ADRIAN DAVID BAKER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, you have been given a photostat copy of the - I don't quite know what one calls it, an extract from "The Other Side of the Story". Now it's quite clear because it's not in colour, but if you look at the top "Unrest Related Incidents", the ...(intervention)

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I ...(inaudible - no microphone)

CHAIRPERSON: ... the top diagram starts at 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1990 is the highest. On the bottom diagram the figures on the left - sorry, the lower column on the left is "Killed" and the higher column joining it is "Injured".

And there is one other matter I would like to mention before we start today's evidence and that is, we were yesterday given a copy of Mr Wagener's cross-examination of Mr de Kock at his trial, arising out of the cross-examination by Mr Wagener of Mr de Kock here. I am told there are many more pages, I do not intend to ask that they be made available, but if Mr Wagener, having researched them, is of the view that there are relevant passages that are not before us, it seems to me only fair that he should be allowed to put those before the Committee. He has cross-examined on that question, and of course make it available to the legal advisors of the other applicants. That is, after the adjournment in this matter.

Would that suit you, Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Yes, no the portion that I referred to is in fact what was handed up to you via Mr Steenkamp. I can't remember anything else, so I do not intend at this stage to research for something else. This was the part that I had in mind. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And there's perhaps another matter that should be recorded, and that is as each day passes we all grow older.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, Mr Baker as you would recall, yesterday afternoon just before the conclusion of the proceedings, I just asked him to identify that one document and you indicated that if any members do wish to ask any questions on that, they can do so this morning. May I just request the Committee to enquire whether anybody has got other questions and if not, may I ask that Mr Baker be excused, he's got a job that he's got to look after.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions, gentlemen? I'm quite sure that if any matter arises ...(inaudible - no microphone).

MR BOOYENS: I can get hold of him, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: None of the persons present have any further questions for Mr Baker and it has been indicated that should it become necessary, arrangements can be made for him to return to the hearing. In those circumstances, he is now excused from attendance.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I with your leave call Mr Simon Radebe as the next applicant. Mr Radebe will give evidence in Sotho, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Give us your full names.

MAGOPO SIMON RADEBE: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Sworn in, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Radebe, you are an applicant in respect of this incident, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And your application appears on page 37 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You also, as part of your application, gave your general background, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: This document that I show you now.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you confirm the correctness of the contents of this document?

MR RADEBE: May you please repeat your question.

MR HATTINGH: Now Mr Radebe, you were never an askari, you were a member of the South African Police.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I think there's something wrong with my apparatus, I don't get the translated version back. Thank you.

I believe I was asked to repeat one of my previous questions. Was that the one dealing with the general background, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: He was never an askari.

MR HATTINGH: Never an askari.

Is it correct, Mr Radebe, that you were never an askari, you were a member of the South African Police?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you were attached to the Unit 1, stationed at Vlakplaas?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now Mr Radebe, I believe that we had this evidence before, you are not well, is that correct? You are a very sickly person.

MR RADEBE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You've had bypass surgery.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you suffer from very blood sugar.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you also suffer from very high blood pressure.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And in addition to that you have also been diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You have been - you are still receiving and you have been receiving treatment from two psychiatrists for this condition, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I think you mentioned their names, I think it was a Doctor Potgieter and a Doctor Verster, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: Is that Grove, Sir?

MR HATTINGH: Grove, Grove.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Potgieter and Grove.

MR RADEBE: Potgieter, Verster, Grove.

MR HATTINGH: Oh three, okay. Now the high blood sugar that you're suffering from, does that affect your memory?

MR RADEBE: Yes, they affected my vision.

MR HATTINGH: And your memory, your ability to remember things?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now Mr Radebe, you knew the late Mr Brian Ngqulunga, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: He was also a member of C1 at Vlakplaas at some stage.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then he got transferred to head office, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: Which head office, Sir?

MR HATTINGH: Pretoria head office.

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And after he got transferred to Pretoria head office, did you have much contact with him thereafter?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now were you approached and given instructions with regard to Mr Ngqulunga during July of 1990 - sorry, yes, 1990?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Who approached you, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: I was admitted in hospital, at Laudium Hospital.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MR RADEBE: Sgt Willie Nortje and Sgt Douw Willemse came to me and informed me that I should request for a discharge because they want me to do a job for them.

MR HATTINGH: Did they tell you what the job was that they wanted you to do?

MR RADEBE: Yes, they did, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What was it?

MR RADEBE: That I should befriend the late Brian Ngqulunga.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, with what purpose in mind?

MR RADEBE: So that I should draw him nearer Vlakplaas. They did not tell me in detail about their intention.

MR HATTINGH: Alright. They wanted you to take him to Vlakplaas you say?

CHAIRPERSON: Draw him nearer.

MR HATTINGH: Or to a place near Vlakplaas.

MR RADEBE: Yes, not in Vlakplaas, near Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: What were you suffering from in hospital at that time?

MR RADEBE: It was sugar diabetes and high blood pressure.

MR HATTINGH: Now did you then take your discharge from hospital?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you go and fetch Mr Ngqulunga on the same day or was it the next day, or when was it?

MR RADEBE: If I remember well, I went there the following day. If I remember well.

MR HATTINGH: Do you recall seeing Mr Baker at head office when you went there to fetch Mr Ngqulunga?

CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't said he went to head office, he said he ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR HATTINGH: Oh sorry, sorry.

Did you then go to head office the next day, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember going there, but what I remember is that I met Brian.

MR HATTINGH: Don't you recall where you met him?

MR RADEBE: I remember I met him at the head office after I was discharged from hospital.

MR HATTINGH: Did you perhaps meet Mr Baker there at head office when you arrived there?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember meeting Mr Baker.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Did you then take Mr Ngqulunga in your motorcar?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you travelled to a place near Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: ...(no English interpretation). They told me that they would meet me at dusk.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)

MR HATTINGH: Who told you that, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: I think it's Mr Baker.

MR HATTINGH: Did you and Mr Ngqulunga get into your car at head office in Pretoria?

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you told - sorry, I thought you said a moment ago that you did not remember meeting Baker, now you say you think it was Baker who told you who you'd meet.

MR RADEBE: Chairperson, what I said, I discussed with Baker telephonically, but I did not meet him in person. I informed him telephonically that I was with Brian.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?

MR RADEBE: On the day when I found Brian.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but where did you telephone Baker from?

MR RADEBE: I was at Kwagasrand in Pretoria, at the shopping complex. Kwagasrand Shopping Centre.

MR HATTINGH: And did you, during the course of this telephone conversation, did you inform him that you had Mr Ngqulunga with you?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what did he tell you, Mr Baker?

MR RADEBE: He told me that we will meet at the gravel road from east to west on the Church Street after Atteridgeville ...(indistinct), near Skurweberg. Then I parked my car just on the road towards Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Was that now after you'd arrived at the spot where Mr Baker told you to go to?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived at that place, was Mr Baker there, was there another vehicle there?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember well as to whether I found them there or they found me there.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, very well. Did they find you there at some stage?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what happened when they arrived there, or when you arrived there?

MR RADEBE: I went outside the car, I don't know as to whether I discussed with Wouter or with whom, but I informed that he is in the car. If I remember well, I went out of the car, then they took him out, then I left.

MR HATTINGH: The Wouter that you're referring to, is that Wouter Mentz?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did some other members also then approach your vehicle, other people, other persons?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, but I was not able to see them well because it was dark.

MR HATTINGH: And what did these people do?

MR RADEBE: They took Brian quickly, then if I remember well, Baker told me that I should go to Mafikeng, but I did not go to Mafikeng, I went home.

MR HATTINGH: So immediately after they took Mr Ngqulunga from your vehicle, you went home?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you remain there, you did not go to Mafikeng the next day?

MR RADEBE: I went home on that day at night.

MR HATTINGH: Did you hear anything on the news the next day, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: That there was a person who has been killed. There was a person who was murdered with AK47, in the direction of Oskraal, in a certain farm. I think his name was mentioned. His bag was left in my car, then I hid that suitcase, but there was no firearm or ID or anything.

MR HATTINGH: Are you talking about a suitcase or a briefcase?

MR RADEBE: My apologies, Chairperson, I'm talking about a briefcase.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now did you know that the person who had been killed was Mr Ngqulunga?

MR RADEBE: His name was mentioned, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now did you then realise what happened to him?

MR RADEBE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What did you think what happened to him?

MR RADEBE: That he was murdered.

MR HATTINGH: By whom?

MR RADEBE: Firstly, the way I was so frightened at the time when he was taken out of the car, the way the white members took him out of my car.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. But now who did you think was responsible for his death?

MR RADEBE: The people who came with Wouter Mentz, I thought those were responsible.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they take him out of your car violently?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you approach either Mr Baker or Mr Mentz, to enquire from them what had happened?

MR RADEBE: At that time, Chairperson, I would be applying for my death if I asked that question.

MR HATTINGH: Did you consider it your duty as a policeman to report the matter?

MR RADEBE: During the Security Branch at that time they were saying comply and complain after, you would not do things like that because they would see that you know too much, then they would eliminate you.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Radebe, did you hear any rumours to the effect that Mr Ngqulunga was in the process of changing his allegiance back to the ANC?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know why he was killed, Mr Radebe?

MR RADEBE: I learnt that later, that he wanted to change allegiance.

MR HATTINGH: Now as a member at Vlakplaas, when you were given instructions by your superiors, did you have to carry those instructions out?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever query any of these instructions?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: You said if you did something they would eliminate you.

MR RADEBE: Yes, Chairperson. For example, if I told that I am not able to give them Brian, they could have eliminated me also.

CHAIRPERSON: Who would have eliminated? Who would have eliminated you?

MR RADEBE: White members at Vlakplaas, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you feel that the white members of Vlakplaas thought that the black members were there to be used and if they didn't serve, that they would be eliminated?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: What did you say you did with his briefcase?

MR RADEBE: I opened it to check as to whether there were no firearms, but I only found documents there, then I burnt it. - after I learnt from the radio news that he has died.

ADV SANDI: What were these documents about?

MR RADEBE: It is was a newspaper and some documents, I don't remember the contents of the other papers, but it was mainly copies of newspapers.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on for further cross-examination - did you and Brian live anywhere near one another?

INTERPRETER: Did you and Brian live close to one another?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson, he was staying in Soshanguve, I was staying in Atteridgeville.

CHAIRPERSON: Right, Mr Booyens?

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

Mr Radebe, those documents, you must have - that you found in Mr Ngqulunga's briefcase, try and help us, you remember you saw - you must have seen, as a Security Policemen you must have seen a lot of documents that had got that "Top Secret" or "Secret" stamped on top of it. Do you know what I'm talking about now?

MR RADEBE: I said it was a newspaper and some newspaper cuttings.

MR BOOYENS: Oh, are those the documents that you referred to. So there were no documents that had "Secret" stamped on top of them?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: The applicant is eating something, so he is not audible enough.

MR BOOYENS: Just speak up please. Mr Radebe, there are just a few small things. Mr Baker told this Committee that it is correct that he spoke to you on the day that the deceased was killed, but his recollection is that this discussion took place not inside Security Police Headquarters, but outside in the street, so it wasn't a telephone discussion, it was a person-to-person discussion outside. Could that also be possible?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You distinctly remember a phone call to Mr Baker?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And we know from where from, but where did you phone him?

MR RADEBE: He was either at the farm, or I found him on his pager.

MR BOOYENS: I see. And was this the first time when you spoke to Mr Baker, when you received instructions to take the deceased to the Skurweberg Road?

MR RADEBE: I don't think it was for the first time.

MR BOOYENS: I see. Did somebody else tell you that you had to take the deceased to the Skurweberg Road, except Mr Baker?

MR RADEBE: If I remember well, it's Mr Baker only.

MR BOOYENS: I see. So if it wasn't the first time, he must have spoken to you earlier on as well and told you to take the man to the Skurweberg Road.

MR RADEBE: Yes, at the farm.

MR BOOYENS: I see. Mr Radebe, then Mr Baker and the other persons involved said what happened, you stopped first and they stopped behind you with their lights on bright, could that recollection be correct, or are you not certain?

MR RADEBE: I've already said that I don't remember who arrived first, but after they have arrived or after we have arrived at that particular place they flicked the lights to me.

MR BOOYENS: Just another - it's a small thing, but I think I still have to put it to you. Mr Baker said that you were in the driver's seat and he actually came up and spoke to you there at the Skurweberg Road, while the other persons took the deceased out of the car. Could that have happened?

MR RADEBE: Please repeat your question, Sir.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Baker told the Committee that there at the Skurweberg Road, he came up to you where you were seated in the car and he spoke to you about going to Mafikeng again and the other persons that were with him, Baker, took the deceased out of the car. Could that be have happened that way?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I would say it is like that. I remember he informed me that I should go to Mafikeng and I did not go to Mafikeng.

MR BOOYENS: And can you remember whether the deceased said anything when the persons grabbed him?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember, Chairperson, because there was noise at the time when he was taken out of the car.

MR BOOYENS: And would it be correct to say there was quite a struggle by these persons who took the deceased out of the car, to get him overpowered?

MR RADEBE: When they tried to handle you just under your armpits, tried to pull you out, that is a struggle.

MR BOOYENS: No, and outside the car, was there not a struggle there as well, or don't you know?

MR RADEBE: I did not see because my car was facing eastward and their car was at the back. It was dark, so I did not see what happened outside the car.

MR BOOYENS: Can you remember whether the persons that took him out of the car, whether they had balaclavas on?

MR RADEBE: I did not see, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: I see. Can you remember whether MR Baker had a balaclava on?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember, maybe he was wearing it or not, I can't remember.

MR BOOYENS: No, that's fine. And you told us earlier on that Willie Nortje and Douw Willemse told you you had to befriend Brian Ngqulunga. How did you befriend him?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember as to whether we were talking about where we would enjoy drinks, we were talking about going to a place to drink, but I don't remember well as to whether we were.

MR BOOYENS: Wasn't it perhaps suggested to you that you were to suggest to Brian that you were going to a place where you could meet his girlfriend, or girlfriends? Could that be true?

MR RADEBE: That may be true.

MR BOOYENS: I see. And Mr Radebe, obviously when Brian was removed from the vehicle in the way he was removed, you realised something was wrong, not so?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

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

ADV SANDI: Did you not realise that something was going to happen, even before you took him there?

MR RADEBE: I was not informed, I could not think that way.

ADV SANDI: You had no suspicion whatsoever, is that what you are saying?

MR RADEBE: Even if I had that suspicion, I did not know where to base that suspicion on, or how to inform them because I stated that during those years there was no way where you would tell them that you are not able to do that, because they would tell you that you are black, you are the only person who can do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you were sick in hospital, they told you you had to discharge yourself from hospital to take this man to a dirt road 10 kilometres away from Vlakplaas. That was something very unusual wasn't it?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You must have known it would have been perfectly easy for them to have arranged transport from headquarters to Vlakplaas.

MR RADEBE: Some people were askaris and some police were at college. When I was in hospital they were at the police training college for a certain course.

CHAIRPERSON: But if Mr Baker, who was a senior officer, had wanted to talk to Brian, he could have made arrangements, couldn't he?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson. At that time you were supposed to obey any order you were given.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, I'm not querying that, but you must have thought a lot about what they were going to do.

MR RADEBE: Yes, I would think about that, but I would not do anything because I was trying to save my own skin. There's nothing I could do. There were many means for that arrangement to be done differently, there were Sergeants and other people who could have been instructed to do the same job, but I don't know why I was selected to do the job. It was for the first time something like that happened, because it was our duty as police to fetch the askaris from the head office or at the station.

You would not suspect anything because they would phone you at 10 o'clock at night at your place, that somebody is at the station, go and fetch him and bring him to the farm. So it was sort of a culture that we were transporting askaris, because I was the one who was handling the kombi and it was staying at my place unless it was broken.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Radebe, when you were discharged from the hospital, did you go immediately to headquarters to pick up Brian Ngqulunga?

MR RADEBE: No Chairperson, I phoned at my place for them to come and fetch me.

