--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRPERSON: For the record, it is Wednesday the 19th of May 1999, we are continuing the amnesty application of Coetzee & Others in respect of the Simelane matter.

Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have also in the meantime obtained further instructions, I just want to ask some other questions to Mr Pretorius.

ANTON PRETORIUS: (s.u.o)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)

Mr Pretorius, can you recall a conversation with Mr Veyi after everything had passed with regard to the detention of Ms Simelane, that he had asked you where this woman was after everyone had been withdrawn and you had told him "don't ask too many questions", can you recall anything like that?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot recall such a conversation, but it is possible that Mr Veyi had asked me that question and that I had told him that Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Mr Veyi's recollection is that the time that had elapsed according to his recollection, after he was at the farm for

the last time, and at a stage when he received instructions from Mr Coetzee to go to Potchefstroom, he says it was approximately two to three days after he visited the farm for the last time?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson, I would like to know when was he at the farm the last time, that is a big problem for me because I do not know when last Mr Veyi was on the farm.

MR LAMEY: My instructions there are approximately the fourth or fifth week and two or three days had elapsed, more than that I cannot tell you.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I deny totally that Coetzee and I had the specific day which I refer to is the day when we drove from Potchefstroom to Soweto.

MR LAMEY: No, I accept what you are saying with regard to what you dispute that Ms Simelane was in the vehicle, that I accept, all that I am saying is that his recollection is the time elapsed since the time he visited the farm the last time, which was during the fourth or fifth week, he said two or three days had elapsed afterwards when he was at the office and received the instruction from Coetzee that he had to go to Potchefstroom.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson I am a little confused, if Mr Lamey could just - I don't know what he means now.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairperson, I have the same problem. I don't know where to start reckoning, two to three days after four to five weeks. It is impossible to answer that question.

MR LAMEY: I will try to clarify the question. As I understand my instructions from Mr Veyi, it seems that the members came and went to the farm on a rotation basis?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: But he says his presence the last time at the farm, it was approximately four to five weeks since she had been detained on the farm.

MR PRETORIUS: If he says so ...

MR LAMEY: And then he returned to Soweto to the branch?

MR PRETORIUS: The office, yes, I accept that.

MR LAMEY: And he says two to three days later, when he received the instruction to go to Potchefstroom, do you understand what I am putting to you?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, Mr Veyi might have received an instruction from Coetzee to possibly go to Potchefstroom, I was not present, but it is possible. My problem is I don't know which day he is referring to because in many instances, at many different occasions, people - this was one of Mr Coetzee's things, he would say come here, go there, get me here, meet me here, I don't know which specific day Mr Veyi is referring to. So what I want to say it is possible that Mr Coetzee must have told Mr Veyi "come to Potchefstroom" on some day.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Pretorius, I actually don't have a difficulty with the time span that had been set out by Mr Veyi, because as I understand the evidence, Simelane was kept at the farm either for four weeks or five weeks?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: That is common cause?

MR PRETORIUS: Okay.

ADV GCABASHE: If she had been there for four weeks, two to three days later, is what Mr Veyi says, he was then called to Potchefstroom, so it is four weeks plus two to three days later. If in fact it was five weeks because the time is so difficult to determine, again two to three days later, after the five weeks, he was then called up to Potchefstroom. I really have no difficulty with understanding that.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson. I cannot comment on what Mr Coetzee had told Mr Veyi to come to Potchefstroom. I do not know of this, but as I said, it is possible.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Pretorius, I think what is implicated by this is that two to three days after he left the farm, he was called up to Potchefstroom and there he saw the lady in the boot of the car?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I deny that emphatically. I was not present where he could have seen Nokuthula Simelane, I was not there at all.

MR LAMEY: And all that I want to add to that is that at that stage, when he was called to Potchefstroom, it was his impression that she was still at the farm, he says he understands that after going to Potchefstroom, he would have had to relieve somebody at the farm, but that was unnecessary because along the road, on the way to Potchefstroom, he was requested to turn back?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I am not or what I can recall ...

MR LAMEY: You were not present?

MR PRETORIUS: As I said ...

MR LAMEY: You were not with Mr Coetzee in the vehicle?

MR PRETORIUS: It could have been a previous day or it could have been the day afterwards, you must tell me on the day and that is where my problem lies, Chairperson, unfortunately Mr Lamey talks about days. It could have been the day before it, I refer to day when received Nokuthula from Mong and Mothiba and I drove to Coetzee or with Coetzee, after we have her to Langa, and as far as I can recall, we never stopped along the road. I was with Mr Coetzee from, if I can say that again, from Potchefstroom to Soweto and as far as I can recall, we never stopped for anyone along the road.

CHAIRPERSON: In your XR6 vehicle?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In any case, Mr Veyi does not say he was with you, he says Mr Coetzee was with you in the XR6 and Nokuthula was in the boot.

MR PRETORIUS: Well, then he is probably referring to something else.

MR LAMEY: I shall continue.

ADV GCABASHE: Can I just before you move onto something else, are you saying it is possible and I am just asking, that she may have been in the boot of your car on another occasion?

MR PRETORIUS: No, that is not what I said. What I am saying Chairperson is that Mr Coetzee may have met with Mr Veyi on some other occasion on that road, and I cannot comment on it, it is possible.

MR LAMEY: Very well, and then I have further instructions with the affect that both Mr Selamolela and Mr Veyi agree that there was instructions that when you and Pretorius led the interrogation where the assaults also took place, when you were not on the farm, that certain questioning had to be continued for example photo's, bundles and to refer to them to get information from her.

MR PRETORIUS: That is what I had said yesterday Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I know you said that, I just want to tell you that they confirmed that that was correct what you had said, and they also said, that there were also instructions that the black members and I refer to Mr Selamolela and Mr Veyi, they had to work in another manner with her to get her co-operation, they had to speak nicely to her and they said indeed they understood that the idea thereof was to move her so that she could be recruited.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I don't understand now.

MR LAMEY: I will get to that. I want to put that to you.

MR PRETORIUS: You can continue.

MR LAMEY: That at some meeting it was told to them that you right from the departure point was not a turning action?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I have already said the day of the incident when we abducted Ms Simelane, Constable Veyi and Sergeant Selamolela was present when Mr Coetzee said that we were to abduct her in order to turn her. I will concede that Mr Coetzee did not go into detail there, because at that stage we did not know who we were dealing with, that he spelt out in detail to every member this is our plan from A - Z, I will concede that, but they knew that this was to be a turning action.

MR LAMEY: Very well, but my instructions are that they deduced in this process because with previous persons they had apprehended who came from MK, they usually, there was an attempt to turn the person, to recruit this person and they said their black members were usually in this instance, tasked to treat her better and see if they could not get her co-operation?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson. I think I have referred to that yesterday, especially Sergeant Mothiba.

MR LAMEY: Can you tell me, maybe this is where the versions divert or differ from each other, their impression was that up to the last stage when they dealt with her, she did not want to give her co-operation and they understood from the assaults that took place that it had happened because she did not want to give her co-operation and that she possessed some information which was important to the Security Branch with regard to the activities and planning of MK within South Africa?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, Simelane I think what was humanly possible, gave us everything that she knew of. I have already tried to give an explanation, it may be possible that when some of the members who are the clients of Mr Lamey, when they were there, that Simelane might have created the impression that she did not give her full co-operation. I have already explained yesterday that she was concerned with regard to the amount of black members who were present there and she was concerned, and as Mr Coetzee had explained, we gave her the surety that he would keep her in leg irons and that only Sergeant Joseph Mothiba will talk to her when we discussed her redeployment in the MK structure. We will only do it with him and not with the other members, if I may explain it in that manner, I don't know if that is the answer.

MR LAMEY: And then I have received specifically instructions with regard to the toiletries, they said they must concede that it may have been provided for her, but they have no knowledge to that or it did not happen at any stage when they were present?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already said, I agree with the last part, I was not there at every stage, but a certain amount of toiletries or things were provided for this lady.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it in their presence?

MR PRETORIUS: What I do know Chairperson, is that Sergeant Mothiba did some of these. Mr Coetzee sent him to buy some of these things, so I cannot say if Mr Lamey's clients were present, but they should have seen these things. I accept when they say that they saw it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, they say it is possible that it could have been given to her when they were not there, but they are not aware of it. That is why I am asking you, it was just one room that you detained Ms Simelane in, they should have seen these things?

MR PRETORIUS: I believe so Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If these toiletries were there?

MR PRETORIUS: Indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. And then they never as I put it to you, their impression right up to the last minute was that they did not think that she co-operated and that she was to be recruited, and it was also not the impression that they had there, that she had been recruited because it seemed to them right up to the last stage when they had worked with her, that she did not want to cooperate.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I deny that statement totally.

MR LAMEY: And with regard to Mr Mkhonza, Mr Pretorius is it correct that, or he says in his application in his statement that the arrest took place, he would lead this lady to his vehicle in the parking area?

MR PRETORIUS: I think it is correct if he says that.

MR LAMEY: And the arrest took place there and Mkhonza was "arrested" with her? I say "arrest" because we know that he was an agent, but what had happened there was an apparent arrest of Simelane along with him?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot deny that, but this specific instance I cannot recall, because as I have said, with this seizure of this, I was dealing with the seizure of this subject.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I think this is all that I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Van den Berg, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Pretorius if we can start with the nature and scope of the assaults, as I understand your evidence, she was assaulted by slapping her with an open hand?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then punches in her sides and on her back, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the use of a wet bag?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And that was the nature and scope of the assaults according to you?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I did not understand quite properly, you said - did I hear you correctly, you said you did not kick her?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I cannot remember that I had kicked her.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall if anybody else had kicked her?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall anything like that Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me Mr Van den Berg, what does that mean?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall or to be honest today, I did not see anybody that I can come here and say today, that had kicked Ms Simelane.

CHAIRPERSON: She was never kicked in your presence, is that what you are saying?

MR PRETORIUS: That is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Continue Mr Van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. The kicking of a person, would this be normal practice in this type of interrogation?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot see how it could be normal, I think the reason why we used the suffocating method was to substitute the slap and substitute the punches. This is a more serious nature of torture. I see this more as torture.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I would just like to understand what was the methodology of your approach, does one start with slapping and then with the punches and afterwards the bag, how did this work, you are nodding your head?

MR PRETORIUS: I think that is in the right order as you recall, I confirm that Mr Coetzee, or I remember the first assault started in the vehicle where Mr Coetzee slapped her and later on we both slapped her, we gave her, we punched her and right up to the farm when we used the bag on her.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if I understand you correctly, the assaults or the interrogation complied with this format because she was a woman, do I understand you correctly?

MR PRETORIUS: I do not believe I said it was because she was a woman, if we had arrested a man, then that man would have received the same treatment as Ms Simelane. According to me, according to my personal opinion, there is no distinction between the methods that we would have used and would have used different methods.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand you correctly, the questioning of a male or female would be exactly the same?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, if I may say that, the way we went about it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And this is the type of assault that led to her soiling herself and wetting herself?

MR PRETORIUS: The suffocating action, that I can assure you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You say the suffocating?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, the suffocating is what had that affect.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if I understand your statement in Exhibit X correctly, these assaults continued right up to the first week?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, these serious assaults. This was during the first week.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And afterwards she co-operated?

MR PRETORIUS: Systematically she started co-operating with her and as I have said the periodic punches and slaps were given to her.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When would you say, or when would you say that you classified her as a newly recruited informer, the first week, the second week, the day of the arrest or during the abduction?

MR PRETORIUS: I had said yesterday Chairperson, that I suspect it must have been from the third week to the fourth week.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So it would not be correct to describe her as a newly recruited informant on the day when she was abducted? May I refer you to your initial amnesty application, page 470, it is Bundle 2 Mr Chairperson, page 470. At the bottom of the page the last paragraph, and if I may just put it into context, this was the day when she was abducted.

That is not correct, what you described there, that is not correct?

MR PRETORIUS: I think that is why I put it in brackets, the newly recruited informant to refer to the fact that we foresaw that we wanted to recruit her. That is why we wanted to turn her, I think that was my intention there. Therefore I did not try to say there that on the first day she was already an informer, I don't think that was my intention when I said that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then your reasoning would be the same if one looks at page 471, at the bottom of the page -

MR PRETORIUS: I don't think there is anything wrong with that statement. A newly recruited ...

MR VAN DEN BERG: Very well. The only information that you had about the courier was the fact that she was on her way, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And that information you received from Mr Mkhonza, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Coetzee received that personally from Mr Mkhonza.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you heard this from Coetzee?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So there was no involvement of this SVT66 with the information that the courier was on his or her way?

MR PRETORIUS: Not as far as I can recall to be honest Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: After you had seized her and her identity was known to you as I understand, both her MK identity and her name of birth, the name of Nokuthula Simelane, what type of enquiries did you do as to find out who she really was?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, the Soweto Security Branch had a filing office and what I can recall is that some of us, I think myself at some stage, went because that was the procedure to go, and in that time, there were no computers, everything was written by hand, it was a card system and we had to work through hundreds of cards to see if the names that she had mentioned to us, if we could find it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And what type of information was there with regard to Nokuthula Simelane?

MR PRETORIUS: If I recall correctly, I may be wrong, but I don't think we had anything about her herself on the Soweto filing system.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And it must have seemed to you that she operated from Swaziland, that was her base, do you agree?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, because the information was that she came from there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What Security Branch was dealing with Swaziland?

MR PRETORIUS: In the old days it was Eastern Transvaal.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you enquire with them?

MR PRETORIUS: Physically I never went there Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Telephonically?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So you never made any enquiries at the Eastern Transvaal Security Branch?

MR PRETORIUS: The information that you received from Ms Simelane with regard to the cell structures in Swaziland, what did you do with that?

MR PRETORIUS: We worked it into information reports and then we sent it on to Head Office.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And Head Office was in Pretoria?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was any mention made of the identity?

MR PRETORIUS: Never, never as far as I can recall with regard to Simelane.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Not by the name Simelane?

MR PRETORIUS: Not even on her MK name, Sbongile.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So you just reported that an MK informer or an MK courier gave you the following information?

MR PRETORIUS: That an informant had given us the information.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was there one report, two reports, weekly reports, how did it work?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall today after 16 years, but there had been several reports with regard to several subjects. A report dealt with a subject, if we said that we discussed the Transvaal Military Machinery, then there was a report there. If we wrote a report on a specific person, then the report would be sent on that specific person.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand you correctly the method that you used was that all your enquiries and reports would be channelled through to Head Office, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: I would say so, yes Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if you had information which was of import to a certain area, would you have sent it to them for example the Western Cape, the Eastern Cape, would you send it directly to them or channel it through Head Office?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, that is what we did.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The information ...

ADV DE JAGER: Excuse me, I think you said that is correct, that is what we did, so therefore are you saying that you reported to Head Office and you sent directly the reports to let's say the Eastern Transvaal?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Well, he used an example, the Eastern Cape?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, yes, Eastern Cape.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you send feedback or information with regard to Sbongile to the Eastern Transvaal?

MR PRETORIUS: Negative Chairperson, I have already said we did not, her as a person, Sbongile, her activities, everything surrounding her, her activities or the MK's activities in Swaziland, that is the type of information that we send through, we did not say in the report MK member, Sbongile is there, is involved here and there as an example, that is not what we did.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Maybe my question was not clear. As I understand from Mr Coetzee, she gave you information with regard to Barney Molokwane, a well known MK member, a person who was involved with the attacks on Sasol 1 and 2?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And these were things that had happened in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And she probably gave you information about his activities in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was that information given to the Eastern Transvaal?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that was sent to Eastern Transvaal and to Headquarters as I can recall.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The decision to turn her, that decision was taken before you knew her identity, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand your statement in Exhibit X correctly, according to you and you made certain concessions to Mr Lamey, but according to you Coetzee, Mong, Ross, Williams, Selamolela, Veyi were all involved with the original instructions, that is paragraph 10, page 5?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson. This is at the abduction.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Where mention was made that this would be a turning action?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Eight people were involved there, excuse me, nine including you?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then at a later stage, Sergeant Langa joined?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the Mozambican, Strongman?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson, yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So altogether there were 11 persons involved in this operation in some or other manner?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The Security Branch, did the Security Branch have female members at that stage in Soweto?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I think there was one or two but not in our section. I think they were at the Protea Security Branch administratively, as it was known.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I understand that the modus operandi the person who was to be turned, certain security mechanisms would be put into place, or that certain tests had to be put to this person. For example he was tasked to get information or to go and meet a person and that information and that person was controlled, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: It was not always possible, especially outside the borders of the country.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But in this instance it was not applied? And the reason if I understand you correctly, if I can just pre-empt you, was because it was outside the country?

MR PRETORIUS: One of the main reasons was because it was in a foreign information network and placing her back, was or I described it, it was the first risk that we had to take, to see if she would do what we asked her to do. That was our first.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You had knowledge of her family, that they were in the Eastern Transvaal, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: After her arrest, at some stage she mentioned where her family was, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did she mention the involvement of her family in the struggle and the support that they had given to Molokwane's group?

MR PRETORIUS: I can recall something like that Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So this did not create the possibility of a test to send her back to her family?

MR PRETORIUS: Not at that stage, that was not the option that Mr Coetzee had considered.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I am not sure if it is your evidence of Mr Coetzee's evidence, but at some stage it was decided to withdraw Mkhonza from Swaziland, do you recall that?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes Mkhonza and others Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can we specifically talk about Mkhonza? Can you recall when this was?

MR PRETORIUS: No, not exactly but I think Mr Mkhonza can give more clarity there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Before or after the abduction?

MR PRETORIUS: After the abduction Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And before or after the arrest of the 18 persons that you mentioned?

MR PRETORIUS: I think during the process, and why I say this was because Mkhonza one more time, as far as I can recall after the arrest of Simelane, was sent to Swaziland. I can recall the incident. The day he rolled over the vehicle he was driving in in Swaziland to prove that he was in Swaziland and we had to go and fetch the vehicle from Swaziland. I do not know whether that was the last time that he was in Swaziland, but he was in Swaziland again.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Who was Mr Mkhonza's handler?

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage it was Mr Coetzee, he was the Chief Handler.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And was Langa also withdrawn from Swaziland?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Before or after the arrest of the 18?

MR PRETORIUS: If I could just explain, the persons were arrested over some time period, they were not arrested in one day. During the time of those 18, he was withdrawn.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And of the 18, can you remember who was the first person that was apprehended?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson, that was the Mpho on the photo that you have with you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Well, the instructions, I have no instructions as to how he may be, but I will find out if he does know. Where did the arrest of Cheche fit into these 18 persons?

MR PRETORIUS: This was after Simelane had been released Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I understand that, but was he the first person, the second person or the third person or can you not recall?

MR PRETORIUS: That is difficult Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And can you dispute the fact that on the 25th of May 1994 he was arrested?

MR PRETORIUS: The date I will not dispute the date, but you have to keep in mind that Mr Cheche was arrested twice. I don't know if you know that he had escaped, I don't know if you refer to his first arrest or his second arrest.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I will have to receive an instruction, I am aware that he was arrested twice. What was the relationship between Jabu Ngubezi and Simelane, were they members of the same Unit, did he give her instructions or vice versa, were they involved with the same logistics, do you have knowledge of this?

MR PRETORIUS: This was 16 years ago, with all honesty I cannot tell you today what had happened there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Twala tells me that Simelane did not know Jabu Ngubezi and there was no contact between the two.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that makes two of us, I am not quite sure to whom reference is being made, who is Jabu Ngubezi? Perhaps if my learned friend could just tell us.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Pretorius, may I refer you to your statement, paragraph 35, page 13, there that name is mentioned there?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson. I want to agree with Mr De Berg that it is possible that Simelane did not know Ngubezi, because if I recall the situation of Ngubezi, he was arrested after Mr Ngedi.

MR VISSER: May I just be allowed to apologise, it comes with old age Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Then it is common cause that Ngubezi was an MK member and was part of a Swaziland structure?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And according to us, his arrest followed the arrest of Ngedi?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: May I refer you to paragraph 43 of your statement. There you say -

Who were these other white members?

MR PRETORIUS: It was Mr Coetzee and I and Warrant Officer Mong.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But you pertinently state here white members?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Coetzee and Mr Mong, white members, these are the white members who I referred to.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I see, so you do not refer there to Inspector Ross or Inspector Williams?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: They did none of this follow up work?

MR PRETORIUS: Soweto is very large and with those 18 actions to which you are referring to, it is possible that - I cannot recall that they were involved there or not, I would rather say no Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the final aspect as regard to the bomb explosions at some power sub-station in Fairlands in Bryanston.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understand or if I recall your evidence exactly, Mkhonza had already received instructions in Swaziland?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And Simelane's role was to confirm the instructions and to give the go-ahead?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes Chairperson, that is what I can remember.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And this differs from the evidence of Mr Coetzee who said that the target instructions came from Simelane, in other words that she had said Fairlands and Bryanston?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I do not want to speak on behalf of Mr Coetzee, but what I know for a fact, what he meant there I think was that Simelane came and said that targets had to be hit which was discussed in Swaziland. In other words as I have said already, Mr Mkhonza before the Simelane arrest, was already with MK in Swaziland and they were there where they discussed the targets, where they received instructions with regard to those targets and she said that the targets that they had discussed in Swaziland, had to be hit. So perhaps just to facilitate it, Mr Coetzee may have linked the names to that, that is the only explanation that I have, but I don't believe that there is any real difference.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you heard when I put it to him and I am now putting it to you that her orders were simply to establish a communications network between operatives Scotch and Langa from Swaziland?

