part of the bundle. I've asked Mr Steenkamp and he hasn't given me an indication as yet.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, it's correct, it's an additional statement I received from Adv Prinsloo. I received a faxed copy and for that reason I decided to make a few copies available. They will be available in a minute and the documents will then be handed in to you.

MR PRINSLOO: Sorry, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I do have copies available. As the original was forwarded to Cape Town, I think it was on the 20th of April, I stand to be corrected, unfortunately I don't have those documents with me in view of the fact that I was in Johannesburg this morning at another Committee meeting, but I ask leave, Mr Chairman, to hand up to the Committee three copies of this additional affidavit. I undertake to make further copies, although copies were faxed to some of the parties involved, if they could perhaps just indicate as to whether they received them or not, if not I'll have to have copies made, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: For the sake of identification should we call this Exhibit A?

MR PRINSLOO: As you please, Mr Chairman.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, sorry to interrupt. I am in possession of further copies of the document, this specific document, and if anybody is not in the possession of one, I will gladly hand them a copy of it. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can try again.

MR ALBERTS: May I be permitted to call the applicant, Mr Eric Goosen.

ERIC GOOSEN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen, by this time the Committee is, or you are more familiar to the Committee, but for purposes of the record, can we just shortly get the following done. The application in questions, and this concerns the Pienaarsrivier incident, it is contained in bundle 2, and it concerns the following pages, page 295 up to and including 336, as general background. Do you agree with that?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Are you familiar with the contents of those pages?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: Please repeat those pages.

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you. Pages 295 up to 336 in bundle 2. It is the general background to this specific application with regard to this incident. Then the incident is dealt with in schedule 6 of the application, which is on page 374 and further on, in fact up to 382, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And we will deal with that in greater detail in time. To conclude, in the same bundle, pages 389 to 392, those are the concluding remarks with respect to this application.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness of that?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I do.

MR ALBERTS: May I now refer you back to schedule 6 of the application, that is on page 374 and further. Will you again please confirm what your rank was at that time and where you were stationed, for the purposes of the record.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I was a Sergeant at that time, stationed at the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, working at Unit A.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can you go back for a moment? You said 389 to 392, did you?

MR ALBERTS: 489.

CHAIRPERSON: 489?

MR ALBERTS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: Now according to the application, the relevant period seems to be approximately January to April 1986, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And is that the period during which the occurrences surrounding this incident happened, to the best of your recollection?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, according to my recollection that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: You say the incident took place in the Pienaarsrivier vicinity in Boputhatswana, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Are those the only places that were involved for this incident?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson, initially we were in Mamelodi with the suspect in respect of identifications, although we did then move to the Pienaarsrivier area.

MR ALBERTS: And that is where this incident found its culmination, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Will you please turn to the following page in bundle 2, there you are dealing with the particular occurrences. Will you please read that slowly to the Committee?

MR GOOSEN: Certainly.

...(intervention)

MR ALBERTS: Can I just interrupt here? Where did Brigadier Cronje give you this instruction?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I was called to his office and I received this instruction in Brigadier Cronje's office.

MR ALBERTS: And that was in the Security Branch Northern Transvaal?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct, more specifically in the police museum building, Compol building.

MR ALBERTS: You've already mentioned that an MK member was detained and had already been interrogated, what type of detention are you referring to here?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, in general they refer to a detention in the Security Branch, it could have also have implicated persons who for example were picked up for interrogation without them necessarily being lawfully detained.

MR ALBERTS: But in this particular case, if you're talking about lawful detention, then I assume that the man had gone through the whole process and he was either in a police cell or in a prison somewhere.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, in this case it wasn't a lawful arrest and detention, it was merely a person who had been picked up and who was kept at the offices for interrogation.

MR ALBERTS: So can we described this for the present purposes, as an informal detention?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: Or an unlawful detention?

MR ALBERTS: Indeed, Mr Chairman. Will you then please complete the last sentence of that paragraph, where I interrupted you?

MR GOOSEN:

MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen, can I interrupt you again, was that on the same day?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct.

MR ALBERTS: So it was the same day, later that day?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Right, let's just ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Can you please repeat those names?

MR GOOSEN: Certainly. Lieutenant Jaap van Jaarsveld, Sergeant Deon Gouws, Sergeant Wouter Mentz, Sergeant Joe Mamasela and myself.

MR ALBERTS: Let us just wait for a moment, Mr Goosen, at these names and let's start at Sergeant Wouter Mentz. What is the situation, was he or was he not involved, as you remember it now?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, Sergeant Wouter Mentz was not with this, at this meeting point on the night in question at the Compol building. After the completion of my application I did have a discussion with Sergeant Wouter Mentz, I informed him that I am implicating him. He informed me that he was not involved at this incident and also informed me that he was aware that Sergeant Deon Gouws and Sergeant Andre Oosthuizen were applying for the same incident.

MR ALBERTS: Now can you think of a reason now why you would have involved Sergeant Mentz in this incident?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, with the compilation of my initial application I could remember, with the reconstruction of happenings, that two members of the Murder and Robbery Squad were in fact in the vehicle on that night and that I then in fact confused Sergeant Wouter Mentz with Sergeant Oosthuizen.

MR ALBERTS: Right, what happened after that, after you came together?

MR GOOSEN:

MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen, this Hi-Ace kombi, do you know to what unit it belonged or was used by?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the kombi belonged to Unit B.

MR ALBERTS: And where was the residence of Brigadier Jack Cronje, to which you have just referred?

MR GOOSEN: It was in Erasmia, Pretoria.

MR ALBERTS: Right, what happened there?

MR GOOSEN:

MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt once again. Why do you think there may have been someone else involved?

MR GOOSEN: The kombi involved was quite full of people, there was a large group of people present, which also had the result that Sergeant Deon Gouws, amongst others, did not have a seat in the reserved seats, but had to sit elsewhere in the bus, at the front, just behind the passenger seat on the driver's side, on the ground on a sort of an installation.

MR ALBERTS: So he didn't have a seat?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: No in the normal seats?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Could you make any further progress with an attempt to try and identify this person that you are not sure of?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: So what you wrote here at that time is still the situation?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Will you please continue?

MR MALAN: Before you continue, this Hi-Ace, isn't it one of the 13-seat vehicles? How many seats are there in such a Hi-Ace?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I can't remember that, I don't know if it was a 16-seat or a 13-seat vehicle. It was a Toyota Hi-Ace minibus, that is all that I can remember of the vehicle. It had a seat in the front where the seat folds up to move to the back of the kombi.

MR MALAN: But according to your evidence there were eight people, possibly nine in the bus, but if there was a shortage of seats then there should have been more people in the minibus, in fact quite a few more people, isn't that so?

MR GOOSEN: My recollection is that the minibus was quite full of people. That is why I also think that there may have possibly been another person present.

MR MALAN: Can you remember how many rows of seats there were in the minibus?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, if I remember correctly, I think three.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: Will you please continue with your story?

MR GOOSEN:

MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you here again? This is the first time that you have mentioned an MK member, at what stage was he put into the vehicle, can you perhaps remember that?

CHAIRPERSON: He mentioned MK at the top of page 375, didn't he?

MR ALBERTS: That is so, Mr Chairman, but what he didn't say is when this person was loaded into the vehicle. What he mentioned on that page was merely the purpose of the operation.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, at the time of our meeting at the Compol building the person was loaded into the back of the minibus.

MR ALBERTS: Is that behind the seats?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, between the seat and the baggage compartment, if I can describe it that way.

MR ALBERTS: So that is in the baggage space, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I'm not quite sure that I understand what you are saying, was he loaded in, in the sense that you picked him up, was he tied up, or was he forced to climb in, what do you mean by loaded in?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he was led to the back of the minibus where he was put into the vehicle. I can't remember that he had either handcuffs or that he was tied up by any other means. He was put there and the hood of the back of the bus was then closed.

MR MALAN: So he wasn't on a seat, he was back in the storage space?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, he was in fact lying on the ground at the back of the bus, on the floor of the minibus.

MR ALBERTS: For a bit more clarity, what did the door look like and how did it open and how was it closed, this back door of the minibus that you referred to?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it opens from the bottom to the top and then closes in the same way.

MR ALBERTS: So it's a swing up, you swing it up to the top and then you close it down to the bottom?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And this MK member would therefore, if I understand you correctly, he would have laid at the back on the floor?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Now you also mention on page 376, that he was at the back of the kombi between Prinsloo and Momberg, he was sitting there between them. Can you just explain how that happened?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, in the context that I put it in that paragraph, at all relevant times, that was after Captain Prinsloo had already been met at the Silverton Cafe and been picked up, and on the way to Mamelodi the person was asked to climb over from the back to the back seat and then at all relevant times on the way to Mamelodi he sat between Momberg and Prinsloo.

MR MALAN: If you say he climbed over, who untied him that he could climb over?

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't tied up.

MR MALAN: No, I think he said he probably was.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I don't know who untied him. I was in the front of the bus and I didn't see who untied him and therefore enabled him to climb over.

MR NEL: How do you know he climbed over?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, initially - because we didn't stop anywhere along the way after we picked up Captain Prinsloo, my next observation was that he was sitting between Captain Prinsloo and Lieutenant Momberg and the only conclusion can be that he climbed over from the back onto the seat.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why would that have happened?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I can just speculate as to why that happened, but for the purpose of this operation, that was to make identifications, it would have been relevant if the person before we entered Mamelodi, would see that we moved in so that the identifications could have been made.

MR ALBERTS: So it was basically necessary to enable him to be able to make identifications, because where he lay he probably couldn't see anything?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Right. Can you carry on with the second paragraph on page 376.

MR GOOSEN:

MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen, this assault which you have mentioned, what did it consist of?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, when I looked back from time to time, these were smacks with an open hand in the face and hitting with the elbow on the body of the person who sat between the two persons.

MR ALBERTS: So he was hit in the face, assaulted in the face and also on his upper body?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: What happened after that?

MR GOOSEN: A decision was made to rather drive to a quiet isolated place where further interrogation of the MK member could take place.

MR ALBERTS: Who made this decision?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I can't remember who made the decision.

MR ALBERTS: Right, continue please.

MR GOOSEN:

...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Goosen, who was the head of the operation at that time, who was in command?

MR GOOSEN: At the time of the operation in Mamelodi, Brigadier Jack Cronje was in the vehicle, and it would have been under his overall command.

JUDGE PILLAY: Wouldn't he have made the decision?

MR GOOSEN: I cannot remember that, I cannot remember that the Brigadier said specifically: "Hey let's got to Pienaarsrivier or to a quieter place". I cannot remember who said that.

JUDGE PILLAY: But he must have approved it at least?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, it would probably have been sanctioned by him, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Where did this interrogation take place?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the interrogation took place on the outside of the minibus and more specifically at the back of the minibus where the baggage compartment's door was open.

MR ALBERTS: Continue please.

MR GOOSEN:

MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you again? At this stage when the strangling took place, where in relation to the position that Captain Prinsloo had adopted, where did you stand?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I stood towards one side behind Captain Prinsloo.

MR ALBERTS: And where was the MK member lying, as you said at the end of this paragraph?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, outside the kombi on the ground on his back.

MR ALBERTS: And what happened then?

MR MALAN: Excuse me, I'm not quite sure here. Didn't you say he forced him backwards into the boot of the minibus and then stood back, and he remained lying there?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, his upper body was in the boot and his legs stuck out and after Captain Prinsloo stood back, the person slid out of the vehicle onto the ground.

MR MALAN: Right.

MR ALBERTS: What happened then, Mr Goosen?

MR GOOSEN:

MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt here? You say the instruction was to prepare the landmine in the veld, but you in fact did it on the gravel road.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, we wanted to utilise the light that was shining on the road from the kombi, in order to do the preparation in the light. In the veld we would not have had any light to be able to see what we were actually doing.

MR ALBERTS: Continue please.

MR GOOSEN:

MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you again? ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: When was he killed, was he already dead when you put him on the landmine?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, my observation with the strangulation and the concomitant jerking of the person, the fact that he became limp, fell on the ground, brought me under the impression that the person was already dead.

MR ALBERTS: That is now before he was put over the landmine?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: May I just ask you the following in this connection. You have already said that you prepared the landmine some distance ahead of the vehicle in the road, where was the person placed over the landmine?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, after we had prepared the landmine for detonation and we moved back to the minibus, we took the landmine with us, left it in front of the minibus whereupon we got the instruction from Brigadier Cronje to destroy all identification. We carried the body from the back of the minibus to the front of the bus where the landmine had been placed.

MR ALBERTS: And then you did that positioning, as you're already testified?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: What happened next?