MR LAMEY: Who fetched you?

MR RADEBE: My wife, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And where did you go then?

MR RADEBE: I went home. I don't remember who came to fetch me to Vlakplaas, so that I would be able to take my car there, I don't remember who that person is.

MR LAMEY: But did you say - did I understand you correctly, that you picked up Brian at headquarters the day after you were discharged from hospital?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, I said so. If I remember well, I said so.

MR LAMEY: So on the day of your discharge you went home and the following day you went to Vlakplaas and then from there, from Vlakplaas you went to headquarters to pick up Brian, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: I don't know what I did at Vlakplaas, I don't as to whether I received other instructions there, but I went there to fetch my car, then I went to fetch him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you speak to Baker then, was that when you spoke to him at Vlakplaas and he told you where to meet?

MR RADEBE: Yes, if I remember well I spoke with him when I went to fetch the car.

MR LAMEY: And it was Baker who told you where to - where he would meet you, on the gravel road, the Skurweberg Road near Vlakplaas?

MR RADEBE: Yes, I think we discussed earlier and then we concluded when we met there.

MR LAMEY: And on that same day that you picked up Brian, you took him to that road, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: I phoned first before I proceeded tot hat particular place.

MR LAMEY: But it happened on the same day? After you picked him up at Wagthuis, you took him to that road in the meantime - on route you also phoned Baker, is that what you're saying?

MR RADEBE: Yes, if I remember well that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And in your application, on page 41, paragraph 13, you said that you told Brian Ngqulunga when you met him at Wagthuis, that he is needed at Vlakplaas and that you must bring him there, or take him there to Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: What page is this?

MR LAMEY: Page 41, Chairperson.

Is that what you told Brian Ngqulunga, that's he's needed at Vlakplaas?

MR RADEBE: We discussed as to whether I should mention to him as to either Vlakplaas or about girlfriends. I don't know as to whether I told him about Vlakplaas or another story. If I told him about Vlakplaas he would ask me why we are not going straight to Vlakplaas.

MR LAMEY: Mr Radebe, you have testified that your memory - you've got problems with your memory as a result of blood sugar, and I also assume that the post-traumatic stress disorder that you're suffering from has got a serious impact on your memory and your ability to recall accurately the facts. You recall bits and pieces of it, isn't that correct, but you don't recall accurately all the facts, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: So I want to put it to you is that your facts are a bit mixed up and I understand it as a result of your memory, but the facts are - and those are my instructions from Mr Nortje, that some time before you picked Brian Ngqulunga on the day, your instructions from Mr de Kock was to get closer to Brian Ngqulunga and to befriend him and to buy drinks for him and in this way to befriend him and that this happened some days before the actual day that you took him. So what I put to you is that you've mentioned about these drinks, but your facts are a bit mixed up as to the time span that this happened and that you did in fact befriend him before the day that you took him to Baker, and it was indeed Baker - sorry, I don't want to make it too long a statement, let us just stop there for a minute. Is it possible that Mr Nortje is correct in this regard, that some time before you took Brian to this place where you were instructed to take him by Baker, that you befriended him to draw him closer to you.

MR RADEBE: Yes, we used to - we were friends even before. I think Col de Kock informed me that I should befriend him more closely.

MR LAMEY: That is what Mr Nortje will say because he was at this stage at head office.

CHAIRPERSON: How long were you in hospital for? - before you discharged yourself?

MR RADEBE: Five or six days, if I remember well.

CHAIRPERSON: What hospital?

MR RADEBE: Laudium Hospital.

MR LAMEY: You see I want to put it to you further, Mr Radebe, that where you state in paragraph 13, on page 41 that it was Nortje and Willemse that gave you instructions to take him to the road, the gravel road on the other side of Vlakplaas, that you're not correct there, it was indeed Mr Baker, as Mr Baker has testified that he gave you those instructions. So do you concede that you might be wrong?

MR RADEBE: If I'm not mistaken I said Nortje and Willemse came to the hospital to request that I should discharge myself there. If I stated otherwise, I apologise, but they did not tell me where we should meet. They came to the hospital to request that I should request a discharge from the hospital.

MR LAMEY: You see in that regard, Mr Nortje - my instructions from Mr Nortje is that - let me just stop here. Nobody here has - and it's also my instructions from Mr Willemse, has mentioned in any way the involvement of Mr Willemse. Could you be mistaken about him?

MR RADEBE: He was involved in hospital during our discussion. They brought biltong to me in hospital. He was with Nortje.

MR LAMEY: Well is it not perhaps that you are confusing perhaps a visit by Willemse and Nortje for some other purpose at hospital, unrelated to this specific incident and instruction?

MR RADEBE: I think I remember well it was Nortje and Willemse in hospital.

MR LAMEY: Okay, I want to put it to you that you're wrong in that respect and Mr Nortje did not visit you in hospital with Mr Willemse for this purpose, to give you instructions about Brian Ngqulunga and that you indeed, Mr Nortje will testify, some days before the actual kidnapping of Brian Ngqulunga, you received instructions from Mr de Kock to befriend Brian, which you did and you reported also to Mr de Kock and Mr Nortje was also aware of that and he also spoke to you during that period of time before the kidnapping about the developments of this befriending of Brian Ngqulunga.

CHAIRPERSON: I would find that a very complicated question to answer, it goes on and on. I think it would be fairer to the witness to put it in sections.

MR LAMEY: Let me take it up, I apologise, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Radebe, firstly, I want to put it to you that - and that is my instructions from Mr Nortje, that you're wrong where you state that it was him and Willemse that visited you in the hospital and there gave you instructions what to do with Brian Ngqulunga.

CHAIRPERSON: Well did they visit him together?

MR LAMEY: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't that the first question?

What is being put to you as I understand it, is firstly, that Nortje and Willemse did not come to visit you in hospital, together.

MR RADEBE: They came together, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Put the next bit.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Nortje will say that he did not give you instructions about the - as you testified, that you must pick Brian Ngqulunga at head office and take him to that road.

MR RADEBE: Chairperson, I did not say Nortje gave me instructions, but I said Nortje requested me to request a discharge at the hospital.

MR LAMEY: Well Mr Nortje says he did not visit you in hospital and request that you take a discharge from hospital.

MR RADEBE: I don't that. I requested a discharge at hospital, knowing that I should come and take Ngqulunga. He's not telling the truth, he must try not to hide anything. I was at the veranda outside the hospital. And even if they entered at the hospital, there's no register of attendance of who came at what particular day or time.

CHAIRPERSON: Well who told you that you were going to go and fetch Brian?

MR RADEBE: I said it's Col Baker, Chairperson, at the farm.

MR LAMEY: You see, Mr Radebe, Mr Nortje's recollection was that - and that is what I want to put to you, that some days before the actual kidnapping of Brian Ngqulunga, when you took him to that road near Vlakplaas, you received instructions from Mr de Kock to befriend Brian to get him closer to you and to inter alia buy him drinks.

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is before I was hospitalised. That was before I was hospitalised.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just have a moment to get ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Was that answer interpreted?

MR LAMEY: His answer was:

CHAIRPERSON: I'm afraid I dropped it and it now ...

INTERPRETER: Do you hear me, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: There's a lot of background noise.

MR LAMEY: Just for the record, Chairperson, he said yes, he did receive instructions from Mr de Kock to befriend him, but that was before he was hospitalised.

Well let me just finally put it to you then that my instructions from Nortje is that he's got no recollection that you were indeed hospitalised - sorry.

INTERPRETER: Do you hear me, Chairperson?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just repeat that.

Mr Radebe, my instructions from Mr Nortje is that he's got no recollection that you were indeed hospitalised during that period before Brian Ngqulunga was taken to that road, and that he did not visit you in hospital and give you the instructions that you must take a discharge in order to carry out the instruction that you have spoken about.

MR RADEBE: He came. Even if we can go to the hospital - to head office to look for my medical file, that would show what I'm saying.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Can I just ask you this, did you - during that period prior to taking Ngqulunga on the day to that road, did you indeed buy drinks for him and befriend him?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct, before I went to hospital, I tried to befriend him, but we were friends all the time.

CHAIRPERSON: We were what?

INTERPRETER: We were friends.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but why did you have to try and befriend a man who was already your friend, as you say?

MR RADEBE: They did not know that we were friends, they did not know that we were friends. The way de Kock instructed me, he did not know that we were friends and I did not respond and tell him that we were friends.

ADV SANDI: Did you have any reason for not telling him that look, that man you're asking me to befriend is already my friend?

MR RADEBE: He was instructing me how to befriend him, then I tried to do what he was instructing me to do.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but as friends, did you see each other regularly?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson, we were not meeting regularly, he was working with me before he was transferred to head office.

ADV SANDI: Because I thought you said in your evidence, after Mr Brian Ngqulunga was transferred to head office, you had no contact with him.

MR RADEBE: We used to see each other. When I got to town I used to pass at the head office, then we used to meet.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

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

MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you used to go and see him in the head office, or did you arrange to meet him outside and go and have drinks with him and things of that nature?

MR RADEBE: When I used to go to the head office I used to see him and greet him, because we used to work together before he was transferred to the head office. We did not have a grudge.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were just seeing him and greeting him?

MR RADEBE: If I see him - I would not go directly to see him in his office just to greet him, but if I meet him in the passages I used to greet him.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr de Kock told you to try to be friendly, take him out for drinks, did you do any of that? Did you try to take him out for drinks?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Where? When?

MR RADEBE: We went once in Soshanguve before I got ill.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that after de Kock had spoken to you?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Van der Walt, for the record.

Mr Radebe, for how many other incidents have you applied for amnesty?

MR RADEBE: I don't know.

MR VAN DER WALT: Are there other incidents for which you have applied?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER WALT: More than one?

MR RADEBE: Yes, there are more than one.

MR VAN DER WALT: Can you give us an estimate how many?

MR RADEBE: Between five and six ...(no English interpretation)

MR VAN DER WALT: During those incidents there were also people killed, am I correct?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: And am I correct to assume that in those incidents you were also pulled innocently, as you were here?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Radebe, at that stage, were you the only black Vlakplaas member?

MR RADEBE: Which time, Chairperson?

MR VAN DER WALT: At the time Brian Ngqulunga was killed.

MR RADEBE: Yes, others were at college, then I was in hospital.

MR VAN DER WALT: Weren't there any other black members at Vlakplaas at that stage, July 1990?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember because I was in hospital, they told me that my colleagues are at college.

MR VAN DER WALT: Be that as it may, you have already conceded that it is very strange that you were approached whilst you were in hospital, to befriend Brian Ngqulunga and to take him to the place where he was killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he's told us I think fairly clearly, that he wasn't approached in hospital to befriend, this happened before he went to hospital.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

But whilst you were in hospital somebody else could have been approached to have taken him to Skurweberg.

MR RADEBE: Yes, if they delegated you, they delegated you. I don't know the reasons behind why they delegated me to do the job.

MR VAN DER WALT: Were you, during June/July 1990, actively employed on Vlakplaas?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER WALT: If there were rumours of fears about Mr Ngqulunga's evidence before the Harms Commission, you would have known about that.

MR RADEBE: May you please repeat your question.

MR VAN DER WALT: The question is, you were actively involved on Vlakplaas and if during the period June/July 1990, there were rumours about fears about the evidence of Mr Ngqulunga before the Harms Commission of Inquiry, you would have heard about that. It would have been discussed between the members of Vlakplaas.

MR RADEBE: Yes, not among the black members, it would be among white members only.

MR VAN DER WALT: Why would it not have been discussed between black members, you were also members?

MR RADEBE: It was a culture that we're not used to attend meetings with white members.

MR VAN DER WALT: Were you not informed of anything at all there? What did you, what did your duties entail on Vlakplaas?

MR RADEBE: What duties?

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes.

MR RADEBE: What duties?

MR VAN DER WALT: What did you do on Vlakplaas, what did your duties entail, as a member of the Vlakplaas unit?

MR RADEBE: I was a driver.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Radebe, I put it to you that you must have known the purpose for your befriending Brian Ngqulunga and taking him to the incident where he was shot. You knew that he had to be shot.

MR RADEBE: If I was informed I could have known.

MR VAN DER WALT: Well I put it to you, you were informed, that's why you decided to partake. ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Excuse me, Mr Chairman, on what basis, on what evidence does my learned friend base that proposition that he's putting to the witness?

MR VAN DER WALT: On the basis that the witness' evidence is that he was approached whilst he was hospitalised to go and take Mr Ngqulunga to a certain spot, he had to book himself out.

MR HATTINGH: No, Mr Chairman, he corrected that evidence, that was not his evidence. He said he was approached in hospital, asked to take his discharge, he wasn't told on that occasion that he had to take Mr Ngqulunga to a particular spot.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I will leave it at that, it's a matter for argument.

Mr Radebe, why did you decide to burn the deceased's briefcase after you heard that he was killed?

MR RADEBE: I don't know as to whether I phoned or what happened, I'm not able to remember who informed me that if there is no firearm or ID, burn it. I don't remember who informed me.

MR VAN DER WALT: Is it now your evidence that you were also informed to burn the briefcase?

MR RADEBE: If I was not informed as to whether I should burn it or hid(?) it, I could have taken it to the white members.

MR VAN DER WALT: Are you now saying - I'm repeating my question, are you saying you were informed?

MR RADEBE: If I remember well I was informed either to burn it or hid it.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Radebe, did you during 1990, know the deceased's wife, Mrs Chatherine Ngqulunga?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER WALT: On what basis did you know her?

MR RADEBE: She was my colleague's wife.

MR VAN DER WALT: Did you also know a certain Mr Geoffrey Bosigo?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER WALT: Who was he? Who and what was he?

MR RADEBE: Geoffrey Bosigo was my colleague.

MR VAN DER WALT: Colleague at Vlakplaas, or where was he a colleague?

MR RADEBE: Vlakplaas. We were working together at Vlakplaas, together with Geoffrey Bosigo.

CHAIRPERSON: When were you working with him?

MR VAN DER WALT: When I arrived at Vlakplaas in 1985, I found him there at Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: How long did he stay there?

MR RADEBE: Until in 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: So in 1990 he was working with you at Vlakplaas?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he black?

MR RADEBE: Yes, he didn't a bright colour.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I thought you said a few moments ago that you were the only black member at Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I think what he meant was, at the time he was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: At the time, July 1990.

MR HATTINGH: ... because the others were attending a course at some police college.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Bosigo attend a course at the college in 1990?

MR RADEBE: That is correct, Chairperson. I was asked as to whether did I know Geoffrey Bosigo, I said yes, he was at college that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

MR VAN DER WALT: Do you know of any rumours after the death of Mr Ngqulunga, that Mr Bosigo might have been involved in his killing?

MR RADEBE: He was at college. Geoffrey Bosigo was at college.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Radebe, please listen to the question. The question is, do you know of any rumours that he might have been involved in the killing of Mr Ngqulunga?

MR RADEBE: I did not know.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, the family has indicated to me that they want to draw my attention to something, I wonder if it might be an opportune moment to adjourn for tea, I see it's five minutes to eleven.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. It must be very difficult for them to prepare for this sort of thing, we'll take the adjournment.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

MAGOPO SIMON RADEBE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'm indebted to the Committee for the extended adjournment.

Mr Radebe, just before we took the adjournment I asked you about a certain Mr Geoffrey Bosigo and I think you said he was a colleague, is that correct?

MR RADEBE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER WALT: And was he also at the college at the relevant time, the time of the assassination of Mr Ngqulunga?

MR RADEBE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER WALT: And I asked you if after the incident you became aware of rumours that he might be involved in the killing of the deceased, what was your answer to that?

MR RADEBE: Well I don't know about that.

MR VAN DER WALT: Did you at any stage after the death of the deceased and after his funeral, speak to his widow, Mrs Catherine Ngqulunga, about his death?

MR RADEBE: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER WALT: Now Mr Radebe, I appreciate that you do have a bit of a problem with your memory at this stage, and I will refer you to the bundle of documents -Mr Chairman, it's pages 152 and 153, it is an affidavit by Mr Ngqulunga. I can't see when it was signed, I don't have the original.