MR PRETORIUS: She didn't tell us anything about that, she didn't tell us that she was to establish an additional communications network, she was the communication between Swaziland and South Africa if I may put it that way, because MK sent her in as the communication line. That was the agreement that somebody would come in.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Her instructions were about the establishment of contact between the group, that would be the front MK group being Langa and Mkhonza, and figuring how messages would be sent and how weapons would be brought in and so forth?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, at that stage according to my knowledge and my information, the fact was that she was the courier who acted as ... (tape ends) ... and I can't recall that she told us anything about having to establish or implement other communications networks, I don't know anything about that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The premises where she was detained on the farm, that was an outside form of a storage room, if I understand your evidence correctly?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Without water?

MR PRETORIUS: Without running water if I recall correctly.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And probably without electricity?

MR PRETORIUS: We had no electricity, we had to make use of gas lamps.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You used gas lamps? I have no further questions, thank you Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: No questions Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Gcabashe?

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you Chair. Just to go while I find the rest of my notes, the time she spent at the Police quarters at the top, who was she guarded by? Let me start from the beginning, she spent two nights there?

MR PRETORIUS: As I recall, yes.

ADV GCABASHE : And who guarded her there?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I can recall when Mr Coetzee departed to see Brigadier Muller, that was shortly after her arrival there, I was there. Sergeant Mong and me, I can't remember precisely but I think that Sergeant Mothiba might have been there, some of the black members were there and I should think that Sergeant Mothiba would definitely have been there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Excuse me, that would have been the Saturday afternoon?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that was the Saturday shortly after we seized her.

ADV GCABASHE : And Sunday, because she only left on Monday?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct. If I might proceed, you must remember that Mr Coetzee and Mr Mong and I lived in the complex. Coincidentally I worked in the B-complex, I lived in B31 and she was on the 10th floor, on the roof, so it wasn't necessary for us to sleep in the room, there with her, some of the black members spent the night there in the room with her. Now you may ask me again whether I know who slept there, but I can sincerely tell you that I don't know who it was that stayed there with her on the first two nights, which one of the black members. I cannot remember that unfortunately.

ADV GCABASHE : Then over these two days, again there was intensive interrogation of Nokuthula Simelane?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, we assaulted her as I have already stated, but it could not have been that intense. The reason is as follows, it was on the 10th floor of a department block, right next to the rooms were the washing lines where ladies who lived in the apartment block, would be walking by consistently to go and hang their washing. There were servants living in the adjacent quarters, so we could not work too noisily with Simelane in that office, if I may put it that way, we had to be very cautious so that the people would not surmise what was happening there.

CHAIRPERSON: Could she have screamed?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I believe she could have.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you shut her mouth?

MR PRETORIUS: I can't remember that we closed her mouth up.

ADV GCABASHE : Now let's talk about the meeting that you attended where you decided on the seizure.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE : Are you saying that the people at that meeting worked off the general assumption that any MK activist was a subject for a turning action?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, a turning action, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE : And was this standard procedure, you did it with whichever MK activist you managed to arrest?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Mr Chairperson, that is why Mr Coetzee, when he received the information that there was an MK member coming in from Swaziland, and I think that I did mention this in my statements, there were two options and he had to clear this with the Commanding Officer, here was an opportunity to arrest a person, or should we seize the person and attempt to turn them, the decision was then to seize that person and to attempt to turn them.

ADV GCABASHE : And you did this even though you had no profile at all on the person you were going to abduct?

MR PRETORIUS: No, we had no profile, however it was sufficient for us, we knew that it was an MK member who was coming in. It was a terrorist.

ADV GCABASHE : You stated in your evidence under chief, that you did cross-check the information that she gave you, that Simelane gave you, you cross-checked it. With who? I have a note here?

MR PRETORIUS: I am not entirely certain what we are referring to.

ADV GCABASHE : The note I have here is Mkhonza knew about these targets in South Africa.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct yes.

ADV GCABASHE : Because he had recently been in Swaziland where the information was given to him?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE : And then a question must have been asked because my next note is, "we did cross-check the information that she gave us." Does that not make sense to you?

MR PRETORIUS: I am not very certain about what the lady is referring to.

ADV GCABASHE : The information, let's start from a general point of view, the information that you got from Nokuthula Simelane, did you in fact cross-check it with anybody at all?

MR PRETORIUS: Perhaps let me put it this way, to which information are you referring Mr Chairperson? The general information?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you do that or not?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Please explain then.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, what I can recall is when a person told you that Mr Jimmy for example was also an MK member and that he was involved in this and that, then we would do some research and fall back on our own information networks. The Security Branch was known for having millions of documents which we could use as reference to determine whether or not this person that she had mentioned, this Jimmy for example, was in existence in Swaziland and in many cases we would come back and say listen here, there are six Jimmy's here, which one of these six Jimmy's are you referring to. This was the type of follow up work that we would do.

ADV GCABASHE : And would you at any stage for instance phone the Eastern Transvaal and say we are trying to locate this Jimmy, do you know anything at all about this Jimmy?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have already said at that stage, any information which you received you would place in a SAP69, it was known as an information document, you would give a complete review of what the information was and who the person was. Then you would send this document out and in many cases, the other Security Branches would report back and say yes, they know about this Mr Jimmy, Mr Jimmy is in Swaziland and he could be the Unit Commander of this Unit or he may be involved in Operation Burning Forest or something like that, and that is how it operated at that stage.

ADV GCABASHE : Then you talked about at some stage the clothing at Nkosi's house, that you knew she had left clothing there.

MR PRETORIUS: We were aware that her clothing and her passport were there.

ADV GCABASHE : You then at the end of the day, expected her to return to Swaziland and continue working with her old cell mates?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE : And you also said that you knew nothing of the Nkosi/Mpho relationship as has been set out under cross-examination?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I was not aware of that at that stage.

ADV GCABASHE : You didn't think that you were taking a chance, I mean you were asking her to go and report on Nkosi being somebody who was working with the Police, yet you could not at any level justify that? I mean she was going back to say something she couldn't explain properly?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I have already stated yesterday, we had the benefit of the doubt if I may express it that way. This lady came in from Swaziland to South Africa and it would appear to me that Mr Duma and the others don't know about that. She came in on a mission for which she was not allowed to come in, because she worked for a different Unit. You could think for yourself that this person was coming in, that was contradictory to other orders and that was our advantage. As I have already said we attempted to exploit the Duma Nkosi situation by saying that there was a possibility that he was collaborating with the Police and that was the reason why she didn't trust him and that was the reason why she wouldn't go back to his house. For us at that stage, it appeared to be a reasonably acceptable explanation and she agreed and said that it would work.

ADV GCABASHE : You are saying that the people who sent her in, were not authorised to send her in?

MR PRETORIUS: That is what she told us. That she was actually working with another Unit. I think Mr Coetzee referred to a white woman and an Indian man and this other MK Unit asked her on the side, do us a favour, please act as a courier for us to South Africa and she was not allowed to do that, and she put that to us pertinently, that she was not authorised to do that.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I just - what wasn't she allowed to do? Was she not allowed to work for the Indian man and the white woman or was she not allowed to work for Mr Mpho?

MR PRETORIUS: That is the impression that she created for us, that she was not committed to work for Mpho if it is Mpho as it is alleged, that she was not actually permitted to enter the RSA for that specific Unit's functions.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I just want to finish this off, sorry Leah, did you obtain any objective affirmation for that allegation or did you simply believe it?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, it was clear when she provided the wealth of information that she had, we realised that she was much more than a mere university student.

CHAIRPERSON: That may have been so, she told you that she was actually working for another Unit and these people had asked her on the side to do a quick favour for them, did you confirm that or did you simply believe what she told you?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, she gave us a complete and thorough explanation of the situation with the white woman and the Indian man in Mozambique who were her actual Commanders, she explained all of that to us, and informed us about how she came to work for this Unit and it made sense to us at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: So you simply believed it?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, we accepted that what she was telling us, was true and correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is what you based your plan on?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, around that.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why you felt that you could use this Duma Nkosi's story?

MR PRETORIUS: That would be the second reason and the third reason was that she also told us that she had to go around to other Units, she had to service other Units, that was the terminology that they used. We knew that the ANC at that stage, if you can recall, there were no communications channels because communication always functioned by hand. In certain cases it would be telephonic, but in Swaziland there wasn't sufficient infrastructure for telephones. Mr Mpho, or MK did not have any idea what happened to this woman, I can prove that to you because otherwise Langa would have been caught and killed in Swaziland. We knew that if the ANC sent somebody in, they did not expect that person to arrive at a given point at a given time, they knew that it was difficult. People would come in and spend months here, sometimes certain people would go back after a year only, and re-establish contact with their original Unit. I am just trying to explain to you by way of an example that the ANC in Swaziland did not know what was going on. While Ms Simelane was in detention at Thabazimbi, Mr Mong is testifying after me, he could confirm this, while she was there and I assume that it may have been after the first week of intensive interrogation and after we staged the two limpet mine explosions at the two sub-stations at the railway line, we realised that that was the first phase, that the ANC in Swaziland had to know that it was them because they were under the impression that it was their members. Then we sent Sergeant Langa in to the ANC, to the machinery, he went in. Sergeant Mong and I, for the time here that 269 was in Swaziland, we waited for him at the border post. He came out on that day, I can remember in a Volkswagen Beetle, that was the car that he was driving, we saw him just outside Oshoek and we saw all these limpet mines which they had hidden inside the vehicle. Sergeant Mong and I raced back to Thabazimbi because Mr Coetzee was at Thabazimbi at that stage. There were no telephones by means of which we could contact him, we had to race through to Thabazimbi. We gave Sergeant Langa the order to drive to Soweto so long and wait for us there. He received an order that I can recall, he had to hand it over to a certain terrorist by the name of, the name is at the back of that photograph.

CHAIRPERSON: Mpho?

MR PRETORIUS: Mpho, yes Mpho. The statement that I want to make in order to summarise everything is that if the ANC wants to allege as they are alleging, they would have known, then why didn't they seize 269 there, because he was there and I am certain thereof that Mr Mkhonza would be able to confirm that.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon, what does the fact that Ms Simelane allegedly was working on the side-line for people who were not authorised to send her to South Africa, what does that fact have to do with Mr Duma Nkosi?

MR PRETORIUS: If I might just explain, I think that that was an additional aspect because the more people had to be visited, the more people she had to make contact with, the better our opportunity to formulate a legend for her stay here, because the problem was the period of time that she spent here, that she did not return to Swaziland, we knew that the more people she had to make contact with, the better the scope for us and that is actually what I mean.

ADV GCABASHE : Did she indicate how many other people she was supposed to come into contact with?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I can recall that she said that there were other people, but I can't recall exactly who they were or whether she said who they were.

ADV GCABASHE : And did she indicate the nature of her contact with them, I mean what was she supposed to say to these people?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, it was also messages because she was a communications courier, she had to convey messages. I accept that she told us that, however today in all sincerity I must say that I cannot recall exactly what she said about the other people.

ADV GCABASHE : And did she give any indication as to when she was expected back in Swaziland?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly she mentioned something about her biggest problem being the university and not the ANC, that was the biggest issue. The reason why she had to return, she couldn't say away from the university for too long, but with regard to the ANC, she didn't tell us that she had a specific date that she had to be back. There was a lapse of time.

ADV GCABASHE : No, she had completed her studies at the university, exams are written from May so she had finished by June. You don't recall what she said about the university, she had completed her studies.

MR PRETORIUS: No, to be honest, I can really not remember precisely what she said about that.

ADV GCABASHE : And then finally, just to understand you correctly, you say she in fact was working with the Indian gentleman and the white woman, she was not supposed to be working with Mpho, this is what you are saying?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, that is what she told us.

ADV GCABASHE : Okay. And in terms of the planning of that seizure, if she was simply passing on information, why would she have to go down to Mr Mkhonza's car, I do not know if you can help me with that?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct. I don't think that anybody has actually put that question yet, what I can remember is that the order to Mr Mkhonza was to lure her away from the restaurant, because I think Mr Coetzee stated clearly that the rendezvous point was in the restaurant, and we couldn't exactly conduct a seizing action in the restaurant and Mkhonza can be of assistance there. I remember that his order was to tell her something like for example and I am just thinking of an example, we can't talk here, let's go and talk in the parking area, in other words Mr Mkhonza had to conduct the luring action. He had to get her into the parking area.

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination Mr Visser?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, might I intervene, I am sorry, there is just one aspect arising from the questions which Adv Gcabashe asked the applicant, which might take it a little further, and simply that my instructions are - Mr Pretorius, she had to go and fetch her degree, there was a graduation ceremony during which her degree would be handed over to her and she missed it, do you know about that?

MR PRETORIUS: I can recall that she said something about the university and that there was a limited period of time during which she had to return. Whether or not it was the graduation or the degree, I cannot say with a hundred percent certainty.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van den Berg. Mr Visser?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. It was suggested to you that Mr Mkhonza when he returned from Swaziland, merely had the order with regard to one target, and that was the Wits Command, can you recall that?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: You said in your evidence that he indeed spoke about other targets?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct, when he returned from Swaziland the first time, that Wits Command had to enjoy immediate attention, he had basically received the approval to go ahead.

MR VISSER: Did the Police then launch a false flag operation at the Wits Command or did that not happen?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I believe that we actually did something else there, I cannot remember exactly what happened there, I think Mr Coetzee would cast further light on that issue.

MR VISSER: With regard to the other targets, was there one or more specific targets of which he may have told you?

MR PRETORIUS: That would be Mr Mkhonza?

MR VISSER: Yes?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, what I can recall is that the Policemen had to be attacked, the Council offices ...

MR VISSER: I beg your pardon, you don't understand me. Please restrict yourself to the three false flag operations that we have discussed here. Were any one of those specifically identified or were they identified generally speaking, by means of type?

MR PRETORIUS: By means of type they said sub-stations and railway lines.

MR VISSER: But he was specific enough?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, they were specific although they did not indicate at which point it was supposed to be undertaken.

MR VISSER: And just to bring everything together, you said that the way you understood the information that you received from Simelane was that one of her orders was to tell Mkhonza to go ahead?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, to go ahead with the orders that he had already received.

MR VISSER: You were examined this morning by Mr Lamey about the discussion which they allegedly had with you during which you said "don't ask too many questions", you also said that it was possible that such a discussion may have taken place?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And upon this speculative supposition that such a discussion did indeed take place, I would like to put the following speculative question to you. If Mr Veyi after Ms Simelane had already been replaced in Swaziland, had asked what had happened to her, what would you in all probability have said to him, "don't ask too many questions", why would you have said that?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I think that everybody who was involved in the Security Branch, knew that you shouldn't ask too many questions because there were operations under way, to protect the informer and he wasn't part of the handling programme, he didn't have anything to do with it.

MR VISSER: It wasn't necessary for him to know?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In all fairness, the clients of Mr Lamey conceded this morning that it is possible that certain toiletries may have been purchased for Ms Simelane from the very beginning and then upon a question of the Chairperson, you stated that you thought that they would have seen it. The question is simply about the following, did she have a bag with her when she was arrested that she kept with her, a handbag or a carry bag?

MR PRETORIUS: I can't recall anything like that.

MR VISSER: Would there have been a place where she could have stored her things?

MR PRETORIUS: I wouldn't like to refer to her room, but her bed was there in the corner of a room.

MR VISSER: No, I don't care about the bed, I want to know whether or not there was a place where she could have stored her things?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, in the corner of the room.

MR VISSER: And isn't it possible that she may have had these things and the other members didn't see it?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I would concede that that is possible.

MR VISSER: It was put to you that the scope of the assault included slaps, punches and the use of the wet bag method. That was not the only discomfort or suffering which Ms Simelane endured while she was under your control, she was also bound with handcuffs and leg irons?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Her movements were limited to the room itself?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And there were other deprivations, there wasn't any running water and so forth and she had to wash in the dam and that sort of thing?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: The other aspect which was tabled by Mr Van den Berg was that he put it to you, or he put to you a question about the assaults and you said that the format was the same regardless of whether it was a man or a woman, the methodology would have been the same?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Would the degree of application of that modus operandi have been the same with a man or a woman?

MR PRETORIUS: No, it would have differed.

MR VISSER: In other words what does that mean, would it have been more serious with a woman?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I think it would have been less severe with a woman, because the subject was a petite lady.

MR VISSER: In other words it wasn't necessary to apply such a high level of violence on a woman as may have been necessary with a big, strong man?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: This isn't re-examination, but just to put this on record Mr Chairperson, the evidence was that these false flag operations were conducted for the exact reason that it should appear that these were ANC actions and this was done in order to protect the position of Simelane and the other informers or agents. Now in the further submissions and responses by the African National Congress to questions raised by the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation, that would be the yellow documents Mr Chairman, there is indeed a reference on page 78 and 79 which is relevant. On 78 it would appear that the heading is 1983 and on the next page, page 79, there are two dates. The one is the 8th of September 1983 and the target for which the ANC claims responsibility was "economic electrical sub-stations Johannesburg area", (2) Randburg and Sandton bomb, and then 11 September 1983, again "economic sub-stations at Bryanston-North and Fairland limpet mines cause structural damage". It would appear those are the two that we are speaking about in the evidence here. I have nothing further, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, is there any reason why you didn't use female Police Officers in this operation?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, we didn't have people like that if I might say this. I think at that stage, with regard to Soweto, there were two or three ladies that I recall, but they were employed in an administrative capacity and they worked in the office, they didn't work with us. There was never any order at that stage that any ladies had to work with the External Units.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the women that you are speaking about, are Police Officers?

MR PRETORIUS: You see Chairperson, I can remember perhaps one lady who was there who was a Police Officer, the rest were all administrative workers.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was no reason why you couldn't have used that female Police Officer?

MR PRETORIUS: But that woman wasn't allocated to us, and I didn't know whether or not it was the policy at that stage of the Police, to use lady Officers. They were only deployed at a later stage. There were very few women who were used and especially within the Soweto context, they didn't want to use women.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR PRETORIUS: Because it was too dangerous at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: What was too dangerous?

MR PRETORIUS: The onslaught on the Police, you must understand that the Protea office was located within Soweto and Sergeant Mong can testify here about an afternoon when he was on his way to the office and he was attacked with an AK47.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't wish to expose the Police women to this violence and rough situation?

MR PRETORIUS: The decision didn't rest with me, I was simply a Warrant Officer.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the policy of the Police?

MR PRETORIUS: Unfortunately I cannot tell you that.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't want to expose women to these dangers and this violence?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I would rather not comment about that, as I have said I was not in such a position of command that I could tell you what the Commanders decided.

CHAIRPERSON: But wasn't that within the usual set up where women were involved, you would use your female members in some or other capacity?

MR PRETORIUS: Later on it was that way, but I can assure you that a Unit such as Murder and Robbery who picked up men, women and children on a daily basis, never had women working for it at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know what the reason for that is?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot comment on that at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are excused Mr Pretorius.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, perhaps just in regard to the question that you have asked, if I may be allowed just to follow that up with one question please. The Security Police, in relation to other Policemen, did you receive the same training and instructions to prepare you for your tasks as Security Policemen, was this the same for all Policemen or did you receive extra training?

MR PRETORIUS: We received further courses in training.

MR VISSER: And if you found yourself with a woman that you were dealing with, was it proper to bring any woman in and involve her in a turning action?

MR PRETORIUS: No, not at that stage.

MR VISSER: Well, forget about the stage, what would such a woman be of value to you?

MR PRETORIUS: It is true what Mr Visser says Mr Chairperson, I can't see what the use would have been of such a woman because she wouldn't have had any knowledge of how to deal with the situation. She would have been completely worthless to us in such a situation.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.

MR PRETORIUS: Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAIRPERSON: Who is next?

MR VISSER: Mr Mong, Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, I think that there was legislation after 1987 that women had to be present if another woman was in detention, that was the legislation that was established at that stage, I don't know why, but that legislation was established.

MR VISSER: Commissioner De Jager is correct, I must say that my recollection is the following and it is nothing more than a recollection, it is that it had to do with certain crimes where certain investigations were conducted, such as rape and so forth, but it is fairly recent to tell you the truth.

FREDERICK BARNARD MONG: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Mong, you are an applicant for amnesty in this application, that has regard to the Simelane matter, is that correct?

MR MONG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And your amnesty application, we find in Bundle 2, page 423 to page 434, is that correct?

MR MONG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And do you confirm the contents and correctness thereof?

MR MONG: I do.

MR VISSER: I put you down there as Captain Mong, you are still in the Police?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VISSER: And what is your rank?

MR MONG: Inspector.

MR VISSER: You are an Inspector? Chairperson, my Attorney just reminds me that I have neglected to refer you to the fact that this statement will then be Exhibit Y.

CHAIRPERSON: What was an Inspector in the old days?

MR MONG: A Warrant Officer.

MR VISSER: Unfortunately the list that I have typed, I left Y out. We went from X to Z. Pretorius was X and this is the next Exhibit, it will have to be Y.

ADV DE JAGER: Ross was W, and Pretorius after Ross, X.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I will bring this list up to date if I have time tonight. Mr Mong, the background document, you have studied it, Exhibit A, is that correct?

MR MONG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you identify with the contents thereof and you request that it be applied to you and considered in the consideration of your application?

MR MONG: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And the same applies for the evidence that is contained in Exhibit A?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VISSER: And in your amnesty application you said that you referred to the amnesty application of Pretorius, Coetzee, Ross and Williams.