MR GOOSEN:

MR ALBERTS: With regard to the last part of your evidence, did everybody stand there and wait while Lieutenant Momberg was busy with the activation of the landmine, or what was the precise course of events, as you recall of what happened after that?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, at the time that the body was placed on top of the landmine - we did this in the light of the vehicle and before the detonation I was given instructions to return to the vehicle. What I can remember is that I walked back in the light of the minibus, which had then reversed some distance from the body and the landmine. I got into the bus, the bus made a U-turn in the road, whereupon Lieutenant Momberg only then got into the vehicle. After that the explosion took place, according to my recollection yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And that is your recollection of occurrences?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Now if I can just refer you to page 379 up to 382 of the application, are you aware of the content of that?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And do you confirm the correctness of those contents?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I confirm it to be correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Goosen, how would the death of that person have contributed to the safety of the country, after all he was in detention?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, as I said it wasn't a lawful detention, the person was merely picked up and brought in for interrogation. I don't think there was an initial decision when we started with the operation, that this person should be eliminated. So about that I cannot comment.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why did you blow him up?

MR GOOSEN: My instruction in this regard was received from Brigadier Cronje, he instructed me to destroy the body so that no identification would remain behind.

JUDGE PILLAY: So your activities were as a result of an instruction?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: A mere instruction. You weren't planning to kill the person or whatever, on your own?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did the mine come from?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, after we received the instruction, Brigadier Cronje told Lieutenant Momberg, he gave him a sports bag which stood on the floor behind the driver's seat, showed it to him and made a general nod of his head to the bag with this specific instruction that followed.

JUDGE PILLAY: And that was taken with from the office?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, at the time of the meeting at the office, apart from the fact that the MK member had been put into the vehicle at the back, I was unaware of the presence of an explosive in the vehicle and I also didn't notice that a carry bag was loaded at the time that we got into the vehicle.

JUDGE PILLAY: You and who else prepared this thing?

MR GOOSEN: Lieutenant Momberg, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: And the instruction came through with a nod of the head?

MR GOOSEN: The instruction was given to us orally by Brigadier Cronje, with a reference to prepare a landmine for detonation and after that a nod of the head referred to the bag, in other words meaning that that is where the explosive would be.

JUDGE PILLAY: Do you know if Momberg himself knew about it?

MR GOOSEN: I don't know about that, I cannot comment on that.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, I've just thought of one aspect that I should probably touch on, might I be permitted?

Mr Goosen, you have mentioned shortly about the strangling by Captain Prinsloo and the inference you made from that regarding the death of that specific person, did you foresee that this strangling could lead to the death of this person?

MR GOOSEN: It so, Mr Chairman, that during the strangling I knew that the possibility was there that the person could die, there was a big possibility.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why?

MR ALBERTS: Why did you foresee this probability, what brought this under your attention?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the strangling was not of short duration. The fact that brutal force was used on his throat so that he was pushed back onto the boot of this car and the strangling still continued, this put the probability that with such an action it could lead to this person's death.

JUDGE PILLAY: But that is my problem. Was the death of this person a planned thing? Did everybody know that at the end of the day, after he had identified things you required, that he would be killed?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, during the time we are Mamelodi and when we left for Pienaarsrivier, under no circumstances was that the planned operation to eliminate this person.

JUDGE PILLAY: I just want to get clarity regarding this. Was the killing of this person not Prinsloo's affair?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, I can only comment by saying that Captain Prinsloo was responsible for the interrogation and it's in part of the interrogation where force was used or violence was used, in the form of strangling. That was generally used when these suspects were interrogated.

JUDGE PILLAY: Do I understand you correctly when you say that you did not expect that he would be killed, up to that stage when he was being strangled, then only you realised that?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: The explosion was just a cover-up?

MR GOOSEN: That is how I understood the instruction of Brigadier Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say, did I understand you correctly, that strangling was part of the violence used in interrogations?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Mr Chairman, we can accept that when you're strangling a person you intimidate that person and you try to persuade him to convey some information.

MR GOOSEN: But have you seen strangling used before this during an interrogation?

MR GOOSEN: Not where I was personally involved, but when I, from what other people have said during these applications, I realised that during interrogations some of these people were strangled and they were killed by those means.

CHAIRPERSON: You realise they were strangled and killed during interrogation?

MR GOOSEN: It may be so, yes.

MR MALAN: Did you not testify that it was general practice during interrogation that people were strangled? Were those not your specific words in the first instance?

MR GOOSEN: In general it means, in special circumstances it could have been used. I did not say that during interrogation every person was strangled, but strangling would not have been a very strange way of interrogation.

MR MALAN: It was asked from you when strangling was used, your answer conveyed to me that at that stage you knew that strangling was used generally during interrogation.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, it was not strange to me when Captain Prinsloo started strangling this person, it was not strange or extraordinary to me at that stage.

MR MALAN: And then when further questions were asked, then your source of reference was the applications of other people, but did you not read the applications of these other applicants long after this incident, why was it not strange to you then?

MR GOOSEN: When that happened, during that incident?

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR GOOSEN: It was not strange to me that strangling was part of interrogation.

MR MALAN: Because you were aware that strangling was used during interrogation.

MR GOOSEN: That might be on hearsay ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, I'm asking you. - I beg your pardon.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I was aware that strangling was used during interrogations.

MR MALAN: Now where did you hear that, how did you become aware of that, who told you that?

MR GOOSEN: It could have been hearsay, it could have been through the grapevine, it could have been during chats in the passages. This is on what I base my answer. So it was not strange to me when this interrogation came to that stage, that the person was being strangled.

MR MALAN: So your reference to the applications of other applicants is not relevant here?

MR GOOSEN: No, it is not.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, in which unit was he?

MR GOOSEN: Captain Prinsloo was the commanding officer of Unit C.

MR MALAN: And yesterday you testified regarding the role of Unit C.

MR GOOSEN: Correct, yes. They were involved in the investigation of terrorist activities, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Why would Captain Prinsloo have been taken with?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I would have to speculate on precisely why Captain Prinsloo had to accompany us, but I draw the inference that because he was the commanding officer of Unit C, certain identifications would have been made that evening and that would have resulted that certain trials would have followed on that. Arrests could have been made and it would have been applicable that Captain Prinsloo would be on the scene when those arrests were made. Captain Prinsloo was also well aware of the operational methods of MK and of certain individuals, suspects, and then certain information or intelligence could be evaluated during the interrogation stage.

MR MALAN: Was Unit C also an operational unit, did they go into the field and interrogate people, torture people, assault people to make them talk, was that one of their functions, or did they only have an operational function?

MR GOOSEN: They were operational. They also did field work, they effected raids on houses. I can't comment on the assaults and the other aspects, I don't know whether that was regular practice of Unit C.

MR MALAN: But that was regular practice of Units A and B, according to what you know?

MR GOOSEN: When such a request was put.

MR MALAN: Yes, I'm always referring to instructions.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: But you have no knowledge that Unit C was involved in such actions, perhaps only in this case then?

MR GOOSEN: I have knowledge of that, but at a further stage, Captain Prinsloo and Momberg and myself are again co-applicants in a further incident, which will be dealt with at a later stage.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: Might I be permitted just to ask one question? Were you - before you became physically involved at the Compol building, were you at any stage involved in the planning of this so-called operation?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, not at all, I only received instructions to be available to report there at a certain time and while we were driving in the bus I heard about the purpose and the planning of this operation, but with the planning, who the suspect was, those matters were not discussed in detail with me, before the time or after the time.

MR MALAN: I want to ask another question which I've forgotten to ask and which I wanted to ask you previously. Did you read the evidence of Brigadier Cronje in his application regarding this incident?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Did you note that he took a strong standpoint that it was not a landmine, but a limpet mine?

MR GOOSEN: In the cross-examination which followed there was a big confusion. First of all, Brigadier Cronje referred to that as a landmine and later on he referred to that as a limpet mine and then in the end they decided it was a limpet mine. I took note of that.

MR MALAN: I don't think it was a big confusion, it was an objection by Mr Prinsloo of the translation and then responsibility was accepted for a wrong interpretation. Later on it was called a limpet mine, it was a small mine, and not a landmine being used to blow up a big vehicle for example, and that a limpet mine was used.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct. I want to react on that and say that in this bag there were two or three limpet mines, there were a few handgrenades from Russian origin and also this landmine and Lieutenant Momberg took the landmine and prepared that for detonation. So Brigadier Cronje could have been under the impression that the explosive being prepared was an SP limpet mine, but I can testify that we took a landmine from this bag and prepared that for detonation.

MR MALAN: If you read the transcription of his evidence you will see that he testified that you always travelled with these limpet mines in the vehicle.

MR GOOSEN: I took not of what Brigadier Cronje had said. I would not find it strange that some vehicles would carry this type of explosive from time to time. If I can speculate about the availability of this bag of explosives in this vehicle, that it could have been used in a follow-up operation.

MR MALAN: That could have been one of the possible reasons provided in his evidence, in his testimony. You've only referred to the bag you saw there, was that not standard practice to travel with such a bag and such equipment? You went out often, was that type of bag not kept in all vehicles?

MR GOOSEN: I can't confirm this as a fact here.

MR MALAN: Can you remember at a certain stage when you went out that there was not a bag in the vehicle?

MR GOOSEN: I can remember.

MR MALAN: You can remember specifically that there wasn't a bag?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes, or any kind of explosive. There were not always explosives in the vehicles.

MR MALAN: Can you remember instances when explosives were in the vehicles?

MR GOOSEN: There were inspectors of explosives working at the Security Branch and from time to time they travelled with explosives in their vehicles. There was situations when it was common to have explosives in the vehicles of the Security Branch.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why? Why was it common practice to have explosives in the vehicles?

MR GOOSEN: I can only react by saying I was not an inspector of explosives, I later on became an inspector of explosives and it was usual to carry an ... in other words you remove this limpet mine from a place where there would be limited damage to certain, the environment.

JUDGE PILLAY: Then I'm trying to understand you. This custom only was used during a journey where you obtained information that there is a limpet or a landmine available and in this inspector or whoever had to handle that.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE PILLAY: It's not the case that if you went out on an operation where for example an arrested person or somebody who was in custody had to make identifications, that these explosives had to be taken with?

MR GOOSEN: I can only speculate. In this specific instance I can't give you an explanation for the explosives being there. This was a clandestine operation. The person, as Captain said, this person was so-called stolen, he was brought in for interrogation. And the planned activity led to identifications to be made. I can't comment on that because I was not involved in the actual planning, I don't know what type of operation they decided on, what would happen after these identifications. If a house or where an MK member would have been identified, we would have tried to arrest that MK member in that house.

JUDGE PILLAY: I can't follow because one of the people in the vehicle is the commanding officer of Unit C, who is involved in court cases and trials and you are told that you were going to accompany an MK member to make certain identifications. This I assume is a preparation for a trial, why was that clandestine, why was that a secret operation?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, I'm not trying to make it a secret operation. Should one house be identified, should we arrest one MK member, it could not have led to a trial, it would have been tried to turn this person to become an informer to provide additional intelligence. If 20 people were arrested, then perhaps it would have led to a trail. I can only speculate regarding the planning and how it would have been applied. I was not part of that.

JUDGE PILLAY: On that explanation Mr Prinsloo was not necessary?

MR GOOSEN: It could have been that five people could have been identified and perhaps then the preparations had to be made for a trial. I can only speculate. If we arrested only one person, picked up only one person, the purpose would have been to turn that person as an informer to obtain additional intelligence.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR ALBERTS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Goosen, I just want to clear up a few aspects. In your statement and in your evidence you did not refer to Mr Coetzer, but I know in Mr Momberg's application reference is made that Mr Coetzer was involved that evening. As far as you can recollect, can you remember that he accompanied you?

MR GOOSEN: As far as I can recollect, I can remember that Sergeant Tiny Coetzer was there.

MR ROSSOUW: For the record I wish to put it that my instructions are that he was not involved in this operation.

MR GOOSEN: I will not dispute that.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Goosen, you referred to the possible confusion between Mentz and Oosthuizen. You've explained, or you knew that there were members from Murder and Robbery present in the bus.

My instructions are that my clients, Mr Gouws and Mr Oosthuizen at that stage were not members of Murder and Robbery and my instructions are further that from this service in the Security Branch, they were transferred to Murder and Robbery and that at that stage only mention was made that they would be transferred to Murder and Robbery. Was that perhaps why you made that connotation?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, we were talking about that specific aspect. I was not aware that they were part of the Special Investigative Unit. I was not aware of such an investigative team and as I saw their involvement it was that they came from Murder and Robbery.

MR ROSSOUW: And then for the purposes of the Committee, I put it to you that at that stage both Mr Gouws and Mr Oosthuizen were on duty at the Security Branch, they were under the direct control of the Security Branch, Unit B and their direct commanding officer was Hechter and Cronje, from whom they received their instructions, will you accept that?

MR GOOSEN: I accept that, but I don't have personal knowledge that they were seconded.