Mr Radebe, I want to refer you specifically to paragraph 5, on page 153 thereof. Mr Chairman, I think in fairness, it would be better for me to read out the paragraph and have it translated. I'll read the paragraph to you, it's in Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Remember to allow for the translation between each sentence.

MR VAN DER WALT: Okay, Mr Chairman.

Paragraph 5 reads as follows:

Mr Radebe, I just confirmed with Mrs Ngqulunga that the Simon Radebe to which she is referring in this paragraph is yourself. Can you at all remember this conversation she is mentioning here?

MR RADEBE: It's the first time that I learnt of this, today.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Radebe, I put it to you that you're not being open with the Committee, and it will be argued on behalf of the family that you aren't entitled to amnesty because you didn't give full information regarding the incident.

MR RADEBE: What I'm saying is what happened. You have now included Geoff here and that time Geoff was at the college, so I don't know what is the truth. Chairperson, I don't understand what is said here.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have nothing further.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Is Geoffrey's surname Basigo or Bosigo?

MR RADEBE: That's B-O, Bosigo.

MR SIBANYONI: You said at the scene where Mr Ngqulunga was taken from your car, you spoke to Wouter Mentz, did he wear a balaclava?

MR RADEBE: I saw him but I wasn't aware whether he put a balaclava. I don't remember whether he put it on or not.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you also speak to Mr Baker at that spot?

MR RADEBE: Yes, that is when he instructed me to go to Mafikeng and then I did not go to Mafikeng, but I went home.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you recognise them by their voices or by their sight?

MR RADEBE: I recognised Wouter by his voice, but I remember seeing Baker and I spoke to him. That is when he gave me instructions that I should go to Mafikeng so that it could not been seen that I was in Pretoria that time.

MR SIBANYONI: Now concerning duties of black members of the police in Vlakplaas, were you involved in interrogating those people who were captured, those ANC or PAC members who were captured?

MR RADEBE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Were you also included in discussions or when meetings were held, planning etc?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: You said immediately you were requested to take Mr Ngqulunga to that spot, you wouldn't turn down the request. Are you saying the suspicion arose then and there, or you only suspected when he was removed with violence from your car?

MR RADEBE: Because it was normal amongst us as police when an askari identifies a person, I would be the person who arrests him, so that I could go and give evidence in Court. So we would fetch them from the police station, I was responsible for that. I would fetch them from the police station and take them to Vlakplaas. If he's to be transferred to head office in Pretoria, that was also task to do that.

MR SIBANYONI: In other words you are saying you wouldn't ignore any request or instruction given by your superiors?

MR RADEBE: That's correct, Chairperson. At that time they would say "Complain after". You would not complain before you execute the task that you are given.

MR SIBANYONI: And you are saying ignoring any request or instruction would amount to you being eliminated?

MR RADEBE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

ADV SANDI: Why did you not comply with the instruction from Baker that you go to Mafikeng after you had handed Ngqulunga over to Baker and his group?

MR RADEBE: I was frightened that time and I would not travel a distance of about 200 kilometres at night and I had just been discharged from hospital and I was thinking about anything that could happen on my way to Mafikeng, so I wouldn't be able to get medical assistance.

ADV SANDI: Who told you that the deceased was suspected of having returned to the ANC?

MR RADEBE: They suspected that he has changed his allegiance. That is what I heard from their discussions at the farm.

ADV SANDI: Who is "they"?

MR RADEBE: Those people who were working with us. There were always discussions about the reasons why a particular person has been killed.

MR RADEBE: Are you referring to the applicants here?

MR RADEBE: Even those who have not applied for amnesty here.

ADV SANDI: Were there any people amongst the askaris who were of the same view as your white colleagues, that the deceased had returned to the ANC?

MR RADEBE: I don't know, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Sorry, just one question, Mr Chairman.

In your interaction with the deceased, did you engage in any security related conversations?

MR RADEBE: No, Chairperson, I don't remember. I don't remember us discussing security matters.

ADV SANDI: Did the deceased ever say to you that he was afraid that his life was in danger? Did he ever express such a concern about his safety?

MR RADEBE: He never said that to me, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, might I just enquire, the witness has confirmed the affidavit which forms part of his application in general, the background. Has it been handed up to you, is it before you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood he had. I understood that at the beginning of his evidence you asked him to confirm it.

MR HATTINGH: He has in fact confirmed it, I wasn't certain as to whether you were handed a copy of this document, Mr Chairman. Then I have no further questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: From what the applicant has told us and from the information that I was given before he was called, I understand that he is still in a poor state of health. Would you like him to be excused from attendance at this stage? I'm sure that you can make arrangements that he should be available if required.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, yes please, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Has anybody got any objection to that? Sorry, can you just wait one moment.

MR BOOYENS: We call as the next applicant, Mr Pieter Botha, Mr Chairman. You will find his application starting at page 45 of the documents.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Botha, English or Afrikaans?

MR BOTHA: Afrikaans please.

MR SIBANYONI: Your full names for the purpose of the record.

PIETER HENDRIK BOTHA: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, please be seated. Sworn in, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Botha, from page 45 to 61, you have provided your personal background and so forth, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I do.

MR BOOYENS: From what time were you at Vlakplaas?

MR BOTHA: Initially, directly after my training in 1983, I arrived at Vlakplaas and shortly thereafter I was transferred to the Research Desk and began to work there permanently in April 1985.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. Let us proceed to page 64, where you deal specifically with the merits of this case. Now, can you recall a rendezvous at the House of Coffees, near the Security Head Office?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I can.

MR BOOYENS: Who was there?

MR BOTHA: Col de Kock and Capt Baker, myself, Wouter Mentz, Rian Bellingan and then I'm uncertain whether Willie Nortje and Charlie Chate were both there or whether it was only Willie Nortje who was there, but one of the two was there.

MR BOOYENS: Possibly both or are you not certain?

MR BOTHA: I'm not certain about both, but one of the two would have been used.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. A discussion took place there regarding the deceased in this matter.

MR BOTHA: Yes, there was such a discussion.

MR BOOYENS: What was it about, substantially?

MR BOTHA: The discussion entailed that Mr de Kock told us that Brian Ngqulunga had defected to the ANC and that he was a double agent and for that reason he had to be eliminated.

MR BOOYENS: I see. Did Col de Kock give any indication as to whether this was his own idea or whether this was an instruction that he had received?

MR BOTHA: Well it was my conclusion that it was an order from above.

MR BOOYENS: When you say "above", do you mean higher up in the hierarchy?

MR BOTHA: Yes, in the rank structure, or from the Commanders. I cannot say specifically who.

MR BOOYENS: Well he wouldn't have told you who specifically gave him the instruction.

MR BOTHA: No.

MR BOOYENS: But what you can recall from the discussion is that it was not Mr de Kock's idea, that this was an order that he had received from above?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: What was the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It was not Mr de Kock's idea that this was an order he had received from above?

MR BOOYENS: No, I think you go the wrong interpretation there, Mr Chairman. Can I ask the question again?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Was it your impression that Col de Kock did not have this idea by himself but had received this instruction from above, was that your inference?

MR BOTHA: Yes, definitely.

MR BOOYENS: Now, he said that the man had defected and so forth and were the possible consequences of such a defection discussed there?

MR BOTHA: Yes, very briefly. We were briefly referred to the fact that some of the attacks and murders of policemen on the East Rand, were a possible result of that, of the information that we had been provided with at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: And what instructions did you receive?

MR BOTHA: We received instructions to eliminate him.

MR BOOYENS: And who was the "we" that received this instruction?

MR BOTHA: Col de Kock told us that Mr Baker would take over the operation and that me, Wouter Mentz, Rian Bellingan and Baker himself would form the team who would undertake the work.

MR BOOYENS: I see. The practical arrangements on ground level were then made by Col Baker, as you have already heard from his evidence.

MR BOTHA: Yes, indeed that is so. In fact I don't think he was a Col at that stage, he was a Captain.

MR BOOYENS: Oh, he was a Captain.

MR BOOYENS: What was your rank?

MR BOTHA: I was a Warrant Officer.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. And did you then receive instructions to wear balaclavas and dark clothing?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And were you then instructed at a certain time to meet and did you then travel by kombi along a certain route to this prearranged point?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And once you arrived there you stopped behind the vehicle which was discussed by the previous witness, Mr Radebe, and that is where you found Mr Ngqulunga?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Please give us a brief summary. You do not have to go into extensive detail about it, but describe to us precisely how the man was removed from Mr Radebe's vehicle and placed in the kombi.

MR BOTHA: Capt Baker, who was driving the vehicle at that stage, approached the vehicle and switched on his headlights. He stopped behind the vehicle and told us to take Brian out of the vehicle. I was the last person to exit the kombi. Upon arriving at the vehicle, which was about five to six paces ahead of us, Rian Bellingan opened the door and took Brian out and he and Wouter immediately became involved in an altercation because Brian was resisting. I tried to help them to bring Brian under control and Bellingan said to me "Piet, hit him a few times just to bring him under control". Now I'd just like to indicate to the Chairperson that in my statement it says that I hit him once, but I hit him twice or three times, so that we could get him under control to get him into the kombi.

MR BOOYENS: What did you hit him with?

MR BOTHA: With my bare fist.

MR BOOYENS: Did you knock him out at that stage?

MR BOTHA: No, he wasn't unconscious, if that is what your question was, but he was confused and that is how we could get him into the kombi.

MR BOOYENS: You then had him in the kombi, and who sat where in the kombi?

MR BOTHA: Wouter Mentz and I sat in the back of the kombi and we had Brian at our feet and Rian Bellingan sat in the left front and Capt Baker was driving.

MR BOOYENS: Now he wasn't unconscious at that stage, did he scream or make a noise or anything like that?

MR BOTHA: The noise had then stopped, he was quiet and I could hear him moaning.

MR BOOYENS: So he was still alive?

MR BOTHA: He was in a condition which would be described as under control. He struggled somewhat still, but at that stage we just held him down.

MR BOOYENS: Was he flat on the floor of the kombi?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Is that on the floor of the kombi in front of the seating?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Was it a Volkswagen kombi?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. And then you drove, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And were there any other instances where it was necessary to silence him?

MR BOTHA: Later it became necessary because he wasn't only struggling, he began screaming again at a stage and it was then that Bellingan gave me the zap or the kosh to hit him with, and that is how we managed to get him under control.

MR BOOYENS: And a kosh is some form of a leather baton which has grains of lead on the front?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And according to you he was then knocked out?

MR BOTHA: He was not unconscious, but he was in the condition which he was confused and struggling to breath.

MR BOOYENS: And then at a certain point you brought the kombi to a standstill.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And you have already heard the evidence that Mentz and you carried him out of the kombi.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So he couldn't walk by himself and that stage?

MR BOTHA: No, he couldn't.

MR BOOYENS: And we have already heard that Mr Bellingan stated that he shot him.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you confirm this?

MR BOTHA: I confirm it.

MR BOOYENS: And after Bellingan shot him, what happened then?

MR BOTHA: Well after we had dragged him into the veld, we left him in a dark area in an environment which was completely unknown to me. As we placed him, Wouter and I realised that we didn't have gun with us. We went back to fetch the gun and in the process we walked past Rian Bellingan, who asked us where the man was. I then pointed him out to him and he shot him, but before he opened fire I had already begun walking back to the kombi.

MR BOOYENS: And did Bellingan then, after he shot the man, return to you and say something?

MR BOTHA: Yes, after he fired the shots he returned to me at the kombi and said "Piet, go and make sure that the man is dead". I then took the second AK that we had taken along with us and walked to the man and fired a further five to six shots, upon my estimation, single shots.

MR BOOYENS: And you have just qualified that you fired single shots, how did Bellingan fire?

MR BOTHA: He fired full automatic.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Botha, there was a suggestion from my learned friend, Mr van der Walt, on the other side, that the man's clothing was removed, was this done at any point?

MR BOTHA: No, that is completely untrue.

MR BOOYENS: What I mean is, did you still have any time remaining there at the scene, to do such things before you shot the man or did you want to do the deed as quickly as possible and get out of there as quickly as possible?

MR BOTHA: We wanted to get away from the scene as quickly as possible.

MR BOOYENS: So is it correct then that as the previous witnesses have testified, that after that you first went to the Wonderpark Shopping Centre, where the guns were handed over to Charlie Chate?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And that is when the Avis rental cars were parked at the Holiday Inn.

MR BOTHA: Correct.

MR BOOYENS: You had a meal and after that you were booked into a hotel in Johannesburg.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Now you had direct instruction to participate in this operation.

MR BOTHA: Yes, I confirm that.

MR BOOYENS: A motivation was given to you, namely that the man was allegedly loyal to the opposition.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And at that stage, Mr Botha, you were stationed at Vlakplaas and I think that there has been sufficient evidence before this Commission, indicating that Vlakplaas was the operational wing of the Security Branch, would you agree with that?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have any intelligence gather capacity, with the exception of what the askaris did to identify persons, did you have any intelligence collection capacity in order to substantiate or verify the information that Mr de Kock gave you regarding Ngqulunga's involvement with the ANC?

MR BOTHA: No, we didn't, and if there was any such capacity I wouldn't have been aware of it.

MR BOOYENS: And many operations of Vlakplaas, whether internal or external - and I'm referring to specifically when you acted, not when you traced persons, meant that you had to rely upon information which was provided by other specialised intelligence gathering wings of the police, which had been conveyed to you, upon which you had to react?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Your intelligence gathering would primarily have involved gather of information for operational purposes, for example reconnoitring a place before launching an operation there and so forth?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you even have any reason at that stage to doubt the correctness of the information which was conveyed to you?

MR BOTHA: No, because the instruction came from Col de Kock.

MR BOOYENS: Well regardless of who issued the instruction, did you have any reason subsequently, to doubt it or to wonder about the truth of the instruction or did you find out that the information had been incorrect?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR BOOYENS: And subsequently one may have heard of reasons which may not have been true, but at that stage you trusted the information?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You also state at the bottom of page 67, very briefly, something which is of significance, at the very bottom, regarding the level of support for your covert operations that you enjoyed. For example, you say:

... and I assume that these are not genuine or legal passports and legal documents.

MR BOTHA: Yes, these were covert documents.

MR BOOYENS: For example, you would have travelled under a false name and so forth. Were you completely satisfied that this was indicative of the case that Vlakplaas was not simply a group of trouble stirrers who were operating independently, you were applied for covert operations and you also had to enjoy logistical support from other divisions of the police, as well as other State departments in order to obtain such documents.

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is what it indicates.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have personal knowledge of, for example, where the ID documents and passports came from?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Would you explain to the Chairperson please.

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, initially there was a channel that one had to apply through for the false document, you had to provide the particulars, such as the names and so forth. This was after you had received Col de Kock's approval. In many cases I was the messenger who took the details to Gen Beukes, who was a retired General in charge of this operation.

Afterwards the intensity of it increased to the extent that Gen Beukes could not perform these tasks quickly enough and upon two or three occasions, if I recall correctly, I went to the Internal Affairs building myself, to the person who was manufacturing the passports and received the name and the photo there that we had selected.

MR BOOYENS: So in other words, this South African passport was not from someone who was manufacturing counterfeit passports as such, it came from a State department?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: With regard to this operation and also others possibly, however this one is the relevant operation, you had nothing to do with the overall planning, or at least firstly, with the planning in principle and the later motivation for why the man should be eliminated and so forth?

MR BOTHA: No, I had nothing to do with that.

MR BOOYENS: And you also had no way in which you could verify the correctness of the motivational justification for an operation, you could not study this at all?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR BOOYENS: It has been suggested to some of your colleagues - and possibly you wish to respond to this if you wish, you were told that this man was basically a defector, a spy, a double-agent for the ANC, why didn't you ask him about it? After you had captured him, did you ask him "Is it so that you have returned to the opposition?" I think you said that you never asked him, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: No, we didn't ask him simply because if you wanted to interrogate someone, you would have to establish a preceding basis of facts or supposition upon which you could interrogate the person. I couldn't make up something and confront Brian with it and then find out that it would lead to nowhere.