MR MONG: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 7(a) in your application form, it says "not applicable", that is 7(a) and 7(b), what is the correct position there?

MR MONG: It has to be amended with paragraph 7(a) that I was a supporter of the National Party.

MR VISSER: Was that the factual situation?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VISSER: In 1983 Mr Mong, you were a member of the Intelligence Unit of the Security Branch of Soweto?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VISSER: And under the direct command of Lieutenant Coetzee?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VISSER: You had the same knowledge as Mr Pretorius and you set it out from paragraph 3 and further on, we are not going to repeat it, we know how the evidence is as to how the meeting took place between Ms Simelane and Sergeant Mkhonza in the Carlton Centre and before the meeting, there was a meeting held, is that correct?

MR MONG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And in paragraph 7 on page 4 are the names that you have put down there, are these the persons who were at the meeting or the persons who were at the scene?

MR MONG: Both.

MR VISSER: Are these the persons as you can recall them? On this particular day, what was your rank then in 1983?

MR MONG: I was a Sergeant.

MR VISSER: On this particular day, what was your specific order or instruction?

MR MONG: I had to observe with Mr Ross and Mr Williams, we had to observe the restaurant where the contact had to take place. As soon as contact took place, I had to move down to the parking area to lend support with the arrest of the person.

MR VISSER: That is a bit of a repetition, but can you continue with paragraph 11 and put it to the Committee?

MR MONG: My involvement with Inspector Coetzee who was a Lieutenant then at that stage, was observation during the initial meeting between Simelane and RS243 in the Carlton Shopping Centre; the pursuance of Simelane and the RS member from the restaurant to the parking garage in the Carlton Centre; support with the physical arrest of Simelane and the transport of her to the Norwood SAP quarters; input and support during the questioning of Simelane.

MR VISSER: On this particular day, did you watch Mkhonza and see who he met?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VISSER: You also saw who this was?

MR MONG: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: And it was a woman? What did you do then?

MR MONG: From there I went to the parking garage to assist with the transport of the person if they came down to the parking garage.

MR VISSER: Did you speak to Mr Pretorius there?

MR MONG: No, I did not.

MR VISSER: Very well. Continue please.

MR MONG: Simelane shortly afterwards, I think it was the Monday after the Saturday that she was abducted, she was taken to a safehouse, a farm in the Northum district in the Northwest Province. Here she was questioned by myself, Superintendent Coetzee and Superintendent Pretorius and some of the black members.

MR VISSER: When did you know for the first time that it was a woman?

MR MONG: When the meeting took place in the restaurant.

MR VISSER: Did you do anything with that information?

MR MONG: I did nothing in regard to this information.

MR VISSER: Please continue.

MR MONG: As far as I can recall ...

MR VISSER: Sorry Mr Chairperson, I am confusing this witness with a previous witness who has already given the witness that he went down and told Pretorius, I am sorry, could I ask that to be struck off. I couldn't understand why he is giving the wrong answer here. I was busy with the wrong witness, I am sorry. Please continue.

MR MONG: As far as I can recall, only the following members attended the farm with regards to her orientation, it was myself, Coetzee, Pretorius, Sergeant Lengene and Sergeant Mothiba. Sergeant Nimrod Veyi and Strongman at that stage who was an informer.

MR VISSER: What was your involvement further on?

MR MONG: My further involvement was the following, the transport of Simelane to this premises in Northum, assisted by Sergeant Mothiba; the periodical input during the questioning of Simelane at Northum. My primary task was to show the photo album to Simelane and to put together profile sketches with regard to the persons which she identified, the periodical transport of rations from Johannesburg to Northum for Simelane and the black members who looked after her there. The period input during sessions where Simelane was tasked by Colonel Coetzee and Superintendent Pretorius, assistance to Sergeant Mothiba with the transport of Simelane from Northum to Potchefstroom and the handing over of Simelane to Colonel Coetzee and Superintendent Pretorius there.

ADV DE JAGER: How many vehicles did you go there with?

MR MONG: If I can recall correctly sir, Joseph and I, that is Mothiba, drove in the panel van and I think, if I am not wrong, Mr Coetzee and Pretorius went with Mr Coetzee's vehicle.

MR VISSER: And the black members?

MR MONG: With the initial transport of the subject, it was only myself and Joseph and the other two members, Coetzee and Pretorius.

MR VISSER: Somewhere I had read that Selamolela or Veyi had said that they went with their car later?

MR MONG: It could have been later, but not with the initial transporting.

MR VISSER: Please continue.

MR MONG: The questioning and turning of Simelane was accompanied with assaults with her, these assaults took place during approximately the first week or so. The manner of assault was hitting her with an open hand in the face, hitting her in the back and in the sides with a fist and suffocating her by using a bag, a wet bag, which was used in detention, which would be put over her head until she starts gasping for breath.

MR VISSER: What do you mean hit with a fist, what do you mean? Like you would hit a punching bag?

MR MONG: Yes, like you would punch somebody. You know punching with a fist. With regard to any other assault, as is mentioned by the other applicants, I have no knowledge thereof, and I deny that it happened in my presence. My involvement in the assault was that I had slapped her with my open hand, I hit her in the back and sides with my fist and I placed the bag on her head. The assaults were of a serious nature and it could be seen as torture. The assaults on Simelane had the purpose of trying to convince her to work with the Security Branch and to convince ourselves that she was going to work with us. When a newly recruited informant had to be placed back in the system, he had to be supplied with certain information, so that certain communication channels must be established with this person. In this process it was unavoidable that certain agents or other informants had to be named to her or be known to her. If this person was not to be honest, such identities of such informers or agents would be disclosed to the enemy and this would lead to their death. I deny that any shock apparatus had been used on her as Selamolela testified in his amnesty application, Bundle 3, page 567. I have no knowledge that Simelane was thrown into the dam by Radebe as Selamolela says in his amnesty application, Bundle 3, page 567. We all had to wash in the dam and I don't know if this is what he refers to. The allegation ...

MR VISSER: Please excuse me, if I interrupt, or continue, we will get to that later.

MR MONG: The allegation in Bundle 3, page 567 that Simelane was assaulted so badly that she was unrecognisable, is untrue. If he wants to say that her face was swollen on some occasion, during the first week of interrogation, I will confirm that. On the farm Simelane was questioned by myself, Coetzee, Pretorius and black members. Some of the black members also acted as Interpreters. The manner was to ask her to write down a statement which would set out her role and knowledge of MK activities. She was also requested to do identification of persons from photo albums. This was mostly my task. We removed parts of her written statement and asked her to write those sections that we have removed, again. If she gives other information, other than what she had given us or if she had omitted anything, she would be assaulted again.

CHAIRPERSON: Please excuse me, were you trying to find out if she made a bona fide mistake, or did you just assault her?

MR MONG: What had happened Chairperson, as I said, we gave her things to write.

CHAIRPERSON: I know that, but now she is writing, you take it away and you tell her write it again and she writes something else, something different, and then you hit her?

MR MONG: No, and then we want to clear it out with her, but these stories do not concur, if it doesn't concur with what she originally had written, she would be assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: So you let her write the second time and you read the piece that she had written and if there is a difference, if you look at the first piece that she had written, what do you do then?

MR MONG: Then we try to clear it with her, but if she does not come back to the original story that she had written or the story that we knew, should be true, she would be assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: So then you would hit her so that she would write her first story again?

MR MONG: To get clarity Chairperson, as to which story was the correct one.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't follow you. You take the original piece and you take the second piece that she had written?

MR MONG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you see there is a difference between the two?

MR MONG: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you ask her, or you tell her, you want to draw her attention to the difference?

MR MONG: Yes?

CHAIRPERSON: And she gives some explanation to you?

MR MONG: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So why do you assault her again?

MR MONG: At many instances it happened that if you asked her for an explanation of the two pieces, that the explanation she gave, did not concur with any one of the two and she comes up with some third story surrounding a specific incident.

CHAIRPERSON: And then?

MR MONG: And then we assaulted her.

CHAIRPERSON: Why?

MR MONG: To get the truth from her. If someone tells you two or three stories surrounding a specific incident, then at some stage we must get the truth from her.

CHAIRPERSON: And how do you corroborate what is the truth that you get from her?

MR MONG: If she was assaulted, she came with a story and assured us that what she was telling us, was the truth and we must accept it.

CHAIRPERSON: Even if it is a fourth story?

MR MONG: Even if it is one of these stories that she had already told us.

CHAIRPERSON: Continue Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Will it be convenient to take the adjournment now, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we can finish the chief, it seems to be very similar to the other statements that we have received?

MR VISSER: Yes. If you wish me to continue, we will do so Chairperson. We have arrived at where, paragraph 26. You have repeated in paragraph 26 that she supplied you with some information surrounding MK structures and their function in Swaziland and that from time to time, you did some follow up work based on the information that you received from Simelane, did you also go and verify and do follow up work?

MR MONG: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And there were times when there were only black members present with Ms Simelane at the farm?

MR MONG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Are you aware of any instructions that Coetzee gave to the black members during such times, where you, this is now you, Pretorius and Coetzee were all away from the farm, what did they have to do?

MR MONG: The times when we were not present at the premises, he told them to continue with the writing of her story and the identification of the photo albums and the black members who guarded her, had to see that she do this.

MR VISSER: You say just like the other persons, Mr Mpho was arrested, is that correct?

MR MONG: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And information which was received from Simelane directly or indirectly, gave or led to the fact that over a time period, 17 other persons were arrested?

MR MONG: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You refer in paragraph 30 to the false flag operations, do you confirm that you were also involved here?

MR MONG: Yes Chairperson.

MR VISSER: With which ones of these operations?

MR MONG: I apply for amnesty, I was involved with Ross, Williams and RS243, both instances of the sub-station which happened on the 10th of September.

MR VISSER: You refer to your Bundle, page 430, Bundle 2?

MR VISSER: I don't know if it is my mistake, what you say Superintendent then Captain Williams, was Williams a Captain then?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VISSER: That would have made him the most senior of all of you because Coetzee was a Lieutenant?

MR MONG: No, no, I think Coetzee - I am not sure.

MR VISSER: You are a little confused, I think it is a mistake, I think Williams said that he was a Sergeant.

MR MONG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Very well. Because of these explosions, you say you could provide credibility to agents in Swaziland, we know, we have heard from Pretorius that afterwards Sergeant Langa was indeed sent to Swaziland and where he received weaponry for attacks in South Africa, that he had brought the weapons from Swaziland.

MR MONG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: The recruitment, did this happen at once or did it take some time, what is the situation? Could you read paragraph 33?

MR MONG: The recruitment of Simelane took place over a time period of a few days, we had to ensure that her information was correct and we had to satisfy ourselves that she was indeed honest with her indications that she would cooperate with the SAP. With time we were satisfied that she was recruited. I heard that she was registered as an Opportunity Source with the Soweto Security Branch.

MR VISSER: Did you believe it then or only now, did you hear it then or only now?

MR MONG: Only after she was placed back in Swaziland did I hear this from Mr Coetzee.

MR VISSER: Continue please.

MR MONG: With Simelane's accommodation and re-orientation at the mentioned farm, we saw to her personal needs, her toiletries, food, new clothing and others, so that we could continue with her co-operation and her attitude.

MR VISSER: Yes, we all agree on this.

MR MONG: Not all the members were always on the farm. All of us, sometimes two at a time, had to look after her. She was cuffed with leg irons and handcuffs during the night to prevent her from escaping.

MR VISSER: During the day she had the leg irons?

MR MONG: Yes, and when she had to write, she had the leg irons on. Sergeant Mothiba and I took Simelane under instructions from Superintendent Coetzee from the farm to Potchefstroom.

MR VISSER: This was now after this turning action?

MR MONG: I was given instructions that as soon as we left the farm, to remove the leg irons and I did do this.

MR VISSER: What about the handcuffs?

MR MONG: At that stage she did not have handcuffs. We travelled with a built up panel van which prevented one to see outside if you were in the back of the vehicle.

MR VISSER: So Ms Simelane, when you placed her in the vehicle here at the room, was she able to see the country side, could she take it in and identify it?

MR MONG: Chairperson, if I can recall correctly, I put Joseph in the back with her so that he had to ensure that she did not look around and see where she was. He was in the back with her until we got to Potchefstroom.

MR VISSER: What was the purpose thereof that she could not see what happened?

MR MONG: The farm which we had used, was a farm that Mr Coetzee - it was the farm of one of Mr Coetzee's family members and we did not want her to identify the farm. After conclusion of other aspects and the targeting and the structuring of her operational programme and indication of the handling group and the manner of future communication, I heard that she had been placed back in Swaziland.

MR VISSER: After you had handed her to Mr Coetzee in Potchefstroom?

MR MONG: Yes, I handed her over to Mr Coetzee.

MR VISSER: Where in Potchefstroom did this handing over take place?

MR MONG: If I can recall correctly, it was on the road where the industrial area in Potchefstroom was.

MR VISSER: From there, where did you go to?

MR MONG: From there we went back to the Custodum Flats in Norwood, where I left him there.

MR VISSER: Did you have any idea, do you have any knowledge of the allegation that there was a suggestion that members of the South African Police Coetzee and or Pretorius might have killed Ms Simelane and had buried her close to Rustenburg?

MR MONG: I have knowledge of these suggestions but I cannot confirm whether they are true or not.

MR VISSER: With regards to you personally, you said in paragraph 40, it would have been senseless to do it because this was not your objective?

MR MONG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Please continue with paragraph 41.

MR MONG: The actions and omissions which I am guilty of, I had done during the execution of my official duties, under instruction from a higher Officer whose instructions I was obliged to execute. I did this as part of the opposition of the struggle and it was aimed at the supporters of the liberation movement. What I had done, I had done to protect the interests of the National Party and the government and to oppose the revolutionary onslaught. I humbly request that amnesty be granted to me for my actions and omissions in this regard.

MR VISSER: And this request includes on page 2 conspiracy to abduct Simelane, unlawful arrest and or detention, assistance or accessory after the fact and the abduction, assault or torture of the named person Nokuthula Simelane, defeating the ends of justice?

MR MONG: That is right.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for 15 minutes.

ON RESUMPTION:

FREDERICK BARNARD MONG: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mong, in this document Exhibit E, you state that members of the Security Branch, paragraph 5 were told beforehand during a meeting that it was decided that the MK courier would be arrested during the meeting and the turning action would commence immediately? Do I understand your evidence correctly that originally it was told to the members that there would be a turning action?

MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Do I understand your evidence correctly when read with paragraph 7, that both Mr Selamolela and Veyi were present during that meeting during which the discussion of the turning action, was held?

MR MONG: As far as I can recall, yes.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that with regard to the two specific persons, you may have made a mistake with regard to their presence during such a meeting where such a turning action was discussed?

MR MONG: Chairperson, the possibility does exist, but as I have said, as far as I can recall, I should imagine that they were present.

MR LAMEY: Because I just want to put to you what my instructions are, that is that neither Mr Veyi nor Mr Selamolela had any prior knowledge of the objective of the action to arrest her, regardless of the turning action, they knew that there was going to be an arrest at the Carlton Centre and they understood that this would take place.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, it is not clear to me, were they at the meeting or were they not there?

MR LAMEY: They were not at a meeting specifically during which discussion was held about a turning action during which a person would be seized in order to turn this person.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but what I don't understand is whether or not they were at this meeting or whether they were at another meeting where this was discussed.

MR LAMEY: They were informed that there would be an arrest at Carlton Centre. That is what I understand.

MR MONG: Chairperson, I don't think that we should confuse the meeting between Coetzee and Muller with another reference to a meeting that Mr Coetzee had with us, to inform us about the action which was to take place. We shouldn't confuse these two meetings. With regard to the meeting between Muller and Coetzee, we were not involved in that. The meeting that we had with Mr Coetzee before the action, was more like a briefing session and during that meeting, I recall that those two persons were present.

ADV GCABASHE : At what point did you have this briefing session, just before you went to the Carlton Centre?

MR MONG: This is before we went to the Carlton Centre.

ADV GCABASHE : So it would have been an hour or two before going to the Carlton Centre?

MR MONG: Approximately yes.

MR LAMEY: My further instructions from Mr Veyi are that he was not present at all at the Carlton Centre where she was seized or arrested. It was only after that that he joined you at the Norwood quarters where her interrogation began, could you have placed him at the Carlton Centre by mistake?

MR MONG: Could you please put that question again?

MR LAMEY: You put Veyi in paragraph 7 as a member of the group that went to the Carlton Centre, is that correct?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr Veyi are that he was not there and that he only joined you later at the Norwood quarters where the interrogation commenced.

MR MONG: I cannot see the purpose about informing somebody about an operation, and then not using them.

ADV GCABASHE : So you are saying he was both at the meeting and at the Carlton Centre?

MR MONG: As far as it concerns me, yes.

MR LAMEY: But with regard to Mr Selamolela, he was at the Carlton Centre? Then I would also like to ask you about the question of the arrest and the seizure action and the discussion before that. Upon the question put by the Committee and the question was what would have happened if the person had not been prepared to cooperate with the Security Branch, in other words if she didn't want to turn and his answer was one of the alternatives that he mentioned was that she would be charged. Do you agree with that?

MR MONG: Yes, I do.

MR LAMEY: If an illegal abduction had taken place and not an arrest which would have made the entire background to the prosecution illegitimate, how would she have been properly prosecuted?

MR MONG: Chairperson, I would say that with the information that we had at our disposal with regard to her involvement with the internal structures of MK.

MR LAMEY: Isn't it true that during the past with such actions, you would arrest such a person and then interrogate them and then detain them and during the process also attempt to turn the person, but it would not necessarily be turning as a definite option from the very beginning as planned?

MR MONG: Yes, that is true.

MR LAMEY: Your evidence is similar to that of Mr Pretorius and Mr Coetzee, also with regard to the additional submission. It reads very much the same ad verbum and I would just like to put it to you briefly that my instructions are that this person's physical condition up until the very last stage where Mr Selamolela and Veyi were at the farm, her physical condition was poor, she was swollen and according to them, she was still wearing the same brown over-all.

MR MONG: Chairperson, as far as it regards the same brown over-all, that would probably be true, however I cannot see that she was in an aggravated position of abuse or torture because otherwise we would not have been in the position to release her. We could not have sent her back to Swaziland in such an injured state if I might put it that way, because that would probably have been obvious then that she had been in our hands.

MR LAMEY: With regard to your evidence in which you state that Mr Mkhonza and Mr Langa had an instruction from the Swaziland MK to bomb the sub-stations, is that your evidence?

MR MONG: That is what I heard from Mr Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: That is what you heard from him, so you don't have direct, personal knowledge thereof?

MR MONG: No.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to put it to you that my instructions are from Mr Mkhonza that he never received such an order from Swaziland MK, but there was another order that he had with regard to an attack on a parade ground of a Military Unit at Witwatersrand.

MR MONG: As I have already said, I cannot dispute that because I was not the handler, it did not come back to me.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that Mr Langa alone might have received such an order and not Mr Mkhonza?

MR MONG: As I have already said, I cannot respond to that question because I was not the handler of either one of these two persons.

MR LAMEY: Then the shock apparatus that was used, were you present when Coetzee and Pretorius were examined?

MR MONG: No, I was only present from time to time.

MR LAMEY: So if this did take place, you would not be able to exclude the possibility?

MR MONG: I cannot exclude the possibility but it did not happen in my presence.

MR LAMEY: Where exactly was Ms Simelane handed over in Potchefstroom?

MR MONG: As I have already stated before, it was near the industrial area, outside Potchefstroom.

MR LAMEY: Could you explain which route you used from Norwood?

MR MONG: If I recall correctly, it was Rustenburg/Ventersdorp, Ventersdorp/Potchefstroom.

MR LAMEY: When you approach Potchefstroom from Ventersdorp, from which side did you come in?

MR MONG: I cannot recall that.

MR LAMEY: Which wind direction would you be speaking of? East from Potchefstroom, north or south or west from Potchefstroom?

MR MONG: I would say in a south-westerly direction from Potchefstroom, but I am not entirely certain.

MR LAMEY: You are not entirely certain but you would say that it would be on the south-westerly side of Potchefstroom?

MR MONG: I am not certain.

MR LAMEY: On which side of Potchefstroom is the industrial area that you referred to?

MR MONG: If I could explain to you, if I have my wind directions correct I would say that the industrial area lies to the north of Potchefstroom. No, I beg your pardon, it is on the south.

MR LAMEY: Completely to the south?

MR MONG: Yes, to the south.

MR LAMEY: Which towns are immediately the closest to Potchefstroom, in terms of its industrial area, what would be the first town after the industrial area of Potchefstroom?

MR MONG: If I know correctly, it would be Klerksdorp.

MR LAMEY: Stilfontein/Klerksdorp?

MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: That would be more to the western side, not so? So you came in from Ventersdorp from that side? Let me put it to you like this, did you go from the farm to Ventersdorp and then to Potchefstroom and did you first visit the Security Branch there?

MR MONG: No.

MR LAMEY: So you never visited the Security Branch?

MR MONG: No, we couldn't visit the Security Branch office with the subject in our custody.

MR LAMEY: And she was transported in the panel van?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And from there after handing her over, what would the route have been, where would she have gone next?

MR MONG: From what I knew and was later informed, I handed her over to Coetzee and Pretorius there and they would have rendezvoused with Langa somewhere, I don't know where that rendezvous point was supposed to have been.

MR LAMEY: Coetzee's evidence if I remember it correctly, is that after that, they moved along the Potchefstroom/Johannesburg road?

MR MONG: As I have said I don't know anything about that. I was not part of that section of the exercise.

MR LAMEY: Could you perhaps help us to clarify this, I don't understand quite thoroughly. Could she have been handed over to the western side of Potchefstroom if Coetzee had been on his way to Johannesburg in an easterly direction? In other words the sides of Potchefstroom are on opposite sides and why in the industrial area, west of Potchefstroom to Klerksdorp and not on the eastern side to Johannesburg?

MR MONG: I cannot respond to that because that is the point upon which I was told to wait.

MR LAMEY: Was there a specific reason why that point itself was selected?

MR MONG: I don't know, you will have to ask Coetzee that.

ADV GCABASHE : Was this a week day or a weekend, the day you handed her over?

MR MONG: I can't recall.

ADV GCABASHE : Was it busy, were there people there or was it absolutely quiet?

MR MONG: No, there were people there.

ADV GCABASHE : And you just did this in the open area, in the open parking area, you handed her over from one car to the other?

MR MONG: No, it was not a parking area, it was just along the road.

ADV GCABASHE : Along the road?

MR MONG: Next to the road.

ADV GCABASHE : And this is a main road?

MR MONG: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : And she walked from one car to the other?

MR MONG: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: She was not bound?

MR MONG: No, at that stage she was not bound.

MR LAMEY: Where were the cuffs and the irons removed?

MR MONG: My order from Mr Coetzee was that we could remove the leg irons from her feet as soon as we were on the road. As I have already stated, Sergeant Joseph was behind in the car with her, I can't say exactly when the leg irons were removed.

MR LAMEY: What was your rank at that stage?

MR MONG: I was a Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: And Mothiba?

MR MONG: He was also a Sergeant.

MR LAMEY: When you drove from the farm through Ventersdorp, where were you seated and where was Mothiba seated?

MR MONG: I drove and Mothiba, as I have already stated, sat next to her at the back of the panel van.

MR LAMEY: To whom was the order given that the leg irons were to be removed, to you or to Mothiba?

MR MONG: The order was given to me by Coetzee, upon the morning that I went to fetch her and Mothiba on the farm. The order was that as soon as we were on the road, her leg irons could be removed and that is how I conveyed the order to Mothiba.

MR LAMEY: Can you think of any reason why this could not have been done at an earlier stage on the farm perhaps?

MR MONG: I cannot think why this was not to take place earlier, all I can say is that I acted on an order that I received from Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: I am asking you in your experience, whether or not this made sense to you, to remove the leg irons only during the transport process or rather to do this when you were putting her in the panel van?

MR MONG: To be honest with you, I cannot see what difference it would have made if that had taken place inside or outside the panel van.

MR LAMEY: Why did Mothiba drive with her in the van?

MR MONG: Mr Mothiba was with her at the back of the vehicle because as Coetzee and Pretorius have already testified, he would have been the person who played the primary role or would have played the primary role in her handling after the time. I would say that the reason for that would be to maintain the position of trust and to have further discussions with her through the course, up to her release.

MR LAMEY: But wasn't she already oriented at that stage?

MR MONG: Yes, she was but that was simply to fortify the relationship of trust.

MR LAMEY: Was there a danger that during the journey, she could have escaped?

MR MONG: No, she would not have been able to escape because the van could not be opened from the inside.

MR LAMEY: How far was Northum from Potchefstroom?

MR MONG: Chairperson, I cannot recall that off the top of my head.

MR LAMEY: I am not asking you for an exact kilometres, could you just approximate. Let me ask you how far it is from Rustenburg?

MR MONG: Northum from Rustenburg?

MR LAMEY: Yes, did you travel from Northum from the farm, through Rustenburg?

MR MONG: I can't recall the exact route.

MR LAMEY: You can't recall the exact route?

MR MONG: No.

MR LAMEY: Did you go through Ventersdorp?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Could it be a distance of some 200 kilometres?

MR MONG: Yes, more or less.

MR LAMEY: At which stage did you give the order for her leg irons to be removed during the journey?

MR MONG: She was only bound with leg irons. As I have said when I picked up Joseph from the farm, I told him Mr Coetzee said we can take off the leg irons as soon as we are on the way, and that is why I am saying I don't know at which point during the journey, he took off the leg irons.

MR LAMEY: But when you arrived at the industrial area, she was free?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR LAMEY: How was she transported in the vehicle?

MR MONG: In Coetzee's vehicle?

MR LAMEY: Yes, you handed her over to Coetzee?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And who was with him?

MR MONG: Pretorius.

MR LAMEY: How was she transported in Coetzee and Pretorius' vehicle?

MR MONG: She would have been taken from the panel van into Coetzee's vehicle and be seated on the back seat, and from there I left.

MR LAMEY: Where did you go from there? From that point where you handed her over, where did you go?

MR MONG: I went back to Johannesburg, with Joseph.

MR LAMEY: Potchefstroom/Johannesburg road?

MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: So we have it that Coetzee and Pretorius also took that road as you did?

MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I don't wish to take much longer. As I have said I could go through all the questions that I put beforehand one by one, but perhaps it may not be necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mong, did you hear the questions that Mr Lamey put to your colleagues, Mr Pretorius and Mr Coetzee with regard to the assaults and the versions of his clients? Do you know what Mr Lamey's clients' versions are of those events which took place on the farm?

MR MONG: Chairperson, I can broadly recall what was said with regard to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any commentary?

MR MONG: No, I don't think it is necessary for me to comment.

MR LAMEY: So you would associate yourself with their versions?

MR MONG: In so far - I differ with the reasons as given by Pretorius and Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I don't have any further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Van den Berg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Chairperson. Do you know Sergeant Langa?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You worked with him from time to time as a member of the Unit?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sergeant Mothiba, let me just place this in context, Simelane was handed over in Potchefstroom and you and Sergeant Mothiba went back to Johannesburg?

MR MONG: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Where did you drop him off?

MR MONG: I dropped him off at the Norwood flats in Custodum.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you don't know about his movements after that?

MR MONG: Negative.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you also have no personal knowledge of what happened to Simelane after you handed her over to Coetzee and Pretorius at Potchefstroom?

MR MONG: No, simply that I knew that Langa and Mothiba would later accompany her to the Eastern Transvaal on that day.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You didn't know what the reason was for you handing over Simelane to Coetzee and Pretorius, because as I understand their evidence, she only spent a short time with them?

MR MONG: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You mentioned scars on Ms Simelane, was she hit to the extent that there were wounds?

MR MONG: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But you did mention scars?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Then how did she obtain these scars?

MR MONG: As a result of the assault which took place during the first phase, her cheekbones and eyes that were swollen.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Perhaps it is just my Afrikaans which is failing me, but am I correct if I understand the word "letsel" to indicate ...

MR MONG: Marks.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Oh, is it marks? As we would say in English "bruises"?

MR MONG: Yes, bruises.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When you received the instruction to pick up Simelane at Northum and bring her through to Potchefstroom, you said that you reported to Joseph and the others. Who are you referring to?

MR MONG: To Sergeant Mothiba.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was there anybody else that was present at the farm?

MR MONG: No, he was alone with her.

MR VAN DEN BERG: For how long have you known Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius, when did you first begin to work with them?

MR MONG: I began working with them in March 1983.

MR VAN DEN BERG: March 1983 and then at a certain stage, Coetzee was transferred from Soweto to Pretoria?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When did this take place, can you recall?

MR MONG: That would have been approximately 1988 or 1989.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, if we look at his application, he was transferred in 1987, the end of 1987, and he began at the Security Head Office of National Intelligence Co-ordination Component in 1988?

MR MONG: Yes, I agree with that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you have contact with him after that?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: With regard to work or friendship?

MR MONG: With regard to work.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And Pretorius, was he transferred at any point?

MR MONG: Yes, he was also transferred as well as myself.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You have no personal knowledge of the replacement of Simelane in Swaziland?

MR MONG: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The filing system at Soweto, were there individual files for suspects, possible MK members and separate files for informers? How did the filing system work?

MR MONG: Informer files were kept completely separate from the files of suspects, completely separate.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if an informer was of no further value for whatsoever reason, what would happen to the file?

MR MONG: That file would have been closed and safeguarded.

MR VAN DEN BERG: At a separate place?

MR MONG: Yes, at a separate place until an audit of the file took place.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And that probably took place once a year?

MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And what would happen to the file after the audit, the closed file?

MR MONG: Depending upon what the Auditor had decided.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But it was merely about financial implications?

MR MONG: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Because the information on the file would have already been processed into the system?

MR MONG: Yes, the information in the file would have already been processed during the person's period of activity It would have been forwarded to the relevant persons.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Inactive informers' files would be destroyed at a certain point?

MR MONG: That is possible, it may have been done.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Under which circumstances?

MR MONG: As I have said, depending upon the order of the Auditor's report, whether this file was still to be kept on record or not.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if the file was clean, if there were no further financial implications, no further enquiries about money spent or money in arrears, would that be the stage at which the file would be destroyed?

MR MONG: That was possible.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When were you transferred from Soweto?

MR MONG: In 1990.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When during 1990?

MR MONG: I can't recall the specific dates, but it was during 1990. I was with Crime Intelligence.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you present in Soweto, as I understand other amnesty applications, statements or their evidence, were there any instructions to destroy files in the 1990's, were you in Soweto when this happened?

MR MONG: I was already transferred.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But you have knowledge that such an instruction existed and that files were destroyed?

MR MONG: Yes, I do.

MR VAN DEN BERG: In your initial amnesty application, you refer to RS243 and to RS269, why did you decide to name them in that manner and not use their names, what was the reason therefore?

MR MONG: I don't know, I cannot give you a specific reason.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When did Langa die? Do you know?

MR MONG: I don't know.

MR VAN DEN BERG: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Thabethe?

MS THABETHE: No questions, thank you Chair.

ADV GCABASHE : I have been curious about this business of "all of us washed in the dam", everybody has said it today. Just explain that to me.

MR MONG: I mean there as no other facility to wash in, it was either the dam or at the tap that was there. There was no other facility. If I stayed over at times with the subject and the black members, then I used the dam to wash myself in.

ADV GCABASHE : You go and get water from the dam or you actually go and wash in the dam?

MR MONG: I washed in the dam.

ADV GCABASHE : Right, now was this expected of Nokuthula Simelane as well, she would wash in the dam or water would be brought to her or she fetched her own water, just I am trying to understand that?

MR MONG: I can recall I think twice, that she went and washed in the dam.

ADV GCABASHE : And somebody would be guarding her because the leg irons would be off?

MR MONG: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE : The other curious one is my assumption is with this farm, you normally have an inner fence around the homestead, then you have the outer fence around the farm itself, is this essentially what happened to this particular farm as well, just explain it to me.

MR MONG: No, I was not at the house where the family of Mr Coetzee had stayed, and if I can think back, it was just one fence on the side of the road, around the farm. That is all I can recall.

ADV GCABASHE : And how far was this store room from that fence?

MR MONG: About 400 metres.

ADV GCABASHE : Would it have been visible from the store, from the store room, the fence and the road? No?

MR MONG: No, I doubt it.

ADV GCABASHE : Then Mr Mothiba, how old was he? Everybody refers to him as a father figure?

MR MONG: Yes, he was approximately in his early 50's at that stage.

ADV GCABASHE : Early 50's?

MR MONG: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : And he is deceased?

MR MONG: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : What did he die of?

MR MONG: He had a stroke.

ADV GCABASHE : When was this? You don't know?

MR MONG: No, I don't know.

ADV GCABASHE : Okay, thank you Chair, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

ADV DE JAGER: Maybe you can just assist me. Did you participate in the transport of Ms Simelane to the premises?

MR MONG: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: And you took her back?

MR MONG: Yes, back to Potchefstroom.

ADV DE JAGER: And both times this was in the panel van?

MR MONG: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: If you were away from the premises, what did you drive with?

MR MONG: I drove the panel van.

ADV DE JAGER: And were there any other vehicles on the premises that were left there?

MR MONG: If I can recall correctly, the only vehicle that stayed over there, was then Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius went there with their vehicles. If I went there to relieve them, I would drive with a vehicle and the person whom I relieved, would come back with that vehicle.

ADV DE JAGER: I see, so there were times when there were not vehicle there?

MR MONG: Yes, there were times when there were not vehicles there.

ADV DE JAGER: So there was no time that there were three vehicles?

MR MONG: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination Mr Visser?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Just two matters, thank you Chairperson. I want to understand what you are saying. You have referred to scars and you described it as her eyes that were swollen and her cheekbones that were swollen and some bruises, to which stage do you refer to where these marks were on Ms Simelane, was this on the day when you took her to Potchefstroom?

MR MONG: No.

MR VISSER: When were these marks visible?

MR MONG: These marks were visible up to about approximately the third week.

MR VISSER: Yes, I think there must be some misunderstanding between yourself and Mr Van den Berg, Mr Van den Berg referred to the time when you and Mothiba took Ms Simelane to Potchefstroom. Were there any visible marks on Ms Simelane?

MR MONG: Not that I can recall.

MR VISSER: And the last aspect, how far from the house was this room that you stayed in, an approximation.

MR MONG: I would say approximately half a kilometre, more or less.

MR VISSER: Half a kilometre? So it was reasonably far from the house?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VISSER: Were there bushes in between? Could you see the two places?

MR MONG: No.

MR VISSER: So you were totally apart from the house? And this dam, what type of a dam was this, describe it to us?

MR MONG: It was a normal dam that you find on farms with a wind pump. If I recall correctly it was deeper than four feet, approximately five, six feet.

MR VISSER: Or it was surrounded by an embankment, five or six feet high, so how do you get into the dam?

MR MONG: There were some steps.

MR VISSER: And then if you want to wash in the dam, what happens then? Do you climb up the steps to the top and then?

MR MONG: I put on a shorts and I climbed into the dam and washed myself.

MR VISSER: And this was in the month of September?

MR MONG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: September month in the Bushveld, it is reasonably warm?

MR MONG: Yes.

MR VISSER: And you only went into the dam twice?

MR MONG: At times when I went to wash.

MR VISSER: You did not go in for a swim?

MR MONG: No sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Mong, thank you, you are excused.

MR MONG: Thank you sir.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, that brings me to the end of the witnesses for, the applicants for whom I appear. I will now gladly hand over to my learned friend, Mr Lamey.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I am calling Mr Mkhonza. It will be more easier if he could be sitting next to me, thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV DE JAGER: In which language would you give evidence?

MR MKHONZA: English.

NORMAN L. MKHONZA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I have made reference in the introductory address to the Committee about an initial amnesty application which was submitted to the TRC which is not part of the Bundle, I beg leave to hand up that document. What is contained in the Bundle on page 414 and further onwards, it is a supplemented application. As I have previously stated, we are really going to rely on the supplemented version. The first application made reference to a statement to the Attorney General and I merely wish to hand it up for the sake of completeness, a copy which I have obtained of this statement from the Attorney General's office as well as then the initial form in which the application was submitted.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is two documents? Where are we now, X, Y and Z?

MR LAMEY: So Exhibit Z1 and Z2?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which one would be ...

MR LAMEY: Z1 would be the form of the application I suggest and Z2 would be the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mkhonza, is it correct that an initial application was submitted to the TRC which is now before you, marked as Exhibit Z1, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You have signed this document, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I did.

MR LAMEY: In this initial application with regard to the particulars that had been requested for which you seek amnesty, you refer in paragraph 9(a)(i) to the disappearance of Nokuthula Simelane and you refer to a statement in the possession of the Attorney General, is that correct? The document now shown to you, which is put before you, which is marked Exhibit Z2, is that a copy of the statement which you have made to the Attorney General and which you have referred to in your initial amnesty application?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Subsequent to that, after you had obtained legal representation, a further application was prepared with Form 1 which also contains an Annexure A and where you refer also to the incident relating to Nokuthula Vela Simelane, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: What is before you, which is marked pages 414 up to and including pages 422 of Bundle 2, is that that supplemented application with your signature thereon?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And you confirm also the correctness of what is stated therein?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You state that you joined the South African Police in 1988, is that correct? 1981?

MR MKHONZA: 1981, yes.

MR LAMEY: Sorry. Is it correct that you became a Permanent Force member of the South African Police Force?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You also state in paragraph 8(b), that is on page 415 that you were recruited by the Security Board of the SAP by Captain Minnaar, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is that when you joined the Security Police?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, that is right.

MR LAMEY: Your Force number was 0447917-3 as stated?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Is the Force number correct there?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it is correct but at that stage it was 172449 something, this is a new one that they exchanged. At that stage it wasn't this one.

MR LAMEY: Can you remember the number at the stage when you were recruited?

MR MKHONZA: It was 172449B if I can remember correctly.

MR LAMEY: If we proceed with your particulars regarding the incident of let's call it Ms Simelane, you state that you were stationed at Protea Security Branch during 1983, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: At that stage you were an undercover agent?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: For the Security Police in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: For the Security Police not in Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: All right, in general for the Security Police?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: But at the stage particular when this incident happened, you had infiltrated the ANC, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you infiltrate the ANC particularly in Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: That is right.

MR LAMEY: Did you become a member of the ANC for this purpose, a "member"?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Who was your handler as an undercover agent?

MR MKHONZA: It was Mr Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: Did he have also another name under which he handled you, by the name of Mkhize?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Now could you explain to the Committee how, it is common cause that you ultimately met a lady by the name of Simelane at the Carlton Centre. Can you tell the Committee how did this happen, how - what happened prior to this which led up to this meeting with her at the Carlton Centre?

MR MKHONZA: I met a gentleman by the name of Mpho in Swaziland who told me that ...

MR LAMEY: All right, just stop there, who was this gentleman, this Mpho?

MR MKHONZA: I only knew him as Mpho, that was the only name I knew.

MR LAMEY: What was he doing in Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: I don't know exactly what was he doing, but at that time I met him when we were busy with our investigation pertaining to MK structures.

MR LAMEY: You met him while you infiltrated the MK structures?

MR MKHONZA: That is right.

MR LAMEY: Was he a member of MK?

MR MKHONZA: To me, yes. I would say so.

MR LAMEY: Now, what - did you receive any instructions from this person or any request?

MR MKHONZA: Yes sir, he instructed me to meet one lady that I didn't know, even specified to me that you don't know this agent and she doesn't know you as well, that you meet her at the Funfood at Carlton Centre and then he drew up an identification code that we would use for us to know each other, this lady and myself. Because I was wearing a brown trousers that day and a yellow shirt, Mpho said that I should wear the very same clothing and then on top of that, I had to buy a Rothmans cigarette if I remember very well, and a blue envelope.

MR LAMEY: A Rothmans cigarette?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, to put it on top of the table, so that this person, this lady was going to try to identify me with, of which I did.

MR LAMEY: So the cigarette was sort of an instrument that was used so that ...

MR MKHONZA: Right, for identification purposes.

MR LAMEY: That she could identify you at the place?

MR MKHONZA: That is right. And the brown trousers and the yellow shirt, yes.

MR LAMEY: This method of identification, did you also give this information to Coetzee?

MR MKHONZA: That is right.

MR LAMEY: Did you know that what sex this lady would be? Well, what - sorry, that is relaxing the mind, yes, could you know what, who this person would be?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I knew it was going to be a lady.

MR LAMEY: This aspect, did you also mention this to Coetzee?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I did.

MR LAMEY: But you didn't know her name at that stage?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't.

MR LAMEY: Did you know what the purpose of this meeting with her would be as you had been instructed from this Mpho?

MR MKHONZA: It wasn't very clear, except that Mpho mentioned that he would hand over to me a material, it wasn't very clear what kind of material it had.

MR LAMEY: If you say it wasn't clear, was it not specified?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it wasn't.

MR LAMEY: What could this material be? What did you understand from that?

MR MKHONZA: From my understanding it could have been a soft material or hard material.

MR LAMEY: If you talk about soft material or hard material, can you just explain further to the Committee what you mean by that?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it could have been literature or else it could have been ...

MR LAMEY: Is that soft material?

MR MKHONZA: That is soft material.

MR LAMEY: Yes?

MR MKHONZA: And hard material could have been arms, including explosives.

MR LAMEY: Now was it discussed with you and Coetzee that - anything else that would happen with this lady?

MR MKHONZA: No, except that he said to me he is going to arrest this lady.

MR LAMEY: And how would you assist in this regard?

MR MKHONZA: That I should sort of entertain her by buying something like food, because he gave me R100-00 to entertain this lady and this would help them to take photo's while we are still sitting and eating there and then from there, I had to lure her into the basement.

MR LAMEY: To lure her into the basement?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, that is where the arrest would take place.

MR LAMEY: Basement, is that where the cars are parked?

MR MKHONZA: That is right.

MR LAMEY: Is that where you car was also parked?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: What happened then further there?

MR MKHONZA: From the Funfood itself we went to the car parking, that is where the arrest took place. That is where they arrested her.

MR LAMEY: And what happened with you in the process?

MR MKHONZA: After they had arrested her, then I went home.

MR LAMEY: Did your fellow Policemen also, did they also arrest you?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, the pretended as if they were arresting but they did not in actual fact.

MR LAMEY: Yes, because they knew that you were a Permanent Force member?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Was there a pretence to arrest you?

MR MKHONZA: That is right.

MR LAMEY: What did you know of this lady beforehand from Swaziland? Did you know that she had something also to do with MK?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't know her before hand.

MR LAMEY: No, you hadn't met the lady, I accept?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR LAMEY: No, but did you at least know that she was also involved with MK?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't.

MR LAMEY: When you received the instructions from Mpho?

MR MKHONZA: Well, from what Mpho told me, I thought the person, the lady that I was going to meet, was involved, but I cannot say yes, she was involved.

MR LAMEY: No, no that I understand, but what I want to know is what he did relate to you is that she is also involved with MK?

MR MKHONZA: No, no, he didn't.

MR LAMEY: Didn't he say that?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR LAMEY: Was she a courier, was she used as a courier?

MR MKHONZA: It could have been, yes.

MR LAMEY: Now, were any other plans disclosed to you what Coetzee would eventually do with the lady?

MR MKHONZA: No, except that he said he was going to arrest this lady.

MR LAMEY: What happened thereafter?

MR MKHONZA: Well, I don't know because that was the last time when I saw her, at Carlton Centre.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but what did you do thereafter? Where did you go?

MR MKHONZA: I went back home.

MR LAMEY: Can you remember something about that you were taken to the East Rand, Benoni, where you plaster of Paris on your leg and arm?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it was after her arrest that Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius took me to a place in Benoni.

MR LAMEY: Yes?

MR MKHONZA: To put plaster of Paris on my leg and on my arm.

MR LAMEY: What was the purpose of that?

MR MKHONZA: The purpose was to give an excuse in Swaziland that I could not meet this lady, because I had an accident on the day of the meeting with this lady.

MR LAMEY: Who would communicate this back to Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: Langa would do that.

MR LAMEY: Who was Langa?

MR MKHONZA: He was referred to as 269.

MR LAMEY: Was he also an undercover agent?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, he was.

MR LAMEY: Did you further have a discussion with Coetzee as to what happened further with this lady?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, on two occasions I asked him what happened to the lady and he gave me the same answer that time, "I shouldn't ask many questions."

MR LAMEY: Have you later heard that she, received any reports from whatever source that she disappeared?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I read it in the newspaper.

MR LAMEY: Did you read that in the newspaper?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: In your amnesty application you say you passed information on to Colonel Coetzee at that stage, from whom you received instructions to proceed with the meeting with this person, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: That is in paragraph, just have a look at the paragraph, paragraph 9(a)(i), page 421 and you say that you were informed by Coetzee that they intended arresting this person, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: You say he in fact used the word arrest?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: So when the person was in fact thereafter arrested, you did not know whether she was lawfully arrested or not?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't.

MR LAMEY: And you assumed that she was lawfully arrested?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Your decision to apply for amnesty for this particular incident is motivated by a reason that you heard that she disappeared? Is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, for my being instrumental into her arrest, yes.

MR LAMEY: We have also now heard that she was in fact kidnapped? You have heard that during this hearing?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: So you apply for amnesty for any possible offence which you could have committed in this process as being also an instrument which eventually, as it now appears, led to her abduction and kidnapping, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: In paragraph 10(a) you have stated in your supplemented application and I just want to ask you to listen carefully and to tell me whether you confirm this, you say that as a member of the Security Police, you were an undercover agent and you were instructed to pass on information to your handlers in this instance, with regard to the activities of MK soldiers, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: You say further that you received an instruction from MK command in Swaziland in order to meet this lady at the Carlton Centre?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You were told at the time that she would deliver certain material to you which you must take into possession and to use it as part of the ANC Unit in the RSA?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Is that correct.

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You at the time did not know what the material would be, it could have been hard material, namely arms or ammunition or soft material, being documentation, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: The objective as you stated, was to combat the activities of the ANC who had its aim to overthrow the government by means of an armed struggle from the point of view of the Security Police, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: At that stage, may I just ask this further, as a member of the Security Police, that was also your personal perception and motivation for your role in this regard?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it was.

MR LAMEY: Further on you say you received your orders from Coetzee who was at that stage, had the rank of Lieutenant?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And he was your handler?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: During the evidence here which you have heard f Mr Coetzee and also Mr Pretorius, certain evidence was given which you gave me instructions on and that is, one is about the explosions at the power stations at Bryanston and Randburg if I remember correctly. You have heard that evidence?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I did.

MR LAMEY: Now the evidence was to the effect that you received instructions from MK in Swaziland to sabotage or to be involved in these planned act of the explosions?

MR MKHONZA: No, that is not true, if I may correct that. The instructions that I got from Swaziland was that we should observe and hit the base, the military base in Johannesburg, not the power stations.

MR LAMEY: Was there a planned attack on a military base in Johannesburg?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, there was a plan to attack it.

MR LAMEY: And you had to play a role in that?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, we did some observation but seeing that the mission was impossible, we reported that.

MR LAMEY: What would be the nature of that attack, what was the plan?

MR MKHONZA: The plan would be to throw grenades when the Army was parading.

MR LAMEY: On the parade ground?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You say you didn't have any instructions with regard to the explosions and the power stations. Do you anything about this, why these explosions took place?

MR MKHONZA: What I am saying is I did not have instructions from Swaziland, from the ANC in Swaziland, but I had instructions from Coetzee that we should go and blow the power stations.

MR LAMEY: What was the purpose of that?

MR MKHONZA: The purpose was to give us credibility in Swaziland because we could not perform the initial task that was given to us.

MR LAMEY: The initial task being?

MR MKHONZA: To attack a military base.

MR LAMEY: At a time in 1983 you have also heard evidence about safe houses, were there other safe houses used as far as you know, by the Security Branch at Soweto?

MR MKHONZA: Safe houses?

MR LAMEY: Where persons that are arrested and detained, are kept?

MR MKHONZA: I know of one in Klipspruit.

MR LAMEY: Did you know of one in Klipspruit?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: One where?

MR MKHONZA: In Klipspruit.

MR LAMEY: Did you know of any, were you informed by Coetzee that they intended to "arrest" this lady for purposes of a so-called "kop draai" purpose?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR LAMEY: You were not informed?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR LAMEY: In this hearing reference was also made of the arrest of Justice Ngidi by Coetzee and Pretorius, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: I cannot confirm that, but I know of his arrest.

MR LAMEY: Did you know whether Simelane had anything to do with that arrest?

MR MKHONZA: No, I don't know.

MR LAMEY: Did you know how that happened?

MR MKHONZA: I don't know.

MR LAMEY: Do you know what led to his arrest?

MR MKHONZA: According to what I heard, it was through this SWT66, that is what I heard.

MR LAMEY: That is what you heard?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Did you understand it was through SWT66, also another informer?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Justice Ngidi, what was his other MK name?

MR MKHONZA: I know him as Cheche.

MR LAMEY: What was his position in MK in Swaziland, did you know him from there?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I met him there.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall when he was arrested or whether he was arrested at all?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I was told he was arrested for the first time and then he escaped, then he was re-arrested because he was sent back again here inside the country and he was re-arrested.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall in relation to the Simelane abduction?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR LAMEY: Was it before or after?

MR MKHONZA: I cannot, no.

MR LAMEY: You can't remember?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: This lady, Simelane, she was arrested before I take it, she could deliver anything to you?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.

ADV GCABASHE : Can I just take your point a little further Mr Lamey, can you take us through the conversation you had with her at Funfoods?

MR MKHONZA: We didn't talk long because all that she said to me, she used the communication codes which if I can remember well, are you Dan Motsa from Tzaneen, something like that, then I responded, then I asked her if I can order some drinks for her and then, of which I did, yes, she said yes and then I did. We sat there and we had that drink and then thereafter, it wasn't too long, we left.

ADV GCABASHE : But you left having said what to her, where were you going from there?

MR MKHONZA: I just said my car is parked in the basement, then we can go and talk there in the car because it is not safe to talk here.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Did she have anything with her?

MR MKHONZA: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Did she have anything with her?

MR MKHONZA: No, as far as I remember she didn't have anything.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn for lunch, with the co-operation of the parties, can we reconvene in 30 minutes' time? We will reconvene at half past one, thank you.

ON RESUMPTION:

NORMAN L. MKHONZA: (still under oath)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Mkhonza, would it be correct that you were infiltrated into MK structures in Swaziland through an informer who we know as SWT66, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: No, it is not correct, the person who introduced me to the ANC is Langa.

MR VISSER: Pardon?

MR MKHONZA: The person who introduced me, who took me to Swaziland was Langa.

MR VISSER: Langa?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Can you deny that he was introduced by SWT66 to the structures in Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: No, I cannot deny that.

MR VISSER: All right. Now this meeting that you had with MK Mpho in Swaziland, what was his position in MK?

MR MKHONZA: I have no idea.

MR VISSER: Well, how did it come about that you met him, why did this happen? Was it a per chance meeting or what?

MR MKHONZA: It was a normal procedure in Swaziland, to meet different people on different occasions. The first person that I met that Langa introduced me to, it was Cheche and then Oscar, then if I remember well it was Viva, no it was an ongoing thing to meet new faces at all times.

MR VISSER: Would you be introduced to these new people every time you went to Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: Not every time.

MR VISSER: Well, some of the times?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Were you introduced to MK Mpho?

MR MKHONZA: I was taken to him by SWT66.

MR VISSER: And was the purpose simply to meet him?

MR MKHONZA: Simply to meet Mpho?

MR VISSER: Yes?

MR MKHONZA: Well, I have no idea.

MR VISSER: Well, you see Mpho said to you as I understand it, that he was going to send a lady to meet you in Johannesburg? Is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: And he told you that he would send you material, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: Did you understand by that that the courier would be bringing the material along with her, to you in Johannesburg?

MR MKHONZA: The impression I got was that she was going to lead me to a place where I would get all those things.

MR VISSER: I see. But you had no idea what it was?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Why didn't you ask Mpho what it was?

MR MKHONZA: It would be very wrong on my side to ask too many questions.

MR VISSER: He would have told you what Coetzee told you, not to ask so many questions?

MR MKHONZA: No, not necessarily that, but that was the procedure to use, if you want to infiltrate somebody, you don't have to appear inquisitive.

MR VISSER: Well, what were you supposed to do with the material?

MR MKHONZA: A further instruction would follow thereafter.

MR VISSER: Would the lady bring the instructions to you, the courier?

MR MKHONZA: No, not the lady. It wasn't specific who was going to bring the instructions.

MR VISSER: I see. I am assuming in your favour that you told Mr Coetzee that the courier would be a lady, quite possible that he might have forgotten about it or not heard it, so we don't make an issue out of that, but as far as this meeting with Mpho is concerned, you were left with more questions than answers, you were really simply told someone was going to meet you and lead you to a place where there is material? Is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct yes.

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not on)

MR VISSER: He has just said so.

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not on)

MR VISSER: Perhaps you are right, yes Chairperson. Did Mpho tell you that the courier would lead you to the material or did you just assume that?

MR MKHONZA: It was my assumption, he didn't tell me exactly what was going to happen, but he just said he is going to give the material. How was that going to take place, it wasn't clear.

MR VISSER: Was it already at that meeting with Mpho discussed that the meeting would take place at the Carlton Centre?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Was the date and the time already discussed and agreed upon at that time?

MR MKHONZA: With Mpho, yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: You say you reported all of this to Coetzee?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct yes.

MR VISSER: And please stop me if I am wrong, you were going to then arrest her?

MR MKHONZA: I beg your pardon?

MR VISSER: You were then going to arrest her as far as you were concerned?

MR MKHONZA: No, I was not going to arrest her, Mr Coetzee was going to carry the arrest.

MR VISSER: Okay, somebody was going to arrest her? Did you understand your position in the MK structure in Swaziland, at that time, to mean that you now had to start taking orders from Mpho and carry them out? Was that your understanding?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR VISSER: Well, what authority did Mpho have to give you this instruction?

MR MKHONZA: As I said earlier on that I was introduced to different people on different occasions. I took it as part of the procedure.

MR VISSER: Did all of the other people also ... (tape ends) ...

MR MKHONZA: Yes, like Cheche, he was one of them.

MR VISSER: All right, now when you told Coetzee about what had transpired in Swaziland, were you and him alone or what was the position?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, he was alone if I remember very well, yes.

MR VISSER: All right, you remember very well. And did he immediately say then I am going to arrest her, at the meeting?

MR MKHONZA: No, he didn't say that immediately. It was like this, I came back from Swaziland and I gave him a report and then towards the day of the arrest, then he told me that it was sort of a debriefing, this is what you should do, you must lead her to the basement where I am going to arrest her, it was like that.

MR VISSER: All right. When you realised that Coetzee decided that she had to be arrested, did it not occur to you to say to him, well, why don't you leave the lady to go and point out the material to me, because we might be able to discover an arms cache? Did that occur to you?

MR MKHONZA: No, you wouldn't take decisions with Mr Coetzee, he was the one who decided every time.

MR VISSER: Well, it is just surprising that he didn't think about that himself, perhaps he didn't hear you telling him that the lady was going to lead you, your inference was that the lady was going to lead you to material. Didn't you just mention that to him?

MR MKHONZA: Could you come again please?

MR VISSER: I am trying to discover why nobody thought of following the lady and yourself to the place where she would point out the material, if your assumption was correct.

MR MKHONZA: The decision had to be taken by Mr Coetzee himself.

MR VISSER: If that is the best answer, let's step off it. You say there was a debriefing, did I hear you correctly just now?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I said so.

MR VISSER: All right, when you were told that you were going to meet the lady, you were going to have on your yellow shirt and your brown trousers and your pack of Rothmans cigarettes and you were to entice her to go down to the basement parking area, where she would be arrested, remember that?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: Who were present at that debriefing?

MR MKHONZA: I can't remember very well, but I should think...

MR VISSER: Can I perhaps help you?

MR MKHONZA: Yes please.

MR VISSER: You can tell me whether the names that I mention, you can remember being there or you can remember not being there. If you are not certain, please say so. Pretorius?

MR MKHONZA: I don't think he was there.

MR VISSER: Not there? Mong?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR VISSER: Ross?

MR MKHONZA: Ross, he could have been there.

MR VISSER: Okay. Williams?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR VISSER: No? Sergeant Mothiba?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR VISSER: Selamolela?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, as he was the person who would always take me there, yes, I think he was there.

MR VISSER: So he was there? And Radebe?

MR MKHONZA: No, Radebe was at the point of arrest as far as I remember.

MR VISSER: Right, and Constable Veyi?

MR MKHONZA: No, I don't think so. I am not too sure.

MR VISSER: Okay, so it turns out that it was Coetzee, what you can remember, it was Coetzee, Selamolela and yourself at this debriefing meeting?

MR MKHONZA: I think so because I was reporting directly to Mr Coetzee and Selamolela was the person who would take me to Mr Coetzee.

MR VISSER: Yes. And as far as you are concerned, this was the meeting where the plan about how she was going to be arrested, was discussed?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't say so.

MR VISSER: I am talking about the debriefing session where you spoke about how she was going to be arrested, that is what we are speaking about all the time.

MR MKHONZA: Oh, okay.

MR VISSER: Now do you want to change what you have just told me about the names now?

MR MKHONZA: No, I am not changing anything about names, what I am trying to remember is, I can't remember exactly when did the debriefing take place, but it did.

MR VISSER: All right. Apparently about an hour or two before the actual departure to the Carlton Centre, there was a meeting, call a debriefing, information briefing, whatever you want to call it, where the people who were going to be involved in the arrest, were properly briefed on what was going to happen? Did you attend such a briefing?

MR MKHONZA: No, I can't remember attending it.

MR VISSER: The courier, perhaps before I do say that, when you went to the Carlton Centre, right up until the time that the courier was arrested, was taken, were you under the firm impression it was a normal, lawful arrest?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR VISSER: This person, the courier and I am going to refer to her now as Simelane, because we know that it was Ms Simelane, did you know anything about her at all?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't know anything about her.

MR VISSER: Did you assume that she was a member of MK?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: Were you, did you inform Mr Coetzee of this assumption?

MR MKHONZA: No, I did not inform him, but as I was involved in an MK structure, it became clear that ...

MR VISSER: You assumed that you would have understood that she would be an MK courier?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR VISSER: All right. After that arrest, you went home?

MR MKHONZA: That is right.

MR VISSER: All right. Let's just talk for a moment about these explosions. I understand your evidence to be that you were not given any instructions in Swaziland by anybody to attack the specific targets that we spoke about here as far and I am referring now to the power stations, the Bryanston and the Randburg power stations, you were not given specific instructions in Swaziland, to attack specific power stations, do I have that right?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR VISSER: Were you given instructions in Swaziland about targets generally, that had to be attacked on behalf of the ANC?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: And part of that general target identification, were you told to attack inter alia power sub-stations?

MR MKHONZA: I was told to attack the Police stations and the Municipality offices and if I remember well, the school busses that carried white kids.

MR VISSER: All right. Is it possible that you were also told to attack power lines and power sub-stations?

MR MKHONZA: No, that wasn't mentioned, I would remember it.

MR VISSER: But I want to put it to you, that is very strange because we know that one of the prime target selections of the ANC in the conflict of the past, was in fact strategic points such as power plants, power sub-stations and so on, why would that have been excluded from your targets, do you have any idea?

MR MKHONZA: I think I have. Normally when you start working with the ANC, they give you impossible targets to perform, that is one way of testing you if you are a genuine comrade, I would say. If you perform those impossible targets, it is then that they realise, they find out that you are actually an agent because you cannot perform impossible tasks if you are not assisted by the authorities. That was the testing point, I would say.

MR VISSER: I see, so is your thinking then that attacking a sub-station would be relatively an easy target to attack?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it would.

MR VISSER: I see. Would that be the reason why you received the instructions to attack the Wits Command in Johannesburg?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, as part of my sort of proving that I was not an agent.

MR VISSER: And you failed the test because you didn't attack the Command?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I failed yes.

MR VISSER: And yet, you were still accepted?

MR MKHONZA: Because we changed the route, with the instruction of Mr Coetzee, that we should go and attack the power stations just to prove to the ANC that we are really committed.

MR VISSER: That is precisely the point. You were able to retain your credibility with MK in Swaziland precisely because these false flag operations were carried out, isn't that so?

MR MKHONZA: I would say so, yes.

MR VISSER: Yes. You spoke about a safe house in Klipspruit, Klipspruit West you thought it was, do you remember that?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I do.

MR VISSER: Now can you describe this safe house to us, is it a house standing on its own, on its own erf, on its own stand, is it a flat, is it an outbuilding, what kind of a building is this?

MR MKHONZA: It is a house.

MR VISSER: Standing on its own?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, no, it is attached to another house.

MR VISSER: Would that be houses referred to by I think it was Coetzee, as accommodation for members of the South African Police staff?

MR MKHONZA: That is the house where Strongman and Immanuel used to stay.

MR VISSER: Is that also the house where Lengene went to stay after he became a Policeman?

MR MKHONZA: No, I was not there at that stage, I don't know where did he stay.

MR VISSER: I see. Why do you call that a safe house?

MR MKHONZA: Because one MK captive that was caught by Mr Coetzee was also taken there, Joe, who also passed away.

MR VISSER: All right, so an MK captive, Joe, was taken to this house, is that the only reason why you call this a safe house?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, and from time to time, we would also meet with our informers there.

MR VISSER: But meeting with an informant in a house, doesn't make it a safe house, does it, not a safe house in the sense that we are talking about?

MR MKHONZA: I understood it to be a safe house because if it wasn't a safe house, we wouldn't meet people that had not to be seen by public, in that area.

MR VISSER: All right. In 1983 in September, was anybody living in that safe house?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I think so, I am not too sure.

MR VISSER: Do you know who, was it an ordinary member of the Police or was it someone else?

MR MKHONZA: It was Strongman who was living there.

MR VISSER: Strongman was staying there? All right, I just want to put it to you that the evidence was that the Intelligence Unit of the Security Police of Soweto did not have safe houses at their disposal in 1983. How would you react to that?

MR MKHONZA: I won't deny that.

MR VISSER: Pardon?

MR MKHONZA: I would not deny that.

MR VISSER: You would not deny that. All right, then I have just been wasting time, I am sorry. At this, coming back to the briefing before the arrest, you say that you were never informed by Coetzee that it was the intention to turn the courier into an informer?

MR MKHONZA: No, I was not.

MR VISSER: Wasn't that something which you assumed would happen?

MR MKHONZA: No, as I was still new, I didn't think of that.

MR VISSER: I see. Had you by that time not had previous exposure to arrests of MK people and the attempts to turn them into informers?

MR MKHONZA: No, I wasn't.

MR VISSER: I see. When Simelane met you at the Carlton Centre, did she have anything with her in her hands?

MR MKHONZA: I don't remember her holding anything.

MR VISSER: Is it possible that she had a bag with her where she kept her stuff? Can't you remember at all?

MR MKHONZA: No, I don't remember.

MR VISSER: All right, it is not important. After Ms Simelane had been arrested, did you ever go back to Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: I don't remember going back to Swaziland, instead Frank as we used to call him, Big, he is the one that went to report to Swaziland that I had an accident.

MR VISSER: You are talking about Mr Langa?

MR MKHONZA: That is right yes.

MR VISSER: Let's stay with his name, all right. He went to report that. Can you remember whether you yourself, after the arrest, ever went back to Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: No, I don't remember but I cannot put my head on a block and say no, I did not.

MR VISSER: Well, you see Mr Coetzee gave evidence to say that he sent you back to Swaziland once or twice, riding on the back of the false flag operations, having established your credibility and he said that you in fact brought back information about weapons that would come or did come, from Swaziland into the Republic. Can you remember any of that?

MR MKHONZA: No, I don't.

MR VISSER: Is it possible that that could have happened?

MR MKHONZA: I don't think it happened because I was also scared to go back because of what happened.

MR VISSER: Yes, well I just want to tell you that that evidence was never challenged. Now when you frequented Swaziland, did you there hear of a European woman or an Indian gentleman in MK?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR VISSER: Mr Mkhonza, while you were a Police spy, what would have happened if the ANC found out what you were doing, what do you think would have happened to you?

MR MKHONZA: I think they would have killed me.

MR VISSER: My next question, just let's assume that Simelane after her arrest, had become an informer of the Police, and she was released but she was, it was clear that she had been away for four to five weeks, it was clear from looking at her, that she had been assaulted, what do you think would have happened to her?

MR MKHONZA: Well, I don't know, but I cannot say they would have killed her or they would have sent her back to South Africa like they did with Cheche, I don't know.

MR VISSER: Don't you think they would have suspected that in the period that she was away, that she was in the hands of the Police, that she was assaulted and that she might have turned into an informer?

MR MKHONZA: That is another possibility and again I think the Intelligence of the ANC could also use her to be a double agent.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right. I put it to you that her life would have been in dire danger under those circumstances, would you agree with that?

MR MKHONZA: Yes and no.

MR VISSER: All right. Do you know whether Simelane on the occasion that you met her, had to courier information to Mr Barney Molokwane?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR VISSER: You don't know about that?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't.

MR VISSER: Were you at the time aware of the activities of a certain Mr Duma Nkosi in Soweto?

MR MKHONZA: No, I don't even know Duma.

MR VISSER: I see. Did you speak to Ms Simelane at all about any MK activity or plan or orders before she was arrested?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR VISSER: All right. Lastly I just want to ask you this, in Exhibit Z1 the last page, which is an annexure to Form 1, that is the application form, you said that you ask for amnesty in regard to the following - involved with the kidnapping or "arrest" of this person. That on face value, that doesn't tally with what you have told us today, because today you have said that that was a perfectly lawful arrest and yet you apply for amnesty for a kidnapping. Can you explain that?

MR MKHONZA: Actually what I meant to say is that seeing that I was instrumental in her arrest, I say that I should ask for amnesty.

MR VISSER: But your intention was a lawful arrest, not so, you never had an intention to kidnap her?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR VISSER: I have no further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Van den Berg, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Can you recall how many times you met with Mpho?

MR MKHONZA: Only once.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Only once, and that is what he confirms. He says he only met with you once. Can you remember the instruction that he gave you in respect of the establishment of communications network?

MR MKHONZA: No, I don't.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you dispute that the instruction was that you were to establish a communications network, setting out details of the way in which messages would be conveyed back to Swaziland, the location of a DLB for the procurement of materials, do you recall any of that?

MR MKHONZA: No, I don't but I cannot deny that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You don't deny it? You said that, you were asked about whether you had gone back to Swaziland and you were asked whether you brought back information in respect of weapons and you say you don't remember that. You say it is possible, but you say that you were scared to go back. Why was that? You said you were scared because of what happened, what are you referring to?

MR MKHONZA: Because I did not know what would they think of me because I didn't know what happened to this lady.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Isn't it correct that you did in fact go back after the false flag operations, after the bombing of the sub-stations at Bryanston and Fairlands?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it is possible that I went back, I cannot deny that, but I did not go back to Mpho in particular.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And do you recall that there was a time when the ANC in Swaziland were looking for you, looking for you and for Langa? Was that not part of your fear and your concern?

MR MKHONZA: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Twala says that when he received the information that Simelane had disappeared, he immediately suspected that you were involved in that. He was of the view that you and Langa should be arrested by the ANC and that you should be interrogated and to that end they set about trying to find you. Do you want to comment on that?

MR MKHONZA: It makes sense to me if they suspected so, because she was sent to meet me. So to me it is normal.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Would you just take me through your political objectives, you were a member of the Security Police and you were involved in the infiltration of MK structures. I have difficulty in reconciling that with your status as a second or a third class citizen in the country at that time, will you explain that to me.

MR MKHONZA: I was acting on instructions that were given to me, I had to obey instructions to infiltrate the ANC. If that answers your question.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Not completely. Did you subscribe, did you associate yourself with those instructions, did you associate yourself with the struggle to resist liberation in the country?

MR MKHONZA: At that time, I had no choice, I had to.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Van den Berg. Ms Thabethe, do you have any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Yes Mr Chair, thank you. Mr Mkhonza, how did it come about that you became a double agent?

CHAIRPERSON: Not a double agent, a Police agent, a Police spy?

MS THABETHE: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: Do you mean a double agent or a Police spy?

MS THABETHE: A double agent.

CHAIRPERSON: He was a double agent, all right.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I don't understand his evidence that he said he was a double agent, he was an undercover agent for the Police and as a result of that, he had to follow instructions also from ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that is what I thought. Perhaps Ms Thabethe will explain that.

MS THABETHE: I just want to check, I think I read it from the statement somewhere, but I might be mistaken.

CHAIRPERSON: On what has been said up to now, it is perhaps not proper to use the term double agent, but clarify it.

MR LAMEY: I wonder whether my learned friend refers to paragraph 1 on page 419, where he states my task was to work as an undercover agent.

MS THABETHE: Sorry, undercover agent, yes. I am indebted to you. How did it come about that you became an undercover agent in Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: It was per instruction.

MS THABETHE: From Mr Coetzee?

MR MKHONZA: That is right.

MS THABETHE: How did it happen, that is what I am asking.

MR MKHONZA: Your question is sort of ambiguous, if you could be specific with your question.

MS THABETHE: You were given an instruction to become an undercover agent in Swaziland.

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: What happened, how did you manage to go to Swaziland and you know, be approved as a person who worked for the ANC? That is what I am asking.

MR MKHONZA: Okay, I will say it again, I was introduced by Langa.

MS THABETHE: To the ANC in Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Okay, and how long did you work as an undercover agent before the incident of Simelane?

MR MKHONZA: That was the first, no it was almost a year or so, it couldn't have been more than a year if I remember very well.

MS THABETHE: And was this your first assignment or mission?

MR MKHONZA: From which side now?

MS THABETHE: From the Police side now? I am talking about the Simelane incident, was this your first assignment so to say?

MR MKHONZA: To do what?

MS THABETHE: To set somebody up to be arrested?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it was.

MS THABETHE: Was it your first assignment?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it was.

MS THABETHE: Okay.

ADV GCABASHE : But it was not your first assignment from the ANC to come and to something in South Africa?

MR MKHONZA: No, it was not.

ADV GCABASHE : How many other assignments had you had in that year, roughly the year that you had been active?

MR MKHONZA: It was to monitor the military base of which I did and the other ones, I could not perform. Yes, it was one that I did.

ADV GCABASHE : So you just, it was one, you monitored the military base and then the other one, you couldn't perform?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE : And that is the sum total before the Simelane incident?

MR MKHONZA: yes.

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you.

MS THABETHE: Can you press your microphone again, thank you. In your application in paragraph 4, you say "Fred Boy Langa took back a message in Swaziland after Ms Simelane was arrested". Am I right if I am saying that the message was that you didn't meet with the lady?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct yes.

MS THABETHE: And did it come back to you as to what they said in connection with that?

MR MKHONZA: He was not reporting to me, he was reporting directly to Mr Coetzee.

MS THABETHE: No, I don't think you understand me. In your application you say you had made an excuse not to meet with the lady and Frank Langa took the message back to Swaziland and then I asked you was the message the fact that you didn't meet with the lady and you said yes. Now my next question is, did Frank Langa get back to you as to what was the response when the ANC in Swaziland was told that you couldn't meet with the lady?

MR MKHONZA: Whatever response he would get from Swaziland, he would take it straight to Mr Coetzee, he wouldn't report it to me.

MS THABETHE: Oh, I see. After having been told that you shouldn't ask any questions by Mr Coetzee, did you leave it at that or did you try to find out what happened to Ms Simelane?

MR MKHONZA: If I remember very well, I asked him on two occasions and I got the same answer, "jy moenie baie vrae vra nie." Then it was like, we would all talk as colleagues, but what happened to this lady, nobody would come with an answer, until it appeared in the newspapers that she disappeared, but still you could not have, I could not have a definite answer as to what happened to her.

MS THABETHE: So are you saying that you only learned of her disappearance when you read the newspaper, that was the first time that you learned that she disappeared, is that your evidence?

MR MKHONZA: I would say so, yes.

MS THABETHE: I just want to ask you another question as well. You say when you met the lady in Carlton Centre, I am going back to Carlton Centre, you ordered drinks for her. I assume you sat down and you had those drinks, would that be correct of me to assume that way?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Did you talk about anything then with regard to why you had to meet?

MR MKHONZA: No, because I said to her we were going to talk in the car, because it wasn't safe to talk there.

MS THABETHE: And you also gave evidence that you don't remember her carrying anything with her, is that your evidence?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MS THABETHE: But you were aware that she was going to be arrested?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I was.

MS THABETHE: In your understanding, what was she going to be arrested for?

MR MKHONZA: For being an MK member. At that time MK people were not allowed in the country, that was my whole understanding.

MS THABETHE: Okay. My last question to you is, you have also given evidence that if they would have known that you are a Police informer, that is now the ANC people in Swaziland, they would have killed you, do you remember saying that?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I do.

MS THABETHE: On what basis are you saying this?

MR MKHONZA: Because I actually betrayed them.

MS THABETHE: No, what I am asking is on what basis do you think they would have killed you, had it occurred before that they would kill people who betrayed them?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, like it appeared on papers that they killed some of the Security Police that infiltrated and so I am basing my argument on that one.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Thabethe. Can you describe this Ms Simelane?

MR MKHONZA: She was a beautiful lady.

CHAIRPERSON: Young?

MR MKHONZA: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Young?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, she was young.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes? What else? How was she built?

MR MKHONZA: She was light in complexion and she was sort of slender.

CHAIRPERSON: From your conversation with her, could you form any impression about whether she was an educated person?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, she was.

CHAIRPERSON: And relatively sophisticated?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: How was her voice, how was she speaking, was it a sort of ...

MR MKHONZA: Soft voice, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Soft voice, soft spoken person?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see how she was arrested?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I saw.

CHAIRPERSON: What did they do to her?

MR MKHONZA: She was put in the boot of a white XR6 if I remember well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but before that, how did they apprehend her? Did they grab her, did they pull her to the ground, did they beat her up or what happened?

MR MKHONZA: No, not at that place, she was just grabbed. Yes, everybody was rushing for her.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. So everybody rushed towards her and they grabbed her?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What did she do, did she resist?

MR MKHONZA: Sort of yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Produce a firearm, hand grenade?

MR MKHONZA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Nothing?

MR MKHONZA: Nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Did she try to resist?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, she tried to resist.

CHAIRPERSON: And was she then subdued?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, she was overpowered.

CHAIRPERSON: Did she shout or ...

MR MKHONZA: No, she didn't shout, but she was scared.

CHAIRPERSON: She was right next to you?

MR MKHONZA: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: She was right next to you or close to you?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, as we were coming out of the lift, they just sprang on us.

CHAIRPERSON: You say she was scared?

MR MKHONZA: She looked scared to me.

CHAIRPERSON: She looked scared?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you never saw her after that?

MR MKHONZA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn’t you bother to enquire about her fate?

MR MKHONZA: Because nobody came back to me to tell as to what did she say, what was going on, and it was just like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you curious to find out what happened?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I was.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't approach any of the other Policemen that were on the scene to try and find out what happened?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, at a later stage after I had asked Mr Coetzee what happened to her, I think I talked to the black members about this, it was like a gossip sort of.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you were talking to them. Did you tell them that Coetzee wouldn't tell you anything?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I told them what he said to me.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you wanted to know what they knew about it?

MR MKHONZA: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: You told them Coetzee wouldn't tell you anything?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you wanted to find out what they knew about the incident?

MR MKHONZA: That is right.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they give you any information?

MR MKHONZA: No, nobody would give an answer as to what happened to her.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any questions?

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you Chair. Just to finish off the arrest in the basement. Did you see her being pushed into the boot of the XR6?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : Who got into the boot with her?

MR MKHONZA: I think it was Radebe, I think Mr Radebe.

ADV GCABASHE : Langa, did you ever see him again after this incident?

MR MKHONZA: No, Langa wasn't there.

ADV GCABASHE : When was the last time ...

MR MKHONZA: At the arrest point.

ADV GCABASHE : Okay, I concede that you are right. When was the last time that you saw Langa?

MR MKHONZA: It is a while ago, I can't remember. You mean after that incident?

ADV GCABASHE : This incident, yes?

MR MKHONZA: I think a week or so if I remember very well, after I had gone for the plaster of Paris. Yes, I think I met him.

ADV GCABASHE : You met Langa at least a week after you had gone to the POP?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, if my memory serves me well, I think so.

ADV GCABASHE : Did he discuss going in and out of Swaziland with you at all, at that stage?

MR MKHONZA: No, he didn't. Everything was arranged by Mr Coetzee, we were communicating through him.

ADV GCABASHE : And you weren't curious to ask what he knew about what was going on that side?

MR MKHONZA: Even if I wanted to, but I couldn't. The way, the type of person Langa was, he was very close to Mr Coetzee and he wouldn't discuss things behind his back and then think you - even if you become too curious, he was going to tell him that you are so curious.

ADV GCABASHE : You say you never went back to Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: I don't say I never, but I say I don't remember. I might have gone back, but I don't remember because I was scared.

ADV GCABASHE : After the time you left the Police Force, what did you do, did you just act as a regular Policeman essentially?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, after I left the Police Force?

ADV GCABASHE : After you left the Police Force in 1994?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, that is right.

ADV GCABASHE : Now between 1983 when this incident occurred, and 1994, you were just a regular Policeman?

MR MKHONZA: That is right yes.

ADV GCABASHE : Then coming to the Fairlands and Bryanston power station incidents, you said there that "we did some observations, but seeing that it would be impossible, you reported that it was impossible."

MR MKHONZA: That is right.

ADV GCABASHE : Who is "we"?

MR MKHONZA: It was Langa and myself.

ADV GCABASHE : The two of you operated as an Unit essentially?

MR MKHONZA: That is right.

ADV GCABASHE : Nobody else was part of the Unit?

MR MKHONZA: SWT66 was in a way, but she wasn't too involved in the operation.

ADV GCABASHE : Thank you Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: You said you received general instructions about targets when you were in Swaziland, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: Not general instructions, specific targets.

ADV DE JAGER: Specific targets?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And those specific targets were?

MR MKHONZA: The first one was the Municipality offices and the school bus.

ADV DE JAGER: Railway lines?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Not at all?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: Power lines?

MR MKHONZA: No, they might have said that to Langa, but not to me.

ADV DE JAGER: Who gave you these instructions?

MR MKHONZA: It was Cheche.

ADV DE JAGER: Was that before you met Mr Mpho?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Mr Mpho give you any instructions?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: So at that stage you had to carry out certain operations here before you met Mr Mpho?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: What did you report back to Mr Cheche about these operations?

MR MKHONZA: We told him that is Langa and myself, that the one here in Johannesburg, would be impossible, because they wanted a report back within two weeks. In fact they said we should observe it for two weeks, two following weeks, and then we should sketch a report as to what happened, and then we did that.

ADV DE JAGER: And what about the Police stations or houses or ...

MR MKHONZA: The Police stations we didn't attempt.

ADV DE JAGER: What did you report back in that regard?

MR MKHONZA: We didn't give them a report as to whether it was impossible or not, as far as I remember we did not give them a report on that one.

ADV DE JAGER: How would you carry out these operations, did they tell you where to get weapons?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, we were going to throw hand grenades whilst the Army was on parade.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, and the school bus for instance, what should you do there?

MR MKHONZA: The same, we would do the same with the school bus as well.

ADV DE JAGER: Throw hand grenades?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Where would you get the hand grenades?

MR MKHONZA: I had brought them already, if I remember well I brought them after I was - I can't remember, but Mr Coetzee is in a position, I gave them to him.

ADV DE JAGER: Who gave you the hand grenades?

MR MKHONZA: It was Cheche, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: You think it was or you are sure it was?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it was Cheche. Although he did not give them directly to me, what happened there, they would take a car, we used to go in and out in a car and then when you get to a point, they would take the car, go and load those things into the car. They would not give it directly to you.

ADV DE JAGER: But they load it into the car and then you will drive off in the car?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you never aware that the lady was taken to a farm or somewhere else, you never heard anything about her after the arrest?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: And you were convinced that the arrest was an ordinary lawful arrest?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now, you would be the only one that could give evidence against her, wasn't that so?

MR MKHONZA: Would give evidence against who?

ADV DE JAGER: Against Ms Simelane?

MR MKHONZA: I think so, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: And you didn't know whether she was an MK member?

MR MKHONZA: To me it appeared as if she was an MK member, because I think Mpho wouldn't send somebody that is not an MK member, to me. That was my understanding.

ADV DE JAGER: So that was the only basis that because she was sent to you, you assumed that she was an MK member?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: There was no evidence, nobody told you?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: She never admitted of being an MK member?

MR MKHONZA: No, she didn't, no.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn't ask her?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't.

ADV DE JAGER: So she could be a student coming home?

MR MKHONZA: That could be possible.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you know whether she was a student?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't know that, I only heard it here.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn't what she had been doing or where her parents were staying or anything?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't know anything about her.

ADV DE JAGER: While sitting there with the lady in the cafe, what did you talk about?

MR MKHONZA: We didn't talk much because when she got there, I arrived there first and my juice was almost finished, and then I just ordered and then she just drank it quickly, because she said she didn't have enough time.

ADV DE JAGER: So in the meantime you start spending the R100?

MR MKHONZA: No, we didn't spend the whole of the R100-00.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes. Right, okay, let's - but when you met her there, it was the first time you had met her?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, it was my first time.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you introduce yourself?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, but the way Mpho had instructed me to, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: What did you say, what is your name?

MR MKHONZA: The name I was given by Mpho, it was Dan and then this lady when she got there, she said are you, I think she said "are you Dan Motsa from Tzaneen", that was the communication code that we had to use. I would understand that that would mean that this is the right person I am supposed to meet, because if you talk something different, then it would mean this is not the right person.

ADV DE JAGER: You weren't told that she would wear say a blue jersey or anything?

MR MKHONZA: No, I was supposed to wear something that she would identify me with.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn't know who you would meet there?

MR MKHONZA: I only knew it was a lady, but not how does she look, I didn't know.

ADV DE JAGER: Or how she would be dressed?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: You didn't know how old she would be or anything?

MR MKHONZA: No, I didn't know anything about her.

ADV DE JAGER: Now after you had met, what did she say? Did she tell you listen, I am here from Soweto, I am Ms so and so, or didn't she give a name?

MR MKHONZA: No, she didn't tell me her name.

ADV DE JAGER: Did she speak about coming from Swaziland?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: She didn't tell you anything about that at all?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: She didn't tell you that she is carrying a message or anything?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: So in fact she told you nothing about material or anything?

MR MKHONZA: No, she didn't tell me anything about material and things, but the impression I had was that she was going to lead me to a place, she was going to tell me everything when we got into the car, of which didn't happen.

ADV DE JAGER: Did she sort of invite you out of the place?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: I should go and show you something or anything?

MR MKHONZA: No, I said to her it is not safe to talk anything here concerning our involvement, we will talk in the car. Then we went into the car park, but ...

ADV DE JAGER: So why did you gain the impression that she would lead you to some place?

MR MKHONZA: It was because Mpho had told me that she would give me something, some material so because I saw that she did not have any material with her, I thought maybe she was going to take me to a place.

ADV DE JAGER: She could have a letter in her pocket somewhere?

MR MKHONZA: Well, that could be possible, but that is the impression I had.

ADV DE JAGER: So in fact in this matter, as far as the law is concerned, you have done nothing wrong?

MR MKHONZA: As far as I know, I haven't done anything wrong except that I was part of the arrest. I lured her into the arrest, that is, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: But you thought it was quite a lawful arrest?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I thought so.

ADV DE JAGER: There was nothing wrong, according to the law at that time, to arrest her?

MR MKHONZA: No.

ADV DE JAGER: So when did you find out there was something wrong?

MR MKHONZA: When this thing appeared in the papers and the family was looking for me.

ADV DE JAGER: But even then, even if the family was looking for you, you still according to your own knowledge, had done nothing wrong?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, because I still feel I didn't do anything wrong, except that I lured her into the trap.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but it was a lawful trap as far as you were concerned at that stage?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: You believed she was an MK?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Right, perhaps your lawyer could help us in connection with why are you asking for amnesty.

MR LAMEY: Must I ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, no.

MR LAMEY: Shall I just leave ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What I want to ask you, just describe Strongman to us please. We know that he is Mozambican.

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I know him. He was tall, well when I say well built, he was tough, I would say.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that where he got this name from, Strongman?

MR MKHONZA: I only know him as Strongman, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So did this name fit his appearance?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He was a strong man?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was he actually doing?

MR MKHONZA: I cannot comment on that one, because when I joined them, he was staying in that house that I referred to as a safe house, with another one Immanuel. I would just see them transporting people and I wasn't too close to them, you know.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew that he was somehow linked to the Security Police?

MR MKHONZA: Yes. Because I would see him at Mr Coetzee's place.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he close to Coetzee?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, he was working with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he working with Coetzee?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not sure exactly what his duties were?

MR MKHONZA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: What language did he speak?

MR MKHONZA: He was Portuguese.

CHAIRPERSON: Portuguese?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, he was talking Portuguese.

CHAIRPERSON: And when he was communicating with you, broken English or what did he speak?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, broken English, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Broken English? Very well. Mr Lamey?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: In paragraph, in your amnesty application, I refer to paragraph 1.2 Mr Mkhonza, you say - is it correct that you didn't receive as such formal training in the Police, is that correct?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I had never been to college.

MR LAMEY: You were used as an agent from the beginning?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Am I correct if I assume that because you didn't have formal training as other Policemen did, you did not really know what the legal mechanics of arrest and so?

MR MKHONZA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You were not trained to do that?

MR MKHONZA: Yes, I was not trained.

MR LAMEY: You also have stated in your application that you assumed that the arrest was lawful, but you cannot be sure whether it was lawful or not?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Now when you later heard about the report of the disappearance of the lady, Simelane, what has crossed your mind about this, did you start thinking perhaps differently about your involvement, that there could have been some legality or unlawfulness about it and she could have perhaps been kidnapped?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, you are re-examining. Carry on but put your questions carefully?

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. Let me just rephrase the question Mr Mkhonza. About your involvement in this whole thing, you learned certain things later in the Sowetan Report, that she disappeared?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: What did you think about your involvement in this regard?

MR MKHONZA: I thought as the person who had met this lady, I was also involved in a way.

MR LAMEY: There have been reports about her disappearance as such, what did you think, did you come to realise in your mind something about this, which wouldn't appear normal?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: What did you think then about your involvement in this regard?

MR MKHONZA: I thought I would also be implicated in the whole thing.

MR LAMEY: Implicated in what?

MR MKHONZA: In her disappearance.

MR LAMEY: Is that what prompted you to apply also for amnesty?

MR MKHONZA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I don't have any further questions in re-examination. Mr Visser, has referred to I think an annexure to Form 1, which is part of Exhibit Z1 where particulars of the acts and offences also relating to the involvement in the kidnapping or arrest, I just want to explain something and that is that at the stage when we as legal representatives receive, when several State witnesses were sort of referred to us by the Office of the Attorney General and for the purpose of representing them for their amnesty applications, like in the case of Mr Mkhonza, there were initial applications submitted which were done with the assistance of the staff of the Attorney General. As you see that there wee references made to statements of the Attorney General, we did not have firstly signed copies of that at that stage or access thereto and our task was to obtain, to consult, obviously further with the people, and to hear from them as their legal representatives as to what their disclosure is and their involvement. In view of time constraints and the deadline at that stage, and as a result of the several applicants that we had, which we had to deal with at that stage, we were given to understand if I remember correctly, by Mr Jerome Chaskalson at that stage, that we could merely just summarise the event and then furnish the details and particulars later. That is exactly what we did. What is annexure 1 to Form 1, was based on the available information that we had that that would have been possible, possible involvement relating to kidnapping or arrest. That is why it was worded in that fashion. Obviously later when the supplemented application was done in consultation, the involvement and the knowledge of the applicant, became more clear. I just want to place that on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey, that is noted. Are you through with Mr Mkhonza?

MR LAMEY: I am through Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mkhonza, you are excused.

MR LAMEY: I think Mr Mkhonza is asking for an opportunity to say something else.

MR MKHONZA: Before I am excused here, I would like to say to the family of Nokuthula Simelane that I am very sorry to have been part of the whole thing like luring her into the trap, but my involvement in her disappearance at Carlton Centre, I still say I don't know anything about her, what happened thereafter, but it is true, she came to meet me and I met her, but we last saw each other there.

I am just asking for forgiveness that I trapped her into the whole thing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Mkhonza.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, who is next?

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, the next applicant will be Mr Veyi.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADV DE JAGER: What language would you speak?

MR VEYI: Xhosa.

NIMROD VEYI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just want to introduce this Bundle which I have before me. Mr Chairman, also in this incident, in this case there is what I see on page 574 that the initial application in the Form 1 has been part of the Bundle, and there on page 580, there is an annexure referring also to the kidnapping of Simelane and then you will not also that there is also a reference to a statement made by him. Now, in this instance also a statement has been obtained from the Investigating Officer attached to the staff of the Attorney General, and may be mark this as Exhibit ZV for Veyi? Shall we start again with AA? I beg leave to hand it up. As I say the initial form is in the Bundle, I don't think that needs to be marked as an exhibit, it is a statement. I am just going to hand up the statement which will be marked Exhibit AA. I am going to hand it up.

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on)

MR LAMEY: The previous one is of Mr Mkhonza.

MR VISSER: Could my learned friend just tell us Chairperson, whether what is stated in AA is the same as in Exhibit S at page 2, it will be very helpful if we didn't have to follow two documents.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman ...

MR VISSER: (Microphone not on)

MR LAMEY: That has also just been passed to me, I don't know what that is.

MS THABETHE: It is a statement from Mr Qobe, he is an implicated person in this application of Mr Veyi.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, Exhibit AA, you also have before you Exhibit S1, now S1 is a supplemented application which had been drafted by myself after consultation with Mr Veyi. In my submission it corresponds with AA, but there are certain footnotes where that statement has been amplified, supplemented, and obviously the questions relating to 9(a)(i) and other further questions relating to political objectives and orders, are also then contained in Exhibit S which are not part of AA.

ADV DE JAGER: (Microphone not on)

MR LAMEY: Yes, it the typed version of the written version I understand attached to the back. Mr Chairman, at the back of the written statement of Mr Veyi, you will find also a typed. That is how it was received from the Investigating Officer of the Attorney General.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, then we will have to mark the hand-written one, AA1 and the typed one, AA2.

MR LAMEY: AA2? Mr Veyi, can you just have a look at page 754 up to and including page 580 of the Bundle which is before you? Is it correct that this is the initial form that you completed and when your initial application for amnesty was submitted and which is dated 11 December 1996, and signed by you before a Commissioner of Oaths? Is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Now you refer in that initial application to a statement, is that the statement which you had made to the Attorney General, the staff of the Attorney General?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: The document which is before you now, which is Exhibit AA1 is that a copy of that statement which you have made and which is signed by you?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And Exhibit AA2 is a typed version of that, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct then also that Exhibit S the document that is now before you, you've got that there, could you just look at Exhibit S before you, can you have a look at that, is that also a supplemented application which had been drafted and signed by you, well, which has been signed by you on the 7th of May 1999? Is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: If I may start off, you were a member of the South African Police, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You are still a member of the South African Police, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Sorry Mr Chairman, the witness is testifying now in English, I am not sure ...

MR VEYI: I will testify in Xhosa.

MR LAMEY: I think he selected to testify in Xhosa.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think his testimony are being translated I assume, interpreted.

MR LAMEY: Which channel is English then?

CHAIRPERSON: Channel 2.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Mr Veyi, you are still a member of the South African Police, is that right?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you are presently attached to the Vehicle Theft Unit at Soweto, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: During the relevant incident relating to the incident that is the topic of this hearing, the Simelane incident, you were a member of the Security Branch, is that correct, attached to Soweto?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You confirm also your Force number stated in paragraph 8(a), is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that was the first one, but now it has been changed.

MR LAMEY: Was that your Force number at the stage when you were attached to the Security Branch?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: If we start off with your version and your particulars about this specific incident relating to the disappearance of Simelane, is it correct that you read an article in the Sowetan newspaper during January 1995?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that report made mention of that this person, Simelane, was missing is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You then came into contact with the reporter of the Sowetan and you gave her your story or version about what you know about this missing woman, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: That was published in the Sowetan on the 6th of February 1995, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you, as we already know, you have made a statement also to the Attorney General's staff in this regard, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now you say that in paragraph 2, that your duties at the Security Branch was among others, to act as conveyor of information between handler and informer, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you also had part of your duties, to recruit and train informers?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: So a man called Scotch is in fact Norman Mkhonza, was a covert Policeman of the Security Branch of Protea?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that he worked under cover and that he infiltrated the ANC in Swaziland?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now from this on, can you tell the Committee how did you become involved in the Simelane incident?

MR VEYI: Yes, I can tell the Committee. After Scotch came back from Swaziland, if I still remember well, at the office there was a meeting. We discussed this issue about Scotch who came back from Swaziland.

ADV DE JAGER: If we can refer to Scotch as Mkhonza, if it is inconvenient, it is okay, but ...

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Veyi, when you refer to Scotch, mention him as Mr Mkhonza, would you be happy with that? At that time, who was the Commanding Officer of your Unit?

MR VEYI: The Commanding Officer was Mr Coetzee. But the whole Unit was under Brigadier Muller in Soweto.

MR LAMEY: And what did you, do you know anything about a meeting that would take place between Mkhonza and a certain person?

MR VEYI: Yes, I knew about that meeting, that there was going to be a lady from Swaziland who was supposed to meet with Mr Mkhonza at Carlton Centre. The meeting would be arranged and when this lady arrives with Scotch, she would be arrested and indeed that meeting took place and they went to Carlton Centre. I don't remember on which day, but that lady was arrested at the basement in Carlton Centre.

MR LAMEY: All right, were you present at the Carlton Centre when this all happened?

MR VEYI: No, I didn't go there, I was not there.

MR LAMEY: So what you say in this regard, this is what you heard, is that right?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is what was said at the meeting. I heard this at the meeting.

MR LAMEY: Were you present before this, before this happened, perhaps at the office where this arrangement of a meeting with this person or this lady, was discussed by Coetzee and with the other members?

MR VEYI: I don't remember whether I was one of the people in that meeting, but I have heard that there would be such a meeting and this lady was going to be arrested in Carlton Centre.

MR LAMEY: Were you at a meeting at any stage when specifically it was - a "kopdraai aksie" in relation to this person, was discussed?

MR VEYI: No, I don't remember. Maybe I have forgotten.

MR LAMEY: Sorry ...

MR VEYI: I don't remember being in such a meeting.

MR LAMEY: Are you saying that it is possible that there was a meeting where such a thing could have been discussed, but that you were not present?

MR VISSER: That is not what he is saying, Chairperson. My learned friend - really that is not what the witness say, he is saying it is possible that he was present at such a meeting but that he had forgotten about it, it is very simple what he is saying.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will then leave that as it is there. Can I just understand you correctly, are you saying that it is possible that you were at such a meeting where a "kop draai aksie" in relation to this person, was discussed, but that you can't remember being present at such a meeting?

MR VEYI: I am saying that it is possible that there was that meeting, but I don't remember there at that meeting with the "kop draai aksie."

MR LAMEY: What did you understand what was planned in relation to this person who Mkhonza would meet at the Carlton Centre?

MR VEYI: What I knew is that he was going to meet this person at Carlton Centre and then a trap would be set and then this lady would be arrested because she was from Swaziland and there was a possibility that she might be a member of MK, even though we were not sure.

MR LAMEY: You also state then that as far as you know, that the Policemen in paragraph 4 on page 8 of your supplemented application, as far as you know Coetzee, Pretorius, Radebe, Selamolela and Mothiba went to the Carlton Centre for that purpose, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: When did you first become involved with this person?

MR VEYI: After she was arrested in Carlton Centre, she was taken to Norwood the barracks, where Coetzee and Pretorius were staying. It is where I first started to go there, we guarded her there when the interrogation started.

MR LAMEY: Were you present during the interrogation?

MR VEYI: We would change shifts, I would be there and then someone else would be there because she was in the roof where the caretakers were staying, that is where we took shifts, we would relieve each other.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall, do you know when was the first time that you went to the Norwood quarters, do you know how long after her arrest?

MR VEYI: I think it was after she was arrested, it was before a week. I think she stayed there for a week in the roof before she was changed.

MR LAMEY: But can you remember the first time that you went to the Norwood quarters, how long was that after the arrest? Was it the same day, the day thereafter, or two days thereafter, or what do you recall?

MR VEYI: I think it was two days or three days after she was arrested.

MR LAMEY: For the first time to Norwood?

MR VEYI: Yes, it was for the first time.

MR LAMEY: And as far as you know, how long was she kept there at the Norwood quarters?

MR VEYI: I think it was for a week. After that, after a week, there was a suspicion that people were aware or people were aware of what was happening there, there were complaints because we would come in and come out, so we decided to move her to another place, to a far away place where people would not disturb us. She was then taken to Northum near Thabazimbi. There is a small town called Northum, I think it is 50 or 55 kilometres from Thabazimbi.

MR LAMEY: All right, before we get to that, may I just ask you during the period when she was kept at the Norwood quarters, do you know whether she was assaulted?

MR VEYI: When I arrived there, I could see that she was assaulted because she was swollen when I first arrived there. Even when I was there she was assaulted. She was seriously assaulted.

MR LAMEY: Can you say in what manner she was assaulted, that is now at Norwood?

MR VEYI: If she was standing up, she would be pushed. Let's say Pretorius would push her to another person and that person would slap her and she would fall down and she would be kicked, something like that.

MR LAMEY: Who led the interrogation during this period?

MR VEYI: It was Lieutenant Coetzee and Pretorius.

MR LAMEY: And who initiated the assaults on her during the interrogation?

MR VEYI: It would be Coetzee who would do everything sir. We would get instructions from Coetzee, we were there as black members and when she was assaulted, we would also assault her, even though it was not out intention to assault her. We didn't want to look as if we were not together with them in what they were doing.

MR LAMEY: So what you are saying is that you participated in the assaults because, is it correct, because it was expected of you, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall at Norwood in what way did you assault her, what was your role in participation in the assaults?

MR VEYI: I would grab her and hold her tight and tell her to tell the truth or to slap her with an open hand.

MR LAMEY: Can you perhaps recall what she was questioned about?

MR VEYI: She was questioned of whether she was trained from that side, if she was trained, in which country was she trained, and who are her contacts here in South Africa and if she had come to South Africa, how many times, what did she do when she was here in South Africa.

MR LAMEY: In general, if one can sum it up she was questioned about her activities and relationship with MK and planned activities in the RSA of MK and her own involvement as such, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now after the period of her detention, at the Norwood quarters, what happened further with her?

MR VEYI: After that, because she would scream and then people would see what was happening there, so because of that Coetzee indicated to us that she should be moved to another area, because it seemed as if people were of what were doing because this was a secret, what we were doing, was a secret because it was not legal.

MR LAMEY: It was a secret and it was not legal? Did you know at that stage that she was illegally detained and that she was kidnapped?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct. It was illegal.

MR LAMEY: And you previously stated that she was then taken to a certain farm in Northum, is that correct before I interrupted your testimony?

MR VEYI: Yes, she was taken to the farm in Northum.

MR LAMEY: What happened there?

MR VEYI: What happened there on that farm, we were changing shifts. The last time I saw her was in Norwood and then Coetzee told us that she was no longer there, she was taken to Northum, he then gave us direction to that place, together with Selamolela because we didn't know that place. He told us to go to Northum and we would wait at the Police station there and he would send someone to come and pick us up and take us to that farm. Indeed that happened. This person took us to that farm.

MR LAMEY: Who took you to the farm?

MR VEYI: I don't remember that person's name, but there was someone who picked us up there.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall, you say she was kept at Norwood.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you travel by car to Northum Police station?

MR VEYI: Yes, we travelled by car from Soweto to Northum.

ADV DE JAGER: You and?

MR VEYI: It was myself and Sergeant Selamolela.

MR LAMEY: Is that now on the first time that you went to the farm?

MR VEYI: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall what period, how long after she was kept at Norwood, were you and Selamolela, did you and Selamolela go to Northum on the first occasion?

MR VEYI: As she was in Norwood if I still remember well, I went to Norwood twice and I can say that in Norwood she stayed something like a week and then she was then transferred to Northum. I think we took a break of three days, after three days we then joined them in Northum.

MR LAMEY: Can you tell the Committee, when you and Selamolela went to Northum, did you stay there the whole time or how did it happen?

MR VEYI: We would not stay there for the whole week, we changed shifts. We would stay maybe for two days and then we would change, others would come. All the time when the shifts would change, when they were relieving me, others would come and each group, Coetzee and Pretorius would be there in all these groups that were changing shifts. It wouldn't happen that that group would be there alone or they would be there alone without any other black members.

MR LAMEY: For what period from the first time that you went to this farm in Northum, do you know for what period to the last time that you were there, how many days or weeks went by?

MR VEYI: I can say that in each and every week, I can say that she stayed more than a month in Northum. Each and every week we would go there, during that period.

MR LAMEY: During that period, did it also happen that Coetzee and Pretorius also came back to Soweto and also go there on an on and off basis?

MR VEYI: They would tell us to come, maybe they would tell us to come in the morning and then they would go back and then in that very same day, they would come again, late or maybe at about ten o'clock or earlier than that time, they would then come back, but most of the time they would be there.

MR LAMEY: During the times that you were there at Northum, what happened to this lady?

MR VEYI: When we were in Norwood, when we were in Thabazimbi busy with the interrogation, we found out from Coetzee that this lady was a trained MK member. From there the interrogation was tough to her, because if you were a member of MK, you were treated in a different way. It was hard for her. The way she was assaulted, even if she wet herself, she would be assaulted and when she was taken to the dam, she was not taken there to wash, she would be taken to the dam and put inside and then taken out and that same process would continue and then she would be taken back to that house, and she would be interrogated.

CHAIRPERSON: You refer to Strongman, what did you say about him, it wasn't translated to me, just repeat it.

MR VEYI: What I am saying is when Coetzee testified, he said that Strongman and Immanuel were just people who were guarding the farm. They were not guarding the farm, they were doing the same job as we were doing. When a person would be arrested, they would be there and when the person would be interrogated, they would also be there. If the person is assaulted, they would also do that and the handcuffs, they were not normal, they were not, they were so tight so that they can give this person pain. That is why she was swollen and then she would be assaulted. If you were a member of MK, you are regarded as a terrorist and as a most dangerous person, more dangerous than an ordinary criminal, so the treatment was not right.

MR LAMEY: Can I just take you a bit slowly during this interrogation, during this period. When was she or during, when was she during this period assaulted, at which stages? Was it during interrogation?

MR VEYI: Yes, she would be asked about the people who were involved and the people who came to South Africa and she would be asked about the instructions from Swaziland. She would be asked about the DLB's here in South Africa, she would be asked such things and she would deny any knowledge of anything and then she would be assaulted. From that time until the withdrawal, I don't remember her naming any DLB's or any contacts here in South Africa. Because of that, she was not given a fair treatment.

MR LAMEY: Mr Veyi, I want to ask you just to go a bit slower, you know you are relating a whole lot of events and the Interpreters, I think are having difficulty to keep up with you. Would you just pause on occasion and relate your evidence so that we can just, so that the Interpreter can also just keep up. You say she was interrogated and she was asked about DLB's, etc, during this interrogation periods and she denied everything, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: During this period of interrogation, was she then assaulted?

MR VEYI: Yes, she was assaulted because she was not saying anything.

MR LAMEY: Now can you explain in what way was she assaulted?

MR VEYI: She would be kicked, punched and then she would be strangled, she would be taken to the dam, put inside the dam and then she would be taken out of the dam, and she would say that she was going to say something, then she would be taken back to that house and then she would be given a chance to tell us and then she would then not say anything.

MR LAMEY: You have mentioned several ways of assault. Did this several ways happen during each and every session of interrogation or are you talking in general over the period?

MR VEYI: I am talking about what was happening when she was guarded by me, when I was present. I don't know what was happening when I was not there. I don't know how she was tortured when I was not there.

MR LAMEY: All right, that I understand but on the occasion that you were present during the interrogation, when she was assaulted, what I want to ask you is on each of those occasions, was she thrown into the dam, strangled, kicked, punched and slapped or did it happen in different ways on different occasions that you were present?

MR VEYI: This would take place differently. If today maybe she was kicked and beaten, or maybe others would strangle her and others would grab her, and sometimes a wet sack would be put in her face so that she would suffocate and then when that bag or sack would be taken out, she would say she was going to say something and then when she was given a chance to say that, she would not say anything.

ADV GCABASHE : Tell me Mr Veyi, so if you were there for two days in one week, the first day you were there, the would be kicked, she would be punched, she would be thrown into the dam, etc and then on the second day, the same thing would happen again?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct, it happened that day.

ADV GCABASHE : Then when you returned the following week, you would do the same things to her again and again?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE : And the people leading this interrogation would be Coetzee and Pretorius?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

ADV GCABASHE : Each time?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct. If Pretorius, if they are not there, maybe they would go home and they would leave us behind, we wouldn't do anything, we just stay there and then she would be free when she was with us, and then when they come back, the interrogation would start again.

MR LAMEY: All right, when Coetzee and Pretorius left, you say she would be free, what do you mean?

MR VEYI: What I mean is there was not any, she was not interrogated, we would just shout to her, maybe they would leave an album and then she would page through the album or maybe they would give her a photo album of people who skipped the country and then she would page through this album and she would say that she doesn't know the people in that album. Then they would come back and ask her what she did and she would tell them that she paged through the album and she didn't know those people and the interrogation would start again.

MR LAMEY: Now during this whole period, over the month that you came and went and when you were present, during interrogation, what was her attitude when she was questioned and interrogated? Was she co-operative or what, how did she respond to the interrogation?

MR VEYI: According to my experience, working with the Security Branch, it would depend on that particular person that would be arrested, if you would arrest a person today, trying to recruit that person, that person would not cooperate. Maybe after a week, that person would agree with you and then nothing would happen.

MR LAMEY: What happened in this instance? Did she - when you were present during the interrogation - did you get the impression that she is co-operative or what was the situation, how did she respond to the interrogation?

MR VEYI: According to what I saw, she didn't seem as if she would cooperate with us, that is why she was treated like this. All those days that I was there, I don't remember her co-operating or agreeing to working with us. When Superintendent Coetzee said she co-operated, I was surprised because at that time, we were supposed to be aware that she was co-operating, he would have told us that she was co-operating with us, even though we were not going to be responsible for handling her.

MR LAMEY: Now at times when Coetzee and Pretorius left and you and perhaps some of the other black members remained behind with her, did you receive particular instructions regarding follow up questioning or what was your role, did you receive instructions with a particular role that you had to play in relation to the lady, Simelane?

MR VEYI: They would tell us to talk to her when they left. Maybe if she was alone with us as black members, things would be better, she would agree to working with us. But she didn't agree at all.

MR LAMEY: Did you assault her in the absence of Coetzee or Pretorius or at the farm at all?

MR VEYI: No, as I have already said when Pretorius and Coetzee were not there, she would then be free, she would not be assaulted, and then when they came back, things would start again, we did not assault her when they were not there.

MR LAMEY: Did you receive specific instructions that you had to work in a more nicer way with her when they were not there?

MR VEYI: No, we did not get such instructions, that would just happen because after we stayed there with her, we felt that this was not right, but we did not trust each other, but we could see that the way she was treated, was not right, we did not like it. There was nothing we could do.

MR LAMEY: Did you attempt to ask her questions in a way in order to get her co-operation, in another way apart from - by not assaulting her?

MR VEYI: No, what she would do was to page through the album and then she would say that she doesn't know anything, so there was nothing else we could do. We would just take what she was telling us.

MR LAMEY: Did you during this period at Northum, gather also that there is also an attempt to recruit her, in order to turn her to the side of the Security Police?

MR VEYI: At the time she was interrogated, it was when she was asked about all these issues. We would be there when they would tell her that if you are going to work together with us, we would do this and this for you, we would be there when they were telling her that.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, I don't understand that, let me just rephrase the question. During the whole period over the month that she was kept at Northum, did you get the idea that there was also an attempt to recruit her, to turn her to the side of the Security Police?

MR VEYI: Yes, they were trying to turn her, but I could see that she was not going to cooperate with them.

MR LAMEY: As far as you are concerned, there were attempts, but she wasn't co-operative and she didn't respond positively to that?

MR VEYI: Yes, according to what I saw, I am surprised to hear that she co-operated with them because if she did, Lazarus or myself would have been aware that she was co-operating, or working together with them.

MR LAMEY: After she was taken to the farm at Northum and when you last saw her at Northum, may I just ask you this, how many weeks expired when you saw her the last time at Northum, after you went there the first time?

MR VEYI: I think it was about four weeks.

MR VISSER: What was the question?

MR LAMEY: The last time, yes how many weeks transpired after you went first to Northum? I am getting actually to the next question. After that period after the four weeks after you initially went to, when you last saw her at Northum, what was her general physical condition like, could you just give a description?

MR VEYI: Her physical condition had changed. As Scotch had already described, she was a beautiful lady, she was slender and beautiful and she had changed. She was swollen, the hands were swollen and every, she was swollen all over and she could not walk properly. When she wanted to go to the toilet, we would help her, take her to the particular place.

MR LAMEY: Was she still footcuffed or in leg irons when you last saw her at the farm?

MR VEYI: Yes, she was still footcuffed.

MR LAMEY: Not handcuffs?

MR VEYI: When we were there, she would not be handcuffed.

MR LAMEY: When you were there was the handcuffs removed?

MR VEYI: Yes, we would take of her handcuffs, but when they would come, we would then handcuff her again.

MR LAMEY: You say she was swollen all over, what parts of her body were swollen?

MR VEYI: Her face was swollen, she could not see properly and the wrists because the handcuffs would be tight, they would give her pain in the hands.

MR VISSER: Sorry Chairperson, I don't want to waste time, but I didn't hear the answer. I don't know whether I wasn't just concentrating.

CHAIRPERSON: The applicant is busy describing the physical condition of Ms Simelane. He says her face was swollen, she couldn't see properly and her hands were swollen from the handcuffs.

MR LAMEY: Now the clothes that she had on when you last saw her, what type of clothing did she have?

MR VEYI: From Norwood she was wearing an over-all until the last time, she had an over-all, a brown over-all, a Police over-all.

MR LAMEY: You also made mention that she was on occasion during interrogation sessions also thrown into the dam. What was the purpose of that?

MR VEYI: If she would not be put in the dam, a bag would be put on her head, so that she would tell us about what we were asking.

MR LAMEY: No, I am asking why was she put in the dam during interrogation sessions, why in the dam?

MR VEYI: It was part of the interrogation, sometimes she would have soiled herself or she was supposed to wash at the dam. That was all part of the interrogation.

MR LAMEY: When you stayed there at the farm, where did you sleep?

MR VEYI: It was summer time at the time and it was very hot there, we would take the stretchers and we would sleep there. We would sleep at the stretchers.

MR LAMEY: You would sleep on stretchers.

ADV GCABASHE : Sleeping bags.

MR VEYI: Sleeping bags, thank you.

MR LAMEY: Thank you.

MR VEYI: We would sleep in sleeping bags and we would put them on top of the stretchers.

MR LAMEY: Now during her interrogation also on the farm, did you also assault her?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, he said something it was hot, it was summer time. Did you sleep in the room or outside?

MR VEYI: Because that room was small, some of us would be inside that room and then some would sleep outside.

MR LAMEY: During the time, you stated in your amnesty application, your written application that you also participated during assault sessions, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You remember also slapping her and you also say that you also remember that you kicked her on occasion?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: But most of the time your participation was to hold her while the other members assaulted her, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now you also say that at a stage when her physical condition deteriorated as a result of the interrogation and assaults, you refrained from assaulting her, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Why did you refrain?

MR VEYI: I don't know how to put this, but I had the feeling that this was not right, what was happening there was not right so I decided to refrain. We did not take part that much.

MR LAMEY: So you held back as opposed to the initial stages, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Coetzee and Pretorius hold back as well?

MR VEYI: No, they didn't, they continued.

MR LAMEY: During this period at Northum, who initiated on the occasions when you were there, the assaults during interrogation and who were the leaders in that?

MR VEYI: The leaders as I have already said, it was Warrant Officer Coetzee who was the leader. Everything that was happening, we did that according to his instruction. He would be the one who was leading, together with Pretorius.

MR LAMEY: Can you further tell us, after you have left from the farm the last time, I assume you went back to your base at the Security Branch in Soweto, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You then received a message, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: What was this message?

MR VEYI: As we were working, we would take instructions from the office, because we would not be there at the office most of the time, Coetzee would phone and say that we must go to the office, maybe we would be in Swaziland, Lesotho or Botswana, he would then tell us to go the office and take instructions at the office about what to do. We were supposed to go back to Northum and when we were at the office, we received a message to go to Potchefstroom and we would get a message there. We knew we were supposed to go from the office to Northum and then we were told to change, to go to Potchefstroom first. If I still remember well, we would get Colonel Steyn or Colonel Loots, I am not sure, he was the one who was in charge of the Western Transvaal Security Branch, we then went there.

MR LAMEY: Was that Branch stationed at Potchefstroom, the Western Transvaal Security Branch?

MR VEYI: The Divisional Head Office of Western Transvaal was in Potchefstroom. He was in charge there. I think it was Colonel Steyn or Loots, I am not sure.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

ADV GCABASHE : Tell me, before you go on, who were you going to find there, that wasn't translated. You were going to find somebody with Steyn and whoever, who was this person?

MR VEYI: We received a message at the office saying that Lieutenant Coetzee phoned and he told us not to go to Northum where we were supposed to go. He told us that we would meet with him in Potchefstroom in Colonel Steyn's office. We then drove to Potchefstroom. When we were on our way to Potchefstroom ...

MR LAMEY: Can I just stop you there, you say we drove. Who drove the vehicle?

MR VEYI: Selamolela was the driver.

MR LAMEY: Which vehicle did he use?

MR VEYI: A Honda Ballade, a 1982 Honda Ballade.

MR LAMEY: Was it only the two of you?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Was this a Police vehicle?

MR VEYI: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And right, you then went from Johannesburg or Soweto to Potchefstroom, driving in this vehicle?

MR VEYI: We drove from Soweto to Potchefstroom, driving this vehicle. We met a four way stop, Fochville, Carltonville. Before we arrived at that four way stop, there was a car coming towards us, it flickered its lights and when it was near us, we saw that this was Lieutenant Coetzee who was driving that XR6, a blue car. He told us we must go back to Soweto and not continue to our journey. He withdrew there in Northum, he then opened the boot of the car, boot of his car. I then saw Nokuthula. We knew the name Sbongile but at a later stage we discovered that she was an MK member, she was inside the car boot, wearing that brown over-all. She was still footcuffed and handcuffed on her back. She was in a crouching position in the car boot and then he closed the boot again. We then went back.

MR LAMEY: Where did you go from there?

MR VEYI: We went back to the office.

MR LAMEY: What did Coetzee, did Coetzee say anything or how did it happen that you turned around to go back to the office?

MR VEYI: He just told us to go back to the office?

MR LAMEY: Was anyone with Coetzee?

MR VEYI: No, he was alone.

MR LAMEY: Do you know from thereon, what happened further regarding this lady?

MR VEYI: After that, a few days after that, after everybody was in the office, continuing with normal duties I asked Sergeant Pretorius what happened. I asked Pretorius what happened, where was Sbongile and he said to me "don't ask a lot of questions." I then didn't ask anything after that again, I kept quiet. After some few days, after asking that question, I was together with Sergeant Mothiba. I was with Sergeant Mothiba, we were at the office and he said to me we used to call him Uncle or Malumi because he was older, most of the time we didn't use our real names, we would call him Malumi. I then asked him where was this lady, what happened to her. He said to me I am very scared of these white people and I then asked "why Malumi" and he told me that they shot her and they killed her and they buried her in Rustenburg. That was the last time I heard about her.

MR LAMEY: This discussion with Mothiba, how long after you last saw the lady Simelane in the boot of Coetzee's car, how much time elapsed after that?

MR VEYI: I think it was about a week. Everything that was happening in the Unit, it would happen and we would not know what came of it. Then this one, we didn't hear anything about it because most of the time, if Coetzee told a person that he was going to, he would tell a person that he was going to Swaziland or Botswana, but this time there was nothing said about it. The reason why I asked Mothiba what happened is because when I asked Sergeant Pretorius, he gave me that answer that he gave me.

MR LAMEY: Mr Veyi, prior to this incident where this lady was grabbed or taken from the Carlton Centre, and thereafter interrogated at the farm at Northum, were you previously also before that, had knowledge of also arrests or kidnapping of detainees and their interrogation and so on?

MR VEYI: Yes, I can so. Before this incident, even though I was not present Peter Lengene was kidnapped in Botswana and he was brought this side, and after that, we tried to recruit him to turn him. I think after a week or so, or two weeks, I don't remember clearly, he agreed to cooperate with us.

MR LAMEY: Can you remember in this instance whether from the outset, did you know from the outset in the case of Simelane, that she would, that there will be an attempt to turn her or to recruit her?

MR VEYI: I knew that she had an appointment with Mkhonza in Carlton Centre, she was going to be arrested.

MR LAMEY: Is that what you knew?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is what I knew.

MR LAMEY: At what stage after that, or did you realise at any stage after that, that the arrest is not normal or that there is some abnormality about it?

MR VEYI: She was not the first person to be arrested by the Security Branch, if you would be arrested by the Security Branch, you would be arrested and then they would detain you for 14 days or more than that. You would stay at the Police station, you would be kept at the Police station and then after that, you would be charged. But in her case that didn't happen. A month elapsed after she was arrested and she was not charged and then if you would be arrested, when they realise that you were not going to cooperate with the Security Branch, you would then be charged.

MR LAMEY: But did - at what stage did you realise that this arrest is not normal?

MR VEYI: Usually if you were arrested by the Security Branch, or maybe after 14 days in detention, you would be detained and immediately after being arrested, you would be detained and then you would be charged after that. When she was taken to Norwood, I realised that her arrest was illegal because after the arrest, she was supposed to be taken to the Police station and she was supposed to be written in the cell register, that was the normal procedure, but that didn't happen.

MR LAMEY: So when you first saw her at Norwood, that is the moment when you realised that this is not a normal arrest, is that correct? Do I understand you correctly?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now Coetzee and Pretorius testified that it was their modus operandi in any "kop draai" action or recruitment of a person, that they would assault?

MR VISSER: That wasn't Pretorius Chairperson, it was only Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, I apologise, then Coetzee testified that that was the modus operandi, his modus operandi in a "kop draai aksie" to assault the person in the manner which he described. Do you have any comment on that, can you comment on that?

MR VEYI: Yes, if a person would be arrested, Coetzee would come and see that person, even if he did not say anything and then he would then observe you and then decide whether you would work with them or not. He would take you to a particular place and will try to recruit you, but if that doesn't succeed, then you would be charged.

MR LAMEY: The modus operandi that I referred actually to, he described that his modus operandi with recruitment was to assault the detainee in the manner which he did, in order to have a particular impact on this person. Can you comment on that, can you dispute that or are you in disagreement with that or do you have a view about that, what is your version?

MR VEYI: I would agree, but I would like to make an example. It would depend on what kind of a person that is. In Peter Lengene’s case who was arrested before Nokuthula, he was arrested and then he was assaulted, but he was not tortured. He was assaulted but not for a long time, and then he agreed to cooperate with us and then he worked together with us. After that, Nokuthula was arrested and the same thing happened to her.

MR LAMEY: Can I just stop you there, the moment when Lengene started to cooperate, how was he then handled and treated?

MR VEYI: At the time when he was first arrested, he was treated like Nokuthula.

ADV GCABASHE : Then once he decided to cooperate, how was he treated?

MR VEYI: After he agreed, he was also handcuffed but after he agreed to cooperate, he then co-operated with us and then the handcuffs were taken off. Every time he would go out, we were together with him because we would observe him for a long time because it might happen that a person would agree to work together with us but maybe that person would just be asking us not to assault him and then after that, he would run away.

MR LAMEY: About Lengene, the moment when he started to cooperate and the moment when he decided or the moment when he was turned and sort of was recruited, was he further assaulted?

MR VEYI: No, he was not assaulted because he had agreed to cooperate.

MR LAMEY: Can I bring you back now from your previous experience, like the example of Lengene which you have mentioned, is there a difference about his case and that of Simelane?

ADV GCABASHE : A difference in respect of what, maybe you can just break it down a bit, it is a broad question.

MR LAMEY: You have described that in the case of Lengene, he was assaulted at first, at the moment when he became co-operative, and he was recruited and he turned, did I understand you correctly that he was no longer assaulted, he was then treated in a different manner, is that correct?

MR VEYI: That is correct. I would like to repeat again, there is another person who was arrested by the name of Joe. In Joe's case he was also an MK member. After a week or two, he agreed to cooperate with us and then he was no longer assaulted.

MR LAMEY: The instance of Simelane, if you look at her interrogation over this period and the periods that you were present and involved, and about also, you said that you have gathered that there will be an attempt also to turn her and to recruit her, is that correct? If you compare her situation and what transpired with her, with that of Lengene and also the other case that you have mentioned, can you comment as far as in your view, whether she was at any stage, she turned or became co-operative and that in comparison also to the others, that the treatment started to change?

MR VEYI: According to what I saw up to the last week when I last saw her, she didn't agree to cooperate with us because her interrogation as compared to Joe and Peter Lengene, it took a long time and that was not normal to the person who agreed to cooperate with us.

MR LAMEY: Can I just ask you, can you remember or can you comment whether during interrogation bouts, on an occasion or more than one occasion, whether electrical ...

MR VISSER: No, no with great respect Chairperson, really my learned friend can lead a witness only so far. There is a clear dispute before you on this very issue that he is mentioning now. How can my learned friend place the words in the mouth of the witness? He asked him before how was Simelane assaulted and he went through step by step by step, he never mentioned that Chairperson, never once. It is really not proper for my learned friend to place that very word in the mouth of the witness, with great respect. Let him ask, if he wants to go through that list again, let him ask him, but this witness has not tendered that evidence before you and it is not for my learned friend to draw it out of him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, of course you wouldn't be able to ask a leading question, but of course you are entitled to deal with that issue but not in the form of a leading question.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I will rephrase the question, I will try to rephrase.

ADV DE JAGER: The trouble is Mr Lamey, honestly you have already put the word to him, so what would the rephrasement help?

MR LAMEY: I can just say Mr Chairman, that I have put it to Coetzee, as far as my instructions not only from Selamolela but also from this person. I want to get back in some way, my learned friend talks about leading questions, I mean we have papers before us where the witnesses, his applicants just read the version and they deny everything that has been stated by our applicants. I don't know what really the objection is in that regard. Also the assaults, it is all blotted down on paper, the manner of the assaults, everything, by the applicants. There has been leading questions from the outright about that, I understand it is contentious, but I must find a way to get back to this to the applicant. I will try and rephrase it, I understand that it is contentious, but I will try and rephrase it. Mr Veyi, you have previously stated the ways in which as you recall it in your evidence in chief, the ways in which Ms Simelane was assaulted during interrogation bouts. You have mentioned that on occasions she was kicked, you mentioned that she was slapped, she was hit with fists, you have mentioned that a bag was placed over her head and also that she has also been thrown into the dam. Can you recall apart from those ways in which she had been assaulted, any and I want to ask you really clearly from your own memory in this regard, I want from your own memory and your own mind, can you recall today any other way in which she was tortured or assaulted during interrogation apart from that which you have mentioned?

MR VEYI: This happened some time ago, it is possible that I do forget some other methods. It is possible that one of the people who were there, can have a better memory as far as that is concerned.

MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon? Mr Chairman, may I just, I don't want to belabour this aspect much further, but would it be possible for me to quote for instance from the version of Mr Selamolela on this aspect and put it to this applicant and ask his comments about that?

CHAIRPERSON: (Microphone not on) Have you got, how much ground must you still cover Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I don't have much further, there is perhaps just one aspect apart from this, that I am going to cover, I see we have come over time, but I am not far from finished, but I am in the hands of the Committee?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't want to sit much longer than this, so if you are close to the end, then it is fine.

MR LAMEY: I am very close to the end.

CHAIRPERSON: If you are not close to the end, then I am going to adjourn.

MR LAMEY: No, I am very close to the end.

CHAIRPERSON: Especially if we are looking for sections of the record now.

ADV GCABASHE : Page 567?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, is the idea now that my learned friend is going to alert this witness to what he is after by reading to him what Mr Selamolela has said? That is paragraph 6 Chairperson, because if he wants to do that, then he may as well just say it to him straight out, I mean what the value of that evidence will be, he will have to address you on. But whether he says it to the witness or he reads from a document, the moment he suggests it to the witness, I mean he is suggesting the evidence to the witness and we all as lawyers know Chairperson, that the value of that evidence, whatever the answer is going to be, is virtually zero.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything in his own application Mr Lamey? Any reference in his own application to this issue?

MR LAMEY: No, not in his own application Mr Chairman, but we all know in proceedings of this kind, that as a result of time, etc, and everything, the Bundles and what is contained in the Bundles, are not a secret, applicants among themselves, the purpose of this is really to establish by reference perhaps to another version to him, whether he can recollect it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am just asking if there is a reference in his own application that you can refer to?

MR LAMEY: No, there is not a reference, not in the application of Mr Veyi, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well, put it to him and let's hear what his comment is.

MR LAMEY: Mr Veyi, Mr Selamolela has said in his application and statement that she was inter alia assaulted by placing a bag over her head and the use of electrical shocks. What I want to ask you really from your own and independently, in your own mind, if you cannot recollect this you must say so, if you can recollect it, I just want to hear your comment on this, can you recollect that at the time when you were present.

MR VEYI: We were changing shifts, sometimes I would be with Simelane, sometimes I would be with (indistinct), it could have happened that during my absence, such a thing took place.

MR LAMEY: During your absence? But you can't recall that happening in your presence, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: I do not remember.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Mr Chairman, I may then have misunderstood the instruction during the course, it must have come from Mr Selamolela in this regard, but I do recall that I have actually put it as if also the instruction that came from Mr Veyi.

CHAIRPERSON: You will have to deal with that in due course.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just see if we can then try and dispose of the evidence?

MR LAMEY: Then the next point Mr Veyi is, at the stage in 1983 when Ms Selamolela was then interrogated and detained and kept at Northum, were there any other safe houses of the Security Branch, Soweto that you were aware of and if so, where were they?

MR VEYI: Yes there were safe houses. There were in Klipspruit West, there were three of them. First of all when this RS programme started, we were using houses which were in Klipspruit West, two of them, this is where the informers and RS were interviewed and we later abandoned the two and we used only one, that is where the Portuguese Immanuel and Strongman were residing, that was the house that we were using. Even Peter Lengene was staying in one of those houses in Klipspruit, even in Rustenburg where Superintendent Coetzee, he even go to Rustenburg as mentioned by Superintendent Coetzee.

MR LAMEY: I am speaking specifically up to the time of 1983, I don't want to speak about after 1983, are you saying this in connection up to the time of 1983 when she was detained, is that what you are saying?

MR VEYI: Yes, 1983 Peter Lengene was kidnapped in 1982 from there, up to 1983. We were using those houses that were in Klipspruit. The RS programme was still at the initial stages, it was not yet advanced and then we later acquired other safe houses after 1983.

MR LAMEY: As at 1983 there were safe houses as I understand your evidence, in Klipspruit, is that correct?

MR VEYI: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman the next aspect will be the political objective which I want to cover. I don't know if I must proceed with that or whether we can start tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: No, we also had a bit of good news on a different front, so we are going to have to adjourn at this stage. We will reconvene at half past nine, tomorrow morning.