MR ROSSOUW: Before they were doing seconded service at the Security Branch, they were part of a Special Investigative Unit at the Security Police and they had to investigate unrest situations countrywide, you don't have any knowledge of that?

MR GOOSEN: I don't have any knowledge of that.

MR ROSSOUW: I'm only stated to you then where they had come to and that stage they were operating under the direct command of Captain Hechter and Brigadier Cronje, and that after they were transferred to Murder and Robbery.

MR GOOSEN: I accept those facts.

MR ROSSOUW: You understand what I'm saying, so that there is no confusion that they came from another unit which just became involved in the work of the Security Branch?

MR GOOSEN: I accept that.

MR ROSSOUW: And then Mr Goosen, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you're putting that they were never members of the Special Investigative Unit?

MR ROSSOUW: No, Mr Chairman, I'm putting that they were members of the Special Investigative Unit at some time prior. Mr Chairman, if you'll allow me, in the previous hearing, the Cronje Cluster 1, extensive evidence was led as to their involvement in that Special Investigative Unit, which was involved in the KwaNdebele area when the KwaNdebele 9 incident took place and the Piet Ntuli incident. Thereafter they were seconded to the Security Branch, which was when this incident took place.

And my instructions are that they took their instructions and orders directly from Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter. In fact the evidence will be that they shared an office with Captain Hechter at this time at the Compol building, the police museum, and thereafter Mr Chairman, they were transferred to the Murder and Robbery Squad.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, maybe just for the convenience of the Committee, I can refer you to the application of Mr Gouws, which you will find in bundle 4, where there's an indication as to the various units that he attended in the Police Force. You will find that on page 849 of bundle 4.

CHAIRPERSON: 849?

MR ROSSOUW: 849. And there you will see on that page that they were a in a Special Investigative Unit, then the Security Branch Mamelodi, which is Northern Transvaal, and then Murder and Robbery Squad.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Goosen, then my instructions are simply to put it to you that as far as the evidence is that you left from the Compol building to Brigadier Cronje's house, they can't remember that.

MR GOOSEN: I accept that.

MR ROSSOUW: And then also the stage where Mr Prinsloo was picked up in Silverton, they can't remember that. I'm just putting that to you for clarity's sake.

MR GOOSEN: I accept that.

MR ROSSOUW: And then regarding the operation itself, can I ask you as follows, you've divided this whole incident in two legs, the Mamelodi part and then the part at the Pienaarsrivier, can you remember that while you were in Mamelodi you stopped at an open veld and that interrogation and assaults took place there too?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, during the time when I made my application I can't remember that we had stopped in an open veld, but after consultation it was brought under my attention that we had stopped near Mamelodi in an open veld. We had stopped there, interrogation took place and from that point the decision was made to go to Pienaarsrivier, but I saw it as one, and the time in Mamelodi I saw as one leg of the operation and the second leg of the operation was Pienaarsrivier.

MR MALAN: Let's speak Afrikaans, you say it was brought under your attention, does that mean you remembered or did somebody tell you that and you accept that?

MR GOOSEN: After I had read the evidence or the documents of the other applicants, I read that they referred to an open veld where we presumably stopped and that refreshed my memory, that we had stopped in Mamelodi in an open piece of veld before we left for Pienaarsrivier. That's where the last interrogation took place.

MR MALAN: I will be glad if you will just talk normally.

MR GOOSEN: I will, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Goosen, at that open piece of veld, Mr Gouws will testify that it was behind the offices of Samcor, I think it's just next to Mamelodi, that's where the interrogation took place, was that why you regarded it as one part of the operation, because it was so near Mamelodi?

MR GOOSEN: I did not see it in terms of, for example Samcor, I saw it as an open piece of veld next to Mamelodi. It could have been part of Mamelodi.

MR ROSSOUW: At that stage, on a question of your advocate, you answered what form this assault took. My recollection was that it took place in the kombi, that he was punched with the elbow and he was hit in his face with an open hand. The assault at this open piece of veld, was this more drastic, was it serious, were there threats made, what was the general nature of this assault?

MR GOOSEN: The assault in this open veld was continued in the form of hitting with an open hand, hitting with the fists against his chest. I did not see that assault, but serious threats were made, I agree to that, and therefore he was threatened that we would take him to a remote spot where he would be further interrogated. That is how we went to Pienaarsrivier.

MR ROSSOUW: Why I'm asking you that is, Mr Oosthuizen will testify, and it appears from his application, that at that stage when you moved back from the open piece of veld to the Pienaarsrivier, he formed the perception that perhaps this person could be eliminated.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, yes, I don't doubt that, that Andre Oosthuizen perhaps came under that impression. This whole exercise was to go to the Pienaarsrivier and the level of assault and interrogation would be intensified and that's why we decided to go to a quiet place to continue with this process.

MR MALAN: This open piece of veld near Mamelodi where the assault initially started, or started outside the kombi, was that not a quiet place?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, it was not far from the houses in Mamelodi. If you refer to Samcor, you could accept that there were security guards patrolling there ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, no, please, I want to interrupt you here. Do you remember that you stopped there or not?

MR GOOSEN: I remember that.

MR MALAN: Then why are you saying "when they referred to, then it should"?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, this assault could not have been intensified there ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, no, please Mr Goosen. Mr Goosen, please understand me, we want to know what you can remember, we don't want hypotheses over what could have happened. The evidence you are providing now, you initially did not remember when you made this application that you had stopped there, now you say that you remember that and you are now testifying about what you remember.

You don't have to speak in grand language, just tell a plain story like somebody who has never been in a court before, never been in the police service, just tell us in plain language what you are remembering, not what other people are telling you. Don't come with grand language, because this all seems to be inference you are drawing, it does not seem that these are things that you really recollect. If you can't remember, just say so.

MR GOOSEN: Please repeat the question.

MR MALAN: The question is specific, in that open piece of veld, when you first stopped next to Mamelodi, you said there were houses in the vicinity and Samcor was next to that, there could have been security guards. Forget about that, just remember how open was this piece of veld. And if you say you're moving this place to another place, what went through your thoughts, if you can remember something?

MR GOOSEN: What I thought at that stage was that I was under the impression that the interrogation would be intensified and this would have been accompanied with intensified violence.

MR MALAN: What would have increased the risk if you stayed at Mamelodi?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I did not decide to move on to Pienaarsrivier, I don't know why they did not complete the assault at Mamelodi and why we drove to Pienaarsrivier.

MR MALAN: That is not the question. Why did you think that you were moving from Mamelodi to Pienaarsrivier?

MR GOOSEN: Because the assault would be intensified.

MR MALAN: What did that mean?

MR GOOSEN: That means he would have been assaulted in a rougher way and it would have been harder, rougher handling.

MR ROSSOUW: What is the result of that, could people then hear it suddenly or what? What makes the risks stronger?

MR GOOSEN: This person could start screaming and that would cause a risk that people would become aware of what was going on.

MR MALAN: But was there not a risk initially when you started hitting him, that he would scream? Was there no risk that he would scream then?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Well if he started screaming there, was the environment such that somebody could hear him, as far as you can remember?

MR GOOSEN: The possibility was that somebody could hear him screaming.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: On the same aspect, Mr Goosen, it's not far from Mamelodi that this open piece of veld was, would you say then - and I'm asking you based on your knowledge of what it looked like, that there was a possibility that other people could appear there, people from the public or policemen? Mamelodi at that time was a flash point, activists, there were boycotts?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Were there patrols by the police and the army?

MR GOOSEN: As far as I know, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: In other words, I'm asking you that because these are all probabilities why you would move to a remote quiet place.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You testified that Mr Prinsloo and Mr Momberg were involved in this assault. You describe the strangling at the Pienaarsrivier by Mr Prinsloo, can you remember whether other people participated in this assault?

MR GOOSEN: I can't remember.

MR ROSSOUW: Can your remember whether Mr Gouws and Mr Oosthuizen were involved in the interrogation and the assault?

MR GOOSEN: I can't remember.

MR ROSSOUW: My instructions are that they did not participate in the assault or in the interrogation. I'm just putting it to you, would you accept that?

MR GOOSEN: I accept that.

MR ROSSOUW: Then I want to refer you to a next point regarding the number of people involved. Can you give an explanation - the Security Branch executed an operation with one MK member there, you explained why so many people had to be involved, should other actions take place because of that. According to security legislation, could you give us an indication, if this MK member identified a specific safe-house where terrorists were housed, could you enter this house without an order, could you arrest people, could you do that?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Is that also an explanation why there were so many people involved?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And lastly, regarding the planting of the landmine, I accept that my clients are also not authorities or experts on explosives. My instructions are that as far as my clients can recollect, that the explosive was planted and the bus moved forwards, it drove a little way ahead. You said you planted it in front of the bus, but my clients remember that the bus moved forward, away from the landmine. In other words the landmine was at that back of the bus. That is their version.

MR GOOSEN: As far as I can remember, we travelled from west to east, away from the scene, that means that we were driving in the direction of Pretoria, after the landmine explosion and while we were busy with the preparations, we were doing it in the lights of the bus.

MR MALAN: You're saying from west to east, that would mean that you were moving in the direction of Pretoria, is that what I heard you saying? It doesn't sound right to me.

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, Chairperson. The road on which we came to a standstill was a road that went from east to west or west to east, in relation to north and south and Pretoria ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: But you didn't go from west to east as you said.

MR GOOSEN: Direction-wise, on the ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Yes, but direction is one direction. I assume you went West?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ROSSOUW: Right. And then as far as the planting of the landmine is concerned or the explosive device, you testified that you didn't plant it in the veld according to instruction, but in the road because you wanted the light. That is a deduction that my clients made. Isn't it also possible that you wanted to plant the landmine in the road to make it appear that the activist blew himself up, who was busy planting a landmine in the road?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, that is in fact the motive of myself and Lieutenant Momberg, to put it in the road so that perception would have existed when the scene was arrived at.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'll just give me one second.

Can I ask you lastly, during the interrogation, you said that Mr Prinsloo was in charge of the interrogation, did you get the impression that he had knowledge about this particular person and his activities?

MR GOOSEN: The person answered vaguely and evasively and it was clear that Captain Prinsloo could not recognise the person according to the information or that he was known as an MK member to him.

MR ROSSOUW: Right, I'm not going to take that further, let me just ask this. In the evidence of Brigadier Cronje, that you said you went through on this incident, did you see that he mentioned Mr du Plessis, a Captain du Plessis, who would have contacted him?

MR GOOSEN: I did take note of that fact, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you know who the person is, do you know him?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, Captain P C du Plessis was the commanding officer of Unit A, and according to my knowledge he was not part of this operation.

MR ROSSOUW: I'm asking this merely because my client's have no knowledge of such a person, and I'm merely putting it to you that they don't know who it is.

MR GOOSEN: I accept that.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Goosen, at the time of these occurrences, what unit were you in?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I was in Unit A.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the function of Unit A?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, white, coloured and Asian matters, suspects relating to that and then also structures, youth organisations and other relevant organisations such as the Transvaal Indian Congress, Nusas and so on.

MR PRINSLOO: You didn't work under Mr Prinsloo, your co-applicant, you went under his supervision and you've never worked with him, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were also not familiar with his methods of work?

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: So it would not have been correct for you to say that it was general practice from his side to say that they strangle people in order to obtain information?

MR GOOSEN: I did indicate it as such, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: This specific day, the happenings, whose custom would it have been then?

MR GOOSEN: I would say generally the Security Police.

JUDGE PILLAY: Including Mr Prinsloo's division?

MR GOOSEN: I wouldn't exclude that 100%.

MR PRINSLOO: These happenings, Mr Goosen, when did it take place, can you remember a specific time, date?

MR GOOSEN: Not a specific date. According to my recollection, approximately January to April 1986.

MR PRINSLOO: In that period, is it so that the struggle was very fierce, that there were many attacks by the ANC and its alliance SACP?

MR GOOSEN: That is in fact correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: There were various occurrences, where policemen were killed in assassinations, where landmines were planted and the struggle was fierce?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: At the time that you were at Compol and you got the instruction to go along that night, was Brigadier Cronje not present? Is that your testimony?

MR GOOSEN: At the reporting at Compol building, Brigadier Cronje was not there, we picked him up at his house in Erasmia.

MR PRINSLOO: And Lieutenant van Jaarsveld?

MR GOOSEN: Lieutenant van Jaarsveld - I must acknowledge I made some errors with people that I've already identified. The possibility that I incorrectly implicated Lieutenant van Jaarsveld is there, but according to my recollection of this incident, I'm convinced and I cannot exclude that Mr van Jaarsveld was present.

MR PRINSLOO: According to your knowledge, who would have arrested this person initially?

MR GOOSEN: According to my knowledge on this operation, it was an operation of Unit B, and the person who was interrogated was from Unit B.

MR PRINSLOO: And that would have been Lieutenant van Jaarsveld?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, at that stage he was the commanding officer of Unit B.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage, Lieutenant van Jaarsveld would have been Mr Prinsloo's senior, is that correct? - since he also had the rank of Lieutenant at that time.

MR GOOSEN: I think your client was already a Captain at that time.

MR PRINSLOO: My instruction is that at that time he was still a Lieutenant.

MR GOOSEN: That may be so.

MR PRINSLOO: And at that stage you already knew that the person you had picked up at Compol, the deceased in this case, according to information was an MK member and that he had information about where so-called safe-houses were and where fellow MK members could be hidden in Mamelodi?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, my knowledge was based on discussions made in the bus at the time of picking up Brigadier Cronje, and the journey to Silverton before Captain Prinsloo was met.

MR PRINSLOO: And in that time it would have been important for you to trace so-called safe-houses and MK members, in order to prevent them from continuing their terrorist activities?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: If they could not be traced or information obtained, the terrorist campaign would have been continued against the country, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So it was a very important investigation, it was important to trace those people?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And then you mention that Brigadier Cronje was picked up as well as Lieutenant Momberg.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. What I heard afterwards - if I may answer in this way, is that Brigadier Cronje phone Mr Momberg at his house, who I think also live in Erasmia, and then Lieutenant Momberg went to Brigadier Cronje's house and met us there.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Prinsloo, where did you meet him that particular night?

MR GOOSEN: According to my recollection at the Silverton Road Cafe, that is opposite the Pioneer's Museum, on the left-hand side of Pretorius Street.

MR PRINSLOO: You say in your recollection.

MR GOOSEN: That is how I can remember the situation where we met Captain Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you remember what vehicle he was in that night?

MR GOOSEN: No, I cannot.

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you that he was travelling in a white Sierra, a government vehicle, and he parked that vehicle at Silverton Police Station, where it was safe and that is where he was picked up. Can you deny that?

MR GOOSEN: I won't deny that.

MR PRINSLOO: This person, the deceased in this case, was taken along and he sat between Mr Prinsloo and Mr Momberg in the minibus.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, after we'd already left, on the way to Mamelodi, the person was allowed to climb over from the back.

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you that it is my instruction that Lieutenant van Jaarsveld was present in the minibus.

MR GOOSEN: I've already testified that according to my recollection of this incident, I put Lieutenant van Jaarsveld on the scene, but in my application with regard Sergeant Wouter Mentz I've already made a mistake and may also be making a mistake with van Jaarsveld, but I doubt it, I'm quite convinced that Lieutenant van Jaarsveld was present.

MR PRINSLOO: Now during the - Brigadier Cronje was present in the bus and he was the commanding officer.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, that is correct, he was also the commanding officer of the Security Branch Northern Transvaal.

MR PRINSLOO: And his instruction was that this person should identify the house, the safe-houses, as well as the MK members?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And this man was assaulted by Mr Prinsloo and Mr Momberg at the back of the bus?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, that is my own observation.

MR PRINSLOO: As a result of the fact that he didn't want to give information?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the information was that he did have positive information.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it was said that he did have this information and it came it light during interrogation that followed at the office.

MR PRINSLOO: And Brigadier Cronje or any other person who was senior to Momberg as well as Prinsloo, in no way said that the person should not be assaulted.

MR GOOSEN: In no way, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And as you understood it, such assault was approved in order to acquire the information?

MR GOOSEN: I did accept that it was approved, Chairperson, by Brigadier Cronje's silence in not stopping it.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, Brigadier Cronje gave this precise information and he accepted responsibility for it in his evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: I owe you thanks, Chairperson, I unfortunately was not present at that hearing.

Mr Goosen, the decision to take this person to Pienaarsrivier, the place where he was eventually blown up, whose decision was that?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I've already said in my evidence I really can't remember who pertinently gave that instruction or made the suggestion.

MR PRINSLOO: But it wasn't Prinsloo's decision or suggestion?

MR GOOSEN: I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you that at that stage the vicinity was unknown to him, can you argue with that?

MR GOOSEN: No, I cannot argue with that.

JUDGE PILLAY: How far is Pienaarsrivier from Mamelodi?

MR GOOSEN: Plus-minus 55 kilometres on the old road.

JUDGE PILLAY: What did you think when you were on the way, what was going to happen, why were you there?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, Pienaarsrivier area was also unknown to me, it was my first visit to this particular area. I was under the impression that the assault would be intensified to acquire the information about which this person was silent.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why Pienaarsrivier and not back to the offices?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I don't know who made the decision or why the decision was made to go to Pienaarsrivier for the continuation of the interrogation.

JUDGE PILLAY: Didn't you ask?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I was a Sergeant, there was a Brigadier, a Captain, Lieutenants and I doubt if I would have dared to ask that sort of question to my senior officers.

MR MALAN: I just want to make sure, you were about 22 years old?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, 22/23 years old.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Goosen, at that stage Mr Prinsloo was not involved with that specific investigation, Mr van Jaarsveld worked in a different division to him and he arrested that person, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr van Jaarsveld was responsible towards Brigadier Cronje, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I would assume that the planning was done by van Jaarsveld with Brigadier Cronje, and then this whole scenario would have taken place thereafter, that they decided on.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Goosen, when court directed identifications take place, then a person would have already have indicated that he wanted to identify a place and then an independent officer would have been used to observe those identifications.

MR GOOSEN: That is how I understood it in practice, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And here it was not the case, Mr Prinsloo was at that stage involved with the interrogation and there was no indication at that stage of what places would be identified.

MR GOOSEN: I assume that is correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Because if they knew in what places, they would have gone there?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So at that stage it was not in question, they wanted to trace terrorists and find the safe-houses, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Now insofar as it concerns the interrogation at Pienaarsrivier, you testified that the person was strangled, did it seem to you that he was dead?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, at the time of the strangling his legs were jerking stiffly and then the strangulation continued, the person became limp, he slid out of the vehicle onto the ground, and my observation of that was that the person would have been dead.

MR PRINSLOO: The impression could have been created as he lay there, that he was unconscious, do you agree with that?

MR GOOSEN: It may be that he was unconscious, I won't argue with that.

MR PRINSLOO: Could it have appeared that he was unconscious at that stage?

MR GOOSEN: I doubt it. I and Lieutenant Momberg carried the person to the landmine. I really could not see any sign of life in this person whom we carried as a body from the back to the front.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you feel his pulse to ascertain if he was still living?

MR GOOSEN: No, we didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: Did anybody do it?

MR GOOSEN: Not that I am aware of Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Where was Brigadier Cronje at that stage?

MR GOOSEN: He was in the ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Prinsloo, is it your client's case that the deceased was not dead at that time?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, my client will testify that the person appeared to be unconscious to him, but he said that he foresaw that he might die as a result of the strangulation and he might possibly have been dead, he won't it. So that is not his case. But it did appear to him that he might have been unconscious, according to him application.

JUDGE PILLAY: What is the point then?

MR PRINSLOO: The point is, with respect, what was the impression of the witness because it was my client's impression that he was unconscious at that stage. That was merely his impression, but he does not deny that he may have been dead and that his death was caused by the strangling. That was merely his impression, but he does not deny that he may have been dead and that his death was caused by the strangling.

You referred to an open piece of veld in Mamelodi, where was the deceased in the open piece of veld?

MR GOOSEN: The deceased at that stage was sitting in the back seat of the minibus.

MR PRINSLOO: Inside the minibus?

MR GOOSEN: Initially inside the minibus. At a stage he was outside of the minibus, he was taken outside where he was beaten and he was threatened that he must really give his co-operation.

MR PRINSLOO: Who took him out of the bus at Mamelodi in the open piece of ground?

MR GOOSEN: I presume - or as I saw it, Lieutenant Momberg and Captain Prinsloo continued with that interrogation.

MR PRINSLOO: You started by saying "I presume" and then you changed?

MR GOOSEN: I corrected myself.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you sure about these happenings?

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you sure that Mr Prinsloo took him out of the bus and hit him outside the bus and interrogated him?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. I would go so far as to say that Brigadier Cronje also made a threat towards the suspect, that for example: "Let's shoot his legs off in order to frighten him".

MR MALAN: You say "that for example", you said "Let's shoot his legs off", or was that the specific threat?

MR GOOSEN: That was the specific threat.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo will deny that he climbed out of the bus at Mamelodi and hit the man outside the bus.

MR GOOSEN: I stand by what I say, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: Where did he strangle him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, his evidence is that he was strangled inside the bus during the interrogation, while they were driving in Mamelodi and that the last time he was strangled was when he was taken out at Pienaarsrivier where the event took place, but no outside the bus except at Pienaarsrivier, only there was he strangled outside the bus.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, my recollection is that it did take place outside the bus. That is what remember, that is all that I can answer to these happenings.

MR MALAN: I don't really understand the terrible relevance of the inside or outside, but is it possible that the assault, that you might be confusing the assault outside at Pienaarsrivier with that outside the bus at Mamelodi?

MR GOOSEN: The possibility is there, it's 12/13 years ago, it is difficult.

MR MALAN: Excuse me, may I just ask you. You say you did read the evidence of Brigadier Cronje, can you remember that he said he had him blown up because the victim had been killed by the strangulation?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: In other words, according to Brigadier Cronje's evidence they wanted to get rid of the evidence of the body or the identification thereof because the victim was already dead.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, that is how I understood the instruction, that it concerned the destroying of the evidence of the body.

MR MALAN: But you weren't quite sure whether he was unconscious or dead.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, nobody certified the man as dead, nobody felt his pulse. I think each and everybody who was in the area of this lifeless body that lay on the ground all came to the realisation that this person must be dead, taking into account the manner of strangulation that had been applied.

MR MALAN: But in other words in your mind it wasn't a case of "we thought he might be unconscious"?

MR GOOSEN: Not really, not really in my mind, I was convinced that the man was dead.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to be much longer, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Just two more questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

At the time of this action, Mr Goosen, you all were bearing arms?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, we all had our service pistols or other weapons, we were all armed.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence, Mr Chairman. No further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will now take the adjournment until 2 o'clock.

ERIC GOOSEN: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: May it please you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Goosen, from your evidence and from answers on questions, it seems there is some uncertainty regarding the presence of Captain van Jaarsveld at this incident, is that so?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, that is correct. I can't say with 100% certainty whether Captain van Jaarsveld had been involved, but according to my knowledge he was involved in this incident.

MR MEINTJIES: If we look at this in greater detail, what was his role in this incident, if he was involved?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, Captain van Jaarsveld under these circumstances, would have been responsible for the picking up and bringing of the MK member and he would also have been involved in the interrogation. I specifically refer to refer to Unit B, under these circumstances.

MR MEINTJIES: Do you about this, or is it just speculation or an assumption that you are putting to the Committee?

MR GOOSEN: I am speculating.

MR MEINTJIES: If we look at this physical incident which you witnessed, what did Captain van Jaarsveld do?

MR GOOSEN: According to my knowledge, he drove the specific bus and he led this person from the Compol building to the bus and from where we left.

MR MEINTJIES: Any further actions executed by him during this whole process?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, Lieutenant van Jaarsveld did not participate in the assault and the interrogation.

MR MEINTJIES: If we look at Brigadier Cronje's evidence in his amnesty application, he refers pertinently to Captain du Plessis.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman. I can say unequivocally that Captain du Plessis only at the end of 1989, joined the Security Branch Northern Transvaal and he was then appointed as the commanding officer of Unit A. The previous commanding officer in 1986, of Unit A at the Security Branch, was a Captain Frik Blaauw.

MR MEINTJIES: In other words, Brigadier Cronje makes a mistake when he refers to Captain du Plessis?

MR GOOSEN: I assume that, yes.

MR MEINTJIES: If we look at the amnesty applications of Gouws and Oosthuizen, who are co-applicants, they also do not mention Captain van Jaarsveld.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MEINTJIES: Is it then not probable that it could have been another person from the Security Branch, who had been involved?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, on this question whether the probability is there and on the same name, Captain Prinsloo also implicated Captain van Jaarsveld.

MR MEINTJIES: But you would agree that there is confusion regarding Captain van Jaarsveld and other people who were involved in this incident?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, I've already agreed that regarding Wouter Mentz, I've made a mistake, I confused him with Andre Oosthuizen. I can say with 100% certainty that Brigadier Cronje was there, I was there, Lieutenant Momberg, Captain Prinsloo, Sergeant Gouws and apart from that, Mamasela was there and apart from those it was brought under my attention that I confused Oosthuizen with Wouter Mentz. I can't say with certainty that van Jaarsveld was there, but according to the best of my knowledge and as far as I can recollect he was involved in this incident.

MR MEINTJIES: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Can I just as a follow-up question? If you can remember he drove the bus and you can remember he led this person and drove away in the bus, why are you not 100% certain that he was involved?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, according to me, Lieutenant van Jaarsveld was involved in this incident.

MR MALAN: Why are you qualifying your answer? That is why I'm asking.

MR GOOSEN: For the simple reason that I've already made a wrong implication regarding Wouter Mentz, where I've confused him with Andre Oosthuizen and because of that reason I believe and I am convinced, and I can say with full certainty that van Jaarsveld was involved.

MR MALAN: So why do you want to qualify that, that's is the question. It is put to you, is it possible that you're made a mistake, and you say yes, why?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, apart from those of whom I am certain were there, other people could also have been present in this bus, people I can't remember.

MR MALAN: Yes, but you remember van Jaarsveld was involved, you remember Mamasela was there.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Aren't you making a mistake with him?

MR GOOSEN: With whom?

MR MALAN: Mamasela.

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: Is it the position then that you think that van Jaarsveld was the driver of the minibus and you believe that, but you say that you could possibly be wrong?

MR GOOSEN: According to my knowledge, Lieutenant van Jaarsveld drove that specific bus and he was involved in this specific incident.

JUDGE PILLAY: You are then certain about that?

MR GOOSEN: As far as I can recollect this incident. JUDGE PILLAY: This is why I've put the question like that, Mr Goosen. You've mentioned a few names and you're categorised those names and you've said those people you have no doubt of at all, van Jaarsveld you excluded from that core group.

MR GOOSEN: Simply Mr Chairman, I am not 100% sure with the facts which I have now, that Lieutenant van Jaarsveld was there or that he was the driver of the vehicle, but according to my knowledge, according to my recollection it was van Jaarsveld who drove the bus and he was involved in this incident.

JUDGE PILLAY: Let me put it in this way, the bus did not go all by itself, somebody drove the bus, you think it was van Jaarsveld.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: I just want to try once more to see whether there is confusion. Did you go on another operation with Brigadier Cronje, on another occasion?

MR GOOSEN: Not on a similar action.

MR MALAN: So you can remember him specifically, because that was the only operation with him. Were you on a similar operation with Prinsloo?

MR GOOSEN: Yes.

MR MALAN: You're operated more than once with Prinsloo?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: With Momberg we know that, and with Gouws?

MR GOOSEN: That is also correct.

MR MALAN: And with van Jaarsveld, more than once?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Is it possible then that all you remember about van Jaarsveld, according to you, is that he led the person from the building to the bus and that he drove the bus, why do you remember it that it happened during that incident and not during another incident, when he led a person from the house and drove the vehicle?

MR GOOSEN: This is how I remember that specific incident.

MR MALAN: Can you distinguish this incident from who drove the bus, can you distinguish it from other incidents?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I can.

MR MALAN: So you can clearly remember every individual incident?

MR GOOSEN: Regarding my application, yes, in most of the cases I can remember or identify the driver of the specific vehicle.

MR NEL: Thank you.

JUDGE PILLAY: That security guard who was hit and who according to your van Jaarsveld said had to be killed, who was the driver of that vehicle? Let's put it this way, was it the same bus which was used?

MR GOOSEN: I can't say with certainty that it was exactly the same but being used in both incidents.

JUDGE PILLAY: Can you remember who drove that bus?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I can remember, it was Captain Hechter, and I also testified in this regard yesterday.

MR MALAN: Did you also testify yesterday regarding whose bus it was?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, no, I did not testify about that.

MR MALAN: Do you to whom this bus belonged?

MR GOOSEN: It belonged to Unit B.

MR MALAN: And yesterday's bus?

MR GOOSEN: It also belonged to Unit B.

MR MALAN: Did they have more than once of these buses?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Unit B had three or four of these vehicles.

MR MALAN: Identical buses?

MR GOOSEN: Some of them were Hi-Ace buses, Toyota's, the others perhaps were Nissans. I can't say with certainty which buses were used. The Unit C also had two uses, if my memory serves me right.

MR MALAN: The same type of buses with the same number of seats?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct, but Unit A did not have these types of buses.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, if I perhaps if I could be allowed to just put by client's version to the applicant please.

Mr Goosen, you have now testified and it forces me to put it to you that my client's version or instructions to me are that he was not involved in this incident and that he does not know anything about that.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, I accept that.

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Mr Goosen, I beg your pardon, I don't think we understand your answer.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, I am not going to become involved in an argument based on stated facts that his client denies that he had been involved and he does not know anything about this incident. I accept his version, but I stand by what I have testified here. I accept the statement he made, this is what I'm trying to say.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR GOOSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Goosen, just to follow up on this last aspect, I just want to put it to you as I understand it, as I understand your evidence. Deon Gouws and Andre Oosthuizen and Brigadier Cronje and Hendrik Prinsloo, there is no dispute in this hall whether they were there or not, they were there.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: And I think there is no dispute regarding Joe Mamasela, although I'm not sure about that.

MR GOOSEN: I don't know whether there is a dispute regarding that, but according to my knowledge he was there.

MR DU PLESSIS: But he's not here to say that he had not been there. The only person regarding whom, according to your evidence, there is a dispute is van Jaarsveld.

MR GOOSEN: It appears to be so.

MR DU PLESSIS: According to your evidence I understood that van Jaarsveld's position differs from the others, because there is a dispute regarding him being there and you say that we have to accept that this has happened 13 years ago and you could have made a mistake.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Goosen, you've read Brigadier Cronje's evidence regarding van Jaarsveld's involvement, are you convinced that Cronje had made a mistake regarding the involvement of Captain du Plessis?

MR GOOSEN: I think so, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: When he testified there were no other applicants, there were discussions with the people present here today, he had to just recollect that from memory. As far as there is now a conflict between your evidence and his evidence, I would just like to know what the conclusion can be and the conclusion is that he made a mistake.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You've also seen his evidence regarding the fact that the MK member was killed by chance and that was not the purpose or the motive of this operation.

MR GOOSEN: I took note of that, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't understand your testimony to be that you dispute that.

MR GOOSEN: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Goosen, you were all involved there, everybody knew that an interrogation was taking place and was accompanied by assault.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do I understand your evidence that you all, or that you at least but perhaps all the others, accepted that this assault probably could lead to the death of this person.

MR GOOSEN: That probability always exists.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also reconciled yourself with that possibility.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR DU PLESSIS: You accepted that that could happen?

MR GOOSEN: I accepted that.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you still ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: What kind of assault would it have been where the possibility of eventual death was there?

MR GOOSEN: You have like the eggshell situation where a slight knock against his head can lead to his death and another person with 50 hard blows to the head and not die. The strengthening of this assault then, according to my opinion, this could lead to eventual death.

JUDGE PILLAY: Let us forget about this eggshell example, let's just look at the ordinary man in the street and let us look at what experience teaches us. What kind of assault would lead to the eventual death of a person?

MR GOOSEN: Serious bodily harm, violent blows against the head, possibly violent blows against the throat, these are the types of assaults which can lead to eventual death.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you carry weapons?

MR GOOSEN: During the assault on the body of the activist? No, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: So what was the nature of the assault?

MR GOOSEN: As I've said, the assault in the kombi while he was sitting between Momberg and Prinsloo, was hard blows with the open hand against the fact and hitting with elbows in his upper body. This person kept on denying or gave us misleading intelligence and this assault was strengthened and eventually he was strangled. It escalated from blows against the head to strangling.

JUDGE PILLAY: You are talking again about hard blows against the face, or a slap against the face with an open hand and hitting him with the elbows. Did you expect that somebody would die from that type of assault?

MR GOOSEN: The initial assault in the bus after the first three quarters of an hour, while we were driving around Mamelodi, the assault with the blows against he head and the body, I was not under the impression that that could have led to his death.

JUDGE PILLAY: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Goosen, you can't remember whether Hechter was involved?

MR GOOSEN: According to me Hechter was not involved in this incident.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no re-examination.

MR MALAN: I just want to come back to the time when you stopped in the open veld. You took cognisance that Brigadier Cronje - I don't know how often I'm going to say General, that he did not refer to that in his evidence.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I'm aware that Brigadier Cronje did not refer to us stopping in the open veld near Mamelodi.

MR MALAN: And you said you left there because risks were entailed because the person could scream.

MR GOOSEN: There was a degree of risk.

MR MALAN: That risk, was that not there when you took him from the bus, couldn't he start screaming then?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: Now when did you decide it was a risk?

MR GOOSEN: I can answer in this way. The decision was taken and the perception was there that the assault would be intensified to such a degree that the risk would then be incurred and it would have been better to go to a remote place where this intensive interrogation could be continued.

MR MALAN: And according to your evidence you said that you went to the Pienaarsrivier, it's about 55 kilometres from there, why to that area specifically? Was it an area well-known to you?

MR GOOSEN: The Pienaarsrivier environment was unknown to me as an individual, but it was known to some of the members present, amongst others, Brigadier Cronje.

MR MALAN: How long had Brigadier Cronje been commanding officer when this incident took place?

MR GOOSEN: About two-and-a-half years.

MR MALAN: Had he then already been there for two-and-a-half years, in the beginning of 1986? When did he come there, was it '86 or '87?

MR GOOSEN: I think he assumed his duties at the Security Branch in 1986, but his whole term of office while I worked under him, was about two/two-and-a-half years.

MR MALAN: Where did he come from?

MR GOOSEN: From Security Headquarters, where he was a commanding officer of Vlakplaas.

MR MALAN: And did he know the area because of other activities of former times?

MR GOOSEN: I can't answer, give a concrete answer.

MR MALAN: So he led you to this place, or don't you know?

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, I can't remember who proposed that we move to Pienaarsrivier. I don't know on whose initiative and whose knowledge we made this decision, I can't remember that.

MR MALAN: This area in the Pienaarsrivier, do you know where you went to? Did you go to a farm?

MR GOOSEN: This environment and the road on which we were travelling was like a farm area, it was a rural area. It was a gravel road we travelled on.

MR MALAN: Was it a secondary national road or was it a gravel road?

MR GOOSEN: It was a kind of a secondary road, but it was a gravel road.

MR MALAN: Did you stop on this road, on this road where other vehicles could pass?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And at what time was that, what time did the incident take place?

MR GOOSEN: Captain Prinsloo, we met him round about 8 o'clock in Silverton. We moved to Mamelodi. The identification took three quarters of an hour, then the assaults started. We remained for a while in Mamelodi and then we moved to Pienaarsrivier. I guess it was about 11 o'clock, between 11 or 12 that night.

MR MALAN: And there are no vehicles on a public road at that time of the evening?

MR GOOSEN: At that specific stage there was no traffic on that road.

MR MALAN: I'm referring to the concept of risk, because you said you left the open veld near Mamelodi because there was a risk of patrols and of people who could hear this person screaming and the safe place which you chose was a public road?

MR GOOSEN: I did not make the decision to go to that place.

MR MALAN: I understand that, but your impression was that you moved to a place where there was a smaller risk, that was the conclusion you came to.

MR GOOSEN: That was my observation of the gravel road.

MR MALAN: In other words, objectively seen, your observation was that it is safer to stop on a secondary road, a large gravel road, to continue with interrogation, to blow up a body, rather than do it near Mamelodi in an open veld.

MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, the road seemed to be remote. This is how I observed it. It was a remote gravel road. It was between various farm, there were no farm houses in the vicinity. As I saw it, it was quite a safe place to stop and continue with the interrogation.

MR MALAN: It's still a public road. Was it a farm road?

MR GOOSEN: I don't know whether it was a public road. It was not a single gravel road, two vehicles could move there.

MR MALAN: Do you know whether it was a property under control of the Security Branch?

MR GOOSEN: Not according to my knowledge.

MR MALAN: You don't know why you specifically went to that spot and you're not certain whether it was public or private land.

MR GOOSEN: It had to be a public road. I can't describe it as a secondary public road. I can concede that it was a remote public road.

MR MALAN: And you never asked why we will be travelling to 55 kilometres to continue with the interrogation, nobody posed this question.

MR GOOSEN: I did not pose that question simply because I was one of the most junior in this vehicle, and secondly, nobody else questioned this decision to move to the Pienaarsrivier.

MR MALAN: The deceased, the victim, he was still alive when you travelled to the Pienaarsrivier?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Was he perhaps unconscious?

MR GOOSEN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Did he give you answers at any stage?

MR GOOSEN: During the discussions in the bus I can't say with certainty whether he gave answers. At the Pienaarsrivier he was still alive and he gave answers to Captain Prinsloo.

MR MALAN: And at Mamelodi?

MR GOOSEN: At Mamelodi he also gave us answers and he was still alive.

MR MALAN: And you heard the answers?

MR GOOSEN: I heard the answers.

MR MALAN: You testified that you were standing behind Mr Prinsloo, that was at Pienaarsrivier, were the other people all standing there? Were you all together during the assault, or did some people move away?