MR BOOYENS: So all that you would have been able to tell him is "Col de Kock told us that you have defected to the opposition"?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I accepted that that information had already been gathered and testified and verified and it was conveyed to us as such.

MR BOOYENS: Therefore you did not regard it as necessary to undertake any further questioning based upon information given by telephone tapping or informers or so forth?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And even if you had asked him and he told you "But it's not true, I did not defect to the opposition", based upon the information that you had, a mere denial from his side would not have made any difference, would it?

MR BOTHA: No, it wouldn't have.

MR BOOYENS: I mean, it really wouldn't have fitted in with your order, to decide upon his denial not to carry out the operation?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You confirm furthermore with regard to your political motivation as it appears in the documents.

MR BOTHA: Yes, I confirm that.

MR BOOYENS: And furthermore, were you satisfied that a person within the ranks of the Security Police, who as we heard, had access to confidential documents and so for the - was a threat to the total security structure and the struggle which was waged at that stage against the ANC, PAC and so forth.

MR BOTHA: Yes, I confirm it as such.

MR BOOYENS: Mention has also been made that at the time of this incident the ANC was no longer a forbidden organisation and the question was put, why did you continue if this man was giving information to the ANC? Did you hear that?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I did.

MR BOOYENS: Now from your own experience at that stage, as a policeman in the Security Police, although the ANC had been unbanned, was the war over?

MR BOTHA: No, the war was not over at all. If I may quote from the statistics which have already been submitted and from our experience at that stage, specifically the attacks on policemen increased drastically.

MR BOOYENS: And you were still operating as a Counter-Terrorism Unit, you were still capturing persons, as it would appear from the statistics?

MR BOTHA: Yes, indeed that is so, even though it would be on an unprofessional basis, they had begun attempting to move us over to the crime prevention field.

MR BOOYENS: But the following statement appears in the submission of the African National Congress' statement to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, August 1996, and I quote from page 64, Mr Chairman, under the heading - paragraph 6.2.9.3:

And the ANC itself is quotes by saying:

So even the ANC in its submission to the TRC, stated that it was only on the 6th of August that they committed themselves to the suspension of the armed struggle. Is that in line with your experience?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And I understand that that is not to say that the 6th of August heralded the end of the armed struggle, that this was just statistically speaking.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you then confirm the rest of your amnesty application and request that the annexures that you have attached to your application be read in with it? I don't believe that it's necessary for us to deal with it.

MR BOTHA: Yes, I request this from the Committee.

MR BOOYENS: And furthermore, that the submissions which have already been made to this Committee by other senior police officers regarding the background of Vlakplaas, also be incorporated in your amnesty application?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I request this from the Committee.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record.

Mr Botha, for a moment my attention was diverted when you spoke of the covert passports, did you also mention the fact that you were issued with so-called covert identity documents?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Which were obtained in the same fashion?

MR BOTHA: Yes, and in most cases which correlated with the passport that one was issued with.

MR HATTINGH: That would be the counterfeit passport?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And were these also issued with the assistance of other State departments?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And I don't know if this is of application to all of you, but some of you were also definitely supplied with credit cards in the names of your covert passports and covert identity documents.

MR BOTHA: I know of two cases, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And by nature of the circumstances that would have meant that there was fraud in the issuing of these documents if the department was not aware of it, not so?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And was the police aware that payment was guaranteed on expenditure for these credit cards?

MR BOTHA: I cannot give evidence about that, Chairperson, I don't know whether the banks had stated that they knew that these identities were false and that they would be maintaining these accounts, I just know that there were credit cards which were issued from banks.

MR HATTINGH: You didn't have one?

MR BOTHA: No, I didn't.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, we have nothing further.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Botha, the meeting at the House of Coffees, was this the day before the operation was launched?

MR BOTHA: I cannot recall accurately how long before the operation this took place, but what I can say is that it was not the same day as the operation.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You have already stated that you are not certain whether Sgt Chate or Mr Nortje were present there, but there was an additional person.

MR BOTHA: Yes, I'm not sure of either one of the two.

MR LAMEY: Very well. I just wanted to put to you that Mr Nortje states that he does not recall that he was present at the meeting because he had already been informed previously by Mr de Kock, regarding what was going to happen.

MR BOTHA: That may be so.

MR LAMEY: It would appear to me that you were informed at a later stage.

MR BOTHA: Yes, it was that morning that I heard about it for the first time.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: By that, do I understand you were informed earlier, on the morning of the day on which the meeting at the House of Coffees was?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that's correct, ja.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you heard again at the meeting?

MR BOTHA: No, I just heard that there will be a meeting, I didn't know at the time of the notice, what the contents of the meeting will be, only at the meeting I heard what was to be expected from me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman, I have no questions to this applicant, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. For the record, van der Walt.

Mr Botha, upon a question of the legal representative regarding why Mr Ngqulunga was not interrogated regarding his alleged status as a double-agent, your response was:

That was your answer.

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: And for that reason you did not interrogate him?

MR BOTHA: Well it was not expected of me to interrogate him, my instructions were to eliminate him.

MR VAN DER WALT: Then why did you give this answer? Is it not your evidence that you had no factual basis or suspicion that he was in any way a double-agent?

MR BOTHA: I think you have misinterpreted it beyond the context. What was said to us at the House of Coffees, was that Brian had to be eliminated because he was a double-agent. Secondly, that the information that he may have leaked from head office, could have been the reason for the murders or attacks on policemen.

MR VAN DER WALT: Could have led to?

MR BOTHA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: So the only information that you had was that he was a double-agent and that the information that he may have leaked out, could have led to these incidents.

MR BOTHA: You must understand the fact that I stood at the bottom of the chain and that this is quite a few years later and I have to infer from my perceptions and tell you what was said. This is my evidence, that I was only supposed to be involved in his elimination because he was a suspected double-agent or definitely was a double-agent.

MR VAN DER WALT: I comprehend your statement that you stood at the bottom of the chain, but you must also understand that Mr de Kock was at the top and he said that all that was said was that this man had begun to put out feelers to the ANC, and I just want to know where you obtained this further information.

MR BOOYENS: With respect, Mr Chairperson, if my learned friend has listened to my cross-examination of Mr de Kock, Mr de Kock really conceded that indeed perceptions like this might have arisen out of that discussion, when I cross-examined him. He didn't just stick to it that there were feelers pushed out to the ANC.

MR VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, that was not completely my recollection of Mr de Kock's cross-examination, but I will leave it at that.

CHAIRPERSON: You say your cross-examination ...(inaudible - no microphone). My note is that you put the question relating to the meeting at the coffee house:

And his answer was:

MR VAN DER WALT: According to you, Mr Botha, that was the only information regarding Brian Ngqulunga, which was conveyed.

MR BOTHA: That is as far as my recollection goes.

MR VAN DER WALT: If you say that you were last in the chain and we accept that Mr de Kock was in front of the chain, where would Mr Bellingan fit into the chain?

MR BOTHA: Well I'm stating figuratively that I was last in the chain, so I don't wish to draw distinctions if I have to communicate on the same basis with you as to who was in front and who was at the back. When I say that I was last, I mean that I was a member of the group who was sent out to do the work, meaning that anyone who was not involved in that would be in front of us.

MR VAN DER WALT: So Bellingan according to the hierarchy, was on the same level as you?

MR BOTHA: Yes, well I would regard myself, Mentz, Bellingan on the same level of the chain.

MR VAN DER WALT: You will recall during my cross-examination of Mr Bellingan yesterday afternoon I referred him to page 28 of the paginated bundle, where he gives a version of the information which was supposed to have come from Mr de Kock. If you will just go to that page.

MR BOTHA: I haven't read it.

MR VAN DER WALT: Well then I will just take you through it briefly. Mr Bellingan states that Mr de Kock conveyed that Brian Ngqulunga had already returned to the military wing of the ANC, to MK. That is not entirely your evidence.

MR BOTHA: Well I would have to concede it if that is so. You see, if one has to go through such a gruesome experience, one would tend to attempt to overcome the damage that ones incurs, by repressing it or simply not thinking about it. In this case I must concede that if this was W/O Bellingan's inference of the event or the discussion, I would not be able to differ to it.

MR VAN DER WALT: Well that is not the only point of difference, because Mr Bellingan continues by saying that:

Can you recall such information which was conveyed at any point?

MR BOTHA: Well I cannot say what W/O Bellingan thought at that stage and why he used this particular choice or words. What I can tell you is that I think that that is a reasonably possible inference if one refers specifically to murders of policemen on the East Rand.

MR VAN DER WALT: Why specifically the East Rand?

MR BOTHA: Well I cannot say from my direct knowledge. Once again my inference is that things were the most hectic there at that stage.

MR VAN DER WALT: Furthermore, he states that Mr Ngqulunga worked in the postal division of head office and that he dealt with sensitive documents, which could have led to him disclosing certain covert operations.

MR BOTHA: Well everybody knew that.

MR VAN DER WALT: And is it also your evidence?

MR BOTHA: Yes, it is also my evidence.

MR VAN DER WALT: Furthermore, he states that Col de Kock also had information with regard to police actions and the members who were involved, which Brian may have given to his comrades, which could have led to the death of police officers. In other words, that police officers had already died as a result of such information being leaked out.

MR BOTHA: Well I don't think that Mr Bellingan states here that this was conveyed at the House of Coffees, unless you want to put it like that to me.

MR VAN DER WALT: No, I'm not trying to put to you exactly where the information would have been conveyed, I'm talking about the information which came from Mr de Kock at whatever stage.

MR BOTHA: It is possible that Col de Kock may have said this to W/O Bellingan after the time.

MR VAN DER WALT: But not at the House of Coffees?

MR BOTHA: No, not as far as I recall. But that policemen would have been killed on the East Rand was definitely put to us.

MR VAN DER WALT: And then furthermore on page 29 he states:

MR BOTHA: That is possible.

MR VAN DER WALT: Was that also not said at the House of Coffees?

MR BOTHA: It is possible. You see you must understand that if I really had to go as far as saying for how long the discussion lasted, I would have to give you an estimated time, because here we have been talking to each other for half an hour and we have already covered a certain number of pages that one would find in a book. These things may have been said back and forth and I just cannot recall it. The point that I'm trying to make is that policemen fell on the East Rand and these things that Officer Bellingan has conveyed here, indicated more operational intelligence. I cannot clarify it, I also cannot recall it.

MR VAN DER WALT: But Mr Botha, you would agree with me that what I have submitted to you extends much further than Brian returning to the ANC and possibly being involved in these incidents.

MR BOTHA: Well you are entitled to your inferences.

MR VAN DER WALT: Then with regard to the number of incidents for which you have applied for amnesty ...

MR BOTHA: This is one of two.

MR VAN DER WALT: Very well. Did I understand your evidence correctly that at that stage you were involved in the Intelligence Division of Vlakplaas?

MR BOTHA: No, I think you misunderstood me.

MR BOOYENS: No, the evidence was that he had been at Vlakplaas and that he then went to the Intelligence Desk at head office, after which he returned to Vlakplaas.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson, I accept it as such.

Mr Botha, without taking you into excessive detail about this, it has been said to you by your legal representative that there was a suggestion regarding the clothing of the deceased, that the clothing did not have any holes and that it appeared that the deceased did not have any clothing on at that stage. I want to put it to you that the spouse of the deceased states that the clothing which the deceased had on at the time of his death was returned to her without any visible damage. Can you comment on that?

MR BOTHA: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that the clothing that he had on at the time of his death, or the clothing that he had on when she saw him after the post-mortem?

MR VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, I think my statement yesterday was not totally correct, my instructions are now that it was the clothing which he had on when she last saw him, which was handed over to her, not at the post-mortem. I made an incorrect statement, I just wish to clarify that and rectify that.

I beg your pardon, Mr Botha, I did not hear your answer.

MR BOTHA: Would you please repeat the specific question.

MR VAN DER WALT: The question is that the spouse of the deceased states that the clothing which the deceased would have had on during the incident was returned to her and those items of clothing were not damaged, that is why the suggestion exists that the deceased may not have been clothed at the stage when he was eliminated.

MR BOTHA: I cannot comment on that.

MR VAN DER WALT: Could you give any indication to the Committee why it was also necessary for you to empty a magazine from an AK47 on the deceased?

MR BOTHA: No, Chairperson, I never said that I emptied a magazine on the man, my evidence was that I fired five, possibly six single shots at the man.

MR VAN DER WALT: Could you tell the Committee why it was necessary for you to fire five, possible six single shots at the man, after Mr Bellingan had emptied the magazine on him?

MR BOTHA: Bellingan arrived at the kombi after we had already dragged Mr Ngqulunga into the veld, after he had been shot and he told me "Piet, make sure the man is dead." I took the other AK, walked into the veld and made sure that he was dead.

MR VAN DER WALT: After the time you also had a meal with the rest of the group at the Red Ox Spur.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: You had drinks, you were social.

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: Do you have indication or any knowledge of which other senior police officers would have issued the instruction that came from Mr de Kock?

MR BOTHA: I can only say that later there was a rumour that Gen Nick van Rensburg gave the instruction, but I cannot say from my own knowledge that that is or is not the case.

MR VAN DER WALT: Do you know who dealt with the enquiries of the family in terms of the incident?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN DER WALT: The reason why I'm asking you is because I want to refer you to page 152 of the bundle, that would be the statement made by the spouse of the victim, Mr Ngqulunga, and specifically paragraph 4. At the bottom where she states that after the incident, the Saturday, she was visited - it's in the middle of the paragraph - she was visited by one Capt van Dyk, I think it's Paul van Dyk, as well as a Brig Engelbrecht. Do you see that?

MR BOTHA: Yes. I cannot say whether that is true or not, if that is what you are asking me. I cannot confirm or deny it.

MR VAN DER WALT: So you cannot tell us from where the order came, from which position higher than Mr de Kock?

MR BOTHA: No.

MR VAN DER WALT: You see I just want to put it to you that Mrs Ngqulunga has indicated that she wishes to give evidence before this Committee and that she will confirm this information.

MR BOTHA: Those are your instructions.

MR VAN DER WALT: I thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Botha, on page 49 you talk about topics concerning the UDF, ANC, PAC, the black power, were those

films shown as part of courses for all members at Vlakplaas or only for particular groups?

MR BOTHA: No, that was a course, a so-called preliminary course or a first course, which every security policeman was supposed to do when getting involved in the Security Police. That was a so-called background course, academic of nature.

MR SIBANYONI: I'm with you. Were those, that material only consisting of instances where they talk about violence, or was it everything about these organisations?

MR BOTHA: It was everything about the organisations, who they are, what they stand for, what they do.

MR SIBANYONI: I would reckon that you also get speeches made by their leaders, Oliver Tambo and the like, who were in exile.

MR BOTHA: No, no. No Sir, this was an internal training course where senior officers of the relevant desks handling so-called ANC matters of UDF matters or churches matters, or whatever the case may be, will come and address the course and tell them what their security experiences are.

MR SIBANYONI: Okay. On page 50, second line you say when the ANC was banned, that was a great shock to you. What shocked you?

MR BOTHA: Well initially the shock was that of uncertainty because us being actively involved in physically fighting the ANC from day to day, got the shock, that yes, now we're shocked, we've got no enemy, only to experience later that yes, the enemy is still there. We were dumped in turmoil and uncertainty.

MR SIBANYONI: Are you saying, in your minds you wanted to continue with the fight?

MR BOTHA: Yes, ...(indistinct - simultaneous talking) yes.

MR SIBANYONI: And immediately thereafter you say the Generals spoke to you and said this had nothing to do with you, it was just politics.

MR BOTHA: Yes, that's the truth, they came and addressed us formally on Vlakplaas.

MR SIBANYONI: But in one of the hearings we were told that Gen Engelbrecht made the opposite, in fact he came to Vlakplaas and said Vlakplaas will not continue as an operational base or function, but that you should concentrate more on combating crime, but that you must be on the state of readiness.

MR BOTHA: Sir, I haven't heard the previous evidence and as far as that goes I cannot comment, but what I can say is that - well, Gen le Roux as well as Gen Engelbrecht came formally to Vlakplaas, addressed us all on, I think, one or two occasions maybe, where they put it to us that we do not need to be worried, this is a political move and they will keep us informed.

MR SIBANYONI: Then Vlakplaas continued with its normal work, tracing people who infiltrated the country.

MR BOTHA: Well if you say normal, like I've stated it here in my annexes, no, we didn't continue with that normal work, we continued normally in the sense that we came to work and we were then expected to more-or-less infiltrate the crime structures, but we weren't allowed to work terrorism as a base.

MR SIBANYONI: On page 48, second paragraph and second line, you are saying:

That sounds as if you ...(intervention)

MR BOTHA: It sounds bad.

MR SIBANYONI: ... racism yes. What do you say about that?

MR BOTHA: No, Sir, with that I was merely trying to say from what background I grew up and where I - to which I was approached for the Security Police, but only to find that within the Security Police, especially amongst the colleagues, there was very little racism which I can testify to. And therefore I think I'm compelled to say, or obliged to say that especially in the case of Col de Kock, he was a non-racist commander and if he ever saw racism you know, you will have it from him.

MR SIBANYONI: In operations you did like this one, Brian Ngqulunga, you were never motivated by the fact that he was a black person?

MR BOTHA: Never, no.

MR SIBANYONI: A sentence immediately thereafter, I see you choose to use the words "kaffir oorlog".

MR BOTHA: Well in inverted commas, yes, Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: To what are you referring there?

MR BOTHA: That was the term used in Afrikaans for the so-called wars between whites and blacks. And I'm going back as far back as the 1870s and 1880s and 1890s. Sorry for - I'm not trying to show ...(indistinct) ignorance here, but you'll see in the sentence I'm also referring to my "groot oupa", that's my great-grandfather, which will show you approximately the time span I'm talking of.

MR SIBANYONI: Most of the police at Vlakplaas - maybe I'm overstating if I say "most", some of them resigned for ill health or medical reasons. For what reasons did you resign from the police?

MR BOTHA: Well initially I did - well not initially, I did resign because of the post-traumatic stress syndrome to which I have recovered to a large extent, I'm happy to say, but it was a very traumatic time for me in my life since I left Vlakplaas in December '92, until I was initially boarded in October '96.

MR SIBANYONI: Okay. Thank you, no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: I have no questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I have a few. Who prepared your amnesty application?

MR BOTHA: Well myself with my attorney, Willem Britz at Strydom Britz Attorneys.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they the same attorneys as Mr Bellingan's?

MR BOTHA: No, they weren't. Initially maybe, but not at the end, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I notice that your application is very similar to his, parts of it.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I do not want the risk of testifying and being cross-examined by my learned friend, what happened, Messrs Bellingan and Baker were initially also with Strydom and Britz, at the stage when these documents were drafted and they then changed horses at some stage, but that was after the documentation had been filed.

CHAIRPERSON: This is largely what I'm asking about, it's largely the background documentation. I'm not suggesting anything sinister in it, but it intrigued me that page 30 is almost identical to page 67 and then when you translate it to English you get it at page 138 and 139.

MR BOOYENS: To a very large extent I think one can once again see the word-processor at work here with it's memory.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well that's alright.

The other question which is - I don't know it it's really fair to ask you this, but it's one that's worrying me a little. We've been told about this postal section at the head office, which was a matter where documents of extreme security passed through and from what we've heard in the evidence, I don't know if you've been here all the time, there appears to have been a very casual approach to security there, people all looked at these documents, Constables who were apparently delivering them to Generals elsewhere would read then going up the lift and walking along the passages, so it must have been very obvious that security was at great risk in that office. Can you explain how they kept the deceased in this case, working somewhere like that when they suspected him, if they did suspect him?

MR BOTHA: No, Sir, I cannot explain that.

CHAIRPERSON: It's inexplicable, isn't it?

MR BOTHA: It goes contrary to all the rules ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: That the moment they came to think this man has gone over, they would move him out of that office as quickly as possible.

MR BOTHA: That's what I would have done, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination?

MR BOOYENS: No re-examination, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: May the witness be excused from further attendance please, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: On the same basis, yes.

MR BOOYENS: On the same basis as all ...(indistinct).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I see you're all getting rid of your clients before you have to advance argument.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, the next applicant is Mr Nortje. May we just have a moment just to swop my seat, so that he can sit closer to the Committee and I'll move one down.

MR SIBANYONI: For the purposes of the record, your full names, Mr Nortje.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Please be seated. Duly sworn in, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Nortje, you have handed in an application for amnesty in which you apply for several incidents and operations, for which you apply for amnesty, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And among others before this Panel, the incident where the deceased, Brian Ngqulunga was eliminated.

MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to refer you to the bundle. On page 239 up to page 247, is an extract of your initial application for amnesty, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And this was dated in November of 1996, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And after you had obtained legal representation, a supplementary application was handed in from which we find the extract of that supplementary application and the relevant sections, from page 248 up to page 265, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And do you confirm that according to the best of your knowledge it is correct, according to your recollection?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: To return back to an aspect before we return to the particulars of the incident, on page 241 on the question under 10(d), it was asked of you if you received any benefit from this, and in paragraph 10(d) you refer to financial remuneration and promotion and rank. Is it correct that with your initial amnesty application before you received legal representation, you made a very general statement there without specific reference to particular incidents, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And in your supplementary application you had indeed, where you received additional benefit, you mentioned it, specifically with regard to that incident, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: There was evidence earlier, and for purposes of this Panel, let us just place it on record, that your participation was not motivated because of the expectation of a bonus or financial benefit which you would receive with regard to operations.

MR NORTJE: Not at all.

MR LAMEY: With regard to this incident, the incident of Brian Ngqulunga, did you receive any additional financial benefit?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not.

MR LAMEY: In your supplementary application the particulars which you have mentioned on page 245 to 247 is incorporated.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Those particulars which you convey there, is it correct that it was an extract which we incorporated from a statement which you had made before the Goldstone Commission in Denmark?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: You were also a State witness in the de Kock trial with regard to this incident.

MR NORTJE: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: And is it correct that you also received indemnity in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, just to arrive at the particulars of this incident, you mention in the first paragraph that Brian Ngqulunga gave evidence before the Harms Commission, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: With regard to the incident in Durban, where Griffiths Mxenge was murdered.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you yourself only arrived later at Vlakplaas, is that correct? - after the Mxenge murder.

MR NORTJE: Yes, only in 1984.

MR LAMEY: But you knew that Vlakplaas was involved there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is what I heard.

MR LAMEY: And then you say that Brian Ngqulunga had trouble with his nerves as he went in to give evidence.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Are you aware that he had trouble with his nerves before then and that he had been involved in a shooting incident with his spouse?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he had trouble with his nerves. It was general, but not general, it was - I heard this from conversations with Mr de Kock. I saw Brian himself, he was always shaking and he definitely had problems.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Now you mention that there were rumours from police head office that he wanted to tell the story to the ANC. Where did you hear this?

MR NORTJE: Most of my information I received from Mr de Kock, but the story was that because of the fact that he had testified and he still had to testify and his nerves started breaking and there was talk that he was walking over to the ANC and telling them about his involvement with the Mxenge story.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you hear this from Mr de Kock?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I heard this from Mr de Kock. But he himself I would say was not very concerned about it because it had nothing with us personally, because the people who had been involved there were people who were at Vlakplaas before our time and the Security Branch in general.

MR LAMEY: Did Mr de Kock tell you that because of this tension and the fact that he wanted to tell the story to the ANC - if you refer to the story, this is the true disclosure with regard to Griffiths Mxenge, did Mr de Kock mention anything of a decision that was taken in this regard?

MR NORTJE: Yes, at a stage - I spent much time with him at that stage and he told me that people at head office, it is difficult to say the people, it was Gen van Rensburg who was in command ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: If you say Gen van Rensburg was in command, what do you mean?

MR NORTJE: He was the Head of C10.

MR LAMEY: So he was overhead commander of Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Yes?

MR NORTJE: And it was their concern that Brian would go and talk and a decision was taken that he would be eliminated, or that he had to be eliminated.

MR LAMEY: And what did Mr de Kock tell you how he felt about this?

MR NORTJE: Initially, during the discussions, I cannot specifically remember the times when we spoke about it, but it was a few times and he mentioned to me that he was not favourable towards this idea. He did not have anything personal against Brian and it could not - should not be of concern to us personally, but it would place the Security Branch in an awkward position and things would come out there and he could also support what Dirk Coetzee and Nofomela had revealed and he could be a witness for the Commission or for whoever had undertaken investigations.

MR LAMEY: Yes. So he did testify before the Commission?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he did.

MR LAMEY: And it went well?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it did.

MR LAMEY: But what would the impact be if he would tell the story to the ANC?

MR NORTJE: Well the activities of the Security Branch would have been disclosed, as I have said and it would have corroborated what Coetzee and Nofomela had said earlier.

MR LAMEY: Was there at that stage much tension with regard to the Harms Commission and concern in security circles, according to your knowledge?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there was some serious concerns in head office and specifically us at the farm.

MR LAMEY: Very well. How long before the eventual elimination of Brian Ngqulunga did you know that there was an instruction from head office to Mr de Kock to eliminate him?

MR NORTJE: Well I have been thinking about this and I would estimate it was about three weeks to a month that there was talk about it, but I know that approximately two weeks before the time he tasked Simon to approach Brian.

MR LAMEY: And you say he tasked him, he tasked Simon specifically to move closer to Brian.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And how would he do that?

MR NORTJE: As I understood, in the afternoons when Brian comes from the office he would invite him to drive with him and then they would per occasion enjoy drinks together. The idea was more to win his trust so that he does not become suspicious about anything if anything should happen that was out of the norm.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you, you were a witness specifically with regard to a meeting which Col de Kock had with Capt Baker, Bellingan, Wouter Mentz and Botha at the House of Coffees, can you recall whether you were present at such a meeting?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall the meeting specifically. I want to recall that there was such a meeting, but I cannot recall that I was present. I know at stage he told me that he wanted to attach Dave Baker and Balletjies to this incident, and I think that he decided then that he would use the two of them. For what reason specifically I do not know. There was nothing strange about them because they had already been involved in other matters, but he definitely put it to me as such and that is how I recall it. And the other members were Piet Botha and Wouter Mentz.

MR LAMEY: No if you say that he wanted to involve Baker, Bellingan, Mentz, is this to execute the elimination?

MR NORTJE: Yes, they would be the team to execute the elimination.

MR LAMEY: What were your instructions, what did you have to do beforehand? If we now approach closer to the day on which the elimination had to take place.

MR NORTJE: What I can recall is that when I became directly involved, when I had to hire the kombi and the Mercedes, I am not entirely certain about that, I think it came about in the Court as to how it worked, but I want to recall that I fetched the kombi from Avis in Schoeman Street and the Mercedes we rented from Budget.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether Mr Baker was present when you did this?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I want to imagine that I gave him the kombi and I drove the Mercedes and we drove to the Holiday Inn, but how the chain ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Can you recall how long before the eventual day of the killing did you get the vehicles?

MR NORTJE: I think it was the morning of the day, and we left it at the Holiday Inn.

MR LAMEY: Did they use false names there?

MR NORTJE: I used my false identity document. I had a credit card and an ID document.

MR LAMEY: You were part of the evidence as how this was issued.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that was the process in how I obtained it.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you change the numberplates?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we changed the numberplates at some stage. At that stage I did not do it, I just know that the numberplates were changed after I handed over the vehicles.

MR LAMEY: To whom did you hand over the vehicles?

MR NORTJE: I recall that I gave the kombi to Dave Baker, but I drove the Mercedes because Mr de Kock and I drove with the Mercedes and it was part of the plan that we would change the numberplates.

MR LAMEY: So the Mercedes also had other numberplates?

MR NORTJE: I want to imagine that I changed the numberplates, but I am not certain.

MR LAMEY: The purpose of the instruction with regard to the Mercedes Benz was that you would drive Mr de Kock that day.

MR NORTJE: Yes, he decided we would hire the Mercedes.

MR LAMEY: And then what would you and Mr de Kock do?

MR NORTJE: We had radios with us, one which was set in into the police frequency and one which was in connection with the other member, but I want to recall that we would not have specifically spoken to each other, only if it was very necessary. So I cannot recall at this stage if we had direct contact.

MR LAMEY: But Baker would know where he would find Simon Radebe?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that arrangement was made beforehand.

MR LAMEY: And the purpose of linking up with the police frequency, what was the purpose thereof?

MR NORTJE: It was in case something went wrong and the police reacted in that direction and then Mr de Kock and I would also have gone there and tried to save the situation or whatever the case may be. It was just a precaution.

MR LAMEY: Mr de Kock said at some stage that you drove a roundabout way in the direction of where the murder would take place. Do you have a recollection of it?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we drove out on that road from Pretoria North to Marula Sun and there we turned away and passed Marula Sun. I cannot recall correctly which road we drove on, but at some stage we were in the vicinity, after they would have taken Brian.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall I took instructions from you with regard to Mr Chate. You did not initially mention his name here, but the other members have mentioned his name here and I heard you mention Mr Chate during instructions. What is your recollection about Mr Chate?

MR NORTJE: I have forgotten about Chate's involvement. I know he was involved, but the arrangements that Dave Baker had I did not about, but I cannot recall whether we were at the Wonderpark. I don't know whether we drove past there, but it is indeed so that Chate had been involved there and he would hand over the weapons to the kombi there or something to that effect, but I know later he joined us because this was the kombi with which we went to Johannesburg later that evening, if I am not incorrect.

MR LAMEY: And Chate was along?

MR NORTJE: Yes, he was.

MR LAMEY: Where did Chate also join you that you can recall?

MR NORTJE: It had to be at the Holiday Inn. I cannot pertinently place him there, but it had to be there.

MR LAMEY: There was evidence that after the incident, that you had met at the Holiday Inn.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that was the prearranged place.

MR LAMEY: Did you enjoy drinks there?

MR NORTJE: Yes, we did.

MR LAMEY: And from there is it correct that you also went to the so-called Spur restaurant?

MR NORTJE: No, we were all very tense and it was not a situation where everyone wanted to party because of what had happened, it was to calm the nerves and we did not stay there for very long and then we went to Johannesburg.

MR LAMEY: Why did you go to Johannesburg?

MR NORTJE: It was to create an alibi that we were not in Pretoria that evening.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Your version - you have also given a version as to how Brian Ngqulunga was eventually shot with an AK47, through his body and head. Is this as it was conveyed to you afterwards?

MR NORTJE: Yes, there was some discussion in the vehicle on the way to Johannesburg, but they did not go into as much detail, the detail came out much later and Bellingan told me things of what had happened there and people told me things, so it was information which at that stage I had just collected, or which came to me.

MR LAMEY: And which you added into your statement?

MR NORTJE: Yes, which I mentioned there.

MR LAMEY: And then in Johannesburg you slept at the hotel.

MR NORTJE: That's correct, the Braamfontein Hotel.

MR LAMEY: You also mention that specifically Wouter Mentz and Baker were very nervous.

MR NORTJE: Yes, this is something that Bellingan told me afterwards.

MR LAMEY: So this is all hearsay, so these are all things that were conveyed to you. And you speak about the vehicle.

MR NORTJE: Yes, the kombi had been dinged and I had to fix it.

MR LAMEY: Which funds were used to hire the kombi and to fix the kombi?

MR NORTJE: It was from the Secret Fund.

MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, to take it further, on page 263 you say that you were not involved with the planning and the execution of the idea, is this now with regard to the detailed planning in order to execute the execution? You do not want to convey the idea that you did not know about it because you had certain functions to perform.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct. I would just like to correct something that Radebe had said of the hospital. When he spoke of the hospital, Chairperson, I recall at a stage we visited him in hospital because I can recall the day I stood, or he stood on the veranda at the hospital, but I cannot recall that we pertinently fetched him from the hospital to instruct him to do this. I can only say that the hospital story is so, I was there, but I cannot say - it doesn't make sense to me.