MR GOOSEN: Some people were standing at the open door on one side of the bus outside the vehicle. I can't remember whether there were any individuals inside the bus, but most of us got out of the vehicle at Pienaarsrivier. I was standing at the back of the bus together with Lieutenant Momberg, Prinsloo was busy with the interrogation, other people were standing at the sliding door of the bus.

MR MALAN: And the last question, how long did that interrogation last before he was strangled?

MR GOOSEN: I can't remember the exact time that this interrogation took.

MR MALAN: A minute, 10 minutes, half an hour?

MR GOOSEN: No, it would have been about between 15 minutes and half an hour.

MR MALAN: And you were standing there all the time?

MR GOOSEN: Yes, I was standing at the back of the bus.

MR MALAN: You were behind Mr Prinsloo?

MR GOOSEN: That's correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I have a similar problem. As I understand your evidence the purpose of taking this man was for him to point out houses in Mamelodi.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say he was evasive about doing this, he said he couldn't remember and gave various excuses.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it didn't only concern the identification of safe-houses, it also dealt with pointed out where infiltrated MK members would be housed and also these identifications would have been made by this person, but each time he acted evasively, or he didn't remember the area, or he couldn't place the house anymore, or the general area was unknown to him, where he took during these identifications.

CHAIRPERSON: And you wanted to force him to do this?

MR GOOSEN: I think that was the overall motive, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well why did they take him 55 kilometres away from where they wanted him to point out houses, to identify things?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, at that stage with the interrogation that had already taken place and the concomitant assault, no relevant information to the effect of any identifications were acquired from the MK member and then the decision was made that the interrogation would be continued at another point other than Mamelodi, to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but if you wanted to get information from him about identifications, why take him 55 kilometres away?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I don't know why the decision was made to go to Pienaarsrivier, 55 kilometres outside Pretoria. I honestly today to not know who or why that decision was made.

CHAIRPERSON: Because there are many places closer to Pretoria, aren't there?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Goosen, many of your answers are bound to the fact that you do not have knowledge of why certain things were done, who would know about that?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, with the initial planning I wasn't present.

JUDGE PILLAY: I'm asking who can you refer to, to give answers to those questions.

MR GOOSEN: I would have to call to the Commanding Officer of the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, by the name of Brigadier Jack Cronje.

JUDGE PILLAY: Would you agree - I don't have knowledge of the offices where you worked, but I understand that of all the offices of the Security Police in the country, it is very difficult to walk in there, the security at those offices are tip top and members of the public cannot simply walk in there like a normal shop, is that correct?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, and the offices are also manned by members of the guard unit, who also contribute to the security at these offices.

JUDGE PILLAY: As I understand your testimony this man was taken to Pienaarsrivier to decrease the risk, but would the offices of the Security Police not have been better, being of less risk?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it may be so, it may be like that, but on the other hand the guard unit staff are present at the Compol building. They are an equally big risk should the involvement in the assault of such a person come to their knowledge by means of shouting, and there is an incident book in which entries are made. So I really doubt in this situation, that we would have returned to the offices to continue the interrogation there.

JUDGE PILLAY: Was nobody ever hit at the security offices where you worked, at the office?

MR GOOSEN: Not that I am personally aware of or involved in.

JUDGE PILLAY: In the whole time that you worked there?

MR GOOSEN: I would have to say I must give evidence on hearsay that it did happen from time to time, but on specific incidents and what activists were involved, I would have to speculate.

JUDGE PILLAY: Now tell me, I also get the impression that the subordinates of this branch did not know the names of the people or the addresses where they lived, but they hit them and killed them. Who would be able to tell us who these people were? - names, addresses.

MR GOOSEN: In this specific situation I think that Unit B's staff would be empowered to do so, the best equipped to do so, to make the possible identification of this MK member.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Cronje again? Would that be Cronje?

MR GOOSEN: I'm convinced that when the submission was made to Brigadier Cronje, all full relevant information would have been made available to him, including the names of the suspect.

JUDGE PILLAY: What about Mr Prinsloo, he was head of a division?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, Captain Prinsloo was not involved in the initial planning according to my recollection, we only picked him up afterwards on the way to Mamelodi, at Silverton. So the initial discussions that were conducted about who this person would be, I don't think it was initially known to him, but I think the name was made known to him at a stage when he joined the group and we were on the way to Mamelodi.

JUDGE PILLAY: He would surely have known who he was talking to when he interrogated someone.

MR GOOSEN: I assume so, yes, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: now if there was a plan that you knew of or not to kill this man, who would have knowledge of that?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the information that was made known to me, what was told to me, was that the elimination of this person was not in question at all on the way to Mamelodi.

The purpose of the visit and the interrogation of this person was related to the identification of premises, the identification of houses where MK members could have been houses and other general background information. I think that was the purpose, to gather information from this individual, rather than to kill him.

JUDGE PILLAY: That is as far as you are concerned?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: But we must remember that explosives were also taken with, ultimately with the idea of blowing some up, killing him.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I can't say with certainty that the explosives present in the bus was meant specifically for the elimination or destroying of a body.

JUDGE PILLAY: It was surely not to enable the vehicle to go?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: Now who would have knowledge of that to come and tell us how these plans worked?

MR GOOSEN: Brigadier Cronje testified that it was standard practice for members of his Unit B to have explosives in the vehicles from time to time, for him as commanding officer it was not unusual if it was there. I really don't think that I can give you an expert answer about the presence of the explosives and what the actual purpose of the explosives were in the bus. The explosives present in the bus only came to my personal attention at Pienaarsrivier for the first time.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Goosen, one last question. Wasn't this man killed out of frustration?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I wouldn't describe it as frustration. That Captain van Jaarsveld felt frustrated about the interrogation that it didn't bear fruit, that is surely so.

JUDGE PILLAY: You probably Mr Prinsloo.

MR GOOSEN: Yes, Captain Prinsloo. But that the increase in the assault and the strangulation specifically was just another means during interrogation to let this person realise that we were serious and that he might really have to give his co-operation and give us information.

JUDGE PILLAY: And it is expected that after this strangling that he would at least say something?

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: And at that stage was the expectation that he would be killed?

MR GOOSEN: I don't think it was the initial purpose of Captain Prinsloo's strangulation to kill him by strangling him.

JUDGE PILLAY: Thank you.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: ...(indistinct) Mr Chairman, I think there's one aspect that was raised now that I may be able to shed some light on with reference to previous evidence. And if I can just put a question to the witness please, thank you.

Mr Goosen, in previous evidence before the Commission, with the Cronje hearings, Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter testified that it was general use to have landmines, limpet mines and arms with them in the buses or in the vehicles for operations. Does this agree with what you wanted to convey to the Committee?

MR GOOSEN: That is so, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, on page 17, I think, of the evidence - not I think, page 17 of the evidence you will find the portion of Brigadier Cronje's evidence in this regard, where he was asked about it and where he ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR DU PLESSIS: ... page 17 of the evidence of Brigadier Cronje. I can't remember what exhibit that was.

CHAIRPERSON: We haven't given it a number yet, I don't think. We'll call it B.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. You will see he testifies there, he says:

I just wanted to clear up that. Judge Wilson, perhaps you will recall, I think Hechter testified that quite in detail at the previous hearing as well. Thank you.

MR MALAN: Excuse me, Mr du Plessis.

Mr Goosen, the answer has now got me on another road because I asked you the same question about the limpet mines and the landmines and handgrenades and arms that were in the bag, and you said it was there on other occasions, but your memory says it was not the rule. Didn't you answer me to that effect when I asked the question?

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I answered you by saying that in this regard I was unaware of it, but in the past it had happened from time to time that some of the members had explosives in the vehicles. For what the sanctioning ...(indistinct) they were, I couldn't comment on that, and why it was approved I can comment even less.

MR MALAN: But one has to make deductions, and I just read the evidence to which Mr du Plessis referred. As I understood it, it was standard practice to drive with these explosives because it might be necessary to enable the reaction immediately, or to launch an action if information was acquired.

I think yesterday he testified, Brigadier Cronje, that people were chosen to fight, because if you get information you hit immediately and if there is an identification you go and fetch the guy, which probably explains why there were so many people, why all were heavily armed or fully armed as you said, that the aim was in fact to get identifications and possibly to launch immediate action.

MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I did testify that that possibility for immediate action did indeed exist to my knowledge.

MR MALAN: Yes, which then means that the evidence concerning the regular availability, the standard availability of such things, for example to use a limpet mine to blow something up or to throw handgrenades, that that is part of that immediate follow-up action, that there is credibility in such a statement.

MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, and it probably did happen from time to time. I wasn't involved in one incident where an MK member's house was identified, where Russian origin weaponry was used to carry out the operation of taking out the MK member. That is why I answered in ignorance as to the general use of the presence of such things in vehicles. I have to concede that.

MR MALAN: Thank you, then that solves my problem.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR ALBERTS: I think so, thank you, Mr Chairman.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------JOHANNES WILLEM MOMBERG: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Full names please.

MR MOMBERG: Willem Johannes Momberg.

EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Mr Momberg, you sat here and listened all day to the evidence of Mr Goosen, and you are applying for amnesty for precisely the same incident, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And is it correct to say that broadly speaking you and he agree concerning the happenings, the occurrences around this incident?

MR MOMBERG: As far as the broad details are concerned, yes.

MR ALBERTS: For record purposes can you confirm that the parts of your application for amnesty that are relevant to this incident are contained in bundle 3, the general introductory part from page 553 to page 581, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

Are you familiar with the contents of those pages?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR MOMBERG: I confirm it.

MR ALBERTS: The incident itself is dealt with on page 596 up to page 604, in the same bundle, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: We will get to that now. Then on page 646 and further, up to page 650, that's the concluding part which is relevant?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness of the contents of that?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Right. Can we come back to page 596. Here you also give the time during which this incident took place, it was approximately January to April 1986, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: What happened in this occurrence you find on the next page, that is 597, can you start there and briefly tell the Committee what your version is.

MR MOMBERG:

MR ALBERTS: What time did you receive this call?

MR MOMBERG: Approximately half past five that afternoon.

MR ALBERTS: And after that?

MR MOMBERG:

MR ALBERTS: Now this detention, Sergeant Goosen referred to as an informal detention which was technically unlawful, do you agree with his opinion on that?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson. What they meant was that the man was brought in for questioning, he hadn't been formally charged or detained formally.

MR ALBERTS: Can you continue.

MR MOMBERG: When I arrived at Brigadier Cronje's house I ...(intervention)

JUDGE PILLAY: Did they intend charging him?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I cannot comment on that at this stage. When Brigadier Cronje contacted me he just said that Unit B had the man and that he had to go and point out things in Mamelodi. Whether the intention was that he would be charged afterwards, would probably depend on the information that came up.

MR ALBERTS: Would you please continue.

MR MOMBERG:

MR ALBERTS: I just want to interrupt you, Mr Momberg. You will now have a chance, just now, to think again about the reliability of your memory, but let's get to the point immediately, Sergeant Mentz amongst others, what is your attitude now towards the allegation on page 597?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, as in Sergeant Goosen's case, later after we submitted these applications we noticed that we had made a mistake by implicating Sergeant Mentz, and that in fact we actually referred to Sergeant Andre Oosthuizen.

MR ALBERTS: Now you heard that Mr Goosen's explanation was that he simply confused them, owing to the fact that he thought that at that time, at that specific time they were members of the Murder and Robbery Unit.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson, I agree with that, that that is where the confusion could have arisen. We did not on a very regular basis work with Murder and Robbery and we could have confused these people, yes.

MR ALBERTS: Right. Now you're mentioning another name about which you have also thought in the meantime, and that is the name of Sergeant Tiny Coetzer, what is your attitude now in this regard?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I think I implicated Tiny Coetzer erroneously and with the knowledge available to me now and with the refreshing of my memory, I could to some extent determine why I did that and it was in fact because at previous occasions I had driven the same road with Tiny Coetzer during the day, and the fact that the incident also took place on that road could have let me think that he might have been involved in this incident, which was incorrect.

MR ALBERTS: Right. ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: The same road, which road are you talking about?

MR MOMBERG: That is the Pienaarsrivier.

MR MALAN: Pienaarsrivier.

MR MOMBERG: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Now you continue on page 597, by mentioning that there was a possibility that other people were there, but you weren't sure about that, is that at present still the position?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson, it's as if there's something there that there was someone else, but I cannot for the life of me say who it was and if it was in fact so.

MR ALBERTS: Now lastly, in the second paragraph on page 597, you mention an unknown black man in the bus and you say that you assumed that this was the MK member involved, that Brigadier Cronje mentioned earlier on.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson. On my arrival at Brigadier Cronje's house I did not see the black man at first and only when I walked closer to the minibus I saw that there was person lying right at the back in the back seat, in fact between the seat and the back door of the bus.

MR ALBERTS: Now what took place after you left Brigadier Cronje's house?

MR MOMBERG:

MR ALBERTS: And then, did he sit on the seat?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, we let him sit between myself and Captain Prinsloo on the back seat of the bus.

MR ALBERTS: Then according to your application, between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock you arrived in Mamelodi.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Will you please continue.

MR MOMBERG:

CHAIRPERSON: I don't want to interfere with your leading of evidence, but is it necessary to read out all of this, can't he merely confirm certain portions and merely deal with those that are in issue?

MR ALBERTS: I will try and limit the evidence to that, Mr Chairman.

Do you agree with the aim of this visit to Mamelodi, as set out further in this application, namely that it was to make identifications and to acquire further information relating to that?

MR MOMBERG: I agree with that, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: You already know what Mr Goosen testified to that, do you agree with what he said?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: If we carry on to the next page, that is 599 of the application, there you tell the story of what actually started happening with the attempts to make identifications in Mamelodi. As Mr Goosen said you also say that the outcome was that you felt that you were being misled by this MK member, owing to his inability to do what he was in fact taken there to do.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson. I would go further and say that we could determine that he was busy misleading us because as a result, and this refers once again back to the reference in my application where I said that I could deduce from discussions what the MK member's task and purpose was and what happened then while we were in the minibus, it was clear to us that he was busy misleading us and that he was doing his best to avoid identifying any safe-houses and other places.

MR ALBERTS: And if I understand your application correctly, that state of affairs gave rise to the fact that you amongst others, assaulted him, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And also Captain Prinsloo?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Can you say shortly what was the nature of the assault at that stage, initially?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, the assault at that stage was limited, as already testified, fist blows on the fact, elbow on the upper body, in the limited space that was there with three people of the bus. So it wasn't a severe assault.

JUDGE PILLAY: ...(indistinct)

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I saw my role as supportive of Captain Prinsloo, who took the lead with the interrogation. Firstly, while this man was being interrogated, to keep him off balance, not to give him a chance to think of answers, not to give him a chance to gather his wits.

MR ALBERTS: And would that be with regard to his active misleading as you've already said?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, that was also a result of his misleading tactics that we started trying to get him to leave these tactics and to give his co-operation.

MR ALBERTS: Now we know that what happened afterwards was that the scene changed somewhat to a relatively empty piece of open ground or veld in the immediate vicinity of Mamelodi, do you agree with that?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And there you get the impression that the level of aggression in the interrogation and the assault increased somewhat, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: To an extent yes, Chairperson. At that stage when we stopped there, we realised, or I got the feeling that we were now at a point where we would have to convince this man to give his co-operation and as such we spoke hard to him and the assault was intensified.

MR ALBERTS: And did this have any positive fruits?

MR MOMBERG: No, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Now what happened next, what was the next step?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, to the best of my knowledge we then got back into the minibus, after the man had been told that he would be given a last chance to give his co-operation, and we followed some of the same routes again in Mamelodi.

JUDGE PILLAY: But what did you mean by "his last chance"?

MR MOMBERG: It was a threat, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: What would he have thought?

MR MOMBERG: He should have thought that what happened to him up till now was very mild compared to the extent that we would go with this type of interrogation.

JUDGE PILLAY: Does that include killing him?

MR MOMBERG: No, not at this stage, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: The question is, what should he have thought, should he have thought that he's getting a chance to talk or he would be killed?

MR MOMBERG: Not necessarily killed. I can't say what he should have thought, Chairperson. What we wanted to achieve was that this man should realise that what had happened to him up till now could become worse.

MR MALAN: Yes, how bad, that he could be killed?

MR MOMBERG: The possibility should possibly have been foreseen, but at that stage that wasn't my observation.

MR MALAN: You don't understand the question correctly. we don't ask if you had the intention of killing him, we are asking if he could have deduced from this threat that he might be killed?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: That was a simple question, but you say he should have had that in his head as well, that if he didn't talk he might be killed, to get him to talk.

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Momberg, we now know that what happened after that was that the vehicle with everybody inside drove to a certain place in the Pienaarsrivier vicinity.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And it is clear from your application that it took place in an isolated farm environment.

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson, it was a rural area.

MR ALBERTS: Can you briefly just inform the Committee what happened there after you arrived there.

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, on the road that we have already testified to, when we stopped most of the people got out of the bus, the MK member was taken out of the bus to the back of the bus where Captain Prinsloo still took the lead with the interrogation, or continued the interrogation.

During this interrogation the man was again assaulted by hitting him, by pushing him around and at a stage in that process, Captain Prinsloo then also grabbed him around the throat and started strangling him in order to put the man in an uncomfortable position, because I think someone who has a lack of oxygen will start struggling, and Captain Prinsloo pushed the man back into the back baggage compartment, the boot of the bus. This strangulation continued until the man became limp and ended up on the ground.

MR ALBERTS: Now did you take part in that part of the assault in Pienaarsrivier?

MR MOMBERG: No, Chairperson, I was not part of the assault there.

MR ALBERTS: Now we have already heard Mr Goosen's account concerning the happenings thereafter, namely that you and he received an instruction from Brigadier Cronje, do you also remember it as such?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: What was the nature of the instruction?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, Brigadier Cronje told, instructed me and Goosen to take a landmine which was in the vehicle and prepare it for detonation. When he gave this instruction, Brigadier Cronje was standing at the side door of the bus and with a hand gesture and with a movement of his head he showed a sports bag to me, which was inside the bus.

I then - the bag was in the far side of the bus, on the far side of the side door, I pulled it closer to me and felt that it was quite a heavy bag, I opened it and saw that there were various explosive devices in this bag. Apart from the landmine, I can remember that there were limpet mines and also a few handgrenades, how many I can't remember precisely.

MR ALBERTS: Now how did you carry out this instruction of Brigadier Cronje further?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I took this landmine and a capped fuse, I took these and walked away from the bus, in the lights of the bus. I would say approximately 15 to 20 metres away from the bus, in the light of the bus I prepared the landmine for detonation. This preparation included to see whether this landmine would have any affects that could influence the explosion and whether the capped fuse was proper and was properly attached.

MR ALBERTS: And were you assisted by Mr Goosen during this process?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson, Mr Goosen was with me.

MR ALBERTS: And what did you do when the preparation with the landmine was completed?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, we walked back to the bus, the prepared landmine with the capped fuse on one side next to it. We put it down in front of the bus, still in the lights of the bus. Brigadier Cronje then gave us an instruction to make sure that we destroyed the body so that identification would not be possible.

I and Sergeant Goosen then went to the back of the bus where this black person was lying on his back. We picked him up, Goosen on the foot end and myself on the shoulders, the upper end of the body and we carried him from the back of the bus to the front of the bus where the landmine was.

Thereafter we turned the body around so that the body's stomach was at the bottom and the head and hands were positions on top of the landmine. I then instructed Sergeant Goosen to go back to the bus. He walked away from me. I took the capped fuse and put it into the landmine, made sure that it couldn't slip out. I looked around to see if the bus was at a safe distance away.

According to my recollection the bus was in that stage in the process of turning and I was satisfied that they were far enough away to be safe, but close enough for me to get to the bus easily enough after I had lit the capped fuse. I did this then and I walked away from this scene towards the bus and climbed in. The bus then moved away slowly. We went around a slight turn and to me it was as if it took a little bit long for this explosion to take place and I started looking back. I became a bit worried.

If I can just explain here, a capped fuse time factor is determined according to the length of the fuse. If I remember correctly, 15 centimetres gives you approximately a minute's time, but I'm speaking under correction. But in any case it started to feel a bit long and I looked back. It's difficult to say, one or two seconds after I looked back the explosion took place. I first saw the glow and then I heard the bang. We then went back to Pretoria.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Momberg, can I just ask you a few more questions. At the time when Captain Prinsloo was busy with the interrogation at the Pienaarsrivier leg of this operation, if I can express it as such, where did you take up your position relative to the interrogation of this MK person?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, this interrogation took a while and at certain given times I was behind, to one side, almost next to Captain Prinsloo, then I would have moved away and moved back, but in the process, at the time when the strangulation took place I was behind to one side of Captain Prinsloo.

MR ALBERTS: And did you observe how he strangled this person?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Now what was your observation during this strangling process, did you at any stage realise that if it was a, if they continued with this strangling that a possible death could take place?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson, when I started noticing that it was really carrying on for a long time, then I realised that the person could die.

MR ALBERTS: And was that apparent to everybody present there that were looking at what was going on? They would have seen the same as what you saw, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, to a large extent, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Now did anybody in this company, did anybody make any attempt to stop the strangling?

MR MOMBERG: At no stage, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions at this stage. Excuse me, Mr Chairman, can I just for purposes of caution, ask one more?

Mr Momberg, you haven't - this schedule in which this evidence is contained, you haven't read everything out orally, will you just confirm that what you haven't repeated verbally is correct?

MR MOMBERG: I confirm that, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well when you say this evidence, this is what you have written down in your application?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Momberg, I listened to your evidence regarding the explanation you gave in your application that Mr Coetzer was not involved in this incident. Can I ask you regarding that aspect, more specifically regarding the basis of that evidence you've presented here, if you think back about this whole incident, if you think of that and recollect that, can you see the role from Compol to Pienaarsrivier, where Coetzer played any role at all? - as you recollect it.

MR MOMBERG: No, Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you. Then for the sake of clarity, I want to put to you the question of confusion between Sergeant Mentz and Sergeant Oosthuizen at that stage. I put it to you and I ask you whether you accept that Mr Oosthuizen and Gouws during this incident, were on seconded service at the Security Branch and were not members of Murder and Robbery, do you accept that?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: At that stage, did you hear any rumours that they could be transferred to Murder and Robbery?

MR MOMBERG: No, Mr Chairman, at that stage I was under the impression that they were already at Murder and Robbery.

MR ROSSOUW: Was that impression perhaps created because there were rumours that they were going to be transferred there?

MR MOMBERG: That's a probability.

MR ROSSOUW: I'm just putting it to you that they were not members of Murder and Robbery at that stage, they were on seconded service to the Security Branch and that they received their instructions from Captain Hechter and Brigadier Cronje. Do you know where their offices were?

MR MOMBERG: No, Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: So you will not able to shed any light or testify that they shared an office with Hechter?

MR MOMBERG: I knew where the offices of Murder and Robbery were, but I've listened to Goosen's evidence and I was not aware that these two persons were with Hechter in his office, that they shared an office with him.

MR ROSSOUW: You also listened to the statements I've put to Mr Goosen regarding these aspects regarding Mr Goosen and Gouws, where they cannot recollect for example, that they went to Brigadier Cronje's house or that they picked up Mr Prinsloo at Silverton, and also the movement of the vehicle when the landmine was planted. You've heard that?

MR MOMBERG: I heard that.

MR ROSSOUW: I'm just repeating, I'm putting it to you that they cannot remember those specific details and their versions regarding the planting of the landmine and the movement of the vehicle differs.

MR MOMBERG: I note that, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I've no further questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Momberg, can you tell the Honourable Committee what kind of vehicle did Captain Prinsloo drive at that stage?

MR MOMBERG: No, Mr Chairman, I can't.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you have any independent recollection that you met him at Silverton Road Cafe?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, yes, I remember the road cafe, and also the fact that Captain Prinsloo, before he got into the bus he spoke through the window with one or two of the people who were already in the bus.

MR PRINSLOO: I'm putting it to you that Captain Prinsloo met you at the Silverton Police Station, where he also parked his vehicle.

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, it could be so. The probability exists that Captain Prinsloo followed us from the road cafe and that we returned to the Silverton Police Station and parked the car there, but as far as I can recollect we picked him up at the road cafe.

MR PRINSLOO: Would Prinsloo leave a government vehicle at a road cafe?

MR MALAN: No, that was not his evidence, it was said that possibly he could have gone from the road cafe to the police station to park the car there.

MR PRINSLOO: I'll leave it there then.

This specific place at the Pienaarsrivier, who proposed that place?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I'm not aware who proposed that we should drive to the Pienaarsrivier.

MR PRINSLOO: You also mentioned that Tiny Coetzer was well-known, that area was well-known to him.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And according to Mr Prinsloo's version, Tiny Coetzer was in the bus, what do you say about that?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, with the compilation of this application my first reaction was to say that Coetzer was in involved, but with hindsight I'm sure that he was not there.

MR PRINSLOO: Who in this vehicle knew how to get to that specific area, who knew that area?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, from the nature of the work of Unit B, because they also operated in Boputhatswana, and that specific area of the road between the Pienaarsrivier to the western part is a residential area in Boputhatswana, that told me that the people of Unit B knew about that area.

MR PRINSLOO: Who are the people from Unit B who were in the vehicle?

MR MOMBERG: As I've already mentioned it was van Jaarsveld and Mamasela, they were from Unit B, and also as I've heard now, on seconded leave, Mr Oosthuizen and Mr Gouws.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Tiny Coetzer was also a member of Unit B and so also Mr van Jaarsveld.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: According to Mr Prinsloo, Mr van Jaarsveld was also in the vehicle, what do you say about that?