MR LAMEY: Before you yourself had testified about this I wanted to direct your attention to Mr Radebe. What I want to ask you is, is it your recollection that he was in the hospital shortly before the Ngqulunga elimination?

MR NORTJE: I am not entirely certain at which stage he was in the hospital.

MR LAMEY: But did you and Mr Willemse visit him in hospital to fetch him in order to tell him, according to his evidence, to give him instruction that he had to take Brian to that specific place?

MR NORTJE: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that was his evidence, was it? Wasn't the evidence that this witness came to tell him to get a discharge from the hospital?

MR LAMEY: Yes, initially in his affidavit in his application he stated that, but he did, in verbal evidence he did qualify that, that is correct.

Let us take it as follows. Can you recall that you visited him at some stage in the hospital?

MR NORTJE: When he gave evidence about it a few moments earlier, I recalled that I did visit him in hospital, but I think it was just a visit to, it was just a visit to him. I don't believe that we would have told him to orchestrate his release from the hospital.

MR LAMEY: So you did not request him to release himself from the hospital?

MR NORTJE: No, it does not make sense that I would have done that.

MR LAMEY: Let us just look at this, Mr Nortje. If you wanted to have him released for purposes that he - and there a urgency about it, that he had to take Brian Ngqulunga to the place where he would meet Baker, then you would have had him released right from there and taken him to Vlakplaas yourself?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: What is your recollection, was he in the hospital during these days before he had to befriend Brian Ngqulunga, or what is your recollection about that?

MR NORTJE: I don't know whether it was during this time, but I know it depended on Simon, he would have taken the decision as to when he thought Brian was ready or when he thought that he had enough trust in Brian now to do it, and then he would report to us. According to me it depended on him, he would have taken the last decision to say listen I am now ready, or he is now ready or whatever the case may be. I think that it is on that basis that we dealt with the thing.

CHAIRPERSON: He said at some stage of his evidence, that the two of you came and brought him biltong, would that be an ordinary social visit to somebody in hospital?

MR NORTJE: I think so, Chairperson, yes.

MR LAMEY: Because nobody mentioned Mr Willemse's name here actually and if Mr Willemse on the basis that he went along with you to visit Mr Radebe, then Mr Willemse would have known about the actual operation.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And according to you Mr Willemse was not involved.

MR NORTJE: No, he was not part of the operation.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, as far as the specific offences are concerned, I understand the practice is that we give a list. There are certain offences listed on page 264 of Mr Nortje's evidence. I must say that obviously that is the inputs of the legal representative more in after and the interpretation from the facts. I must say that considering the totality here I would like to just expand on that when I make the submissions to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: "List", do you mean list of the precise offences for which you seek amnesty?

MR LAMEY: Yes, that is indeed so.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the practice we have followed is that during the course of argument you give us that.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

Mr Nortje, with regard to your political objective, on 264 and 265, do you confirm that as you understood it and as it came from Mr de Kock?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then with regard to the approval, you say that the incident or your involvement in hiring the minibus was an instruction from Mr de Kock.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And then according to you, according to your knowledge, the overhead instruction to kill Brian came from Gen Nick van Rensburg?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that's what I understood.

MR LAMEY: And then you say that Krappies Engelbrecht knew about the incident, what do you base that information on?

MR NORTJE: Because Mr de Kock told me.

MR LAMEY: Is that what he told you then?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And then when you made this statement you said that:

Can you comment on that?

MR NORTJE: Well now I know that Brig Engelbrecht only took over in the beginning of 1991, but it was during that period ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: When you made the statement, did you see it in that time context?

MR NORTJE: Yes. Brig Engelbrecht was in the picture at that stage.

MR LAMEY: So he was not unknown at Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: No, he was not.

CHAIRPERSON: If you want time to look through your notes before deciding to stop, this may be a convenient stage.

MR LAMEY: I think I'm complete, but I'll rather wait until after the adjournment, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: How long gentlemen? 2 o'clock? We'll now take the adjournment till 2 o'clock.

WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (s.u.o.)

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, Hattingh on record.

Mr Nortje, during those times, that would be at the time of the death of Mr Ngqulunga, did the police regard it as a very serious case if a policeman was murdered?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Everything was invested in apprehending the criminal.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now when Mr Ngqulunga was killed, he wasn't a policeman but he was also a Security Policeman, who worked in head office.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Are you aware of any special police investigations which were launched by the South African Police, in order to apprehend these criminals?

MR NORTJE: Chairperson, as far as I know it was the police from Bophuthatswana who investigated the murder.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, they left it to Bophuthatswana.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Isn't the reason for that, that the South African Police knew what the position was and that was why they didn't go out of their way to attempt to trace the murderer of Mr Ngqulunga?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Because you would know that if policemen were killed, and if I think back to the Maponya incident, Japie Maponya's brother Orderele was suspected of killing or murdering a policeman in Bophuthatswana I think.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And heaven and earth were moved in order to apprehend Orderele, among others, for this murder.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Vlakplaas' assistance was enlisted.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: The men from Vlakplaas were enlisted to assist with tracing Orderele.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was anything like that done with regard to Mr Ngqulunga?

MR NORTJE: No, no that I know of.

MR HATTINGH: Were the askaris used in order to attempt to apprehend the murderer of Mr Ngqulunga?

MR NORTJE: Not that I know of.

MR HATTINGH: And you would probably have known about it?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I believe I would have.

MR HATTINGH: While in the case of the policeman who allegedly was murdered by Orderele Maponya, the services of the askaris were indeed used.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then just one or two other aspects, Mr Nortje. The Harms Commission was still in session at the time of the death of Mr Ngqulunga.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And for quite some time subsequent to his death, sat for a few more years.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the police went out of their way to attempt to waylay the allegations made by Messrs Nofomela and Coetzee.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Two advocates were appointed to represent the police at the Commission.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: One for the officers and one for the subordinate officers, or officers of a lower rank. Do you recall what the position was?

MR NORTJE: I don't have those particulars, but it is possible.

MR HATTINGH: Whatever the case may be, two senior advocates were appointed for the police, Mr Visser and Mr Sam Maritz.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And each one of them had a junior advocate to assist.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And no trouble was spared in submitting the case of the police to the Commission.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now I would just like to find out from you, perhaps you can assist us, I'm not certain. Gen Ronnie van der Westhuizen was indeed seconded to the Harms Commission, in order to assist the Commission with investigations that they wanted to execute.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And so also Brig Wright.

MR NORTJE: Yes, I heard that.

MR HATTINGH: They sat in offices in the centre where the Harms Commission was in session, they sat there full time and they were available for the services of Mr Harms and his Commission on a full time basis.

MR NORTJE: I'm not certain about that.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. That is my knowledge about the matter, I just thought that maybe you could help us. Gen Engelbrecht on the other hand, do you know what his involvement was?

MR NORTJE: Well he was involved, I can only speak of when the post-mortem report from Maponya came.

MR HATTINGH: Well let us leave the post-mortem inquest there for a while because I'm still dealing with the Harms Commission. Do you know whether he was involved in investigations pertaining to the Harms Commission?

MR NORTJE: Yes, as far as I know.

MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that Gen Engelbrecht assisted the police with their submission before the Harms Commission and that it was his task?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I understood it.

MR HATTINGH: He wasn't the investigating officer for the Harms Commission as such. - Mr Engelbrecht.

MR NORTJE: No, he worked for the police.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And ultimately, Mr Nortje, the Harms Commission then brought out a report, which I haven't studied for quite some time and I did not appear for the police, so I wasn't really very interested in that part of the findings, but if I recall correctly - let me put it like this, at least there was not a finding brought out against the police in the report of the Commission.

MR NORTJE: Well I'm not entirely certain of that.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. If Mr Ngqulunga while the Harms Commission was still in session, had gone to the ANC and said look, I was involved in the Mxenge murder, which is one of the investigations that the Harms Commission instated, what would the repercussions of that have been for the police?

MR NORTJE: It would have created chaos.

MR HATTINGH: It would probably have meant that Mr Ngqulunga would have been recalled by the Harms Commission and been asked about changing his version.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that could have had the result that the Harms Commission brought out a finding that the South African Police was responsible for the death of Mr Mxenge. And at that stage the former government and the ANC were still in the negotiating phase with the objective of a new government dispensation for the future.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it would also have damaged those proceedings, if not destroyed them.

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then just with regard to Mr Radebe, initially you could not recall that you had visited him in hospital, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: It was only when you heard his evidence here that it refreshed your recollection.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: I'm speaking under correction but it is my recollection that your attorney put it to Mr Radebe that you had not visited him in hospital.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that you now have a recollection of visiting him, but that it was not in the company of Willemse, or was it?

MR NORTJE: It is possible that Willemse was there.

MR HATTINGH: Do you have a recollection of taking him biltong?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall that specifically, but I recall the day when we were there. As I've said I'm not certain whether Willemse was with me. If he says that Willemse was there, then I agree that it is possible.

MR HATTINGH: And you could not recall this until Mr Radebe gave evidence. Isn't it possible that the purpose of your visit was to request him to discharge himself? He wasn't that seriously ill was he?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR HATTINGH: He had high blood pressure and high blood sugar and he was back on his feet, he was sitting on the veranda when you arrived there.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that it was the purpose of your visit to indicate the urgency of the Ngqulunga matter to him and that he had been the one who had been instructed to befriend Ngqulunga?

MR NORTJE: Yes, it is possible, but I cannot recall pertinently that we said this to him on that day, or that on the following day when he left the hospital, he came to know about it. I cannot recall it as pertinently as that, but I know that we visited him, as he has stated.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: You cannot recall that you were present during the discussion in the House of Coffees?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot recall that.

MR BOOYENS: I beg your pardon, this is Booyens on record, Chairperson.

And this is something that I would have expected, that if you were there you would have recalled it because it was quite a pertinent aspect to the entire operation with regard to Mr Ngqulunga, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes, I think I would have recalled it, especially with regard to the information which was conveyed during that meeting.

MR BOOYENS: So actually you can't really help us when it comes to information which was conveyed to that group of people regarding possible further activities of Mr Ngqulunga, which had come to light?

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot.

MR BOOYENS: You see the reason why I state this specifically is that if I understand Mr de Kock's application correctly, initially certain things were said to him and then upon a later occasion he says the Gen van Rensburg told him that this man was seeking access to the ANC as well. In other words, he was changing his allegiance. So it could be very possible that this information was later conveyed to the group, but when you were not there you did not come to hear of this information.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: So let me put it this way. If you had been there one would have expected of you to remember this information.

MR NORTJE: Yes, I would have remembered it, naturally.

MR BOOYENS: Just a moment please. Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Nortje, may I refer you to the bundle. If you could just obtain it from Mr Lamey. Page 265. At the bottom of the page, under "Instruction or Approval", you say that the overall order for the commission of this deed came from Brig Nick van Rensburg.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: How do you know this?

MR NORTJE: Mr de Kock told me.

MR WAGENER: So it's hearsay?

MR NORTJE: Yes. I was not present when the instruction was issued to him.

MR WAGENER: Did you ask Mr de Kock from where the order came and then he said this, or how did it happen?

MR NORTJE: It was in discussion that he said this to me.

MR WAGENER: Exactly what did he say?

MR NORTJE: I cannot recall, but it boiled down to the fact that Nick van Rensburg had approached him and said that Brian was suspected of being on the point of speaking out, that his nerves were collapsing and that they couldn't afford this.

MR WAGENER: I beg your pardon, Mr Nortje, you refer to "they" all the time, who are "they"?

MR NORTJE: That is Brig Nick van Rensburg and the others. When I speak of "them" I speak of head office, the immediate command above Mr de Kock.

MR WAGENER: Couldn't it be somebody else other than Mr van Rensburg?

MR NORTJE: No, as I understand it was Mr van Rensburg.

MR WAGENER: Was it he alone?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Did you ask anything further from Mr de Kock, regarding the origin of the order?

MR NORTJE: No, I didn't.

MR WAGENER: Were you satisfied with his response?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Now in the following sentence you say:

So you know ...

What do you mean when you say that he knew about the incident?

MR NORTJE: Well that is the inference that I drew, that he must have known, because he was closely involved with us and I mean, he would have asked what happened, what took place there. He was a senior officer who knew what was happening. Mr de Kock would also have said this to me, that he had informed them. Brig van Rensburg was specifically informed, I cannot say that he informed Mr Engelbrecht, but I accepted that he would also know as a result of the discussions that we held.

MR WAGENER: Mr Nortje, you have given quite an exhaustive answer and stated quite a number of things in that answer, but is the short answer that you don't know whether Gen Engelbrecht knew about it or not?

MR NORTJE: No, it is my inference. That is correct, that is my answer regarding the information that I had.

MR WAGENER: Well my instructions are that Gen Engelbrecht - and when I say he knew, meaning he knew that it was Vlakplaas who killed the man, in that sense my instructions are that Gen Engelbrecht did not know. Can you dispute this?

MR NORTJE: I cannot dispute it. If he denies it, then it is his right. That is how I understood it.

MR WAGENER: Would you have expected, Mr Nortje, that if Gen van Rensburg and Gen Engelbrecht together were present when this order was given to Mr de Kock, that would be according to the version of Mr de Kock, that he wouldn't have said so to you? - Mr de Kock now.

MR NORTJE: He could have mentioned it to me, but I cannot recall specifically, that is why I have stated that I know that Gen Engelbrecht knew.

MR WAGENER: All that you know is that de Kock said van Rensburg. That is how I understood your evidence.

MR NORTJE: Initially he may have said just van Rensburg, but later it must have been discussed once again and it could have been then. That is how I know that he mentioned it at a certain stage, that Gen Engelbrecht knew about it.

MR WAGENER: Is it your evidence now that Mr de Kock mentioned it?

MR NORTJE: That is what I said.

MR WAGENER: When did he say it?

MR NORTJE: At some or other point.

MR WAGENER: Mr Nortje, are you certain of what you are saying now?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Then why didn't you mention this in 1994, when you made yours statement in Denmark, for example?

MR NORTJE: I did mention it.

MR WAGENER: No, you didn't, you never mentioned it. You can consult your Denmark statement.

MR NORTJE: The statement that I made there was an explanation of everything that I knew, as I've already stated. We sorted out the particulars later.

MR WAGENER: Mr Nortje, the statement that you made in Denmark is a very thorough statement, it is something like 70 typed pages.

MR NORTJE: Yes, but there were other aspects of detail which were not incorporated.

MR WAGENER: And in that statement you refer frequently to Generals, who according to your knowledge, would have been involved in certain deeds.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: And you refer frequently to Gen Engelbrecht in that statement as well.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Well then once again I will ask you why didn't you already refer to Gen Engelbrecht at that stage, if according to your knowledge he would have been involved?

MR NORTJE: No, I don't know why I didn't.

MR WAGENER: Didn't you come to hear of Gen Engelbrecht's alleged involvement for the fist time during the criminal trial of Mr de Kock?

MR NORTJE: No, I don't believe so. When I made the statement at that stage I did not mention his name, but I assumed that later the details would be discussed. But I was still under the impression that he was definitely informed about what happened.

MR WAGENER: And even when you made your initial amnesty application you did not mention it.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Would you agree that Gen Engelbrecht was not one of your commanders in the so-called line-of-command?

MR NORTJE: No, he wasn't.

MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr van der Walt for the record.

Mr Nortje, this concern regarding Mr Ngqulunga's possible information which he could provide to the Harms Commission, was this only about his knowledge and participation in the murder of Griffiths Mxenge or did it also have to do with the fact that there was concern that he could provide information about general misdeeds within the Security Police?

MR NORTJE: No, I think it was only about the Griffiths Mxenge story. Brian was never directly involved in operations as far as I can recall, so I don't believe that it was a danger to us at that stage if he were to speak out, not directly. What I mean is that he would not have been able to involve me or Mr de Kock or out team in something directly.

MR VAN DER WALT: Is it so that one of the objectives with the Harms Commission was also to investigate general crime or criminality within the Force, as a result of allegations that were made?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: Now this information which you received from Mr de Kock regarding the reason why Mr Ngqulunga had to be eliminated, this is the information which is embodied within your initial amnesty application?