MR MOMBERG: According to my recollection he was in the bus and he was the driver of the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: Regarding this specific person, the deceased, there would have been under these circumstances intelligence about an informer who would give intelligence regarding this person's involvement and also the knowledge he was supposed to have regarding safe-houses and MK members. Do you understand what I mean? Shortly, was it because of intelligence from an informer?

MR MOMBERG: No, as far as I know it was based on intelligence from Mamasela and with a provisional interrogation it was obtained by people from Unit B.

MR PRINSLOO: But this intelligence, did it come from an informer?

MR MOMBERG: That's probable, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: If such a person such as the deceased was confronted with this intelligence which he had regarding safe-houses and MK members' involvement, and taking into consideration how the ANC and the MK's functioned, that somebody conveyed information regarding him, do you agree?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What then was the situation regarding the life of that informer who conveyed this information?

MR MOMBERG: His life was worthless, he would definitely have been a target.

MR PRINSLOO: Mamasela according to you, was part of Unit B.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: And then somebody from Unit B had to obtain the intelligence from the informer.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You also testified that the deceased gave misleading answers and tried to mislead you intentionally, was that part of the tactic, to mislead you, to get time on their side, or to be able to release them?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: If such a person would already have been interrogated, if he was released, what would happen then?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, many things could happen, but it was mainly negative consequences for the Security Branch and the country as a whole. It could cause that MK members could go underground, it could result in informers having negative consequences.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Momberg, in the bus while you were driving around in Mamelodi and this person was assaulted there, Mr Prinsloo would say he grabbed this person by his throat and strangled him in the bus, but that was not serious harm.

MR MOMBERG: It could possibly be, I did not see it.

MR PRINSLOO: At the Pienaarsrivier where this person was strangled by Mr Prinsloo, where was Brigadier Cronje at that stage?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, according to my recollection, Brigadier Cronje was standing by the side door of the bus for most of the time. The largest portion of the people were standing by the side door of the bus.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you say, as you've seen the situation, these people were observers?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please, Chairperson.

Mr Momberg, Mr Prinsloo will testify that he was not aware of any explosives in the bus until they arrived at Pienaarsrivier when it was taken from the bus.

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I agree with that. I myself only saw the bag with the explosives after Brigadier Cronje nodded with his head and a hand gesture in the direction of the bag and instructed me.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Momberg, how sure are you that Mr van Jaarsveld was involved at all in this incident?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I am reasonably satisfied in this respect that I remember well and that Captain van Jaarsveld was there.

MR MEINTJIES: Do you agree that there was a certain confusion with you regarding certain persons who were initially involved and then in the end you realised they were not involved?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Mr Chairman, that is so.

MR MEINTJIES: Is the possibility excluded that this confusion can also be applied to Mr van Jaarsveld?

MR MOMBERG: I have peace in my mind and I believe that van Jaarsveld was there.

JUDGE PILLAY: We're not talking of peace in your mind, we're talking about facts. Are you sure that he was there or do you just concede that he was not there? That is very important.

MR MOMBERG: I say he was there.

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR MEINTJIES: And then only a statement to you, Mr Momberg, my instructions are that Mr van Jaarsveld was not involved in this incident and that he has no recollection of that. Do you want to comment on that?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, yes, I can just repeat, I hear what Mr van Jaarsveld's legal representative is saying, I stand by what I have said.

MR MEINTJIES: I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Momberg, you've read Brigadier Cronje's evidence and you've seen that he refers to du Plessis' involvement.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can I ask you in this manner, as far as you recollect, or is your recollection the same as Mr Goosen's regarding Mr du Plessis' involvement in this unit?

MR MOMBERG: No, I can't remember it as well as Sergeant Goosen, he's much younger than I am, but I know Captain du Plessis was not involved in this incident.

MR DU PLESSIS: The only aspect that I wish to mention to you is the fact that if you look Brigadier Cronje's evidence on page 11, this is the first page of the evidence, you will see that according to him his evidence refers to Captain du Plessis, where he says:

This starts a bit earlier than most of the, before the time of the people involved here. If you can't state unequivocally that Captain du Plessis was not involved in the unit, you would concede that that part of the evidence you cannot deny or dispute, that is that Captain du Plessis brought this specific person in for interrogation.

MR MOMBERG: I will dispute that because Captain du Plessis, excluding when he started at the Security Branch or not, he was a member of Unit A, he would not have brought in a black man for interrogation.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words, you say the same as Mr Goosen regarding du Plessis's identity, that Brigadier Cronje made a mistake?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also saw that Brigadier testified that the purpose was not to kill this person and that his death was just by chance, an accident. Do you agree that Hechter was not involved?

MR MOMBERG: No, he was not involved.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, before re-examination, may I be permitted to put one question to the witness which I omitted, Mr Chairman? - with the leave of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Momberg, Mamasela was under the direct control of Mr van Jaarsveld, is that correct?

MR MOMBERG: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And if Mr Mamasela had intelligence regarding a source, then that information would have been conveyed to van Jaarsveld?

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no re-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I didn't ...(inaudible)

MR MALAN: Mr Momberg, you say a member of Unit A would not bring in a black person for interrogation.

MR MOMBERG: Not easily.

MR MALAN: You said he will not, you did not say not easily, he would not. Now tell me, what is the division of the work, how can all the units be involved in interrogation, elimination, follow-up operations, but they never ask whether he is brown or black or pink? Then if something, intelligence, comes to them in Unit A, why not a black man?

MR MOMBERG: Firstly, if a member of Unit A has information or intelligence regarding a black person, he will clear it out with somebody from Unit B.

MR MALAN: Was that the rule?

MR MOMBERG: Yes, because 80% of the time the people in Unit A did not have any background knowledge of the structures with which Unit B operated, in other words the black structures. He could bring him in and after he had brought him in he would discuss that with somebody from Unit B, he would not act independently.

MR MALAN: In other words, Brigadier Cronje would not know about that?

MR MOMBERG: I beg your pardon?

MR MALAN: Would Brigadier Cronje not know these facts, when he gave his evidence that du Plessis brought in this person?

MR MOMBERG: He knew these facts.

MR MALAN: Now why did he say du Plessis brought in this person?

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Why do you keep on disputing it when he is saying that directly?

MR MOMBERG: I dispute it based on the knowledge I have and I can remember because du Plessis was not in that vehicle that evening.

MR MALAN: I'm not referring to the vehicle, Mr du Plessis indicated that and he say he is referring to actions which took place before your operation, that is bringing in the person for interrogation. Before this operation, that is what Mr du Plessis referred you to, was it page 11 of the evidence?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that's correct.

MR MALAN: He says that Captain du Plessis brought in a person.

MR MOMBERG: Chairperson, I see that Brigadier Cronje testified in this way and I cannot agree with that. It does not make sense that Captain du Plessis could have been involved in this.

MR MALAN: All that he is saying is that he brought him in.

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I want to explain. Captain du Plessis, although he was attached to the branch, it wouldn't have been common for him to have received information regarding black people. His informer network was geared to white, Indian and coloured affairs and his whole modus operandi was geared to those types of operations and individuals. It was just in extraordinary circumstances that du Plessis could identify a black MK member and bring him in. And according to what he said, du Plessis brought in this person without consulting with B or C, that part is not there.

MR MALAN: That is the point which is being made. Could he not bring him in after he had discussed it with somebody in Unit B or C, or perhaps together with somebody else, perhaps a junior person in one of the other units?

MR MOMBERG: Perhaps he could, yes, but I stand with what I have said, that du Plessis could not bring in a black person, that was unusual.

MR MALAN: If I understand it correctly, you drove in the direction of Pienaarsrivier and in Pienaarsrivier you turned down a gravel road in a western direction.

MR MOMBERG: To be more precise, we crossed a train bridge, about 800 metres further on you turn from the old Warmbaths Road and then there is a gravel road which continues from the east to the west through a black township, to Boputhatswana.

MR MALAN: How far did you drive down this road?

MR MOMBERG: I would say about 10 to 15 kilometres.

MR MALAN: How far is that from the black township and to which township does this lean? Are there no directions?

MR MOMBERG: No, I can't remember the town's name, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: But the road led to a black township?

MR MOMBERG: Yes. In the meanwhile I drove along that road just by chance and there at that spot where we were, that was about right in the middle of the old gravel road that's between Warmbaths and the black township.

MR MALAN: In other words, the black township is about 30 kilometres from Warmbaths. Now when you move from the one point to the other point you have to cross that point where you stopped.

MR MOMBERG: There is a detour here and there.

MR MALAN: But there is always traffic on that road?

MR MOMBERG: And I've just testified that just by chance I travelled along this road for other purposes and I travelled on that road during a weekday and I want to say there were only 10 vehicles during the day on that gravel road.

MR MALAN: And that same road you travelled with Tiny Coetzer during the day. Did you travel on that specific road or only to the Pienaarsrivier?

MR MOMBERG: No, I travelled on that same road.

MR MALAN: Was that for an operation?

MR MOMBERG: No, Tiny Coetzer had a contact person. If I can remember correctly the member of agriculture or the foreman of the Minister of Agriculture, he was farming in that vicinity. He was a contact person for Coetzer and at one stage I accompanied Coetzer to this person.

MR MALAN: On his farm?

MR MOMBERG: On the farm, yes.

MR MALAN: How far from this point where the incident took place was that farm?

MR MOMBERG: I would say about five/six kilometres further.

MR MALAN: Is the farm five/six kilometres further on? So you stopped just a little way from the farm.

MR MOMBERG: Yes.

MR MALAN: But you stopped on this gravel road?

MR MOMBERG: That's correct.

MR MALAN: And if I understand correctly, this interrogation took about 15 minutes after you had stopped and then you prepared the landmine, you prepared the capped fuse and at no stage were you worried that a car would pass. You also regarded it as a low risk area that contained fewer risks than the open field near Mamelodi.

MR MOMBERG: That's correct, Chairperson. In the open field near Mamelodi, if I can remember correctly, that was a place where there were still lights and from my point of view there was a greater danger that somebody could walk along that open veld and find us, while on that road surely you would have heard a car at night, you could have seen the lights or heard the car and we could then have made another plan.

MR MALAN: Or could people move along that road from farm to farm?

MR MOMBERG: There are farms, so people could move along that road, yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

JUDGE PILLAY: As I understand your evidence, in this vehicle this person, this person was assaulted in the vehicle, he was knocked against his head with an open fist, with elbows and according to you he was taken to this remote place because the assault would be intensified because he did not co-operate. Now can you describe this intensified assault, what would you do to him?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, there were worse manners of assaulting a person than hitting him. I did not have anything in mind, Captain Prinsloo took the lead in the interrogation. I knew of various methods to be used in assaults and that is the tyre method where you suffocate the person, when you bent their arms and the fingers and if you took that far enough somebody would scream. Now while you just hit a person with an open hand some people with that type of assault would just keep quiet, they were too proud to talk, but there comes a stage where you can't keep quiet anymore.

JUDGE PILLAY: And these implements to suffocate this person, were those in the vehicle?

MR MOMBERG: I did not see that.

JUDGE PILLAY: I see. Now I want to pose another question. Now I understand you've left the police service.

MR MOMBERG: That is correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: How do you feel about what happened and what you did?

MR MOMBERG: Mr Chairman, I'm ashamed. You can't take something away which has happened, but if it was humanly possible I would want to turn the clock back, if it was possible.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why would you do that?

MR MOMBERG: Because in the end everything was unnecessary because there was a political negotiation and that is why this mechanism has been created for us to come and say what happened during that time.

JUDGE PILLAY: Do you think that it is possible that you would do something like that again?

MR MOMBERG: No, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE PILLAY: Not at all?

MR MOMBERG: Not at all.

JUDGE PILLAY: And if we knew who he was and his family was here, would you say something to them?

MR MOMBERG: I would have asked them for forgiveness.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, might I suggest that that concludes the proceedings for the day.

CHAIRPERSON: We've only got a few minutes left and it would mean interrupting someone at the commencement of his ...

MR ALBERTS: Indeed. And then might I further enquire, Mr Chairman, yesterday you intimated that the previous incident would stand down till to-morrow for the appearance of Mr van Jaarsveld, is that still the intended modus operandi tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will start that one - has he been notified 9 o'clock?

ADV STEENKAMP: Yes, Mr Chairman, that was the arrangement with his legal representative.

CHAIRPERSON: Right. We'll start with that one at 9 o'clock. No, I don't think we need to start this one till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, so this matter stands down till 10 then.

CHAIRPERSON: 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. The other matter will start at nine. Does that suit everybody? Very well, we'll adjourn this matter till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, but the hearing itself will commence at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning to conclude the matter we heard on Monday.