MR NORTJE: Yes, that is how I understand it.

MR VAN DER WALT: And you confirm this as correct.

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: I would just like to refer you to page 246 of the bundle, that would be the relevant passage from your initial amnesty application, where you state in the second line that:

Was any reason given to you as to why this decision was made? Was it only about the concern regarding his evidence or further evidence before the Harms Commission?

MR NORTJE: I must tell you that what was also said was that the information that he had, or what Mr de Kock said to me, was that he wanted to go to the ANC to tell them about this. Going to the other side could also have meant going over to the Harms Commission.

MR VAN DER WALT: Then you say:

What does that mean, what do you understand from that aspect -

MR NORTJE: That is just my means of expression, because I recall what he told me about Baker and Bellingan. He said that he wanted to use them to execute this elimination. What his specific reason for that was or may have been, I cannot see because they were already involved in other incidents. Perhaps he didn't want to do it himself, he didn't want to do it himself and as I understood from him he wanted to use these persons to be involved in the incident.

MR VAN DER WALT: Well from the syntax of this section, the way you have formulated it, I have the impression that you want to say that Mr de Kock wanted to have a hold over Bellingan and Baker, isn't that what you are trying to say?

MR NORTJE: That is how I understood it, but I never questioned him about it subsequently or even at that stage, it's just a remark that he made to me. But when I think about it, it didn't really make any sense as to why he specifically wanted to involve them because they had already been involved in other incidents. That's the only explanation that I have to offer about that.

MR VAN DER WALT: Well let us assume for the moment that Baker and Bellingan were not yet involved in other incidents, why would Mr de Kock have said this?

MR NORTJE: I don't know, perhaps he was angry with them for some or other reason.

MR VAN DER WALT: In order to have some form of control over them?

MR NORTJE: I don't know, I cannot tell you what was going through his mind. That is how he explained it to me and I drew my inferences. He may have had other reasons when he said it to me, I don't know.

MR VAN DER WALT: Isn't it perhaps to have such a level of control over these particular members that they would not continue to give information to the Harms Commission?

MR NORTJE: No, I don't believe so, I think you have misunderstood him.

MR VAN DER WALT: Then you must tell me what there is to understand, because this is your choice of words.

MR NORTJE: No, I cannot believe that. If that is your inference, they would never have done that, no. Perhaps he had reason to believe it, I don't know. I cannot give you an answer to that.

MR VAN DER WALT: But would you agree with me that it is not a farfetched possibility?

MR NORTJE: No, it isn't farfetched, but I don't know, he never discussed it with me.

MR VAN DER WALT: You didn't attempt to obtain information from other sources later on, in order to determine why it was necessary to eliminate the deceased?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: On page 246 you said the deceased was attacked and he lost consciousness, but according to Mr Botha, he didn't loose consciousness. On page 246 there is a passage where you say:

MR NORTJE: Yes. I would recall that Bellingan mentioned this to me at a stage, but that is how he has related it. I don't believe that that is exactly what took place. They have said what happened, so this is basically hearsay.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, that was the only question.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, no questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: In your additional affidavit on page 264 and 265, you confirm what you have said here about ...(indistinct - no microphone) aspects.

MR NORTJE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR SIBANYONI: Can I ask you one last question. You said after the incident you went to the Holiday Inn to enjoy some drinks to calm your nerves, but also to provide an alibi. To whom?

CHAIRPERSON: They went to Johannesburg for an alibi.

MR SIBANYONI: Yes, you went to Johannesburg for an alibi, I'm sorry. But for whom were you creating that alibi?

MR NORTJE: It was just a precautionary measure that Mr de Kock instructed us to take. It would have been the alibi if anybody had asked us, or if there had been an independent investigation from the police. It was just a precautionary measure for the purposes of a police investigation because one would never know what could happen subsequently. It would just have been for the police, I would say.

MR SIBANYONI: It was not for your seniors at Vlakplaas?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, with regard to the questions put by Mr Wagener, in your Denmark statement you say that -

Who is this they that you refer to? Are you talking about de Kock and van Rensburg or are you referring to a plurality of persons, someone other than Mr de Kock?

CHAIRPERSON: What page?

MR LAMEY: Page 246, Mr Chairperson.

MR NORTJE: Well if I have to remark on that, I had this person in my mind, Engelbrecht and van Rensburg, when I stated it. I believe that that is why I said that I had the idea at that stage already. But these were the only persons who played a pertinent role in the matter.

MR LAMEY: But you don't refer to de Kock and van Rensburg when you refer to the plurality "they"?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: Then under the Denmark conditions when you made your statement, you had to think back and recall various incidents, is that correct?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And this was also done under conditions of tremendous pressure and tension when you made your statement?

MR NORTJE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And there was quite a degree of haste to finish off these statements?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And when you compiled your supplementary application, is it correct that specifically you had to pause at all those persons above you who had given approval or orders according to you and your knowledge and inference, in terms of where the orders came from?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: At the stage when you drafted your supplementary application in 19 - let me just find the date, in 1997, did you have any insight whatsoever into the amnesty application of Mr de Kock?

MR NORTJE: No.

MR LAMEY: At that stage did you state it as such independently from your own recollection?

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then just with regard to the final aspect. After you had heard Mr Radebe's evidence you recalled that you had indeed visited him at a stage when he was in hospital.

MR NORTJE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it your recollection that that visit was connected to Brian Ngqulunga?

MR NORTJE: I'm not completely certain about that.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Let me just ask you this, if it was related to Mr Ngqulunga, then Mr Willemse must have been aware?

MR NORTJE: Yes. And what I mean is that we would then have picked him up and taken him somewhere.

MR LAMEY: But did Mr Willemse know, was he at any stage informed or involved about this incident?

MR NORTJE: I cannot place him at the scene. I cannot say that he knew.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I would like to apply for leave to recall Mr de Kock on the question of that part of the record, the Maponya record that was handed in to you.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone)

MR WAGENER: Not at all, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible - no microphone)

MR WAGENER: Of course.

EUGENE ALEXANDER DE KOCK: (s.u.o.)

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record. Mr de Kock, yesterday you heard of the fact that extracts from the record of the Japie Maponya hearing were submitted to the Committee.

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: ...(inaudible)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR HATTINGH: And I have given you the extract which was provided to us for study.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And have you studied the document since your departure from here yesterday?

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you informed me this morning that you wish to make certain comments regarding the evidence in this relation.

MR DE KOCK: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Will you then proceed in your own words and tell us what you wish to say.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.

I would like to say that where it comes to the deception of Gen Engelbrecht, I would like to state clearly that I did not tell him where the man was killed, where he was placed, where we had killed him, how he was killed, whether he was shot and all accompanying factors, such as the blows with the spade and so forth. However, as the investigation progressed at head office, Gen Engelbrecht wanted to know where the danger levels were where we could anticipate problems from another investigation, if someone else were to launch another investigation. And I have made the following notes among others. Mr Nofomela stated that I shot the man dead at Vlakplaas, by the river, with a 9mm Baretta pistol with a silencer. I told the General that we had a Baretta with a silencer, he told me that the police did not issue such weapons, that we didn't have one.

MR HATTINGH: Could you elaborate on that, what did he mean by that?

MR DE KOCK: What he meant was that we deny that we had a Baretta pistol with a silencer. It was an illegal weapon, it was not a police issue weapon. I mentioned to him that Maponya did not die at Vlakplaas, which is a very ambivalent answer, he could have taken it further, he could have asked me where he had been killed then, but he never asked me this.

Mr Nofomela was taken to Vlakplaas in order to identify a vehicle in which Mr Nofomela(sic) would have been loaded after he had been wrapped in black plastic bags, after I had shot him at Vlakplaas. Mr Nofomela pointed out a Datsun Safari station wagon. I told Gen Engelbrecht that it was not the Safari, but a Toyota station wagon. He told me, even better so then. I told him that we had been in Krugersdorp ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon, just before you proceed to your next point, let us just conclude this. What did he mean when he said "even better still"?

MR DE KOCK: Because Nofomela was identifying the wrong vehicle. If any forensic tests had to be undertaken there would be no proof whatsoever and that would just substantiate the lack of credibility of Mr Nofomela.

MR HATTINGH: Did he then tell you not to amend it officially?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, it was a further cover-up.

MR HATTINGH: The following point that you wish to make?

MR DE KOCK: I told him that we had been in Krugersdorp, that it was about the travel and accommodation claims. Gen Engelbrecht withdrew the travel and accommodation claims, it then indicated that we had only in Josini, there was no reference to Krugersdorp. This aspect of Krugersdorp could very easily have been discovered by going from one floor to the other in the Security Head Office, from the sixth to the seventh floor and obtaining a statement from Gen le Roux regarding Vlakplaas in 1985 or '86, as to whether they were in Krugersdorp at that time or not.

MR HATTINGH: Did he do so?

MR DE KOCK: No, he didn't.

At that stage at Section C1, there were work charts on which the amounts were indicated, along with the area in which the people had worked, with the exception of the travel and accommodation costs. This was removed by Gen Engelbrecht, I never saw it again.

I refer to a bag of books, books which were kept by the police in police vehicles, which gave a reflection on a monthly basis of where petrol had been purchased, so that it could be reconciled at the end of every month. This indicated that some of the vehicles had been in Krugersdorp. As far as I recall those books were handed in, and if I recall correctly it was Mr Nortje who handed these books in to Gen Engelbrecht.

MR HATTINGH: Was it ever offered as evidence before the Harms Commission?

MR DE KOCK: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever see these books again afterwards?

MR DE KOCK: No.

Then I refer to a transfer of Sgt Johannes Mbelo, who during the Harms Commission was stationed in Bloemfontein. He was no longer with the Security Police. He was involved in the Maponya situation. I was asked whether Mbelo could be a problem should he talk and I said yes, that may be so.

MR HATTINGH: You said you were asked, who asked you?

MR DE KOCK: It was Gen Krappies Engelbrecht who asked me. I was not present when those arrangements were made, but Johannes Mbelo was once again transferred from Bloemfontein to Vlakplaas, so that it would boil down to a questions of damage control. In other words, the man was under control.

Furthermore, no statement was obtained from Capt Kleynhans, along with whom Nortje and the others had worked and with whom I had worked, whether Vlakplaas had been in Krugersdorp or not. For submission during the post-mortem inquest.

Gen Krappies Engelbrecht's attitude was in so many words that if a man wants to make allegations he would need proof. In this case it was Almond Nofomela. And that this evidence be removed and then the man has to try and prove it. He would have to try to substantiate his allegations.

And then regarding the refreshment of my recollection and the evidence of Mr Nortje, the petrol books that he went to fetch in Krugersdorp, were fetched under the order of Gen Engelbrecht. That is all, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, Mr de Kock. Where do the pages begin, the pages that were given to you?

MR DE KOCK: 337, Chairperson, page 337 to page 342.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. I have the complete record before me. May I refer you to page 335 thereof, which does not form part of the section which was handed up to the Chairperson. Perhaps I should begin at the bottom of page 334. Mr Wagener says the following to you:

He asks you about the occasion when the McNally and Conradie investigation was ongoing. Initially they were first appointed to investigate the allegations of Mr Nofomela, before Judge Harms was appointed, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And after they launched their investigation, the Harms Commission was appointed and Mr McNally was appointed to offer the evidence before the Commission.

MR DE KOCK: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it's this occasion - did you appear before them to give a version?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now on page 335 you say thereafter, with regard to what I just read to you:

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What did you want to convey with that, Mr de Kock?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, the whole essence of the Security Police was one of denial, similarly to the Biko situation and all the other situations. Here it was before we went in, in those offices it was generally decided right from the bottom to the top that we will deny, we don't know anything. And I think I mentioned it in my testimony here, so much so that a tapping device or listening device was placed in the office where Mr McNally and these people were and where Conradie was and the others who were all together in an office, from there could listen to the reception device. So the transmitter was in the office, we listened to the receiver in the other office and whatever was said there we could plan our situation from that.

MR HATTINGH: And who was aware of this listening device which was attached to a receiver, where you sat and listened to it? Who was aware of it?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, we who listened to it, but I did not arrange it.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know who arranged it?

MR DE KOCK: No, I don't know, but the Technical Division came to install it.

MR HATTINGH: So there you were before the Attorney-General, is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you prepared to tell him the correct version?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You then, initially in your explanation you said that you did not explain or give Gen Engelbrecht the complete detail. Will you however be able to tell us, according to you, whether he knew that there was something amiss in the death Mr, or the disappearance of Mr Maponya at that stage?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because Nofomela made such a statement and it had to be investigated, and the man had been missing for approximately five years.

MR HATTINGH: But did he know that there were problems from your side?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson, because the discussion he had with me was that where should we expect problems, where should we stop, where should we block?

MR HATTINGH: And then you later say in that piece that after the post-mortem inquest you told Gen Engelbrecht in detail, "when I say in detail", you told him what happened to Mr Maponya.

MR DE KOCK: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What did you tell him on that occasion?

MR DE KOCK: There I said to him where Maponya had been killed and how he had been killed.

MR HATTINGH: And you mention it and you don't mention the name, but you say that there were witnesses present. Who was that?

MR DE KOCK: It was Mr Klopper, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, may I with your leave, also deal with one or two other aspects that emerge from cross-examination of other witnesses?

CHAIRPERSON: Well if it's something new, we can't just have second bites at the cherry.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, Mr Chairman, then I'll rather leave it. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions arising from the evidence that has just been led?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman.

Mr de Kock, I have sat here with great interest listening to you as you try to save yourself from your previous dilemma of the Japie Maponya evidence. Indeed, and I will argue this, the one thing that you still testify is that you misled Gen Engelbrecht at least up to after the post-mortem inquest which took place. I don't have the documents here, but if I recall correctly, in 1991. Is that correct?

MR DE KOCK: Chairperson, yes, and I would like to qualify that. If I did not tell him that the man had been killed in Swaziland, on that side of the border, I did not tell him how we murdered him and where we murdered him, it was misleading.

MR WAGENER: Mr de Kock, would you like to comment any further, because later I do not want to hear that you will try to correct it again? Would you like to comment any further on this cross-examination of mine during the Japie Maponya matter?

MR DE KOCK: No, Chairperson, this was a matter of enlightening and it was for broader information to the Commission.

MR WAGENER: So if we ask for the record of what you have testified here this afternoon, you will stick to that?

MR DE KOCK: Yes, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Then Mr Chairman, in those circumstances I've got no questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions? Thank you.

MR DE KOCK: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Anybody else going to call, recall? We come to you, Mr van der Walt.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. With leave of the Committee, I would like to call the widow of the late Mr Ngqulunga, Mrs Catherine Ngqulunga.

TOLAGELE CATHERINE NGQULUNGA: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: She has been sworn in, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mrs Ngqulunga, is it correct that you are the widow of the later Mr Brian Elliot Ngqulunga, about whom this inquiry is now proceeding?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that you were married to him on the 29th day of September 198 ...(inaudible - machine switched off)

INTERPRETER: May the question please be repeated.

MR VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that you were married to him on the 29th day of September 1984?

MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: From the marriage between you and the deceased, were there any children born?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: How many children were born?

MS NGQULUNGA: Two children.

MR VAN DER WALT: How old are they currently?

MS NGQULUNGA: One is 16, the other one is 14 years old.

MR VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that shortly after, or at some time after the death of your late husband, you submitted an affidavit to the police?

MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: The document contained on pages 152 and 153 of the bundle, will you look at that document, is that the affidavit you submitted?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: Can you remember exactly when you were asked to give an affidavit or a statement about this whole incident?

MS NGQULUNGA: I cannot recall which year it was, but we were in Court with de Kock.

MR VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that before you were called to testify today, you had the opportunity to go through this statement with me and with an interpreter in the employ of this Commission?

MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: Are you in a position to confirm that the statement is in essence correct and you are satisfied with it?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: I want to take you to the statement, or rather what happened around the 20th of July 1990. At that stage your husband was in the employ of the South African Police, is that correct?

MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: Where did he work then?

MS NGQULUNGA: At the Police Headquarters.

MR VAN DER WALT: Was he at a certain stage employed at Vlaklaas?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: At the time of his death, did he still work at Vlakplaas or was he at Police Headquarters?

MS NGQULUNGA: He was then working at the headquarters.

MR VAN DER WALT: On Friday the 20th of July 1990, the deceased went to work as far as you knew, is that correct?

MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: He didn't return and you subsequently learnt that he was killed.

MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: Now on the Saturday, the 21st of July, when he did not return home, what did you do?

MS NGQULUNGA: I went out looking for him.

MR VAN DER WALT: And did you do certain enquiries at some of his colleagues?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: Did you also make telephone calls?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: Can you remember who you called?

MS NGQULUNGA: I called Mamasela and he gave me le Roux's telephone number and he said should he not come back home in the evening, I should phone le Roux and enquire as to Brian's whereabouts. And le Roux said I should wait because he wanted to enquire from the others as to what happened to Brian. I then waited for a response from le Roux, but then I was not at home at that time, I was at a neighbour's house where I had gone to ask for the use of the telephone.

MR VAN DER WALT: Now this le Roux you're referring to, is it - did you know his rank, was he at that stage Brigadier le Roux?

MS NGQULUNGA: No, I don't know his rank, he could have been a Brigadier.

MR VAN DER WALT: Did he return to you, did he phone you back there where you waited for him for a response? Or what happened then, whilst you were waiting for him to give you information?

MS NGQULUNGA: I was still waiting for him to call me. Before he called, van Dyk and Engelbrecht came and informed me that Brian is dead and he is in the mortuary and when I enquired as to what killed him, they said he was killed by the ANC and they left me where they found me and my neighbours took me home.

MR VAN DER WALT: The person you are referring to as Engelbrecht, did you know him before this particular day, the 21st of July?

MS NGQULUNGA: I was seeing him for the first time, I didn't even know he was van Dyk.

MR VAN DER WALT: And the other person, Engelbrecht, did you know him before?

MS NGQULUNGA: No.

MR VAN DER WALT: How do you know that person's surname is Engelbrecht?

MS NGQULUNGA: They identified themselves.

MR VAN DER WALT: You requested to see the deceased at the mortuary, is that correct?

MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: Now you were taken there, is it on the Monday the 23rd of July, where you identified the deceased as your late husband? Is that correct?

MS NGQULUNGA: That is correct.

MR VAN DER WALT: You also saw that he was wounded, particularly in his face and at his back and you thought it was gunshot wounds, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: What date was it?

MR VAN DER WALT: On the 23rd day of July 1990, the Tuesday, Mr Chairman. That is at the end, Mr Chairman, of page 152 going over to 153. May I proceed, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: Mrs Ngqulunga, do you know a person by the name of Geoffrey Bosigo?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, I know him.

MR VAN DER WALT: Was he a colleague of your husband?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: A person by the name of Simon Radebe, who gave evidence here today, was he also a colleague of your husband?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: In paragraph 5, on page 153, you make mention of a discussion which took place between yourself and a certain Busi Bosigo, the spouse of Mr Geoffrey Bosigo. Can you recall that incident?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: What happened there?

MS NGQULUNGA: Busi came to me in the morning to inform me that I should not worry because my husband was killed by Geoff and Simon, together with their white colleagues, not the ANC, as purported.

MR VAN DER WALT: Yes, and what did you think of that? Did you believe her?

MS NGQULUNGA: Initially I did not believe that it could be his white colleagues, only later I believed that it was indeed true.

MR VAN DER WALT: Now because of this that was conveyed to you by Busi Bosigo, I see you state in your statement you went to a certain Sam Magage, is that also a colleague of your late husband?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR VAN DER WALT: And what happened then? Did you ask him about this information you gained?

MS NGQULUNGA: I asked him, wondering how it could be that they were working together and yet they were killing one another and he said he did not know anything about that. And the following day Simon and Sam came to wake me up in the morning, saying they wanted to verify the information that I had received and I said "Yes, indeed, Busi told me so that you together with your white colleagues are the ones responsible for the death of my husband" and I indicated to them that the truth will ultimately surface one day.

MR VAN DER WALT: And you left it there, you didn't do anything further about that?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What was their reaction to what you told them?

MS NGQULUNGA: Simon stood up and left and he said he could not have killed Brian and have the guts of coming into his house.

MR VAN DER WALT: Did you at any further or later stage again discuss the matter with Simon Radebe or not?

MS NGQULUNGA: No, I saw Simon Radebe for the last time that day until I saw him today.

MR VAN DER WALT: Now Mrs Ngqulunga, at the time of your husband's death, was he the only breadwinner in the family or did you also work?

MS NGQULUNGA: He was the only breadwinner.

MR VAN DER WALT: Can you perhaps tell this Commission what your feelings and emotions are today regarding this incident?

MS NGQULUNGA: I'm very pleased today to know what killed my husband, even though they're not telling the whole truth as it should be. I'm just thankful that I know who was responsible for the death of my husband, not the ANC, as it was claimed earlier. I had started developing hatred towards the ANC, but later on I heard the truth and I would not even look at his office during my rounds in town.

MR VAN DER WALT: Is it possible at all for you to forgive the people, persons who were responsible?

MS NGQULUNGA: No.

MR VAN DER WALT: Not any one of the applicants, or anyone in particular that you cannot forgive?

MS NGQULUNGA: It's hard to say, not now.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have nothing further for the witness.

EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record. Mrs Ngqulunga, did I understand you to say that the statement which forms part of the bundle, was only taken from you, obtained from you during the course of the de Kock criminal trial?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, I think so, if I'm not mistaken.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the first time that you were asked to make a statement about the death of your husband?

MS NGQULUNGA: No, the Department of Justice came to my house.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, very well, that was in connection with the claim for pension or for maintenance, is that correct?

MS NGQULUNGA: No.

MR HATTINGH: What was that about?

MS NGQULUNGA: They were investigating.

MR HATTINGH: When was this?

MS NGQULUNGA: I think it was in 1994, if I'm not mistaken.

MR HATTINGH: Some years after the death of your husband?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now shortly after his death, were you approached by any member of either the South African Police or the Bophuthatswana Police, with the view to obtain a statement from you in connection with the death of your husband?

MS NGQULUNGA: No.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

MR BOOYENS: No questions, Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: No questions, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman. Before I commence, and with your leave Mr Chairman, I would wish to put certain issues on record if I'm allowed to.

CHAIRPERSON: Depends what it is.

MR WAGENER: Gen J H le Roux, as you will recall, is a client of mine for purposes of other matters. I've spoken to him during the lunch hour regarding this statement of Mrs Ngqulunga, and he said to me that during 1990, he was a Brigadier at Security Head Office, as far as he can remember he was the only le Roux there, the postal section where Mr Ngqulunga was apparently working did fall under his overall command. So in that sense he would have been high up in the echelon, he would have been in a command position ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not trying to stop you ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR WAGENER: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh. Carry on.

MR WAGENER: This is merely for your assistance, Mr Chairman. He said to me - in other words, it is quite possible that Mrs Ngqulunga did make contact with him on that day, the 21st of July. He can't remember anything, but he said it is quite possible and that he would then have taken steps to try and find out, as is said in this affidavit, where Mr Ngqulunga was or where he had been the previous day. So I don't think it takes the matter here any further, but for your assistance, that seems to be Gen J H le Roux that's referred to there.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Are you going to give a similar explanation about Mr Engelbrecht? Because I thought she said one of the persons who came to see her was a Mr Engelbrecht.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I think the proper way to do that would be by way of questions. So I do intend asking a few questions on that score, Mr Sandi.

Mrs Ngqulunga, you heard what I've just told the Commission, that I've been informed that there was a Brig le Roux, who was apparently high up in a command position over your late husband. You heard that?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, I did.

MR WAGENER: And that he says that it's quite possible that you could have spoken to him on that day, the 21st of July. Have you heard that?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR WAGENER: We have heard evidence here that your late husband had certain contact with Vlakplaas right until the time of his death, are you aware of that?

MS NGQULUNGA: I do not quite understand, would you please repeat that.

MR WAGENER: We have heard evidence here that your husband, right till the time of his death, visited Vlakplaas at times, he had certain contact with Vlakplaas and the people of Vlakplaas. Are you aware of that?

MS NGQULUNGA: I don't know anything about that. They used to throw braais during December, but he never attended such braais.

MR WAGENER: Do you know who at that time of your husband's death, was the overall commander of Vlakplaas?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Who was that?

MS NGQULUNGA: De Kock.

MR WAGENER: And do you know who was Mr de Kock's commander in turn in the police structures?

MS NGQULUNGA: I have no idea, because Brian always spoke about de Kock and I cannot know the names of the people above him.

MR WAGENER: We now know that at the time of your husband's death, de Kock's commander was a person called Brig van Rensburg, are you aware of that?

MS NGQULUNGA: I only heard about this during evidence here.

MR WAGENER: We have evidence before us that this Brig van Rensburg, that he visited your house at some stage, can you remember that?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, I do.

MR WAGENER: When was that?

MS NGQULUNGA: In 1990, when I was sick.

MR WAGENER: Was that before your husband's death?

MS NGQULUNGA: No, he was still alive.

MR WAGENER: Ja. And did he visit your house after his death, or can't you remember?

MS NGQULUNGA: No, he never ever came to my house thereafter.

MR WAGENER: He, that is Mr van Rensburg, he says that he was in your house at the time of the funeral. Do you remember that?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, there were whites, but I cannot say who they were.

MR WAGENER: So Brig van Rensburg could have been there?

MS NGQULUNGA: As I have indicated yes, there were whites, but I could not see them quite well.

MR WAGENER: Do you know what Brig van Rensburg looks like, his physique?

MS NGQULUNGA: Even though it's been a long time, but yes, I know him.

MR WAGENER: Can you describe to us what he looks like?

MS NGQULUNGA: Briefly yes, he's tall, bald head and he's hefty.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, I think you've seen Mr van Rensburg, it seems to me rather accurate I would say, although I don't think he's that tall.

CHAIRPERSON: He's a big man.

MR WAGENER: Yes.

Mrs Ngqulunga, you say that the day after your husband disappeared two people visited your house, a Mr van Dyk and a Mr Engelbrecht.

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Now I represent Mr Engelbrecht and that's why I'm asking you these questions. Are you sure it was Mr Engelbrecht who visited your house? - that day, the 21st of July, the day after your husband disappeared.

MS NGQULUNGA: I have already indicated that I do not know him quite well. The one person that I know fully well is van Dyk.

MR WAGENER: You see why I ask you is that Mr Engelbrecht has told me that he's never ever been to your house and it wasn't him that you're referring to here, you must be confused with someone else. What do you say to that?

MS NGQULUNGA: I cannot say because when they came - when they came to inform me about the death of Brian, I started crying, but I heard his name be called out to be Engelbrecht and van Dyk. As I have explained earlier on that I did not know him. The one person that I knew well was van Dyk. I could be mistaken.

MR WAGENER: And then lastly, why did they visit you on that night, what was the conversation about? Or was this merely to show their condolences?

MS NGQULUNGA: They had come to inform me about the death of my husband and that he was in the mortuary.

MR WAGENER: Very lastly, can you perhaps remember what this person looked like, the person that you referred to as Engelbrecht?

MS NGQULUNGA: I cannot because when they entered the house I was not there, I had gone to my friend's place to ask them to use the phone, so that I could call le Roux. That's where they found me. Van Dyk was in fact the one who called me outside at my friend's place and he informed me and the other gentleman remained inside the house. And the people started, or should I say, they heard me screaming and crying from outside and they came out of the house. But the one that I'm talking about is not tall, he's short.

MR WAGENER: Well then I have to put it to you that Mr Engelbrecht is a tall, tall person and I once again put it to you that you may be mistaken with his identity.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't there a possibility it could be another Engelbrecht? She hasn't attempted to identify him as the person concerned. She didn't give rank at the time.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, the affidavit refers to a Brig Engelbrecht.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

MR WAGENER: And there was no other Brig Engelbrecht.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, but she hasn't - you didn't say it was a Brigadier who came, did you?

MS NGQULUNGA: They came to my house and I was not there, I had gone out looking for Brian and they took my child along to where I was, where I wanted to make a phone call.

MR WAGENER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I'll leave it there. Thank you.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no re-examination.

MR SIBANYONI: Mrs Ngqulunga, I heard you mentioning Joe Mamasela, did he visit your house very often?

MS NGQULUNGA: Not often, but yes he did pay us visits.

MR SIBANYONI: When did you first meet your husband, was it at that stage when he was working at Vlakplaas, or was it before that?

MS NGQULUNGA: I met him when he was working at Vlakplaas.

MR SIBANYONI: Did his colleague - at that stage where did you stay, at Soshanguve?

MS NGQULUNGA: I was staying in Piet Retief.

MR SIBANYONI: And when did you start to stay in Soshanguve?

MS NGQULUNGA: In 1996(sic).

MR SIBANYONI: Now did his colleagues from Vlakplaas visit him in Soshanguve?

MS NGQULUNGA: Some of them stayed in Soshanguve.

MR SIBANYONI: Were they staying openly, in other words you know Joe is working at Vlakplaas, your husband is working at Vlakplaas, as well as Sam Radebe, did that circle of people know one another and visit one another as well?

MS NGQULUNGA: They knew one another. Mamasela used to pay us visits, but Simon was not quite used to us, or we had not got to know him very well. He came to my house for the first time on the death of Brian.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you know what type of work they were doing in Vlakplaas?

MS NGQULUNGA: I knew that they were looking for the ANC.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

ADV SANDI: Just one or two. ...(intervention)

MR SIBANYONI: I'm sorry, just one last question. We heard that your husband could not be buried in Vlakplaas, I mean in Soshanguve, because there were some riots and the like and as a result he was buried at Vlakplaas or next to Vlakplaas. Is he still there in Vlakplaas?

MS NGQULUNGA: No, he was exhumed last year.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, Mrs Ngqulunga.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Did your husband ever say anything to you about the ANC?

MS NGQULUNGA: No, nothing.

ADV SANDI: You heard the evidence here that he was suspected of co-operating with the ANC, would you like to make any comment on that?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

ADV SANDI: What do you say?

MS NGQULUNGA: It surprises me when they say they suspected him of working with the ANC, or intending to go back to the ANC. He could not have done that without informing me because he was informing me about what they were doing at work. That is what surprises me.

ADV SANDI: You have said one of the names your husband used to mention was the name of de Kock, what would he say about Mr de Kock?

MS NGQULUNGA: He said he's working relationship with de Kock was not good because de Kock was beating them up. That is why he decided to leave Vlakplaas for the head office or the headquarters and I asked him as to whether there was not any other job that he could leave the security job for if this was happening.

ADV SANDI: At the head office where he used to work, that is at the time he was killed, what did he say about his working conditions there, was everything well? What did he say was the situation?

MS NGQULUNGA: ...(no English interpretation)

ADV SANDI: What was the translation?

MS NGQULUNGA: There was no problem with him at the head office. The problem started when he started going to the Harms Commission and he pointed out that things were no longer the same at the office.

ADV SANDI: Did he explain what he meant when he said to you things were no longer the same at the head office?

MS NGQULUNGA: He meant that the whites were no longer treating him well.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Two matters, one very trifling. Is the head quarters at Polly's Arcade?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And after your husband's death, were you paid anything from the Police Force or by any member of the Police Force?

MS NGQULUNGA: I got his work pension.

CHAIRPERSON: And have you still got that?

MS NGQULUNGA: Yes, they do give it to me at the end of the month.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. I think I speak on behalf of everybody here when we say how much we sympathise with you and how much we admire your courage for coming here.

MR VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I do not intend calling any further witnesses on behalf of the family.

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, maybe just for the record. All the details of the next-of-kin and the family were already submitted to the R&R Committee, to be declared victims in accordance with the Act. Just for the record purposes. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think I will ask you gentlemen to start arguing the matter now, will you be ready tomorrow morning? What time, 10 o'clock?

Right, we will now adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS