--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We are proceeding with the application of Mr Prinsloo. When we adjourned yesterday Mr Prinsloo had concluded his evidence in chief. We'll now proceed to afford the legal representatives an opportunity to put questions, if they do have any, to Mr Prinsloo. We'll start with Mr Jansen.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Yes thank you, Chair. If you could just bear with me a moment, I do have questions.

Mr Prinsloo, the bundle which was handed out to us yesterday afternoon containing some of the statements in the dossier, do you have a copy of this?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And before I refer you to some of these specific statements...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can we just allocate a number to that bundle?

MR JANSEN: Yes, I don't think - can we make it bundle 3?

CHAIRPERSON: Can it be bundle 3?

MR JANSEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Is my impression correct that you were one of the most senior investigative officers in the Pretoria area with regard to acts of terrorism, as they were known back then?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Is it correct that you were one of the investigating officers in the matter against Masenya.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now just for the purposes of the record, this was a reasonably well-known matter which was also reported in the court reports of 1991 or some or other time?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: And you would recall that a finding was made by Justice de Klerk with regard to that matter, namely that these persons who were involved in Thangwane and the Pretoria area, regarded themselves as soldiers.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. During the hearing they also wore MK uniforms.

MR JANSEN: And they regarded it as a situation of warfare?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: Very well. At that stage, you were probably familiar with the information which the Security Forces possessed regarding persons who had already been identified as being involved with the ANC and the PAC?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: It must have been a great proportion of your work to keep yourself up to date with that sort of information.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Now, if you look at bundle 3, beginning on page 44, this is a statement from one Queen Kenny, which comes from the dossier, pertaining to the murder of Mr Mahlangu. Have you had the opportunity to study that statement?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, I have studied it.

MR JANSEN: And then furthermore, on page 50 there is one from a Mr Mahlahila.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Have you studied that statement?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And then on page 57, there is one by Constance Mahlangu, who is also better known as Connie Mahlangu.

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know whether she is known as Connie, I have just seen the name Constance Masiswe Mahlangu.

MR JANSEN: Yes. Have you studied that statement?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now you will see, if we can begin with Constance Mahlangu, she is the sister of Patrick Mahlangu.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I see that it appears as such.

MR JANSEN: Now, I would just like to know from you whether the information that she provides there is in correlation with what you knew about Mr Mahlangu's involvement?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was only at a later stage that I became aware of the fact that Mahlangu had indeed received military training and that he had been used by the State as a witness in a terrorism case, but at that stage it was known to me. I just knew that he had training.

MR JANSEN: And if we return to page 44, the statement made by Queen Kenny, the fact that he was involved in the so-called Civics as well as labour movements, did you know this at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes and furthermore that he was a member of the ANC?

MR JANSEN: The direct cause of your operation or the direct reason for that operation was actually connected with the information which was relatively new at that stage, pertaining to the training or the instant training in the use of hand grenades, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson, hand grenades and weapons of terrorism.

MR JANSEN: Can one also accept that one of the reasons why, with the exception of the information which the informer sent through, further information had to be obtained, would be that the information of the informer or the informers had to be verified?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, we used the phrase "to be evaluated".

MR JANSEN: It would be correct to say that in the security community in general, one always had to be cautious regarding the information which was given by an informer?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Well that is probably true when it comes to general policing.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: Now with regard to the operation and the murder of Mr Mahlangu, you would accept that with regard to the command structure, you were in control of that operation, including the killing of Mr Mahlangu from the beginning to the end?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: And if we come to the evidence surrounding the precise reason for Mr Mahlangu's death or the reasons for his death, I would like to take you to your own statement on page 330 of that bundle. I think it is bundle 1. Could you perhaps turn to that? And I quote from what you have stated, that would be the last sentence of the first paragraph, and I quote:

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: You compiled this statement independently of Mr Ras and his statement, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: Now if I read the sentence it would appear to me that it correlates with what Mr Ras stated in his evidence as well as his statement, namely that there was a pertinent reference which was made by Mahlangu to a person that he either suspected of having betrayed him or knew had betrayed him. Would you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Then what I find strange is why yesterday in your evidence, in your verbal evidence, you told a tale which appears to deviate to some extent from this direct reference by Mahlangu and said that the fact that Mahlangu was aware of the informer, was inferred from the context of that statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, what I meant by that, this is in line with what appears in my written application, that during the interrogation of Mahlangu by Ras, it appeared very clearly that Mahlangu had to have been aware that he could have inferred who the informer was who had disclosed information about him.

MR JANSEN: Yes, I understand that what you are saying now is in line with what you said yesterday, but would you accept - you say that it is in line with what you wrote here but that isn't really true. You stated that it was clear from the interrogation or from what you understood of the interrogation that Mahlangu would have made that inference, as you put it. In other words you speculated regarding what Mahlangu's inferences were, not about what Mahlangu actually said, is that correct? Do you understand? I know that it is quite a problematic difference to understand.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Jansen, perhaps I could assist because this was my problem yesterday as well. It is not Mahlangu's inferences, it is your inferences, that is your evidence. Because you saw the name you inferred that the name had to have been given to him by Ras, while it is stated in the written document that Ras discussed this with you, that he told you. When I put this to you yesterday you denied it and you said no, he hadn't had any discussion with Ras, he did not correct him, he was simply upset because he saw the name in his notes. Could you perhaps clear us that discrepancy for us?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I will once again attempt. As far as my recollection goes, in the first instance, I requested what the man was doing there. What Mahlangu was doing there because he was never supposed to have been picked up. Then Ras explained to me and I also had a discussion with Mosiane and Ras explained to me why they had interrogated the man and that he had also made notes of this interrogation which he then handed over to me and from the notes, there were not only names which appeared there, but there was also supplementary information for every person indicating what that person had been involved with or what information Mahlangu had given about that particular person and from that I inferred that Mahlangu would definitely have been able to identify the relevant informer due to the fact that they operated in cells.

MR MALAN: Very well, Mr Prinsloo, in other words what you are saying here on page 330:

that is incorrect then? Both of them cannot be correct. Either he told you or you inferred from his notes, but you cannot follow both lines of argument.

MR PRINSLOO: I will then stand by my verbal evidence.

MR MALAN: And the inference which was drawn. So what you said under oath in writing is incorrect?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, in retrospect.

MR MALAN: Very well.

MR JANSEN: Do I understand you correctly that you understand the difference now? One can accept that a person who has been interrogated, could realise who had betrayed him in terms of information which was given to him on the one hand and then independently, based upon his own suspicions, on the other hand. In other words something that he had definitely said to the person.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is why I also indicated that one had to interrogate a person about specific topics or subjects.

MR JANSEN: Yes, but I just want to know that you understand the difference between the two situations,

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: In the first situation you inferred that he knew or possibly knew, who the informer was, but in the other he told you he didn't need to infer, he told you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: Now my statement to you is that there is no reason why you, when you compiled this statement and wrote the section that I've just read to you, there was no reason for you to give a different reflection of the truth than what you are giving here today, or to tell a different story of the truth than what it really was. In other words what I'm trying to say to you is that it is very clear that you are attempting in your verbal evidence, to indicate a mistake in terms of how you realised that the informer was in danger.

MR PRINSLOO: No I am not mistaken with regard to that, with regard to the danger of the informer.

MR JANSEN: No, we are in agreement that the informer was indeed in danger, or at least you accepted that the informer was in danger, but the question is why you thought the informer was in trouble. Can you provide any reason for the Committee why you would have made this mistake in your words by saying that Ras told you that Mahlangu said so? What would the reason for the mistake have been?

MR PRINSLOO: The only explanation that I can offer in terms of the written application is that it was a brief summary based on information given to me by Ras, based upon which I made the assumption that the informer could possibly be exposed.

MR JANSEN: Now do you understand the inherent probabilities or improbabilities that independently from Ras's statement, you have stated something which is in line with what you have stated here indicating why the informer was in trouble?

MR PRINSLOO: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you've just said.

MR JANSEN: You know that if two statements correlate and it is faulty, there is only one inference to be drawn and that being that there must be some form of collaboration to create a mistaken impression. That is the only inference that one can draw. You must know this as a police or investigating officer?

MR PRINSLOO: It must be so. May I just explain.

MR JANSEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I wish to qualify. This is according to the best of my recollection. After I had received the documents from the other applicants and heard the evidence which was given here by Mr Ras, there were certain facts which reappeared more clearly than what they were at the time of making the written application.

MR JANSEN: Yes, very well.

MR PRINSLOO: So it is not a question of the two of us conniving to do something.

MR JANSEN: Yes, but you must understand that this is going to be argued with your application. Please understand the context. I will take you further. You would agree with Mr Ras that at no stage was there any discussion between you and him regarding what was to be said in the statement?

MR PRINSLOO: No, there wasn't.

MR JANSEN: And I assume that it was only until a very late stage that you knew that Mr Ras had applied for this case.

MR PRINSLOO: It was shortly before the closing date for the applications that I came to hear of his application.

MR JANSEN: Very well. Now the other reason why your statements, your written statements may correlate is because this is in truth what actually took place, this could be the other explanation.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Now based upon your own version that there was no collaboration between you and Ras, the second explanation should be acceptable as the true explanation, in other words, it is highly improbable that independently of each other, you could make this mistake.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: Can you now understand why it is possible for you to have committed a fallacy or created a faulty reconstruction of the events in your evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to what?

MR JANSEN: With regard to why you thought at that stage that the informer was in danger, firstly because Ras told you that Mahlangu had identified the person, possibility number one. Possibility number two, from the notes and from what you inferred, with regard to the information that Mahlangu had given to Ras in the course of the interrogation, you were afraid that this was indeed the situation that through that information he had realised who the informer was.

MR PRINSLOO: In retrospect and recollection, I would say that the latter option that you have submitted, that was my inference.

MR JANSEN: Yes that is your recollection now, or at least yesterday and today when you gave your verbal evidence and I accept that this is your recollection. I am not putting it to you that you are purposefully submitting a false version of this, the only thing that I want to say is that the one is as logical as the other. The one has just as many justification as the other, but one has to be a faulty recollection and explanation, that being that you could not have made the same mistake independently of Mr Ras. Would you concede to that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Will you now accept that on the basis of this, your written statement and what is pertained therein is actually correct, that this is actually what took place? In other words, there was a specific mention by Mahlangu regarding the identity of the informer and that is what was conveyed to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, Mr Ras did not know who my informer was, or my informers.

MR JANSEN: Yes, but Ras knew what Mahlangu had told him.

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the suspicion of the informer?

MR JANSEN: Very well, I will stand by the following with regard to this aspect and that is that apparently in your reconstruction of these events, you did not keep up completely with the logical sequence of events and you are busy constructing something that you recall as a possibility, but not with specific reference to independent recollection. Do you wish to comment on that statement of mine?

MR PRINSLOO: What I have stated here Chairperson, is according to the best of my recollection. The best of what I can remember.

MR JANSEN: Yes, that was the best of your recollection when you made the statement, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: And when you gave verbal evidence, was that also according to the best of your recollection?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: After having sight of the documents?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you are giving Mr Jansen a little bit of a problem. What he wants to understand from you is which one do you now recollect better, the written statement which stands, the version that has been given in your affidavit as it appears on page 330, as it has already been read out to you by Mr Jansen, or the version that you gave during your evidence in chief yesterday? You can't say both are correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have already conceded and stated that with the verbal evidence that I gave here, that this was according to the best of my recollection, correct evidence.

MR MALAN: Very well, may I then ask you said that this current recollection of yours is based upon the inferences from what was stated in the notes and after you had had site of the applications from the other applicants, which applicants deal with this matter in their applications?

MR PRINSLOO: That would be Mr Ras.

MR MALAN: But Mr Ras's statement is the same as your written statement, not your oral statement. Who else?

MR PRINSLOO: Well that specific point it would be only about me and Ras.

MR MALAN: Now after you heard Ras, you deviated from your written statement while Ras was actually confirming your written evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Or can you explain to me why, after you had heard Ras, you presented a different opinion than that which you had before you heard Ras?

MR PRINSLOO: As I saw it, within the context of which I completed the written application, it was based upon admissions that Ras made to me, resulting from his interrogation and I have summarised it clearly in my verbal evidence, that he gave me the note and explained to me what the man had said, as a result of which I drew the inference that the identity of the informer had been exposed, that Mahlangu must necessarily have made that inference.

MR MALAN: Mr Jansen, I think we can abandon this point now.

MR JANSEN: Then the following section on page 330, Mr Prinsloo, paragraph 2 on that page and I quote:

Is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: Was this also a factor of consideration in your mind at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: And one could then accept that the words "get rid of him" would indicate that he was to be murdered?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: Am I also correct, with regard to the killing of Mr Mahlangu, although it was your order, you left the detail of the execution thereof over to Mr Ras and Mr Vermeulen?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: Then we come to one of the other aspects regarding which there was uncertainty yesterday and that is what your reaction was when you realised that Mr Mahlangu was being strangled or assaulted in the back of the kombi. Now the word assault was used. Did I have the correct impression that what you meant by that was that you heard noises which sounded as if he was being strangled?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: You did not hear any sounds of fist blows, or any slapping? You did not see or hear anything like that, or draw any such inference?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not that I can recall.

MR JANSEN: Very well. One also has the impression that you didn't really know at that stage what Ras was planning, how he was going to kill the person and when he would kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, at that particular stage one could have drawn inferences.

MR JANSEN: So actually it was only later, during the incident, or at a later stage that you realised that...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Jansen, sorry for interrupting. Did I hear you say that you simply drew inferences in response to the previous question?

MR PRINSLOO: I would just like to return to the question that was put to me yesterday afternoon from the bench.

MR MALAN: No, I want to know whether you said that you simply drew inferences.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Well, then would you care to explain to us about those inferences that he was being assaulted or strangled in the back of the vehicle, upon a question put by Mr Jansen with regard to the fact that Ras and the others continued with the assault?

MR JANSEN: Very well. I think what the Committee Members attempted to point out to you yesterday afternoon was that at that stage, with regard to you, it could just as well have been a senseless assault, a perverse sadistic assault of a person which was not specifically connected to the ultimate killing of the person.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct. The question was put to me: "What political objective would have been achieved by that isolated incident of further assault?", upon which my response was: "I don't know what was going on in the minds of those people", but if one regards the situation holistically, it was part of the removal of Mahlangu. I don't know at which stage he would have been killed or rendered unconscious, because it was logical that one could not drape a living person over an explosive device and expected him to sit still and be blown up.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, with the greatest of respect, please do not attempt to give us a retrospective view from a ...(indistinct) angle because we have detailed evidence of this from Mr Ras. The question to you yesterday was: "What did you think when you heard the noises which you described as an assault and what would have been the motive in your mind?" Your answer was that you may have been negligent and you stated that you really didn't think that he was being killed at that moment. That was what you said yesterday. Please don't give us the big picture in retrospect now and that is specifically what Mr Jansen is asking you. He says that with regard to you, it was a senseless perverse assault and then you returned and said that you didn't know what was going on in their minds, but upon the question or the statement that you didn't know how or when he would be killed, you answered no, you simply drew inferences.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Then I asked you what inferences you drew, please tell us about these inferences. That was your response.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you want to know about the inferences I drew?

MR MALAN: Yes. Which inferences did you draw? The inferences that you now refer to. You spoke of inferences that you drew, which inferences?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, once again I just wish to make myself clear. The question was put to me yesterday in isolation and that is how I interpreted it, with regard to that specific assault in the back of the vehicle when I said that I heard the noises and asked what political objective could be achieved by means of that assault. I interpreted this in isolation. Now upon the question put by Mr Jansen, in which he refers to senseless and perverse assault and so forth. I said no, the inference that I drew was that Ras and Roslee were perhaps rendering the man unconscious, or whatever, in order to get him into a state where he would be controllable so that he could be placed with the explosive device.

MR MALAN: Then why didn't you tell us this yesterday? I pressured you to say this. I did not accuse you that you were aware that they were murdering him and you answered no.

MR PRINSLOO: Let me just say once again that I regarded the question in isolation.

MR MALAN: No the question that you regarded in isolation was the question put by the Chairperson with regard to the meaning of an assault and I put it to you specifically: "What did you think that they were doing" and I said to you that they were busy killing him. "Didn't you think that they were killing him?" and you said "No."

MR PRINSLOO: The question put by the gentleman on the left was directly put to me and also by the Chairperson regarding which political objective would be achieved by means of the assault in the back of the minibus. That is what I focused on, that is what I interpreted and that is the only response that I had.

MR MALAN: Very well. Your answer now is that you thought that they were busy rendering him unconscious so that they could blow him up?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, in the broader context of what took place there.

MR MALAN: No, I want to know what you thought then, not the within context. Was that your understanding?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was my inference.

MR MALAN: And you couldn't tell us this yesterday?

MR PRINSLOO: Not as I interpreted the question which was put by the Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo were you not in fact precise with regard to your understanding of how this man was going to be killed? Wasn't it your direct evidence that you never thought he would be killed, other than being blown up with an explosive? We explored this point on several occasions and your evidence was very precise on how you thought he was going to be killed.

MR PRINSLOO: That is indeed so, Chairperson, that he would be blown up with explosives, but I will repeat what I have said earlier on and that is, one cannot take a living person and place him down with a bomb in his lap or over a bomb and expect that he would stay there and be blown up.

I accepted that at some stage, I didn't know when, that something had to be done to the man, whether his head be bashed in or whatever, to get him into an inert situation so that he could be draped over the explosives,

CHAIRPERSON: That was not your evidence. That was not what I understood you to be saying yesterday.

MR PRINSLOO: I did not say that yesterday. I will repeat. I interpreted the question in isolation in terms of that assault.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't a question of interpreting the question in isolation, you were being questioned as a result of the evidence that you had given in chief. An explanation was being sought from you and when one of the Committee members put it to you that couldn't you have thought that they were busy killing him, your precise was no, because you knew, what you knew, how he was going to be killed, was that the killing was going to be conducted through an explosive, so you couldn't have inferred that the muzzled noise that you heard from the back of the kombi could have been anything that could have been done to Mahlangu to render him unconscious for purposes of ultimately destroying him through explosives.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, I beg your pardon Chairperson, I do not want him to enter into an argument over what you have said. I agree with the interpretation of the Chairperson as to what happened yesterday. Let me make it clear to you. You've applied for amnesty where you have to show political motive in a political context and you have to disclose the full picture in your mind. You have to make a full disclosure of what happened. Your credibility is on the line. Let us walk off from what happened yesterday and the day before yesterday. Please tell us the truth. If you do not tell us the truth, then we will have a problem in giving you amnesty, even if we wanted to give you amnesty, if we find that you are beating about the bush or trying to beat about the bush with us, then you cannot receive amnesty, so please, when you continue, please answer the questions honestly and state out, don't try to explain things away. Tell us what was going on and if it is your recollection, then it is your recollection. Mr Jansen you may continue.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Prinsloo, with regard to this aspect I would just like to put two questions to you. This strangling, while this strangling was going on, at that stage you were not subjectively aware that that was indeed the process of killing in order to execute the explosion?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no. I drove the vehicle, the road was foreign to me. I heard the sounds.

MR JANSEN: And you did not know, with as far as you know it could have been, it might as well have been a senseless assault, assault without any motive? It is not something that is entirely out of the ordinary.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson it is possible that I would think that it was senseless at that stage. It would have been, but it is not impossible.

MR JANSEN: One could accept that assaults took place during the course of all these years which had nothing to do with a political motive or specific operational requirements.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: Now Mr Prinsloo, in totality I would just like to comment on your evidence. Where your evidence should be weighed up against Ras's evidence, I will argue that you, although you are not a dishonest applicant, you are an applicant who is trying to read the process. You are unwilling to make certain concessions with regard to possible mistakes which you have with your memory. You are unwilling to make concessions about things that you have done which might possibly not fit in properly with your political motive. Do you have any comment on that statement?

MR PRINSLOO: That is your viewpoint and I do not agree with it, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And then in conclusion, I'm not certain whether I heard your evidence clearly yesterday. Later this incident was reported to your senior by you, Brig Jack Cronje?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And he did not express any disapproval to you?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen. Mr Hattingh.

ADV MOTATA: Madam Chair before Mr Hattingh comes in I just want to clarify something with Mr Prinsloo. Mr Prinsloo, while you were driving on this unknown road and while Mr Mahlangu was being strangled by Ras, were you aware at that stage when you heard these sounds, that it was Ras strangling the man?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson as I have already said at that stage Ras and Roslee were in the back of the kombi, in other words they were closer to Mahlangu, I assumed that the two of them, or one of the two of them, was busy with Mahlangu. I did not look around to see who was doing what.

ADV MOTATA: So you were not certain who was strangling the man?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV MOTATA: You also did not look in the rear-view mirror because you don't have to look around to see in the back of the kombi, you can look in the rear-view mirror.

MR PRINSLOO: That may be so Chairperson. In the broader context, as I have said earlier, I drew the inference, it was necessary for me to look around, it was late at night and I was concentrating on the road.

CHAIRPERSON: This happened quite late at night?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot say exactly but it was at night, yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So even if you had used the rear-view mirror you wouldn't have been able to have sight of what was happening at the back of the kombi?

MR PRINSLOO: That may be so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, can we call upon you?

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, I need to consult with Mr de Kock on one or two matters before I would be able to cross-examine. I wouldn't mind if some of the other representatives continue and perhaps I could consult with him during the tea adjournment, in that way it won't waste any time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Before we go to Mr Cornelius, may I make a very short address, in the form of an appeal to members of Correctional Services? We are conducting a process that really requires that we all try and assist one another in one way or another. In your position, it is to try and bring Mr de Kock on the time that we have indicated that we will be commencing with our proceedings. Yesterday we indicated that we would commence at 9.30. I'm aware that by that time you had already left, but I want to assume that you do know that proceedings of this nature usually commence at 9 o'clock, if not at times earlier than that. I will strongly appeal that as from tomorrow you do your utmost to be here before 9 o'clock. We will not take kindly to Mr de Kock's late arrival because it actually prejudices Mr de Kock as an applicant. He has to be here at all times during the proceedings to listen and to be able to give his legal representative, listen to the evidence and be able to afford his legal representative whatever comments he may wish to have, so we'll make this last appeal that you must please be here timeously. We expect you to be here before 9 o'clock tomorrow.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, may I just come to the defence of the gentlemen who actually bring Mr de Kock to this venue? They have explained to me that their only duty is to go to the Maximum Prison and wait for Mr de Kock to be brought to the vehicles in which he is being conveyed here, they have no control over the process of him getting to the vehicle and that is where the problem arises. They are there on time every morning and if Mr de Kock is brought out at the time they get there, then there would be no problem, but the problem is inside the prison and I've explained to previous Panels that that is a problem that we've experienced on many occasions. When we go there to consult with Mr de Kock, we'll arrive and it would take anything from half an hour to an hour, from the time that we arrive for consultation until the time that they actually bring him to where we have to consult. I've no doubt that they will convey your comments to the authorities, but I just wanted to explain to you that these gentlemen are not responsible for the delay.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Hattingh, for making that known to me. I was not aware of that, that being the situation, we'll take the matter up with the authorities concerned, because this is a very short-lived process, we cannot afford to waste two hours. Mr de Kock arrived here, I noted, at ten past 10, when we should have started at 9.30. I will request Mr Steenkamp to directly liaise with the senior person concerned and if there are any difficulties, to kindly come back to the Panel and give an indication so that we can intervene appropriately.

MR STEENKAMP: I'll do that Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, do you have any questions to put to Mr Prinsloo?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson. Thank you. I shall be brief.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Mr Prinsloo was the senior of the two.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, but Marthinus Ras had rendered service longer than Vermeulen at Vlakplaas. In that sense Vermeulen was a junior as opposed to Ras.

MR PRINSLOO: I will not be able to comment about that.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Although Vermeulen is older than Marthinus Ras, in paragraph 5 of page 328 you say the Vlakplaas Commander, the Vlakplaas men were under the command of Mr Vermeulen. That is not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In light of what you have said now that is not correct, but that is how I accepted it at that stage.

MR CORNELIUS: That is an inference you drew?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: So we accept that Marthinus Ras was in command?

MR PRINSLOO: That is so, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And a final question, did you not think when I see you use the words "there was a struggle" in the back of the kombi, did you not think that they were trying to bring him under control, this is Mahlangu in the back of the kombi?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson, I would have waited, or I would have expected them to say something, that there would have been an indication as you say that they were trying to bring him under control.

MR CORNELIUS: To place him under control so that they could blow him up. That is what I mean.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is what I said was the inference that I drew.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Prinsloo, I received bundle 3 yesterday and I see in terms thereof that the incident took place on the evening of the 25th/26th of March 1986, would you accept that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: I may just mention it to you that there was some uncertainty with my client with regard to the date. Indeed he had not even been sure of the year. Now in 1986, if I heard you correctly, you were a Captain?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And you were in command of the Terrorist Investigative Unit at Division Northern Transvaal Security Branch?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Do I then understand correctly that your task was primarily investigative work, detective work, with regard to security matters and security related incidents?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: This Investigative Section of yours, how large was it? Can you recall?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson at that stage, I would have to guess, it was probably more or less 12 to 14 men.

MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee was also a member of that section?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Can you recall what Mr Roslee's rank was?

MR PRINSLOO: I think I said that he was a constable at that stage, as far as I can recall.

MR WAGENER: He says he also thinks so. He was one of the most junior members of the section.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, at that stage he had not been there for too long.

MR WAGENER: Did he specifically work with you at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson. The junior members are deployed along with senior members, so that they can become familiar with the process of security related investigations. Basically detective work is the same, but the circumstances are not.

MR WAGENER: Could we then say that he was in training as such?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, we could accept that.

MR WAGENER: In 1986 specifically, seen from the angle of the acts of terror, do you have any specific recollection of the intensity of violence in your area, the are which you had to investigate?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Mr Wagener, that evidence has been given, or do you want more of it? Is it necessary to cover that?

MR WAGENER: Chairperson, with your leave, I would like to take it a little further, without burdening the record any further. MR PRINSLOO: There was an intensity in the onslaught, specifically from ANC MK and therefore it was also mentioned by the then President Oliver Tambo as the year of MK and nation-wide, specifically in the Eastern Transvaal and here in the Northern Transvaal, there was an increase in incidents of violence.

MR WAGENER: Yes, we know that it increased so much that in June 1986 we had the first nation-wide state of emergency. Do you recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: You have referred to Constable Vuma who had been killed in Mamelodi. I would just like to take up one other incident with you. I see in the Submissions of the ANC that they accepted accountability for an incident on the 24th of January 1986 where a Sergeant Makulu was killed in a hand grenade attack in his house. Can you recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I can recall that, Chairperson. If I recall correctly, he was a municipal police official.

MR WAGENER: Did you investigate that case?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was at the scene.

MR WAGENER: Can you tell us if the suspects were arrested or if anything came from that investigation?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, there were suspects, but not enough evidence to allow for a prosecution.

MR WAGENER: Now, I would like to ask you with regard to this incident, can you recall, because I am not entirely certain from your evidence, how many times did you go to the farm where you found Mahlangu? Can you recall how many times you visited the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson as far as I can recall, I would say I visited the homestead on three occasions. The first time or in the meanwhile I was busy with other operations with the other members and one used to come and go. The first time I saw Mahlangu at the homestead and the second time when I went there and he was still there and the third time when I picked up Ras and Vermeulen, where we received Mahlangu from Radebe along the road.

MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee is not certain as to how many times he was there but he can recall twice. The last time that you referred to and at least one of the previous occasions. Would you accord with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, but I cannot recall how many times I took him along, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: The one point which is not very clear from your written application, was Mr Roslee with you when you went to Brig Cronje?

MR PRINSLOO: No. I went and saw Brig Cronje alone.

MR WAGENER: Yes and those are my instructions. I beg your pardon, if I interrupt you, but those are my instructions, although your written application is a bit unclear, but he says he was not present.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR WAGENER: did I hear you correctly, in your evidence in chief, the basic reason why Mr Roslee, the evening of the 25th of March, accompanied you was because he had a kombi vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was one of the reasons, the other reason was that he was a member of the specific unit which operated there.

MR WAGENER: Now the evening of the 25th of March, what were your instructions to Mr Roslee, if any specific instructions were given?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, I informed him that we would kill Mahlangu and that he would be killed by means of explosives and we needed the kombi for that. I asked him whether he had any problems in coming along. He said no and then we went out to Soutpan, to the safe-house where we met with Ras and Vermeulen and we held a discussion there and we departed from there.

MR WAGENER: Is it a fair statement to make that Mr Roslee, during this whole process, acted upon your instructions?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would accept that.

MR WAGENER: No further questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener. Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Before Mr Lamey continues, in the last answer you said that Mr Roslee only executed your instructions. When he stopped, did you open the kombi, the back of the kombi? Who opened it?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no, I cannot recall. As I've already said, Ras and Roslee were in the back. I only heard the door opening.

MR MALAN: So you did not disembark from the kombi?

MR PRINSLOO: I believe at that stage I was standing outside the kombi.

MR MALAN: If you cannot recall, say so.

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: But if you say you cannot recall, please just tell me.

MR PRINSLOO: I must have climbed out Chairperson to observe that Mahlangu had fallen out.

MR MALAN: Did you observe that Mr Roslee was stepping on Mr Mahlangu's throat?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I did not know about that.

MR MALAN: If he did that, would you regard that as part of your instruction to him?

MR PRINSLOO: I would say yes.

MR MALAN: Why would Mr Roslee be involved in the murder if it was Ras and Vermeulen's work, because you have testified that that was the work of Ras and Vermeulen and not Roslee?

MR PRINSLOO: Ras and Vermeulen had to make arrangements as to how we would get rid of Mahlangu and I told Roslee about the circumstances, that the man had to be taken out and he didn't have a problem with it.

MR MALAN: So that would be a fair conclusion to reach. You accepted that Mr Ras and Vermeulen would be doing the killing.

MR PRINSLOO: But he was part of the group and as it has been put to me, that he acted because of the instructions I gave to him.

MR MALAN: Would he have read it as such?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: But it was not your instruction?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Chairperson if I may be allowed one further question, I think now is the correct time.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Mr Prinsloo, in fairness Sir, Mr Roslee does not say that you gave him the instruction to go and step on the man's throat, I apologise if my question is unclear, that is not what we are saying, but he went along on your instruction, on an operation during which a person would be killed. That is what I meant.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, we are on the same wavelength. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, you may proceed now.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Prinsloo, from your evidence I understood that you went along with members of Vlakplaas to this place Soutpan, for purposes of investigation which you executed, which had regard with, amongst others, incidents which had taken place in Bophuthatswana and Mamelodi and the incident which you mentioned was the incident of Officer Zwane and amongst others, the police officer Vuma?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: One of the subjects you were looking for was Oderile Maponya?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was one of the possible persons we were looking for Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: So actually, you operated from this place Soutpan, or hand intention to operate to Mamelodi in Pretoria, North West of Bophuthatswana?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Because I would think that if you only focused on Mamelodi, you could have done that from Pretoria?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is logical.

MR LAMEY: Because that is Mr Mathebula's recollection, who was a member of your unit, who said that amongst others you were looking for Maponya.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then Mr Mathebula says, and I would just like to hear what your recollection is about, he says that he recalls that on a particular day, Chris Putter was part of your team. He arrived there with a letter that was intercepted by W H Tensit at ...(indistinct) and this had regard with a woman called Connie Mahlangu who was involved, who may have been involved in the murder of Constable Vuma, Chairperson and that Patrick Mahlangu's name also arose in this regard.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I recall the incident. I would just like to distinguish here. There is another Connie Mahlangu who came to our attention at that stage, I cannot recall exactly. There are persons whom I had arrested, amongst others, Conrad Lukungwe and A Mokorane and some others, in regard with acts of terror, so I would just like to make it clear that that Connie Mahlangu must not be confused with this Constance Mahlangu, Patrick Mahlangu's sister.

MR LAMEY: So that was an entirely different matter, it was not one and the same person? The Connie Mahlangu, Patrick's sister, did you have any information about her?

MR PRINSLOO: I only knew that such a person existed, Chairperson, that is why I put persons in and that informers reported about it.

MR LAMEY: Now Mr Mathebula's recollection is that Connie's brother Patrick was also a person whom according to information was linked to the murder of Sinki Vuma and this information which was intercepted, also came to the attention.

MR PRINSLOO: Information that was intercepted, the letter ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: Have you looked at page 141 of Mr Mathebula's evidence or application? I refer to paragraph 2.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that paragraph 2 on page 141, those are not the correct facts. The correct facts are as I have given them here, so no, that is not correct.

MR LAMEY: Did Putter arrive with intelligence there? Let's take it step by step. Let's see what information you don't agree with.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson it will be necessary for me to sketch the picture once again. I had various groups of people, I had the Vlakplaas group, I had the Bophuthatswana group, I had some of my people, there were two groups who operated in generating intelligence and to follow up certain information and they went back and forth and came and went, that is why I was not present at Soutpan continuously. This document which Putter brought to me dealt with Connie Mahlangu, as I've already explained, who was an aunt or sister of one Conrad Lukungwe and others who were also arrested for acts of terror.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo the question is whether Mr Chris Putter arrived there.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did you see him there?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was Commander.

MR MALAN: Did he bring a letter there?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. These are the WH10 pieces which were referred to.

MR LAMEY: And this is a letter that was intercepted and was intercepted from Swaziland?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Did this letter form a link in the murder of Vuma?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mathebula is present and he hears what you are saying and I will take instructions from him later. If his memory has been refreshed otherwise, but let us march on. Mr Prinsloo, may I ask you as follows, was there at some stage any discussion between yourself and Mr Ras and other members possibly about a possibility to abduct this Connie Mahlangu which you referred to?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR LAMEY: So you are saying if Mathebula says that, to abduct for purposes of interrogation, let us speak about the Connie Mahlangu you refer to, it is something that he sucks out of his thumb?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot explain that. It may be so. I am saying that such a thing did not exist.

MR LAMEY: So you are saying that there was never any discussion at Soutpan about the possible abduction of this woman?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you as follows? In order of extracting or more obtaining more information from Mahlangu, was the option and not the final plan, but the option a possibility of abducting him or one of his family members?

MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring specifically to Patrick Mahlangu?

MR LAMEY: Yes, let us speak about Patrick Mahlangu. For purposes of this question, we may leave out names. Was there a discussion at any stage to abduct someone for purposes of interrogation while you were there?

MR PRINSLOO: No, no Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Are you certain about that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I'm certain about that.

MR LAMEY: So if Mr Mathebula says that, he is entirely wrong.

MR PRINSLOO: Or he confuses it with another matter?

MR LAMEY: Well, with which matter would he be confusing it?

MR PRINSLOO: I say that he may confuse it with another matter which had taken place before or after this.

MR LAMEY: But you cannot think of an incident which he may confuse it with? You are speculating?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would not go and discuss something like that and say "let's abduct A or Z".

MR LAMEY: Why would you not have done that?

MR PRINSLOO: If there was any talk of it, I would only have involved people whom I trusted, to execute such an operation. You have to recall that we worked on a need to know basis within the system.

MR LAMEY: In other words, you share information specifically of a sensitive type, this information is only shared with certain persons, but there are other cases where Mr Mathebula was in a position of trust in your unit and there are other incidents where he applies for amnesty and where you are also an applicant, where people were abducted.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR LAMEY: After Mahlangu was brought to Soutpan, did you also interrogate him?

MR PRINSLOO: I did not question him intensively at that stage, I was satisfied that the information that Ras had conveyed to me would be, how shall I say, would have been the most that we could have extracted from him at that stage.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you as follows? Your evidence is that the abduction of Mahlangu was contrary to your expectations and instruction?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR LAMEY: When the fact of his abduction took place, did you accept that he would be intensively questioned and assaulted by the other members and that that would be in order?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, when I observed him the first time, I don't know how long he was there, I think he may have been there for a day or two or three, if I recall correctly, I observed the injuries which I have described to you. He was never assaulted, further assaulted, in my presence.

MR LAMEY: Very well, I accept what you are saying there.

He was not assaulted in your presence, but all I am asking is, did you foresee that he would be assaulted while being interrogated and you did not give clear counter instructions to that and you did not have a problem with it?

MR PRINSLOO: No, one has to accept that certain things would happen.

CHAIRPERSON: May I intervene Mr Lamey? After you had seen that he had been assaulted, the first time you saw him, did you specifically instruct or order Ras and Vermeulen or whoever was part of the interrogation team, not to further assault him?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall, I would either have to speculate or tell a lie.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't what you to speculate, nor tell a lie.

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: Is there any reason why you would have told them not to assault him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson at that stage, it was about the information that the man had.

MR MALAN: Yes and the pattern was to obtain information from the man and he had to be assaulted in some or other way?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: So you knew that there was no order for them not to assault him?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: But did you ever give anyone an order not to assault someone while they were trying to obtain information from such a person?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: Then why would you have done this now?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: Very well, Mr Lamey, please proceed.

MR LAMEY: Let me just ask you whether you know, after Mahlangu was detained there, that askaris were sent to win Patrick Mahlangu's sister's confidence and take this letter to her, this letter indicating that he was in Botswana and so forth?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson I have already said with regard to the letter and so forth, I had nothing personal to do with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, please just confine yourself to questions being put to you. Did you know of the letter having to be delivered by the Askaris to Mr Mahlangu's residence? Yes or no?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not at that stage.

MR LAMEY: Did you come to know of this at a stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, much later after that.

MR LAMEY: This infiltration which was supposed to have taken place via the askaris

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Lamey, I would like a follow-up question. How did you find out about the letter?

MR PRINSLOO: I came to hear of this from Ras, if I recall correctly.

MR MALAN: You say you heard about this at a much later stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: How much later?

MR PRINSLOO: It's difficult to say, but it was after Mahlangu had been taken out, as far as my recollection goes.

MR MALAN: During the same operation or a year or two later?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I think it was before we finally broke up camp at Soutpan. It was two or three weeks later.

MR LAMEY: So you say after the unexpected took place and Mahlangu was abducted, you say that you had no input into any plan to pacify anybody at home or amy members of his family from where he could have been taken away and told them that he was in Botswana?

MR PRINSLOO: No, as I've said I asked Mosiane what the circumstances were under which they had taken this man and I was under the impression that no-one would suspect his absence.

MR LAMEY: Now, if that is so, why would Ras have regarded it as a necessity if Mosiane had told you this?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know.

MR LAMEY: The point that I want to put to you is that Mosiane never said this to you.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon.

MR LAMEY: Mosiane never told you this because he wasn't involved in the abduction.

MR PRINSLOO: I will stand by what I said Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you offer any input with regard to the later infiltration during which askaris were to obtain information and to win over the confidence of Patrick Mahlangu's sister in order to obtain information about a so-called ANC Combat Unit in Mamelodi?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR LAMEY: Did you at any stage suggest that a card or a letter be sent to Patrick Mahlangu's family or sister at a later stage?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I've already given evidence as such.

MR LAMEY: Well this is what Mr Mosiane states as having taken place on page 365. So you differ from that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR LAMEY: I see it's now ten past eleven. I haven't noticed the time. I don't know what time we should adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you still have more questions to put to Mr Prinsloo?

MR LAMEY: Yes, I've got some questions still to cover.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in that case we'll take a 10 minute adjournment.

MR LAMEY: as it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we do that, Mr Hattingh you had indicated that you would like to consult with Mr de Kock. Will that be sufficient for you to consult?

MR HATTINGH: I think so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We'll take a ten minute adjournment.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont.)

Thank you Chairperson. Mr Prinsloo, the order, who gave the order that the askaris were to infiltrate Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I've already testified, I discussed it with W/O Ras and Vermeulen in my office in Pretoria and I then said to them what I required, that I wanted people from their unit to infiltrate because they had a better and a deeper background regarding the ANC and MK.

MR LAMEY: Did you know that Mahlangu resided in Mamelodi?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I had his address and his particulars at that point in time.

MR LAMEY: Did you know whether he was married and who the other members of his family were?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Yes, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Were you aware that he had a sister by the name of Constance or Connie Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I could imagine something like that.

MR LAMEY: Now how did you visualise the way in which they were supposed to conduct the infiltration?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I think that I stated in my evidence in chief that there would be a postal interception of an item in which mention would be made of a person at that stage, who was operating under an MK name. I cannot recall precisely what that MK name was, that under that pretence they were to say that they were coming from Botswana and as such, infiltrate the area and Mahlangu himself. You must just bear in mind that the askaris themselves were also former MK members and they knew precisely how to approach one another and what to discuss in order to win the confidence of a subject and also to obtain more and deeper information about the activities of the subject.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Lamey? Did you or did you not have any participation with regard to the methods that Mr Ras and Vermeulen were to use in the infiltration of Mr Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, I left it up to them. As I've already stated, these persons were former MK members and they knew precisely how to approach such persons. I simply provided a cover-up for them. To a certain extent, this cover-up being from the Botswana side, so that they could make initial contact.

MR LAMEY: So in this regard, Ras bore the responsibility of giving method and execution to this operation and he had to report to you?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Would Ras also then decide who he would send in for the purposes?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was aware, as I stated I asked who the members were that he had available and then the name of Chris Mosiane emerged as one of the members and he said that Chris would be a suitable person, due to his personality.

MR LAMEY: Would Chris Mosiane do this alone?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I know, no, I don't believe that he would have because by nature of the situation, they always operate in teams.

MR LAMEY: Why were you interested in who Ras would select? Why didn't you just leave it over to Ras's judgment?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, Mamelodi fell within my jurisdiction. I was aware of the circumstances and the information at my disposal at that stage, with regard to Mahlangu as a person, made it necessary for me to ask which persons were available and when Mosiane's name emerged, I said that he would be a suitable person.

MR LAMEY: Why him specifically?

MR PRINSLOO: I knew Chris Mosiane. Before the incident I'd already known him.

MR LAMEY: For how long?

MR PRINSLOO: It is difficult for me to say precisely, it would have been a number of years.

MR LAMEY: If you refer to a number of years, can you give us an estimate?

MR PRINSLOO: One or two years that I had been involved with him.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Lamey? Were you familiar with all the askaris at Vlakplaas?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not all of them.

CHAIRPERSON: So when a question was put to you by Mr Lamey, why you registered any interest in who would be sent to do the infiltration, what purpose would have been served by you having to know who would be sent there, because you did not know all the askaris in Vlakplaas?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, a group that was mentioned by Ras and Vermeulen to me who would offer assistance, were mostly known to me and due to the fact that I had previously had contact with Mosiane, that he had performed certain work of which I was aware and I also regarded his personality as the most suitable, for this reason I requested that Mosiane be a member of the contact group, which would infiltrate Mahlangu.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it at your request that Mr Mosiane was included in the infiltration group, or was that what Ras advised you?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, when Ras and Vermeulen came to see me in my office, I asked them who the askaris were that would operate with them there, then names were mentioned to me among which Chris Mosiane's name appeared and I then suggested that he be one of the persons who would make contact with Mahlangu, so it was not a prior request indicating that I specifically required Mosiane.

CHAIRPERSON: You approved of his appointment.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: You approved, you merely approved of his appointment by Ras?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: I don't know whether the interpretation came through differently, as I understand you, you wanted to know which group would be working in the area.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And you found out that Mosiane was a member of the group.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And then you said that you suggested that Mosiane be one of the infiltrators.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. I did not say beforehand that I wanted or preferred that Mosiane be a member of the contact group.

ADV MOTATA: So in other words Mr Ras did not have the discretion to decide how Mosiane would infiltrate.

MR PRINSLOO: I didn't say that. I simply suggested it due to my knowledge of Mosiane. He was a very outgoing person, smooth talker and at that stage I reckoned that Chris Mosiane should then be one of the contact persons who went to Mahlangu. Ras could have said no, that he would send someone else and I would have accepted that as well.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you. Thank you Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall any of the other names that Ras mentioned?

MR PRINSLOO: Of the group that was there it would be Collin, I cannot recall all the names, there were various names. I cannot give you all the names after one another at this moment, due to the fact that I worked at different times with different groups of askaris.

MR LAMEY: Why was the fact that he was well-spoken or a smooth talker such a deciding factor in your opinion?

MR PRINSLOO: From my perspective and due to the information at my disposal, Mahlangu was involved with the Mamelodi Civics organisation and I think that he was also involved in some or other trade union and a person who was unable to communicate appropriately could not be sent to someone like Mahlangu, that is why my choice led to Mosiane, because I had had previous contact with him and I knew that he was an intelligent person, if I can put it as such. He would be able to communicate far more easily than some of the other askaris.

MR LAMEY: How well did you know the other askaris in order to know that they...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, is it necessary to elaborate on this? Is this going to contribute in any way to this hearing? What are you leading to?

MR LAMEY: Actually I wanted to get to a later point, but let me get there then. Did you know whether Mr Ras indeed had initially sent Mosiane out?

MR PRINSLOO: Well that is what I accepted Chairperson. After I had arrived at the farm and saw Mahlangu there, before this Ras indeed told me that they had made contact with Mahlangu.

MR LAMEY: You didn't see who brought him to the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I wasn't there.

MR LAMEY: How did you know that it was Mosiane who abducted him?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what was said to me by Ras upon which I confronted Mosiane and asked him "Why did you do this?"

MR LAMEY: Why did you directly confront Mosiane, why didn't you discuss the matter with Ras, who was his Commander?

MR PRINSLOO: Ras explained to me that the circumstances dictated the situation which was described here, that this was the reason why Mosiane and the other men had to take the man away immediately or abduct him, that is why I immediately discussed it with Mosiane after Ras had explained it to me. I then confronted him and asked him: "Why did you take the man and under what circumstances did you take the man?"

MR LAMEY: Wasn't Ras's explanation sufficient?

MR PRINSLOO: I'm sure it would have been sufficient, but I needed to be further informed, that was a right which I had because they worked below me.

MR LAMEY: You would agree with me, or at least you present a clear recollection of a discussion with Mosiane during which he admits that he was involved in the abduction and you are certain and clear of this recollection?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, at a stage when I asked him what happened, he didn't deny it.

MR LAMEY: And did he tell you that he was indeed involved in the abduction?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall I did not ask him pertinently whether or not he was involved, I simply asked him why they had taken the man and the he explained to me. He did not deny it. He didn't say that he wasn't involved. I accepted that he had been involved because that is also what Ras told me.

MR LAMEY: Why, in your initial amnesty application, is no mention at all made of Chris Mosiane and that according to your inference, he was involved in the abduction?

MR PRINSLOO: It is a significant fact to mention, Chairperson, then I would have had to mention all the members from A to Z who were present there and explain exactly what they did and I didn't regard this as a necessary fact to mention in my application.

MR LAMEY: Do you understand the difference between an abduction and an arrest?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I do.

MR LAMEY: Now, I would just like to tell you what you said in your statement. You said that, on page 329 over to 330, you state:

Now firstly I would like to ask you why you refer to the concept of arrest there?

MR PRINSLOO: Well at that given stage, arrest and abduction were viewed within the same context.

MR LAMEY: No, you are a very experienced investigative officer, Mr Prinsloo, you understand the difference between an arrest and an abduction. You must understand those concepts?

MR PRINSLOO: Well then it must be a question of semantics.

MR LAMEY: No, it is no question of semantics, you understand the legal nature of these concepts, due to the work that you performed in the police, you understand quite clearly what the difference is between an abduction and an arrest.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore you state that you discussed this with Vermeulen and Ras and expressed your dissatisfaction towards them. Nowhere do you state that you had any discussion with Chris Mosiane.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, once again it must be an oversight on my behalf.

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, I think that it is quite clear that he does not mention the abduction anywhere in his application.

MR LAMEY: Who drove a blue motor vehicle? Which member of your group?

MR PRINSLOO: That is difficult. Could you specify?

MR LAMEY: No I am referring to a blue motor vehicle. The colour.

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot say.

MR LAMEY: You don't know. Is your answer that you don't know?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know.

MR LAMEY: Yesterday you testified and according to my notes it was the following. You testified that you knew Mosiane very well, that you had visited Vlakplaas over a span of 10 years and that you knew the askaris. Can you recall that evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. I beg your pardon, if I recall correctly, I did not refer to a period of 10 years.

MR LAMEY: Well that is my note.

MR PRINSLOO: Not as far as I recall, because it was only in 1983, at the end of 1983 in fact that I arrived here in Pretoria and while I was working with other divisions, I did visit Vlakplaas from time to time.

CHAIRPERSON: There might be a problem with regard to the period Mr Lamey, because I don't have the period as 10 years. My note says that he knew Mr Mosiane for some time.

MR LAMEY: My note was that he knows Mr Mosiane and then over the period of 10 years he visited Vlakplaas and he knows the askaris.

CHAIRPERSON: Well maybe then it was a question of interpretation, in as much as he knew Mr Mosiane well, he also knew the askaris because he had been visiting Vlakplaas for 10 years. But what is the point that you want to make out of the period concerned? Does anything of significance turn upon the period?

MR LAMEY: Well it is significant in a certain sense if - So what you're saying now is that you hadn't known Mosiane longer than for one or two years?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he knew him for two years approximately.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, at that given stage yes, as far as I recall.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Is your recollection correct over a span of two years?

MR PRINSLOO: It couldn't have been longer than that.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I did not work on a day to day, or month to month basis with Vlakplaas members. There would be specific operations and during such operations one would make use of these members.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You see, what I want to put to you is that Mr Ras qualified Mr Mosiane by mentioning him. He also stated that it was, as far as he could recall, my interpretation of this of course is that Mr Ras cannot really recall whether or not Mosiane was involved in the abduction or not, but I want to put it to you that in terms of Mr Ras's evidence, you are attempting to place Mr Mosiane with the abduction of Mahlangu and that this is completely incorrect with regard to your evidence in that regard, because what I want to put to you is that Mosiane was not involved in the abduction of Mahlangu.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I will stand by what I have stated.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Let us then presume just for a moment, let us take your evidence and say that as far as you know he was, do you know that after the abduction askaris had to go back? You have given evidence to that effect, that they had to go back, as far as I understand your evidence with regard to - I beg your pardon, that is Ras's evidence. Subsequently you came to hear of the letter?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR LAMEY: So with regard to you, you did not offer any input with regard to the return to the families in connection with the letter, you don't know anything about that?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then let me ask you, do you know that a further infiltration was supposed to take place after Mahlangu had been detained?

MR PRINSLOO: No upon my specific order, Chairperson, but it is acceptable to me that Vlakplaas members, if they saw that they could find a point of departure ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, the question is whether or not you know.

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much, then just answer no.

MR LAMEY: So when Mahlangu was abducted and interrogated and provided information, there was not further purpose for the infiltration, is that what you said?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what I said because the purpose behind the infiltration was removed due to his untimely removal or abduction from his home.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Furthermore, I would just like to put the following to you as to why you are also incorrect in connecting Mr Mosiane with the aspect of the abduction and I wish to refer you to a statement made by Constance Mahlangu. You also gave evidence, as I understand, that two persons were supposed to go with regard to the first infiltration, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: No, my information was that they would usually go in pairs of two.

MR LAMEY: Very well. If you look at page 58 up to and including page 59 and page 60 as well, I'm not going to quote this verbatim to you, but paragraph 10, there Constance states that three black men arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that bundle 3 Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: That's bundle 3 yes. And the crux of what I want to put to you is that Patrick Mahlangu was last seen in the presence of three black men and that he departed with them. If you read to page 59, paragraph 13 and that the vehicle in which they travelled was a blue motor vehicle. From the perspective of Constance Mahlangu, Patrick Mahlangu then disappeared along with these three men and later she states that a letter arrived, paragraph 17, a letter arrived a month later, which was in the handwriting of Patrick. Then she continues, paragraph 19 and she states something about two person, in fact it is paragraph 18 over into 19, she mentions two men who arrived later. In paragraph 19 she gives a description. She states that they took clothing belonging to Patrick with them, which Queen gave them. Queen, as I understand from these statements, is the wife of Patrick. Then she states:

Now upon reading this statement, I would like to put the following to you. She has given a very clear description of the two persons who were there and nowhere else in her statement is any connection made with any idea that these two persons were members of the first group of three persons who arrived there initially and taking into consideration that this is a prosecution statement, I drew the inference that if there was any connection between Chris Mosiane and the so-called Empempe, who is connected to his disappearance, she would have stated that and for this reason, I approached the legal representative of the family and asked for instructions, if possible, from Mrs Constance Mahlangu about this. Mr van Heerden has done so in the meantime and what I've heard from Mr van Heerden is that Chris and the second person, or at least let us refer to Chris, Chris was not a member of those first three who disappeared with Pat Mahlangu and I put it to you that this correlates with my instructions from Mr Mosiane that at a stage he did indeed go to the family, as he has stated in his statement in paragraph 2 and further on, I will not repeat it verbatim, that he was involved in an attempted infiltration. If one deduces this from the context of his statement, that they were to win over the confidence of Patrick's sister and that among others, they were involved in the clothing which he pretended would have been taken to Patrick in Botswana. The point is, after I've said everything to you, I can reconcile myself with Mr Ras's evidence because Mr Ras is not very clear or certain about this, but I want to put it very clearly that Mosiane was not involved in the abduction and the fact that you spoke to him about the abduction and that your inference was that he was involved in it, due to your discussion with him, is completely incorrect.

MR PRINSLOO: I will stand by what I stated, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I just want to check my notes please. I would just like to place the following on record as well, Mr Prinsloo. I have instructions from Mr Mosiane with regard to the question whether he had been involved in the initial infiltration before he saw Mr Mahlangu at the farm and my instruction on that question was no, he was not. He'd confirmed his instruction to me, as he has stated it in his affidavit on page 234 and 235.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I can only stand by what I have already testified.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to ask you with regard to Mr Mathebula, where would Mr Mathebula have received the information that the sister of Patrick Mahlangu was an active member of the ANC in Mamelodi if it did not come about at Soutpan?

MR PRINSLOO: He may have received it at the office, anywhere, but I never had that information available to me, that Patrick Mahlangu's sister was an active member of the ANC and had been involved in ANC activities as you put it.

MR LAMEY: But if somebody like Mathebula had that information, how does it arise that you don't know of it, as the Commander of his?

MR PRINSLOO: Because I don't have any recollection of, I had knowledge of one Connie Mahlangu. If I recall correctly it was a Soshanguve incident and not Mamelodi. If I recall correctly, he worked with W/O Chris Putter at that stage. It may be possible that he gained that knowledge there.

MR LAMEY: Is it not interesting the situation that we have here, that Mathebula who has never been to Mamelodi with regard to these infiltrations, that it is indeed so that there is a Constance and there is another woman by the shorter name of Connie Mahlangu, who is the sister of Patrick, and as I understand, Connie Mahlangu was also a member of the ANC and that there is a connection with regard to Patrick Mahlangu.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, there was no indication in the information to my availability, that the sister of Patrick Mahlangu was an ANC member or active in ANC activities.

MR LAMEY: I have no further questions thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just for my certainty find out, a reference was made to a bundle 3 page 57, that is this Constance Mahlangu. Is this the statement to which Mr Lamey has referred, which would be Connie Mahlangu? Is it his evidence that the inference that he has drawn is that Connie may be Constance as well, because it is written here.

MR LAMEY: No, Mr van Heerden will assist me here, but my recollection is that I was informed that Constance was also known as Connie Mahlangu.

MS VAN DER WALT: So that was told to you Mr Lamey, by the legal representative, it is not written here. I would like to place that on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Does that conclude your questioning, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Yes, indeed.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Heerden, do you have any questions to put to Mr Prinsloo.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Mr Prinsloo, how long did you know Patrick Mahlangu before he was killed?

MR PRINSLOO: I would say approximately two or three days, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And before these two or three days, you were only aware of his existence.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Of the person Patrick Mahlangu's activities. How long were you aware of his activities?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it's difficult to say. I would say it was several months before I requested the assistance of members of Vlakplaas, when I realised that I could not get, or make any headway with the present informers which were tuned into Patrick Mahlangu.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How many months would you say?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The informer whom you referred to, was it an informer who you recruited yourself?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: On a point of clarity, Mr Prinsloo, I've actually been hearing you referring to an informer and informers. Are you talking of one person or more than one person?

MR PRINSLOO: There was more than one informer in this specific instance. In other words there are various degrees. One could say basically tuned in on a friendship basis, the other one is tuned in in this regard, in the training of people.

CHAIRPERSON: So you relied on information received from several informers?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes and added to that, as I have said Chairperson, the postal interceptions which were applied.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking this question in response to the question put by Mr van Heerden to you, which only related to a single informer, and I wanted that to be quite clear, whether you only relied on one informer or relied on several informers.

MR PRINSLOO: I refer to two informers, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, did you recruit both of them personally?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: But I think the one that Mr van Heerden is referring to, is the one of the identity. You recruited that one as well?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: May I continue?

MR MALAN: Please.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The person who was closest to him, can you recall this person? The person who was the closest to Patrick Mahlangu. Can you recall who was that?

MR PRINSLOO: Are you now speaking of informers?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Would you like to clear that up for us?

MR PRINSLOO: I would say the one who was tuned in deeper, the one who was involved in some or other manner in the training, is that the one you want to know about?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes. Was it a family member of Patrick Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I'm not prepared to disclose that information. I have a moral obligation towards those informers.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Are you not prepared to disclose the identity of any one of the two informers

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you know whether both are still living?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot comment on that, Chairperson. I have retired from the police service a long time ago.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The postal interception which you have referred to, can you please tell us how that worked?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, there was legislature which arranged for it, according to which one applied. There was a judge who was the Executive Officer, whom on the grounds of information, an application was submitted for the application of the operation to legally intercept postal items without the knowledge of the suspects who were involved. In that manner the application was made and authorization was received and that is how the postal items which were relevant, came into my possession.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Are you now referring to the relevant postal items with regard to Patrick Mahlangu? Was it more than one postal item?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage all postal items were checked which were addressed to him, because you must keep in mind that the people work according to a code and the postal item has to be decoded and analyzed. Those that were relevant, those were expressively certain instructions and conveyances were given to him.

MR MALAN: But the question was whether there was more than one postal item which was intercepted.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: And while I have now interrupted, did you at any stage receive a letter, the one that was allegedly written at Soutpan?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson at that stage I had ceased everything.

MR MALAN: In other words, one has to give notice and then it is ceased and then other instances become involved? So after his death you ceased all interceptions. Why?

MR PRINSLOO: It served no purpose any longer.

MR MALAN: Could you then not receive information, more information from letters which were sent to him afterwards?

MR PRINSLOO: No from my vantage point, no Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Are you able to say which instructions, or what type of instructions Patrick Mahlangu received in the mail?

MR PRINSLOO: This was in regard to, amongst others, the collection of training material and the information was confirmed by other information that it was AK47 rifles and hand grenades and there was a further letter where it was mentioned that people from Botswana would visit him and these persons would be MK members.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was it specified in the postal item what the material was that he had to collect?

MR PRINSLOO: No, that is why I say it was confirmed by an informer's information that it was indeed hand grenades and AK47 rifles.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you now refer to the informer who have already been in place?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you have regular contact with this informer?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did you decide on a further infiltration?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I have already mentioned in my evidence, that there were MK members who would make contact with Mahlangu. These members were from Botswana and I would like to place it in the correct context that when MK members infiltrate, they have to find a safe base and have contact persons from where they can operate and people who can led assistance to them and in this context I was looking for terrorists who had infiltrated from Botswana, who were to operate in the Mamelodi, Pretoria, Soshanguve, Winterveldt area.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So was the infiltration ...

MR PRINSLOO: The infiltration was to send in trained askaris who had more knowledge of the background of how these people acted and to see if we could not connect into this group that infiltrated.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So the informer that was already in place could not supply you the same information?

MR PRINSLOO: He was not trained in that way?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Well, how was the informer trained?

MR PRINSLOO: The training that Patrick Mahlangu had given him in AK 47s and hand grenades.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was the informer trained by Patrick Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you know where the training had taken place?

MR PRINSLOO: Various places in Mamelodi. I have to depend on my memory now. There was a soccer field in Mamelodi that they used at some stage and if you refer to training, it was not extensive training and I think at a stage the informer was at a place where he lived and in his room it was explained to him how the hand grenade is used, how the detonating mechanism is placed into the hand grenade, how the pin is pulled out, how it is thrown, so it is not like army training where you spend days on it. AK47 rifles on the same basis, how to take it apart and put it back again, how to clean it, load it with ammunition.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And from what I understand from you it is superficial training?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, we used to call it instant training.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was it then easy to receive such instant training?

MR PRINSLOO: It depends on the person being trained.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly there was no opportunity to see whether the training was successful.

MR PRINSLOO: Not at that stage, not according to the information I had available.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You were aware of the first penetration, did I understand you correctly?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, they only told me that they had made contact.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And did any relevant information come forward?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson and I did not expect it. One cannot expect to receive all the relevant information on the first contact, one has to win trust and then have to make contact with what they are busying themselves with.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How did you regard Patrick Mahlangu at that stage? Was he a senior person in the hierarchy of the ANC?

MR PRINSLOO: The fact that he had trained people and that he had received training himself and his contact in Botswana, I would say yes. I would not say in the hierarchy in Mamelodi, I speak of the line of communication from Botswana, insurgents and the people he trained. You have to recall the circumstances reigning in Mamelodi, Mamelodi specifically at that stage, the unrest and so forth and hand grenade incidents which had taken place.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you place the informer in place yourself or did you know beforehand of Patrick Mahlangu? I speak now of the knowledge you had beforehand.

MR PRINSLOO: The informer was put in place ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe before you respond, maybe you should rephrase your question, Mr van Heerden. Maybe ask how the informer was recruited, he might be able to respond more pointedly.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I will do so, Chairperson. What I would like to know is if you heard of Patrick Mahlangu by means of informers? This is the initial knowledge or whether you knew of him and then sent in informers?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall Chairperson, the initial information was about the training that was given to people of informers and his name came about and because of that informers were zoomed in on him.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just find out exactly what you mean, Mr Prinsloo? How did you know about Mr Mahlangu's activities?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I've already said, it started with the training, the instant training which was given using hand grenades, at that stage it was only hand grenades...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no how did you know about those activities? How did you know that he was involved in the training? Where did you obtain that information?

MR PRINSLOO: Then I have to explain the process. As to Patrick Mahlangu, he came to my knowledge because of his political activities through another unit at the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal. Amongst others, his activities in the Mamelodi Civics organisation...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I stop you before you proceed further? I am merely trying to ascertain the source of your information.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson, I would just like to explain how it came about. That is how I understand the question, how the informers were put in on Patrick Mahlangu. Did I have knowledge beforehand of Patrick Mahlangu. I would just like to explain the situation that he as an activist, we regarded him as an activist. The information which was obtained by other units which were focused on the labour market or focused on the Civics, this information, especially where there was an ANC connotation, the information is channelled to my desk and this is where the name of Patrick Mahlangu came about and at that stage there was an informer, a far off informer, that had contact with him. In other words who had contact with Patrick Mahlangu, not with regard to a specific instruction that he had to focus in on him. After that information came to my knowledge, I tasked the informer and asked him to ascertain what was going on. I asked him to find out what can he find about other activities of Patrick Mahlangu, which led to the second informer also being sent in without the knowledge of the first informer and it is the second informer who then became the confidant of Patrick Mahlangu and received the training in the hand grenades and the AK47s. At some stage he even went to fetch these arms.

ADV MOTATA: Know when you say he has been involved in the Civic organisation or Civic activities, what was his hierarchy? How prominent was he in these Civic organisations or activities? How prominent was he?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I can only comment on the information reports which were sent from other units to my desk. In other words...(intervention)

ADV MOTATA: Before you answer, I'm aware that the information is not first hand, you obtained it from other people like for instance the other units within the Security Branch. What I want to know, the information in your possession, what did it say about his prominence or positions held within Civic activities or organisations?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, if I recall correctly, his activities were that he was very active within the Mamelodi Civic organisation or association. He played a prominent role and this was an organisation which caused much problems in the under situation which reigned at that stage, specifically in Mamelodi and the information which was also at hand was that he was, he possibly had ANC contacts abroad from where he received his instructions and the moment when that happens, the information comes to my desk and on the grounds of that information, I then started sending in informers to Patrick Mahlangu, as I have described it here.

ADV MOTATA: Now this problematic Civic organisation, what was it called, within Mamelodi?

MR PRINSLOO: Mamelodi Civic Association, or Organisation, I cannot recall exactly.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you Mr van Heerden, you may proceed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. Do I understand you correctly that contact that Patrick Mahlangu had abroad was the catalyst of this focused attention on him by yourself?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is the information which I had available.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And this information you received by means of a letter which was intercepted?

MR PRINSLOO: No. That is the information as I have just explained, which I initially received from other desks or units and this is where this, because of this the WH10 system was set in and after I started focusing informers in on him.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was that the catalyst for your action, the fact that people from abroad were coming in?

MR PRINSLOO: The catalyst for what?

MR VAN HEERDEN: For your attention on Patrick Mahlangu. Did you then decide to launch an operation with the assistance of Vlakplaas members?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, because the informers themselves, they were not trained abroad and they do not have the background knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm getting a little confused. Can you just clarify to us, Mr Prinsloo, what information the second and important informer was tasked to obtain around Mahlangu's activities?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I've already said, it was about what his activities exactly entailed, specifically with the objective or in regard to the information that was received from other sources that he had contact with ANC abroad and all that the informer at that stage could surmise, up to the time that Vlakplaas members arrived there, was that he was training persons and the informer was also involved in receiving training, but he could not get any further than that. In other words, Mahlangu did not want to trust him totally and tell him who his contact persons were, so it was limited. The source's intelligence was limited, to what I have stated here now.

CHAIRPERSON: So your main interest was to obtain more information with regard to the identities of the people who were visiting, particularly the MK from Botswana?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, yes. And those who were already inside the country, because incidents had taken place already, so there were units of MK active in the specific area.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So the purpose of the infiltration was to obtain information concerning the identities of MK's from Botswana and those who had already infiltrated the country and were operating in certain cells or units?

MR PRINSLOO: Who possibly had contact with Mahlangu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr van Heerden, before you continue. Did you have any information from the informer about other persons who had undergone training from Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Were there many of them or were there few at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: I do not want to speculate, it was a small group. I think most of them were only trained in the use of hand grenades.

MR MALAN: If you placed the informer as you say, did you tell him what to do, to look for training himself, or what is the position?

MR PRINSLOO: That is one possibility.

MR MALAN: I'm not asking you what the possibilities are, I asked you what did you do?

MR PRINSLOO: In this instance I instructed the informer to link up with Mahlangu and become involved in activities and to see how far we can get with the intelligence. As the Chairperson put to me which I confirmed just now and this is where the training came about and he was then in a position of trust and he underwent this training.

MR MALAN: But there are many others who had undertaken this training, you know of a small group?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I referred to that small group, there must have been 4 or 5 or 6, somewhere around there.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you want to launch a court directed investigation?

MR PRINSLOO: That was the initial objective, yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Court oriented investigation against whom? Patrick Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: I wouldn't say at that particular point in time, by nature of the circumstances, due to the limited level of training that had been given to persons, I could launch a court oriented investigation, but this was about externally trained MK members who were underway and those who were already in the country, where there was a strong suspicion that he may have had contact with them due to the fact that he had already trained persons in the use of hand grenades.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So everything depended upon the circumstances?

MR PRINSLOO: If I could arrest the group of terrorists, it would mean more to me and then yes, he would be charged as a collaborator, so then the evidence would be there.

MR VAN HEERDEN: But the ultimate objective was to trace those MK unit members in the country. You have stated that you discussed the matter with Brig Cronje, did I understand you correctly?

MR PRINSLOO: At which stage?

MR VAN HEERDEN: When you realised that you could not undertake a deeper penetration?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you convey all this information to him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, in broad terms.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he then have to establish contact with the Vlakplaas members?

MR PRINSLOO: By nature of the situation, that is what he had to do because he was the Divisional Commander and the request for the application of those members had to go through.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you have to obtain permission from Brig Cronje, or did he himself state that this was what you would do?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I told him directly that I required the assistance of Vlakplaas members.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And then after a while Ras and Vermeulen came to see you?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: On that point, Mr van Heerden, did you not make contact with Vermeulen directly?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Chairperson, it was only after they had reported to my office that we liaised directly with one another.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And how long after you had spoken to Brig Cronje to convey your request about Vlakplaas assistance in your operation, how long did they contact you?

MR PRINSLOO: I would say that it was a few days. I cannot be precise regarding that aspect because it also depended upon the availability of the persons, whether or not they were available, so I cannot say precisely.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was a few days after your discussion with Brig Cronje that you were then contacted by the two of them?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That's Vermeulen and Ras.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson. During this initial meeting with Ras and Vermeulen, I assume that you then explained the problem.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes in broad terms, I sketched the background and what the problem was, that it was impossible to obtain deeper penetration by means of the existing informers and that one specifically required the background knowledge and experience of those former MK members to see if it was possible to progress any further with the intelligence gathering process.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you leave the initiative over to the other two with regard to the operation?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Just with regard to another point, you stated that the Bophuthatswana intelligence officers were contacted by you.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was in contact at that stage?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was this regard to this operation as well or merely in general terms?

MR PRINSLOO: No it didn't have anything to do with Mahlangu per se.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why were members from the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services present at Soutpan?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage there was an agreement of non-official co-operation between Security Branch and the Intelligence Services of Bophuthatswana, due to the fact that the areas of Ga-rankua, Winterveldt and Mabopane and further were regarded as safe havens by terrorists, from which they could commit acts in the RSA and then flee back to their places of shelter. As a result of these circumstances, one would exchange and correlate certain aspects of information with these people, that would be the Bophuthatswana Intelligence Services and in co-operation with them, one would also study certain intelligence gathering operations. That is why we co-operated with them. It was easier to co-ordinate operations from there for the RSA and Bophuthatswana.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How long after your initial meeting with Vermeulen and Ras, did the operation begin?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall. I cannot recall whether the member, or whether some of my members were already at the homestead on the farm or whether they had first gone out with Ras and Vermeulen. I really cannot recall when Ras brought them to the farm at Soutpan.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Are we referring to days or weeks?

MR PRINSLOO: No this would be a matter of days.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I understand that Ras and Vermeulen then continued independently with the operation?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. They had the particulars and the request was to infiltrate in order to obtain further information and then they would give me feedback with regard to the progress of the operation.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did they give you any feedback before you arrived at Soutpan and saw Mahlangu there?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, the initial contact which was established by the members who were sent in, this was reported to me by Ras. He stated that they had indeed established contact and that the story was progressing quite favourably.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You must certainly have thought of how important Patrick Mahlangu was to you and expressed this to Ras in terms of the existing information?

MR PRINSLOO: These people were zoomed in on Patrick Mahlangu.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes but Ras told you that the members had made contact with Mahlangu.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And that everything was going well.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: In other words that it was going successfully.

MR PRINSLOO: Well that the point of inception had been successful.

MR VAN HEERDEN: When did you again hear of this operation after this discussion with Ras?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot say precisely, all that I can recall is that Ras told me that the thing was underway and the infiltration or operation itself was something that you could measure by time. I left it up to them. If something were to happen they would have reported it to me and the first time that I arrived again at Soutpan was when I saw Mahlangu there.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So nothing was reported to you between the initial report that Ras gave you and when you coincidentally saw Mahlangu at Soutpan?

MR PRINSLOO: If I recall correctly, I think Ras mentioned to me but the information that we had, which I had placed at the disposal at that stage to him and Vermeulen in my office, this information had been confirmed. I think it was about the training of persons in the use of hand grenades and AKs.

MR VAN HEERDEN: When did Ras report to you? Was it when?

MR PRINSLOO: It's difficult to say. It was in the course of events. You must recall that I was also involved in various other operations and investigations which were not only limited to Soutpan and from time to time I would travel to Soutpan. The underlying understanding was that if something were to happen which had to be followed up immediately, they would of course inform me.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Wouldn't you have expected that the abduction of Patrick Mahlangu would be something that would have to be reported immediately?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, in retrospect.

ADV MOTATA: Sorry to interrupt you Mr van Heerden. The - whilst you were asked questions by Mr Lamey, he brought to your attention the statement of Constance Mahlangu and in this instance the sister to Patrick. Even though it was obtained for other purposes, the import of the impressions created by that statement is that only on the first contact with Patrick, that's when he was taken away and never seen again, that's the important - am I wrong? I want you just to comment on that because I'm following your evidence that you later received information that contact has already been made with Patrick Mahlangu and subsequently he was abducted. What I understand, you may correct me if my impressions are wrong, is that contact was made, it could be days before and subsequently was thereafter abducted, but if I read the import of that statement which was for different purposes, is that on the first contact, that's when he was abducted, would I be wrong in reading that statement in that sense?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. According to my knowledge and my recollection, yes, then I would have known that he did not contact me first because it was completely contra, or counter productive. It was not part of the order. I would have known if he had been abducted with the first meeting already because it would have been senseless to continue any further with the operation.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So what you are saying now is that in retrospect it was a mistake not to tell you that Mahlangu had been abducted?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, because the first time that I became aware of it was that morning when I arrived at Soutpan on the farm and saw the man there and determined then that he had been abducted.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How long had he already been there?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not ask, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: It may be that I asked, but I cannot say now how long he had already been there when I arrived there.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have a serious discussion about how he was brought there with Mr Ras? I imagine you would have.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. As I have stated, I was very unsatisfied with the entire operation which was terminated as a result of his abduction or arrest, which was never supposed to be like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you not remember whether he mentioned over what period he had already been in Soutpan by the time you arrived?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, he may have mentioned it to me, but I really cannot commit myself and say a day or two or three. I don't believe that it would have been longer than that, but that is only an inference that I'm drawing, because periodically from time to time I was there at Soutpan, but this was the first time that I saw him there and I cannot recall how long it was before I had been there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. Was he bound? Was he cuffed or anything like that?

MR PRINSLOO: I really cannot recall whether or not he was bound, all I know is that I saw him lying in one room. That is what fixed my attention on the person, that is when I ask, who is this person lying here? And that is when it emerged, the rest of the story emerged. I would be lying if I were to say whether he was bound or not, I know he lay there. I think he was sleeping as far as I can recall.

ADV MOTATA: Do you think it may be correct to say that he was bound by leg irons as he lay there?

MR PRINSLOO: It could be correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you recognise him as he lay there?

MR PRINSLOO: No. It was only after I had spoken to Ras and later spoken to the person myself, that I determined that it was indeed Patrick Mahlangu.

MR VAN HEERDEN: If you hadn't seen him lying there, do you think Mr Ras would have reported to you that Mahlangu was on the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I believe so. If I recall correctly, I stopped, walked through to a room, I think it was a room where Vermeulen and Ras or some of the other people slept and as I walked in through the entry, I noticed the person. So this was before I even reached them.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And what did Mr Ras tell you?

MR PRINSLOO: I asked him, "Who is this person" and he said it is Patrick Mahlangu.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And then you questioned him about the matter?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes and he explained to me what gave rise to the situation, why he was there, then we discussed the notes and he told me that he had interrogated him, showed me the notes that he had taken from the interrogation and then I also had the discussion with Chris Mosiane.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I don't wish to revisit the aspect of the notes, I feel that it has been sufficiently analyzed in your evidence, but I would once again like to discuss your discussion with Chris Mosiane. Did you regard him as a confidant?

MR PRINSLOO: Logically Chairperson, all of those persons worked within a situation of trust. One would have to trust all of them.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What was the length of your discussion with him?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Who said that a plan would have to be made with Patrick Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: It was me, I said it.

MR VAN HEERDEN: It was not Mr Ras's suggestion?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you tell Ras to make a plan?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, in discussion with him I said: "Yes, well we're going to have to make a plan with this man" and in terms of our language or jargon, to say that we would have to make a plan with someone would mean that we would have to take him out or eliminate him.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The information and notes which were shown to you by Ras, did they disclose any information that you had been previously aware of, or was it a confirmation of knowledge that you already possessed?

MR PRINSLOO: To a certain extent it was a confirmation. If I recall correctly, there was a name or two that was mentioned, belonging to MK members, with which he had contact, who operated in the Mamelodi area at that stage.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was there new information?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And you could have learned much from Patrick Mahlangu regarding ...

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I suppose one could have, but my impression was that this was the maximum quantity of information that he had at his disposal at that stage.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did you think that this was the maximum information?

MR PRINSLOO: I also asked him a number of questions and furthermore relied upon what Ras had told me about the interrogation that he had conducted, so it would have been senseless to walk the same path with the same interrogation. I believed that Ras knew what the man had said.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So according to you, it would have been meaningless to allow the interrogation to continue for a few more days?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you report to Brig Cronje that Mahlangu had been abducted?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. I think it was on one occasion, that is after the discovery of Patrick on the farm at Soutpan and what happened in conjunction with that, I had a discussion with Brig Cronje during which I suggested to him that this man would have to be eliminated.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he agree with you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he agreed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How long did it then take up to the evening upon which Patrick Mahlangu was killed? How many days past?

MR PRINSLOO: I would say two or three days.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was there any further interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: Not that I was involved in, not that I am aware of.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you not ask them to attempt to obtain further information from him?

MR PRINSLOO: I did not regard it as necessary, as I've already stated, at that stage I relied on Ras and I trusted that they had extracted all possible information from the man.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The only option that you had in mind was then to kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, due to the reasons that I have disclosed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Wasn't there any possibility of recruiting him, for example as an askari?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I don't believe so, because then I would have made definite attempts. I believe that I was convinced that it would not be viable to apply him as an askari.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was he not a potential askari? Why couldn't he be trained? He was a prominent person. He had contact with MK members. He could have provided valuable information for you. Why couldn't he have been a potential askari?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, at that stage I did not regard him as a potential informer, or an askari.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I want to know why he couldn't be eligible for such a position in view of the fact that he had these contacts that you so wanted. You were interested in the identities of the MKs in Botswana as well as those who had established cells inside the country?

MR PRINSLOO: You see, Chairperson, it would take quite a while before one would be able to recruit a person as an informer. One would have to have complete confidence in such a person.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon. The question was to recruit him as an askari, not an informer, in other words someone who would be reporting for work full-time, who would have turned.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, there's a difference between an askari and an informer from my perspective.

CHAIRPERSON: We are well aware of the difference. We are talking about you turning him into an askari, not an informer.

MR PRINSLOO: No, I would not have recruited him as an askari. At the very most I would have recruited him, if he was suitable material and if there was sufficient time, I would have recruited him as a regular informer.

CHAIRPERSON: Why could you not have recommended that Vlakplaas take him as an askari?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, at that stage according to my knowledge, all the members of Vlakplaas who were classified as askaris, were members of MK or Apla who had received external military training and who knew precisely how they functioned and operated and my information at that stage was not that Patrick Mahlangu was such a trained person who could then become an askari.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't he trained in Botswana? Wasn't that your evidence?

ADV MOTATA: He received instant training, that's your evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, but there is a vast difference as I regarded it between a man who received instant training and a man who had received intensive foreign training.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Prinsloo, I just want follow this in line with what the Chairperson has asked. In your affidavit you said he provided certain information and later you also obtained this information, that for instance Masenya, Masongo, Botsane, Makula, who had killed Mulupe in the then Bophuthatswana, where he was with a friend, wouldn't you regard this as valuable information that a person of this nature could be of assistance, if he is recruited as an askari?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, once again, no, it was not an option for me at that stage. He was not a trained person, at least not from my perspective. He was not a candidate that could be trained as an askari. His background and his political motivation according to which he conducted his activities in Mamelodi did not lead me to believe that this man could be an informer, or could be recruited as an informer.

ADV MOTATA: Why was he then a big fish? Why was Mahlangu a big fish then, if he's not somebody who could be utilised in that fashion?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was to determine precisely what the role was that he fulfilled. How deeply involved he was with ANC MK activities. That is why these members of Vlakplaas were enlisted due to the knowledge that they had, which a local informer would not possess and they would be able to use this knowledge to determine exactly where he fitted into the picture and what role he fulfilled. At that stage, as I have stated, the information indicated that MK units from Botswana would establish contact with him. At the stage of his abduction it had not yet taken place. So that is another question that is pending, were they there or not? Because there was talk that he had had contact with one or two MK members who were already in the country.

ADV MOTATA: Are you aware that for instance Ting-ting Masongo was a person placed in high intelligence within the MK structures? Did you know that?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I know, I interrogated him personally and handled him and investigated his case, he was a political Commissioner. His Commander was Masenya, so he wasn't as high up in the hierarchy.

ADV MOTATA: And you know as well that when they killed Mulupe, for instance, high intelligence work was required because he was not only a friend they befriended, or killed Mulupe at a friend, it was at a girlfriend's place.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, that is what I said.

ADV MOTATA: Ting-ting had actually fallen in love with a friend to the girlfriend of Mulupe. Such high-up people and these people are known by Mahlangu for instance, that you cannot utilise him in any other way, or refer them to Mr de Kock for instance and say: "Hey, can't you train us this person, he's very available".

MR PRINSLOO: I have never said that Mahlangu had contact with Ting-ting Masongo and company. I have never said that here. I gave two names...(intervention)

ADV MOTATA: Just a minute, perhaps we can clarify this. Look at page 327 paragraph 3.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV MOTATA: What do you want me to read into that paragraph?

MR PRINSLOO: Please allow me to offer an explanation. MK members would come in and they would have contact persons that they would go to. It could be one or two even 100. With every person he would use a false name, a combat or an MK name, but it was a false name. Mahlangu gave two names of MK members who, according to him, he had had contact with. At that stage those names did not refer directly to Masenya and the others, it was only subsequent to this that other information was collected and further investigation was conducted when it emanated that they were known by that name, that they were in the Winterveldt area. What I am saying here is not that I received this information directly from Mahlangu, that it only came from him with regard to the names of these persons and that as a result of this they were traced. That is not what I'm saying.

ADV MOTATA: No, listen carefully.

let us just make a point of that. What is the later information which was disclosed, because you have said as far as you are concerned, you simply knew that he was involved with hand grenades, if I understand your evidence correctly so far. Now what is the other later information which you received from Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: This was the interrogation which was conducted by Ras and the information which was conveyed to me and also the later interrogation that I conducted with Mahlangu himself, I think it can't even have been half an hour that I interrogated him. From that information certain names were brought forward of persons.

ADV MOTATA: Was it difficult for you, you only spoke of the hand grenades which were used in houses and so forth?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Chairperson ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I protect you? May I protect you? I think you have later on indicated that you were able to get one or two MK names as a result of the interrogation conducted by Ras. You did indicate that.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson and to the names which were supplied, if you read further in the application, I say because of information that Mahlangu later supplied, as well as other information and investigative work, those persons were arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you indicated that those people were operating in Mamelodi and they were MK members. This is the information that you have, which really makes Mahlangu to be a potential person to be turned.

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: This is the kind of information, in my opinion, that would have made him to be a perfect candidate for being turned as an askari.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no, at that stage I did not regard it as such. He was not suitable for my purposes. That idea did not even come about in my mind.

MR MALAN: I have heard your explanation that askaris, according to your knowledge, were former MK members, former MK or Apla members, which were trained. Did I hear you correctly that your comment on page 57 of Connie Mahlangu's statement on paragraph 3 where she says that from 75 to 78 she underwent MK training, that you did not know of this?

MR PRINSLOO: Not at that stage Chairperson, only afterwards.

MR MALAN: And you also did not have knowledge that he was used as a state witness in another matter? Maybe it's not relevant, but I cannot understand that you would not check the name against the record, what is our knowledge of the man, because he has to be somewhere in the register or in the records. You never correlated it.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it came to my knowledge later that he was indeed a trained man. This was an Eastern Transvaal matter then, there was no indication then that the man had already given evidence. What reasons were there, I do not know.

MR MALAN: But at that stage in 1986, C Section already had a register of MK members who were known to them, activists, Apla members.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, you refer to C at Head Office. Unit C was the divisional, divisions, if one recruits an informer and you send him in to a person, one would want to know what does, what do we know of this person. We went to the records and there was nothing at central records.

MR MALAN: So are you saying that central records did not have his name?

MR PRINSLOO: I could draw the inference because of the fact that the man acted as a state witness and that his name not be placed on record.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, may I just, for my own clarity, find out how he would not have been in the central record of H.W. if you yourself had received a report from other units as a result of his activities? Other units must have investigated him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that is why the information came to my desk. He was indeed on what we call an index. His name was there and then his local activities. Nothing of the other activities to which Mr Malan has referred, his previous training that he had undertaken, that he had been arrested and that he had given evidence. I can only draw inferences that he had been protected because he had given evidence in that matter and that there was nothing on record.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you regard such a person as a high profile activist?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, I could not say what high profile he maintained because we were in the process of getting to know more about him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr Cronje give an indication whether an investigation should be conducted with regard to such activities, with a view of classifying him?

MR PRINSLOO: Not necessarily. The Commander of the unit or desk officer, if that information is channelled to you, one has to evaluate it and one has to look into the broader context, with regard to the region where one operates. How does this fit into the strategy of the ANC in this case and according to that one makes a valuation and says X and Y have to be watched more, so that we can find out what their activities are and it is on that basis that Mahlangu came to my attention. I don't know if you understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I do understand, though I'm still slightly in the dark, this being caused by the fact of the previous evidence we have heard, when we were hearing the first cluster of the Cronje hearings, as to what determined people to be high profile activists and as to what would then immediately happen to people who were classified as high profile activists and how that classification was conducted. It's information which may not be highly relevant, may not be highly relevant in this hearing, but it's causing me some problems because your explanation does not seem to be tying up with the evidence and I must say, substantial evidence that was tendered during those hearings.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, I don't know to what you are referring. I hear what you are saying and I also do not know in which context those people did the classification.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: There were several factors to which one had to look at and now I'm only speaking on a local level, not even a regional level. I speak of Mamelodi, the branch level and then the provincial level. I'm speaking of the branch level at which we had a look.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. No the information, I think, at this stage is not sufficiently relevant to warrant us to further explore it. Mr van Heerden, you may proceed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Chairperson. I see it's quarter past one at this stage. It might be a convenient time to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, you may proceed.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: (cont.)

Thank you Chairperson. Mr Prinsloo, just to continue with your evidence before the adjournment, you received new information from Mahlangu's interrogation and you also received confirmation of previous information. Is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes and it was a relatively brief interrogation of Mahlangu by myself yes, and also by Ras. I don't know how long Ras interrogated him for.

MR VAN HEERDEN: A day or so?

MR PRINSLOO: I am not able to say.

MR VAN HEERDEN: If one looks quickly, it would seem as if Mahlangu gave his co-operation during the interrogation.

MR PRINSLOO: I would assume so because of the information that Ras conveyed to me that Mahlangu provided.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You have also testified earlier that the only injuries you saw were his swollen eye and that his lips were swollen.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it was superficial injuries.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So there was no brutal assault on him, according to you?

MR PRINSLOO: I would not be able to say internally, but I can only testify to the external injuries that I observed. I would not say it was brutal.

MR VAN HEERDEN: If you look quickly, it would seem it was not a very serious assault.

MR PRINSLOO: No, I would not say so.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And we also do not speak of a questioning that took place for weeks on end?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The information which you received from him, why did you not make further use of it by, for example, taking him to places for possible pointings out or identifications?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't understand entirely. Identifications of what?

MR VAN HEERDEN: MK members.

MR PRINSLOO: He did not know where they were hidden, all that he knew was that they were in the Winterveldt area. The only two names that he supplied and he only mentioned names, he did not say it was Piet van der Merwe and Jan Nel, he mentioned the pseudonyms of these persons.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I understand you correctly Mr Prinsloo, when you say he mentioned names of people in the Winterveldt area?

MR PRINSLOO: MK members to which he referred to.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Winterveldt and Mamelodi the same?

MR PRINSLOO: No, Winterveldt is in Bophuthatswana and Mamelodi is a township here in Pretoria. It's approximately 50 to 60 kilometres apart.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought your earlier evidence was to the effect that the two MK names he mentioned were those of person who were operating in Mamelodi.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That's why I'm asking this question because now it is Winterveldt and no longer Mamelodi.

MR PRINSLOO: Mamelodi, Winterveldt vicinity. In other words, they hid themselves in Winterveldt.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Chairperson. So you simply did not take the information any further?

MR PRINSLOO: I could not take it any further. If you see it in the context, what the objective of the operation was, the initial infiltration into Mahlangu, this was indeed to try and see if he could not identify people and find out where they lived.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Were any fingerprints taken of him?

MR PRINSLOO: Of whom?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Of Mahlangu.

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you not try to find out whether there were still some outstanding cases pending against him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the only document, I only consulted our reports that we had and I think we had a C26 chart. This is in the charge sheet where his photo and identification number and his fingerprints would also have been there.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you not investigate new matters because of this information?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't understand entirely, new cases. I was looking for MK units that had already been active in the Pretoria/Bophuthatswana area and I was working against time. We worked under immense pressure. What investigation could I launch? I was looking for those terrorists, trying to find them and preventing further acts of terror and to charge them and to investigate matters about, acts that had already been committed.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo, you say on the C 26 chart there was such a chart with a photo and his fingerprints?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MR MALAN: And those fingerprints were not transferred to the first training, or to him being a state witness?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what I referred to Chairperson ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You must please answer my question and leave it at that because I want to arrive at a second point. And the second point is, where did you think his fingerprints came from, if you had no record other than the information that you heard? Where would they have obtained his fingerprints from?

MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to the C26 chart?

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: To clear up any confusion, I speak of the Evidence Bureau, that is where they had the chart not the Criminal Bureau.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much, I misunderstood you there for a second.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, proceed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Chairperson. I'm going to make somewhat of a jump. A decision was taken to kill Patrick Mahlangu. I understand that you received instructions from Brig Cronje to do that?

MR PRINSLOO: I made a proposal and said it was the only option and he agreed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you then convey the instruction to Messrs Ras and Vermeulen?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: They did not tell you themselves?

MR PRINSLOO: Tell me what?

MR VAN HEERDEN: That Mr Mahlangu must be killed.

MR PRINSLOO: No, I initially said that this man has to be taken away, taken out, it was only afterwards that I discussed it with Cronje.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And then you left the planning to Ras and Vermeulen?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, because I did not have any explosives to my availability.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why was it decided, or shall I ask it as follows, why was it decided to take Patrick Mahlangu to another branch, away from Soutpan?

MR PRINSLOO: Logic. One would not go into the area where one was working and launch such an operation and not within my area of control, to kill a person, that is why Ras took a decision to take him to another region or another province and in other words, these were people who did not know about this person or the incident that had taken place there at the railway line.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Could you then not pass over the problem to another district or region?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot comment on that. Those arrangements were left to Ras and Vermeulen. They would have identified the place and I drove there on their instruction.

MR VAN HEERDEN: On the day of the 25th, when you received the instructions?

MR PRINSLOO: The evening when we drove from Soutpan, that was the road yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You use the term instructions?

MR PRINSLOO: Directions, then, or recommendation. Directions which I had to follow to get to them, the road. I did not know exactly where we were on our way to.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did you have to accompany them?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Why did you have to accompany them?

MR PRINSLOO: It was only logical. I was in command of the whole group there and it was my proposal that this man be killed.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you want to make certain that things ran smoothly there?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that amongst other things.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I understand that you were driving in a kombi?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was this a Volkswagen kombi?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it was a Hi-Ace minibus, I cannot recall how many seats it had.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And how far away from Soutpan were you when the person was along the road with Patrick Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: I'm not able to say, it was quite a way from Soutpan.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, hasn't this aspect of your inquiry been covered by previous testimony and in particular by Mr Ras, who was able to give us more precise details?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's move on.

MR VAN HEERDEN: There is just one more aspect which I would like to discuss with you. You have mentioned that, and I apologise for returning to this point, but you have mentioned that the informer was in grave danger after Patrick Mahlangu was abducted. Would an easier solution not have been to simply take the informer away from his position?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, but I think the statement is not correct. It was not said that his life was in danger because he was abducted.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Then I understood the evidence incorrectly.

MR MALAN: You can follow up the question, but I think the statement was that his life was in danger after the abduction because things that were put to him were found out and he found out who the informer was, that was the evidence and I think that is what you want to follow up on.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Could the informers not simply be taken away?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, the informer had dependants and you have to recall, during that time there was no such thing as relocation programmes and the like, that a simple informer could make use of. This was only in extreme cases that a person or persons would be relocated but not in this specific instance.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Just to return to another aspect. In your application you say that Patrick Mahlangu was severely assaulted.

MR PRINSLOO: That is what I observed and now you - earlier you spoke of a brutal assault and a brutal assault I would regard as a person as he was killed there. The assault is what I explained in my application.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So you regarded that as a serious assault?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And one aspect which I have clear instructions on is that Chris Mosiane, according to Constance Vusisizwe Mahlangu was not present when Patrick Mahlangu was abducted. I would like to hear your comment?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson I will stand with my evidence as I have testified.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I then have no further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden are you going to lead evidence in relation to the point which was put to Mr Prinsloo?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson if it is necessary I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have evidence which ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: I will speak with Mr Lamey also in this regard ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have instructions?

MR VAN HEERDEN: The witness is available.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Do you have instructions with regard to the abduction itself?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Nothing further Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any instruction with regard to the abduction?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson the only instruction I have is that there were three black people present, driving a blue motor vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And was Miss ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: And Chris Mosiane was not one of those people.

CHAIRPERSON: How would the person who witnessed the abduction know whether Mr Mosiane was there or not? Is he known to them?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Chairperson apparently they met him in 1995 or 1996 at an investigation unit of the Attorney General.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did Miss Mahlangu witness the abduction? Do you have instructions whether Miss Mahlangu witnessed the abduction?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hattingh have you had an ample opportunity to consult with Mr de Kock?

MR HATTINGH: Indeed Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you now able to put through questions to Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Prinsloo the information which you had available with regard to Mr Mahlangu before you requested assistance from Vlakplaas did you convey that information to your commander, Brigadier Cronje?

MR PRINSLOO: In broad terms, as I have said Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was it not expected of Security branches to report in writing about information that they collect about acts of terror?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson the situation worked on provincial and branch levels and if information was collected by a unit or the branch, and then it is put in writing and channelled and the qualification is attached to it whether it is only applicable in the Province and used further or whether it be promoted with other provinces and whether it be promoted with head office.

MR HATTINGH: Yes I would like you to regard my question as one that not only has regard with Mr Mahlangu's activities. You did not only have information about his activities, you had information about other persons so-called terrorist activities in your area.

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you must have reported about that to your commander so that information could be promoted to head office for further distribution?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, once again it depended on the person who was the commander of the specific unit. After the evaluation is made it has to be promoted to head office or at first receives more attention at branch level or provincial level before it can be promoted to head office.

MR HATTINGH: The reason why I ask this question I will put this to you, is that Mr de Kock's recollection is that when Brigadier Cronje, when he approached him for assistance in this regard, that he showed him documentation which contained information about so-called terrorist activities within your command area.

MR PRINSLOO: That might be possible Chairperson. I was not present.

MR HATTINGH: And he says in the documents that were shown to him several names appeared. He cannot recall what the names were and he cannot even recall whether Mr Mahlangu's name was on that list that was shown to him. Is it possible that such documentation does or did exist?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes I have already made that concession. I think it would have been the overview of what was ongoing in the specific province and what activities was on-going and what progress was being made with certain investigations

MR HATTINGH: Good. In this regard may I just put to you that I think in Mr de Kock's application - I don't see it, would you please grant me a moment Chairperson. Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Prinsloo another aspect. In passing you have mentioned that your unit had used the house at Soutpan for approximately two to three weeks, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And the operation with regard to Mr Mahlangu specifically only lasted a few days, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it then correct that the Vlakplaas members who were sent to you, including the askaris, were also of assistance in regard to other incidents which had no direct link to Mr Mahlangu. So it was a simple request of Vlakplaas for assistance for possible identification of MK members?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was there a person attached to your unit by the name of Dos Santos?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What was his position?

MR PRINSLOO: He was a warrant officer at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: And did he serve under your command?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes he did, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you often closely work with him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was he in any way involved in the activities at the homestead at Soutpan?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson. All the members, except for one or two were deployed in the field in order to collect information and to follow up information which was obtained in order to see if we could not trap these terrorists.

MR HATTINGH: Your members that were involved in the operation did they also stay at the homestead at Soutpan?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall some of them did stay there and some of them lived at their houses in Pretoria.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall what the position was with regard to Mr dos Santos?

MR PRINSLOO: It is difficult. No I cannot recall. I would have to lie. I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether he was involved in the interrogation of Mr Mahlangu?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not that I am aware of.

MR HATTINGH: Can you not recall or are you saying he was not involved?

MR PRINSLOO: No because I would have asked him what he had extracted from Mahlangu. So I cannot imagine at all that he had participated in the interrogation of Mahlangu.

MR HATTINGH: The interrogation - this has emanated from your evidence already, but the interrogation with regard to Mr Mahlangu, was this directed at information about terrorist activities? Is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Steenkamp do you have any questions to put to Mr Prinsloo?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms van der Walt, do you have any re-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: I have one or two questions concerning Mr Roslee.

Mr Prinsloo you have testified that Mr Roslee was the most junior member there, how long was he with you according to your memory?

MR PRINSLOO: I would have to speculate. I would say approximately a year, a year and a half or so. I speak under correction, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Why did you choose him if he was the most junior person to go along with you as commander?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson the members who served under my command were selected members. Roslee had background of terrorist activity and tracking and the vehicle which was available that we needed, he drove that minibus.

MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee's background does not include the killing of people.

MR PRINSLOO: Not that I knew of at that stage.

MR WAGENER: Did you not know that he was attached to Koevoet?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR WAGENER: And that was a large part of the activities.

MR PRINSLOO: I was not aware that he was involved with people that had been killed.

MR WAGENER: So you did not have knowledge of Koevoet's activities?

MR PRINSLOO: I knew of Koevoet, but I am speaking of Roslee as a person.

MR WAGENER: Very well. And how long did he stay with you before he left after this incident, can you recall that? Let me ask you this. Where did he go when he left you?

MR PRINSLOO: No I cannot now say Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: If I tell you according to his particulars when he left you he went to Vlakplaas.

MR PRINSLOO: That's right, that's right.

MR WAGENER: And reasonably shortly after this incident.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Can you recall how this transfer came about?

MR PRINSLOO: No, no idea.

MR WAGENER: Thank you. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo, you are excused.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAIRPERSON: Where does this take us? Who is the next applicant to give evidence.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson. Cornelius on behalf of Vermeulen. I will call Vermeulen.

NICHOLAAS JOHANNES VERMEULEN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Mr Vermeulen you have completed an application form and have handed it in to the TRC and your application appears on page 238 to page 279, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You were in the service of the South African Police as it is defined in Section 22(b) and 22(f) of Act 34 of '95, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: At the time of this incident you were attached to the section which was commonly known as Vlakplaas, C Section under the command of Colonel Eugene de Kock, one of the applicants in this matter, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you confirm annexure C, the document about Vlakplaas which has been brought before the Committee several times?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: During this incident what was your rank?

MR VERMEULEN: A warrant officer, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: All instructions - or let me ask you, there were times when Vlakplaas worked along with the sections of Security Branch and your duties were identifying MKs and tracing them and to obtaining and collecting all information with regard to security, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And when this incident took place was it one of the operations where you received instructions to go to Colonel Prinsloo with regard to this person?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Who was in command at Vlakplaas with regard to this incident? Was it yourself or Martiens Ras?

MR VERMEULEN: It was Martiens Ras Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: It is also common cause that you occupied a safe house in Soutpan and you operated from there?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Will you please tell us what happened from the moment the deceased, Patrick Mahlangu, was brought to the house.

MR VERMEULEN: Please say again.

MR CORNELIUS: Will you please tell us what happened from the time that Patrick Mahlangu was brought to the safe house, can you recall how he arrived there?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, he arrived there in a minibus, along with the askaris.

MR CORNELIUS: Was he arrested?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes he was arrested and they held him in a room there at the safe house.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. What can you recall further?

MR VERMEULEN: I can recall interrogation was done and he was assaulted there.

MR CORNELIUS: And when you arrived there had he already been assaulted?

MR VERMEULEN: I cannot recall. I did not see him while he climbed out of the minibus.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Did you yourself participate in the interrogation?

MR VERMEULEN: No Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Who led the interrogation?

MR VERMEULEN: Mr Ras and then some of the other persons.

MR CORNELIUS: If you are referring to the other persons do you refer to askaris?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you recall when Colonel Prinsloo arrived there and was dissatisfied with the situation?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And what did you then decide along with Martiens Ras? Or what did Colonel Prinsloo say must happen to Patrick Mahlangu?

MR VERMEULEN: We received the instruction that he had to be removed, killed, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And how did you decide to get rid of the body?

MR VERMEULEN: By means of explosives Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: There was mention in the application of Ras, of a landmine, can you inform us about that?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes I think it was only because we would have used a landmine but I could not find one and we used T & T blocks which had the same charge velocity as a landmine and we made a device out of that.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. And where did you find that?

MR VERMEULEN: From the storerooms at Vlakplaas Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: How many kilograms of T & T did you use?

MR VERMEULEN: I would say approximately eight kilograms, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And what would you use as a trigger mechanism?

MR VERMEULEN: We would have detonated it electronically Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you please explain to the Committee how does this electronic detonation work? Is it with a battery?

MR VERMEULEN: It is an electrical detonator that is connected with two wires and then one can detonate it from any type of battery, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So you close the contact like it is in a switch with a battery and then the blast will go off?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: When you returned with the explosives, what did you do then?

MR VERMEULEN: We waited at the safe house until the evening and Martiens and I drove and identified a place.

MR CORNELIUS: Where was this place?

MR VERMEULEN: It was on the Thabazimbi road, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: We have heard of a railway line.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And as I infer from the evidence the idea would be that he would have blown himself up?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. After you identified the place what did you do then?

MR VERMEULEN: We then went back to the safe house, and as far as I can recall we waited for the evening and then we departed in the minibus, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: If you are saying "we" we will say it's common cause that Colonel Prinsloo was driving; you were in the passenger seat and Roslee and Ras in the back with the detainee. Is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And then what happened?

MR VERMEULEN: We went to the appropriate place and on our way there Martiens started strangling the deceased, and when we arrived at the place we unloaded him and took him and carried him to the railway line.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. The idea of strangling him can you tell us what the purpose of it was?

MR VERMEULEN: It was to render the person controllable so that we could deal with him properly at the railway line.

MR CORNELIUS: In other words it was to kill him so that you could get rid of the body?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius may I interpose. How did you know what the idea of strangling of Mr Mahlangu was? Was this discussed beforehand that he would be strangled?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes Mr Ras and I discussed and Mr Ras told me that he would strangle Mr Mahlangu.

CHAIRPERSON: You may respond to my questions in Afrikaans. I am sure you will feel much more comfortable in doing so.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Ms Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR CORNELIUS: When he was unloaded was he still alive or not?

MR VERMEULEN: I would not know Chairperson. At that stage I was not very much interested in him, I was much more interested in the explosives Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: How did you then get the deceased to the railway line?

MR VERMEULEN: We carried him over the fence.

MR CORNELIUS: Are you saying he was carried? Did you participate in carrying him?

MR VERMEULEN: I cannot recall because I think I was still busy with the explosives and wires.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you give us details about what happened at the railway line?

MR VERMEULEN: At the railway line we placed the body next to the railway line and placed the explosives in his lap and bent over his head and arms and laid out the wires, and behind the railway line was an embankment and we lay there and we detonated the charge.

MR CORNELIUS: The deceased was he deceased at that stage before the load was detonated?

MR VERMEULEN: I would assume so, yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you handle him and place him in position over the explosives?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you then believe he was deceased?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes because there was no reaction from the body itself, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you then remove his clothing or did you leave his clothing on?

MR VERMEULEN: We did not remove his clothing Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: This method of destruction of bodies we have seen in the TRC was a general norm at Vlakplaas.

MR VERMEULEN: After that one, yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You told me that the explosive was detonated, are you telling us that you detonated the explosives?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?

MR VERMEULEN: There was an explosion and the electric cables, there was a short, and I received a slight electrical shock but it was not serious.

MR CORNELIUS: They were overhead cables for locomotives and I believe that the charge you set off touched up on the overhead cables.

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Did you trust the discretion and judgment of Colonel Prinsloo?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes I did.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you believe that you were acting against the enemy of the National government at that time?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you feel that you were acting against the enemy?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Was that the information that was available to you at that stage?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Who conveyed this information to you?

MR VERMEULEN: Colonel Prinsloo supplied us with the information at his office. He was a captain then.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have knowledge that commanders in certain areas had to take responsibility for Vlakplaas people working in the areas?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive any reward, apart from your salary, as stipulated by section 23 by the Act?

MR VERMEULEN: No Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you believe that you acted within the scope of your duties and the interest of the country?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You apply for amnesty in your participance in the murder and the destruction of the corpse, as well as transgressions with regard to the law of explosions. You say you were an inspector in explosives and that is why your services were required?

MR VERMEULEN: That's correct Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Hattingh would you prefer to start this time? I see you are going for the button.

MR HATTINGH: I am.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed then.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: I am prepared and I am ready to start Chairperson.

Mr Vermeulen I am not certain whether I have my facts correct or whether I recall this correctly, but did you leave your job in the South African Police Services due to health reasons?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you receive treatment for the so-called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you diagnosed as a person suffering from this disorder?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you still receive treatment for your condition?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Does this influence your capacity to recall the events of the past?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In what way does it influence your capacity?

MR VERMEULEN: May times one cannot recall the entire sequence of events. One would only recall aspects of operations or incidents.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I have noted that if one studies your amnesty application which appears on page 278 of Bundle 2 that you have described the entire incident in three paragraphs.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now you were given an order by Mr de Kock to assist with regard to this incident, is that correct?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You and Mr Ras.

MR VERMEULEN: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you then had to decide who you would take with you.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Or did Mr de Kock make that decision?

MR VERMEULEN: I am not certain. I think that matter was left over to Mr Ras.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Whatever the case may be you took a group of so-called askaris with you and then there was also at least one of which we know and for which we are acting, Mr Simon Radebe, who was not an askari but a member of the South African Police, he also accompanied you.

MR VERMEULEN: I am not entirely certain, but I would answer yes.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall precisely?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: There at Soutpan, Mr Vermeulen, did you also encounter members of the former Northern Transvaal Security Branch?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know Mr Dos Santos?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: At the time when you were there, at that so-called safe house, was he also there?

MR VERMEULEN: I cannot recall seeing him there.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that he was there but that you have simply forgotten that he was there?

MR VERMEULEN: It is possible that he may have been there.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now the order that you received from Mr de Kock, it was an order to assist under the command of Mr Prinsloo and to render assistance to his division of the Security Branch?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you would have received orders from him and you were obliged to carry out those orders.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know previously, before you joined Mr Prinsloo and his men, what the task would be that you were supposed to perform there?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes, basically that we had to assist with the tracing of terrorists.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. So it was about the tracing of terrorists and not about the abduction and interrogation of terrorists?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The fact that the person was abducted and thereafter interrogated was not foreseen when you received your order?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when the order was then received from Mr Prinsloo that Mr Mahlangu was to be eliminated you then approached Mr de Kock in this regard.

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: What is your recollection Mr Vermeulen of your meeting with Mr de Kock and what you said to him, and what was discussed there between the two of you?

MR VERMEULEN: What I can remember Chairperson is that I went to the farm, I requested explosives from Mr de Kock. At first he refused. After a while I returned to him and asked him again, then he gave me the keys to the storeroom.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall precisely whether you told him why you wanted the explosives and if so what exactly you told him?

MR VERMEULEN: I am not completely certain of what my choice of words was, but I assume that I would have told him that I required the explosives in order to destroy a body.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. You didn't tell him, as far as you can recall, that this person was not yet deceased?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: Because you see in his application he also states pertinently on page 309 that you told him that the Pretoria Branch of the SAP, and more specifically Prinsloo and Dos Santos were interrogating a black man who had in the process been killed. Is it possible that you may have conveyed such information to Mr de Kock?

MR VERMEULEN: I am not certain whether I really ever saw Mr Dos Santos in the vicinity of the interrogation of Mr Mahlangu.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, he may not have been present there, but isn't it possible that you may have mentioned his name because you noticed him there at Soutpan with regard to this operation?

MR VERMEULEN: No I don't believe so. I cannot recall Dos Santos at any stage there.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Mr de Kock also tells me that he may be mistaken regarding the Dos Santos aspect, but he does recall that you mentioned Mr Dos Santos' name to him, but we will leave it at that.

It is clear, according to what Mr de Kock says here, that he didn't know that this person was still to be killed, would you agree with that?

MR VERMEULEN: Yes I would agree with that.

MR HATTINGH: He also wasn't aware that you and Mr Ras were involved in the interrogation of Mr Mahlangu. I beg your pardon for saying "you" because you were not involved in the interrogation.

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: You didn't tell him that Mr Ras was involved in interrogation?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: In fact you didn't tell him that a person had been abducted by the askaris and that thereafter he had been interrogated and assaulted?

MR VERMEULEN: No.

MR HATTINGH: When Mr de Kock eventually agreed to let you take the explosives he gave you the key to the relevant storeroom where the explosives were stored?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you then took what you needed?

MR VERMEULEN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall that you reported to Mr de Kock regarding the incident?

MR VERMEULEN: I am not certain whether subsequently I reported to him. Usually it would be the senior member of our unit, so to speak, who would do the reporting, and that would have been Mr Ras.

MR HATTINGH: You see Mr de Kock states in his application that he recalls that the following day you reported to him that you, along with Mr Prinsloo were there when the body was blown up next to a railway track in the northern district.

MR VERMEULEN: It may be so. I cannot dispute it.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see a report in the newspaper in connection with the incident?

MR VERMEULEN: No I simply heard of it.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Jansen?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wagener?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Vermeulen you cannot recall who the askaris were who conducted the abduction themselves?

MR VERMEULEN: No I cannot.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr van Heerden, you have questions to put?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Maybe let's find out from the Bench Mr Cornelius before we afford you an opportunity to re-examine whether they do want to put questions on issues of clarity to Mr Vermeulen. Then your re-examination will simply take into account their questioning as well. Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I have got nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: And neither have I.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to examine if you do have any re-examination to do.

MR CORNELIUS: I don't. Thank you for the opportunity Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Vermeulen you are excused as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is the next applicant?

MR WAGENER: Chairperson I believe it's Mr Roslee. I am just going to change a chair so that Mr Roslee can move in here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ADRIAN STEPHEN ROSLEE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Thank you. Chairperson in relation to this applicant I have put before you no less than five documents to which I will very briefly refer in the course of his evidence. If we can perhaps just quickly identify them.

The first document would be, and I think it's already been identified as Exhibit A, a document called "General background to the amnesty application". If it hasn't been done I would request you that we can mark that Exhibit A please.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll note it as Exhibit A.

MR WAGENER: Then Chairperson I have put before you an extract from a previous amnesty hearing part of the evidence of this same applicant. For identification purposes it was evidence given in Durban on the 9th of November last year, 1998, before a panel consisting of Judge Wilson, Mr Malan and Ms Sigodi. If I may, that we identify this document then as Exhibit B, please.

CHAIRPERSON: I am still trying to locate mine. I have identified mine now Mr Wagener, that will be Exhibit B.

MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson. Then I handed up three medical reports. The first one would be by a Clinical Psychologist called Mr Matthews. If we may, with your permission, identify that as Exhibit C.

Chairperson I apologise, I was under the impression that Mr Steenkamp handed the documents to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes there seems to be some grave confusion. I don't have copies.

MR STEENKAMP: Chairperson I am sorry it was my mistake, but those documents were actually put before you.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that Mr Steenkamp? This morning?

MR STEENKAMP: Yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I just have to rely on the ones that members of my panel have. I just want to be on the same page with you. Annexure C will then relate to the report by Russel E Matthews, is that correct Mr Wagener, Exhibit C?

MR WAGENER: That's correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And Exhibit D?

MR WAGENER: Exhibit D, with your permission Chairperson, would be the report by a psychiatrist Dr Potgieter, Anton Potgieter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WAGENER: And the last one would be another psychiatrist called Dr Jan Robertse. If that may be Exhibit E.

CHAIRPERSON: That will be E.

MR WAGENER: And I believe that copies have been handed to you now of all these documents.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee the first document that I would like to refer you to is a document that has been identified as Exhibit A, called "Algemene agtergrond tot amnestie aansoeke". Have you had insight into this document?

MR ROSLEE: I have read it.

MR WAGENER: Is it your wish that this document should be incorporated into your evidence in this matter and should also then be considered by the Panel in adjudicating on your application herein?

MR ROSLEE: I do.

MR WAGENER: If I may refer you, Mr Roslee, to Exhibit B, evidence given by you at a previous amnesty hearing where you were questioned regarding your general background. You've got it before you?

MR ROSLEE: Yes I do.

MR WAGENER: Is it correct, Mr Roslee, on the second page of that document, you will see it's typed page 164, a request was made for the formal amendment of your amnesty application in that paragraphs 7A and B of the prescribed form to be amended, instead of "not applicable" to be amended to 7A to read - "National Party", and B, "a supporter of the National Party", and that that amendment was made by Judge Wilson at the time?

MR ROSLEE: That is correct, Chair.

MR WAGENER: Chairperson I would accept then that the same amendment would be applicable in these proceedings. If not I will request you to grant the same amendment please.

CHAIRPERSON: I think unless you ask us to amend we will not amend simply because another Panel sitting in a different matter has granted you such an amendment. Are you making such an amendment, Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Okay. Chairperson I will do so. Mr Roslee when you completed your initial amnesty application, which you will find in the bundle, you will see that at paragraph 7A and B, that is on page 281 Chairperson, you were asked at the time whether you were a member or supporter of a political organisation. You stated "not applicable". And 7B the capacity was requested, so you also stated "not applicable". Is the true position that at the time, during the 1980's you were in fact a supporter of the National Party?

MR ROSLEE: I was in fact a supporter.

MR WAGENER: And that you wish that your formal written application be amended accordingly?

MR ROSLEE: That is correct, Chair.

MR WAGENER: Chairperson may I then request you and the Panel, if you are satisfied, to amend the application to that extent.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we hereby grant you such an amendment.

MR WAGENER: Thank you. Mr Roslee I am not going to dwell long on the contents of Exhibit B, but there are one or two issues that I would like you to dwell on very briefly. Can you perhaps give us a very short description of what happened to you as a member of the Police after you joined in 1978, regarding border duty and duties in South West Africa, etc.

MR ROSLEE: After college ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry for interrupting Mr Roslee. Mr Wagener you have given us these documents before, it has been read and we are satisfied - I am allowed to tell you that we don't need any evidence on this.

MR WAGENER: Thank you, thank you for the indication Mr Malan. May I then assume the same would apply for the psychological aspects and the evidence given to that respect as well?

MR MALAN: Yes that being an integral part of the transcription, the same applies to those documents.

MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson.

Is it then fair, Mr Roslee, to accept as was asked of you at the previous occasion, that due to your severe psychological problems, that you have over the last number of years tried your best to positively remove or expunge from your memory your very bad and sad experiences of the past?

MR ROSLEE: That is correct, Chair.

MR WAGENER: On the very same note Mr Roslee, how would you, as you sit here today, describe your memory regarding those years of your life in general?

MR ROSLEE: Not very well. I have memory lapse with regard to incidents and details etc, Chair.

MR WAGENER: And does that specifically relate to incidents connected with your service in the South African Police?

MR ROSLEE: That is correct, Chair.

MR WAGENER: Can you just confirm to this Committee, when did you leave the service of the Police?

MR ROSLEE: I left the SAP in 1987.

MR WAGENER: And Mr Roslee while we are on this, a question was asked by Mr Malan to a previous witness, can I ask you now - we know that at the time of this incident you were a member of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch.

MR ROSLEE: That is correct, Chair.

MR WAGENER: You were under the overall command of who?

MR ROSLEE: Of Captain Prinsloo.

MR WAGENER: And we've also seen that the incident in fact took place during March 1986, would you accept that?

MR ROSLEE: I accept that Chair.

MR WAGENER: So where you said in your written application that according to your memory the incident took place in 1984/85 that was wrong.

MR ROSLEE: I was obviously incorrect there.

MR WAGENER: Now when did you leave the Northern Transvaal Security Branch for Vlakplaas?

MR ROSLEE: I believe it was shortly after the incident in question.

MR WAGENER: Was it still the same year - 1986?

MR ROSLEE: Yes, as far as I remember it was 1986 that I went to Vlakplaas.

MR WAGENER: Can you tell us how it came about that you were transferred to Vlakplaas?

MR ROSLEE: I don't have vivid memories about it, but if I remember correctly I was approached by one or two members and I was introduced to Colonel de Kock and asked if I would like to work there, after which I put in an application which was granted.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it relevant Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Chairperson I thought it relevant merely for the assistance of Mr Malan. He made an enquiry to a previous witness on that score.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you may proceed to another issue.

MR WAGENER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Which is pertinently relevant to the incident in question.

MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Roslee, if we may turn to the incident as such. At the time, that is March 1986, did you work in close relationship with Mr Prinsloo, the previous witness?

MR ROSLEE: I did. I was part of his team.

MR WAGENER: What was your rank at the time?

MR ROSLEE: I was a constable, I believe.

MR WAGENER: Is it correct to assume that you were one of the most junior members of his unit?

MR ROSLEE: Yes I would assume that, Chair.

MR WAGENER: Can you remember the person, the deceased in this matter, Patrick Mahlangu, can you remember when and how he came to the attention, in the first instance to the attention of your section?

MR ROSLEE: I cannot remember specifics except that at that stage we were doing, busy with lots of investigations with regards to terrorist activities, terrorist attacks that had taken place, and that he had come to our attention during those investigations.

MR WAGENER: Now you said in your written application, Chairperson, that is page 283 at the top, you said that the person you have just described, you and Mr Prinsloo decided to kidnap him for purposes of interrogation, do you see that?

MR ROSLEE: I do see that, Chair.

MR WAGENER: You have now listened to the evidence of previous witnesses in this regard and in the process has your memory been refreshed?

MR ROSLEE: It has Chair. In retrospect there is no ways I would have been part of a decision like that, or actively involved in a decision like that, and I am sure it was just under stress of last minute submission of my application that that was made.

MR WAGENER: So do you accept the evidence then that the instructions were that this person should be approached by the askaris but not apprehended and not arrested?

MR ROSLEE: Having listened to the other witnesses I can see that they are probably correct.

MR WAGENER: Can you remember when and where you saw Mr Mahlangu the first time?

MR ROSLEE: My only recollection is that I encountered him at the safe house or farm out near Soutpan after he had already been brought there.

MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee we have heard evidence that he was assaulted there on the farm. Do you know anything about this?

MR ROSLEE: Chair all my recollection is that I saw him and he had been assaulted.

MR WAGENER: You mentioned in your written application that you took part in his interrogation.

MR ROSLEE: Chair the only reason I can think for putting in that, because I don't have a vivid recollection of actually interrogating the man, or being part of his interrogation, is that when I made the application I assumed because I'd worked with Colonel Prinsloo on other interrogations that I had been involved there.

MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee we have heard evidence that a decision was taken that Mr Mahlangu should be eliminated. Were you part of that decision?

MR ROSLEE: Not to my knowledge, Chair.

MR WAGENER: What do you then mean when you say in your application - "we then decided that he should be eliminated"?

MR ROSLEE: That it was decided. I suppose that "we" could be construed as the "Royal we", but that a decision was made that he be eliminated.

MR WAGENER: Do you know why this decision was taken?

MR ROSLEE: My recollection is that an informer or informers had been compromised or were about to be compromised and that there was a fear of the deceased also again recognising some of the askaris etc.

MR WAGENER: Do you know personally whether the divisional commander at the time gave any instructions in this regard?

MR ROSLEE: I have no knowledge of that whatsoever Chair.

MR WAGENER: That would be Brigadier Jack Cronje?

MR ROSLEE: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: You were not part of any discussions where he was involved?

MR ROSLEE: Not that I know of.

MR WAGENER: Can you tell the Committee, Mr Roslee, first perhaps when you became aware of this instruction to eliminate Mr Mahlangu, did you agree with that?

MR ROSLEE: Chair when I became aware of it, yes I agreed with it.

MR WAGENER: Did you associate yourself with it?

MR ROSLEE: Well I could understand and I supported the idea that he should be eliminated for the reasons we have given.

MR WAGENER: Now we heard evidence that on a specific evening, which we must take as the 25th of March, you and Prinsloo went to this farm and from there further can you tell the Committee what happened that evening?

MR ROSLEE: I have no recollection of us meeting Simon Radebe and then transferring him from Simon's car/vehicle, to the bus. My recollection is that he was in the back of the minibus and we drove out towards the north-western Transvaal. While we were driving, it must have been after quite a while, Martiens Ras got over the back seat and started throttling the deceased ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Sorry to interrupt you Mr Roslee, but where were you in the bus?

MR ROSLEE: I am not sure where I was sitting in the bus. For some reason earlier I thought I had been sitting in the front, but after hearing evidence from other witnesses it's obvious that I must have been sitting in the back.

MR WAGENER: So did you witness this throttling as you have described by Mr Ras?

MR ROSLEE: I did.

MR WAGENER: Sorry to interrupt you. And what happened then?

MR ROSLEE: This throttling or strangling of the deceased took place quite near to where we eventually stopped. We got out of the vehicle. I don't remember who took him out of the vehicle. I recall him lying on the ground. He was still making noises and moving. I then stepped on his throat to silence him, in order to kill him, because if he was alive we would have had a battle getting him through or over the barbed wire fence. He was then carried ...(intervention)

MR WAGENER: Sorry to interrupt you once again Mr Roslee. You heard the evidence of Mr Ras saying that he was under the impression that he had killed the man. Is it correct that you say that what you are saying is that in the final instance you killed him?

MR ROSLEE: Well as far as I am concerned he was still gurgling and moving when we stopped there, and he had been taken or fallen out of the vehicle and I stepped on his throat and I presume that's what killed him.

MR WAGENER: Did anyone instruct you to step on the man as you have described?

MR ROSLEE: No-one gave me any instructions Chair.

MR WAGENER: Why did you do it?

MR ROSLEE: Well as I recall Mr Vermeulen was busy with the explosives and Ras and myself would have to carry the man to the railway line and between us there was a barbed wire fence, as is customary, and if he was still conscious and started putting up a struggle, number one he would be exposing us or we would be exposed for longer next to the road if another vehicle came past and he would just make our task that much more difficult getting him through or over the fence. And obviously for positioning him when we placed the explosives on him it would be a lot more difficult if he was still alive or conscious.

MR WAGENER: And what happened at the railway line?

MR ROSLEE: He was placed in a seated position, as I recall, and his hands and face or head were placed on top of the explosives. We moved away for, I don't know how far it was and took cover. The explosives were detonated and we then moved back to the road where Captain Prinsloo came and picked us up.

MR WAGENER: From there where did you go?

MR ROSLEE: I remember us driving through Warmbaths at one stage but I cannot say that we went back to the farm or - I presume we went back to the farm because we would have had to drop Ras and Vermeulen.

MR WAGENER: And you did that?

MR ROSLEE: I imagine so. I have no recollection of going back to the farm.

MR WAGENER: Mr Vermeulen testified that in the process of the explosion he got a shock himself, can you remember anything about that?

MR ROSLEE: I don't remember at all. I heard, I think yesterday for the first time, about it.

MR WAGENER: Apart from the extent to which you amended your written application in your oral evidence this afternoon, do you confirm the balance of your written amnesty application?

MR ROSLEE: To the best of my knowledge, yes Chair.

MR WAGENER: Specifically in respect of your political motive at the time?

MR ROSLEE: I do Chair.

MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wagener. Mr Hattingh?

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Jansen?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Roslee you say that you are suffering from certain memory losses as a result of your condition, but my impression is there are certain aspects, not the detail, certain aspects that have stuck in your mind, is that correct?

MR LAMEY: I should imagine there'd be certain aspects that stuck in your mind, is that correct?

MR ROSLEE: I should imagine there would be certain aspects that stuck in my mind Chair.

MR LAMEY: Am I correct in saying that when you made your statement, your amnesty statement, you deposed to as to what you recalled at that stage?

MR ROSLEE: Sorry I don't understand.

MR LAMEY: When you deposed to your amnesty affidavit, your written application, regarding this incident, at the time in 1996, you deposed to as what your recollection was at that stage.

MR ROSLEE: I should imagine so because I was there alone and that was my recollection at that stage.

MR LAMEY: Now about the first paragraph on page 283 of your written submission, you have said that other evidence here has refreshed your memory.

MR ROSLEE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And whose evidence would that be?

MR ROSLEE: In fact I didn't, if I remember correctly, I didn't say that other evidence refreshed my memory. I think that what I said was that it wasn't myself and Prinsloo that decided to do the kidnapping, I wouldn't have been involved in that decision. I was too low down the food chain.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey may I just correct your statement because it's not entirely correct what you are putting to him. The reason he gave for that error was that he was under the stress of the preparation for the application and that's how he came to write what he did and that which appears on page 283, that's the first after the second line, on top of that page. He was under the stress of last minute preparation of his application. That's what my note says.

ADV MOTATA: And further that because he was under the command of Prinsloo, he says if there was an interrogation he should have been there because he was working with Prinsloo.

MR LAMEY: Yes. What you do refer to Mr Roslee, and it's just what I want to ask you about, you say there was a decision to kidnap, that is what you recall?

MR ROSLEE: That is what I recalled, yes. That is what my presumption was at the time.

MR LAMEY: Is that what you recalled at the time?

MR ROSLEE: Chair I have enough problem trying to remember what happened in 1986 never mind 1996. When I made this submission, the night before the amnesties closed that was the best of my recollection, that he had been kidnapped.

MR LAMEY: But a decision to kidnap prior beforehand was there mention of that, that you ...(intervention)

MR ROSLEE: Chair I have no idea. I wasn't in any of the meetings, discussions taking place with regard to the infiltration or anything like that. At that stage we were busy running around looking for a bunch of terrorists and I wasn't involved in the nitty-gritty, in the planning of the operation.

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey can this point not remain for argument. I don't think it can be taken much further with this witness.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Chairperson. All I want to - just to round this off, you see Mr Mathebula has a recollection that there was a discussion of a plan to kidnap a person by the name of Connie Mahlangu, and of all the other applicants this paragraph and your testimony comes the closest to that. And that's why I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: How Mr Lamey, because he's talking about Mr Mahlangu and Mr Mathebula refers to Miss Mahlangu, Constance Mahlangu?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson with respect, Mr Roslee doesn't refer to any particular person, he refers to an individual.

CHAIRPERSON: No he refers to a "him", not a "her". There's a gender associated with the person he is alleging to have arranged to kidnap with Mr Prinsloo.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson no, I understand what you are getting at, but the point is that although there's a difference between Mathebula and he's talking about a lady, a "her", and he's talking about a male person, the gist of it is, that's what I put to him, your testimony in this regard comes the closest - I don't say it's exactly the same. I am just saying there is some corresponding aspect here about this ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you to say there seems to be some congruence insofar as a decision to kidnap having been made?

MR LAMEY: Or a discussion at least.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But definitely it can't be the same, I mean a discussion or an arrangement being made to abduct Mr Mahlangu and the one to abduct Miss Mahlangu, that cannot be the same. To me they are completely different. These are individuals with different political backgrounds from the evidence that we have before us. These are two different people. And if one has regard to the evidence so tendered we have the first infiltration, the so-called first infiltration, and then the second infiltration.

But you may proceed bearing in mind that we don't really think that there is any congruence between what he is saying and to what Mr Mathebula is saying with regard to the kidnapping in general whether it be for Miss or Mr Mahlangu.

MR LAMEY: Ja, Chairperson no I understand that. The only - let me just explain myself from my vantage point here, is given the fact that Mr Roslee has got memory problems, but he appears to have had at the time a recollection of a decision to kidnap a person, and I accept that details of that he can't really recall. On the other hand we have here Mr Mathebula, being heard of a plan to kidnap Connie Mahlangu, you know I am just trying to explore this as to whether perhaps you know we heard that and of a plan or a decision to kidnap. Just to kidnap for the moment. But I will leave it there Chairperson. I won't explore this further given the problems that he has with his memory. As it pleases you.

I have got then no further - just then one aspect. Can you recall at all a blue vehicle among any of the members?

MR ROSLEE: Not that I can recall Chair.

MR LAMEY: Thank you. I have got no further questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

CHAIRPERSON: I think before I bounce him back to you Mr Wagener to do your re-examination maybe the Panel would like to have one or two questions on issues of clarity put to Mr Roslee.

MR MALAN: I have no questions thank you Chair.

ADV MOTATA: I have got none, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roslee I just wanted to explore one issue with you. You stated that you became aware of a decision to kill Mr Mahlangu at a later stage, when did you exactly become aware of that decision? How soon after he had been abducted?

MR ROSLEE: Chair I cannot say when I arrived at the safe farm whatever, when I saw him there. It might have been the night we went to get rid of him or get rid of his body. But it was obvious to me that when we were alone in the vehicle with him there was no-ways that he was going to be released. And I can't tell you when that happened, or a specific time or place.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought you were already being brought up to speed by someone that a decision had already been taken to kill him.

MR ROSLEE: Chair I have no recollection of someone saying to me we are going to kill Mr Mahlangu whatever.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you recall having been informed by Mr Prinsloo?

MR ROSLEE: I don't have a memory of that.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't know how you came to be party to the incident?

MR ROSLEE: Well as I hear here I was driving the vehicle or at that stage the vehicle was in my possession and that's why I was involved, and because I had been serving in the unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise you have no personal recollection?

MR ROSLEE: I cannot recall anybody saying to me, we are now going to take out Mr Mahlangu, whatever. The only recollection, if you like, that I have is when the four of us were in the vehicle and Mr Mahlangu was in the back I knew well that's it, there's no ways Mr Mahlangu is going to be released.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You also mentioned that you trampled over Mr Mahlangu's throat, how many times did you trample over his throat?

MR ROSLEE: As I remember he was lying on the ground and I put my foot on his throat and I just kept my weight on it for, I don't know, half a minute, something like that, till he went quiet.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you decide on that method of finally killing him?

MR ROSLEE: Chair I can't tell you why I decided on that method, or why it was decided that he was going to be strangled except that we obviously didn't want bullet wounds or anything like that after an explosion. I don't know if I had things in my hands or whatever it was. I just stepped on his throat at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you party to any decision on how the execution of his elimination was to be carried out?

MR ROSLEE: Tell me are we talking about the actual strangling of Mr Mahlangu?

CHAIRPERSON: The method of killing him.

MR ROSLEE: Not that I recall Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not have any discussion with Mr Ras?

MR ROSLEE: Not to my recollection.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware that Mr Ras was the operational commander on respect of that incident?

MR ROSLEE: I was aware that he was head of the Vlakplaas unit that we were working with, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But in relation to the incident, were you aware that he was the guy who was commanding the operation?

MR ROSLEE: I reported to Captain Prinsloo and he was my boss so that was my line of command.

CHAIRPERSON: So you never had discussions with Mr Ras on any issue in relation to this incident?

MR ROSLEE: None whatsoever.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wagener you may proceed with your re-examination if you do have any.

MR WAGENER: Chair may I then request that this applicant be excused, also from further attendance if it is acceptable to you. He is available in Pretoria on short call.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WAGENER: If he may be excused from tomorrow's hearings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused Mr Roslee.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is the next applicant to be heard in relation to this matter?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson the next applicant will be Mr Mathebula, just to ask you again an indulgence so that I can move back.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

SMUTS PHILIMON MATHEBULA: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Mathebula you have applied for amnesty ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey may I just interrupt you for a second, I just need some clarity from the members of my Committee with regards to one issue then you may proceed.

Thank you for your indulgence Mr Lamey, you may proceed.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Mathebula could you just have a look at the bundle that I have firstly just next to you. You have made, submitted an amnesty application in the form which is on page 112 up to 116 and which you signed during December 1996, is that correct, and this was made initially before one of the investigating officers of the Attorney General's office, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then after you obtained legal representation a supplemented application was prepared which is found on page 117 in the form up to 122, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And as an annexure to that supplemented application you have applied for amnesty for various incidents including this particular incident which is the - which you describe on page 135, "Die aanhouding en aanranding", sorry the "ontvoering en aanranding op Pat Mahlangu", is that correct, on page 141 up to 145, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson with your leave I have started in English, I don't know why. He testifies in Tswana. I think it's because Mr Roslee was still in my mind. May I proceed just as a matter of convenience in Afrikaans because the body of his statement is in Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you. Mr Mathebula I proceed in Afrikaans. You have had the opportunity to study your statement once again and to discuss the matter with your legal representative, particularly certain pertinent aspects and do you confirm your affidavit subject to further evidence or verbal evidence that you will give in conjunction with this. Do you confirm it as correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct. What appears on my statement is what I remembered. Maybe there are other people which I forgot. I did not remember whether Mr Roslee was present or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you still experiencing problems with your microphone?

MR LAMEY: Yes Chairperson I do.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you repeat Mr Interpreter.

INTERPRETER: The witness was saying what appears on the statement is how he remembered it to be and he forgot that other people like Roslee were present.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you now sorted out Mr Lamey? Are you receiving the translation?

MR LAMEY: Yes I am receiving the translation, thank you.

Mr Mathebula please look at paragraph 1 of your amnesty application. The persons whom you mention there are these the persons that you recall being present on the farm near Soutpan?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct. Those are the people that I remembered.

MR LAMEY: And could there also be other people who may have been present that you cannot recall being present there?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Your recollection was that you were particularly searching for a terrorist with the assistance of Vlakplaas members, and that this terrorist was known as Orderele Maponya, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then you state, is it correct that while you were there at the farm Chris Putte arrived one day with a letter, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself see the letter or the content thereof?

MR MATHEBULA: I saw the letter but I did not read the content of the letter.

MR LAMEY: Did you hear or understand what the letter was about?

MR MATHEBULA: I learnt from Captain Prinsloo about the content of the letter.

MR LAMEY: And what did you understand or what were you informed about?

MR MATHEBULA: Captain Prinsloo informed us that the letter was written by a person from Swaziland. It was sent to Connie Mahlangu who was involved in the death of Sergeant Sinki Vuma in Mamelodi.

MR LAMEY: Was any mention made of Patrick Mahlangu?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember well but it seems his name was mentioned but I don't remember well.

MR LAMEY: Very well. When for the first time did you come to hear of Connie Mahlangu?

MR MATHEBULA: It was on the day when we were at the farm in Soutpan.

MR LAMEY: So do I understand from that that you had not heard of her previously or that you had not become aware of her activities when you were at the Northern Transvaal Branch?

MR MATHEBULA: I did not know anything about Connie Mahlangu before that.

MR LAMEY: Very well, shall we proceed.

In paragraph 3 you state that Prinsloo, Ras and some of the other white members planned to abduct Connie and to interrogate her, how do you know this?

MR MATHEBULA: At the time at the farm in that house there there are some rooms and that is when they were discussing that they should try to trace Connie Mahlangu that she should be abducted.

MR LAMEY: Did you hear this yourself?

MR MATHEBULA: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore you state that later Chris Mosiane and, if you recall correctly, Mfalapitsa were sent to Mamelodi but you don't know what their order was, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: In regard to those names I might have made a mistake but I remember that some of them went to Mamelodi. There were some of them that were sent to Mamelodi.

MR LAMEY: And when you refer to "them" are you referring to askaris from Vlakplaas?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall that Chris Mosiane was sent to Mamelodi at a certain stage?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, that is correct, I knew that he was sent to Mamelodi, but I am not sure about Mfalapitsa.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you know what their order was why they were sent to Mamelodi?

MR MATHEBULA: I did not know Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Then in the next paragraph you state that after two days they returned to the house and they brought an unknown black man with them. The man later told you that he was Patrick Mahlangu. Did you see who the persons were that brought him there? Can you recall this clearly?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't know as to whether it was two days or one day but I knew that there were some people who brought him. Then later he told me that he was Patrick Mahlangu.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then later you state that you don't know whether he arrived there with his hands bound or blindfolded but that you saw him in a room. When you saw him he was in a room in a house, is it true that you saw him there, this man? That was when you saw him for the first time.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you see yourself when he was brought to the farm or did you simply seem him in the room in the house for the first time?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well I saw him inside the room.

MR LAMEY: And then you also state that he told you that he resided in Mamelodi, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That's correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon Chairperson I am leading, but if it is not correct or appropriate at certain points I would like some guidance. I am simply leading so that I can orientate the witness.

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey I am not certain whether it is necessary - I beg your pardon for interrupting. But the statement has been deposed and I understand that Mr Mathebula is familiar with the content of the statement. All of us have read it and really to use this time to place it on record once again via interpretation is really unnecessary.

MR LAMEY: Thank you I appreciate the indication. I will then focus on the relevant aspects.

MR MALAN: Please if there's anything that you wish to highlight go-ahead.

MR LAMEY: Then in paragraph 5 you yourself participated in the interrogation at a certain stage and you assaulted him and you also state that he was struck with a bald fist and kicked.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You didn't say that Mr Prinsloo was involved in the assault.

MR MATHEBULA: Yes I took part in the interrogation.

MR LAMEY: I am sorry I didn't hear anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the Afrikaans translation not coming through.

MR LAMEY: No.

CHAIRPERSON: There must be a technical problem. His response is "I did not take part"?

MR MATHEBULA: I did.

CHAIRPERSON: "I took part in the interrogation".

MR MATHEBULA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: So you participated in the interrogation. You also participated in the assault, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: But you do not say that Mr Prinsloo participated in the assault itself, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember Captain Prinsloo did not take part in the assault.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And then in paragraph 5 you also state that his sister, Connie Mahlangu, was an active member of the ANC in Mamelodi. Where did you hear about this? Is this something that emerged during the interrogation as well?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes I learnt that during the interrogation of Patrick Mahlangu that his sister is an active member of the ANC.

MR LAMEY: At that stage you were under the command of Captain Prinsloo and you were a member of his unit, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes.

MR LAMEY: The interrogation that you were involved in, did this enjoy the approval and command of Captain Prinsloo?

MR MATHEBULA: I would say that because he was my commander.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Mathebula do you have any personal knowledge regarding what happened to Mahlangu after that?

MR MATHEBULA: I have no knowledge, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You do not have any knowledge of any decision to eliminate him? You have no personal knowledge of this, is that correct? And you were also not involved in it?

MR MATHEBULA: I did not hear anything and I did not take part.

MR LAMEY: If we move over from page 143 to the following there you also confirm what you have stated there, paragraph 6, 7 and 8, is that correct, from page 142 to 143?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. And that which you request amnesty for has been set out under paragraph 9(a)(1), is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chair.

MR LAMEY: And then from your perspective the political objective is set out from page 144 to 145, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hattingh?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair I do have some questions.

Mr Mathebula in what area of Pretoria were you living in 1987? Where was your home?

MR MATHEBULA: In Hammanskraal.

MR JANSEN: Now .....

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say in '87 Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Ag sorry in '86, at the time of this incident.

MR MATHEBULA: I have already stated I was staying in Hammanskraal.

CHAIRPERSON: You stated you were staying in Hammanskraal in 1987.

MR JANSEN: Now was it a regular thing for you to go to that safe house at Soutpan?

MR MATHEBULA: I was not frequenting that place. It was only there for operational purposes, particularly for Mr Maponya.

MR JANSEN: Was that the first time that you were there, or had you been there previously?

MR MATHEBULA: It was for the first time.

MR JANSEN: In your mind at that time were you aware of the murder of Sergeant Sinki Vuma, at that time?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct. I knew about the death of Sinki Vuma.

MR JANSEN: And did you think that your operation had something specifically to do with the investigation of his murder?

MR MATHEBULA: It was not his death only, and again together with warrant officer Tswane was killed by - group.

MR JANSEN: Did you know of the existence of Mr Patrick Mahlangu before you went to that safe house?

MR MATHEBULA: No Chairperson I did not know a thing about him.

MR JANSEN: So is it correct to say that you were under the impression that you were investigating the murder of some of your colleagues?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct. We were investigating the death of Sergeant Vuma and Sergeant Tswane.

MR JANSEN: And did you think that the,what in your mind was an abduction and an interrogation of Mr Mahlangu had something to do with that investigation?

MR MATHEBULA: For the fact that I heard about the letter written to Connie I thought maybe Pat knew about that.

MR JANSEN: Another thing. Was it the habit of Mr Prinsloo or the other white officers to discuss their plans in your presence?

MR MATHEBULA: As a commander he used to give us information about particular operations.

MR JANSEN: No I will accept that he would give you specific instructions about what he or other people had already decided, but my question is, was it usual for them to discuss possible plans and have general discussions about their possible operations in your presence?

CHAIRPERSON: Who are you referring to by "them" Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Prinsloo, his commander Prinsloo and also to the other white officers.

CHAIRPERSON: White officers, yes.

MR MATHEBULA: There are times when they discuss on their own. I would not say they would discuss about those things daily with us.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it usual for them to discuss operations without involving you but discussing them openly in your presence?

MR MATHEBULA: I put it this way. At Security Branch there would be people who would be members you would trust, then Captain Prinsloo would not discuss issues with everybody. He would talk to his confidante about particular operations.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think what Mr Jansen is trying to find out from you, is that in relation to you as black officers and askaris, was it usual for white officers to discuss operations in your presence without involving you in the discussion?

MR MATHEBULA: Like what happened at Soutpan we were listening that there was a letter coming from Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: It was usual for them to discuss operations in your presence?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Are you saying that these discussions which you refer to in paragraph 3 on page 142 of Prinsloo, Ras and some of the others making plans to abduct Connie Mahlangu, that those discussions were made or were conducted in your presence with the intention that you hear them?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes that is correct. I was present when they were discussing about that issue.

MR JANSEN: And what would have been the purpose of abducting Connie Mahlangu?

MR MATHEBULA: To interrogate her.

MR JANSEN: About what?

MR MATHEBULA: About the letter which was found from Swaziland we spoke about Swaziland.

MR JANSEN: And about any other incidents such as those that we mentioned - the murders of your colleagues were those discussed or not, as a reason or as things which they wanted to question her about?

MR MATHEBULA: They wanted Connie Mahlangu to interrogate her about the letter coming from Swaziland. Not about other issues except the one about this letter from Swaziland.

MR JANSEN: Now I understood in your evidence-in-chief that she was suspected of being involved in the murder of Sinki Vuma.

MR MATHEBULA: That's what I heard. I heard about that.

MR JANSEN: Where did you hear about that?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember whether the letter was read by Prinsloo or any other white member there, but I learnt there when they were reading the letter that she was suspected for taking part in the murder.

CHAIRPERSON: In your affidavit you state that you were informed by Prinsloo.

MR MATHEBULA: Yes I stated in my affidavit that Prinsloo informed us that the letter came from Swaziland, but about the abduction of Connie Mahlangu I don't know as to whom informed us, but Captain Prinsloo told us that the letter came from Swaziland.

MR JANSEN: I just want to make one issue clear about the content of the letter. What according to your recollection was the content of that letter? What was said in it?

MR MATHEBULA: As I have stated before I did not read the letter. I was informed about the content of the letter and it was a short message. I don't know about the real details of the letter.

MR JANSEN: But what was that short message that was conveyed to you?

MR MATHEBULA: As I have already stated before this Committee that in the letter it was stated that Connie was involved in the death of the policemen.

MR JANSEN: Can you remember what the plans were? You say that plans were being made to abduct her. Can you remember what these plans were?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember about those plans.

MR JANSEN: Now in the - when Mr Ras was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you taking up that issue Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: I am still busy with it ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You are building up to it.

MR JANSEN: Yes I am still busy with this issue but I am still somewhere in the middle of it Chair. I don't know if you want to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I thought his response was that he does not recall having said that there were any plans to abduct Connie Mahlangu. ...(indistinct) to follow up.

MR JANSEN: Yes I am more or less finished with that aspect as to the content of those discussions. I am now moving to general issues relating to this. I don't know if you want to ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No I don't want to interrupt you whilst you are questioning him.

MR JANSEN: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed. I have made arrangements with members of Correctional Service who have kindly acceded to our request to depart here at 4.30, so this should give us sufficient time at least to conclude with your questioning of Mr Mathebula.

MR JANSEN: Thank you. Now Mr Mathebula in what way were you then later on used, what functions were you asked to fulfil in this investigation that you were busy with?

MR MATHEBULA: On a particular day we were instructed to go to the shebeens and the taverns and to look around as to whether we were not able to find people like Tinti Masongo and Mr Maponya and others. Then we left.

MR JANSEN: Now did you travel in that kombi when you did these rounds?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't know what kind of kombi are you talking about.

MR JANSEN: Just a moment. When you were doing these rounds what transport were you using?

MR MATHEBULA: We had kombis from Vlakplaas and then another minibus from Compol building.

MR JANSEN: And were you using these vehicles?

MR MATHEBULA: That's correct.

MR JANSEN: Was there more than one vehicle?

MR MATHEBULA: It's not one kombi. The other one was driven by Mr Mugadi and then the other one is Sergeant Radebe, then Jerry Majini, so I am not able to tell you how many were there, but it was more than one.

MR JANSEN: Will you agree with me that from your statement - or maybe let me just ask you some background about your statement. Your statement was taken down in Afrikaans, that's correct is it?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, it is written in Afrikaans.

MR JANSEN: Right. And on page 145 you seem to have signed this part of your statement on 17 April 1998.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, that is my signature.

MR JANSEN: But this was obviously an amplification of your original application or am I making a mistake now?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey led that evidence before he started with his evidence-in-chief, Mr Jansen.

MR JANSEN: Sorry I must have missed that then. Yes, sorry it's in December '96.

When this statement was taken from you, this one that we are looking at now, was that done with the assistance of your present legal representatives?

MR MATHEBULA: My first statement was made at Brigadier Human. Those come from the Attorney General's office.

MR JANSEN: Were you assisted by an interpreter then?

MR MATHEBULA: Where do you mean - at the Attorney General's office or at Mr Lamey's office?

CHAIRPERSON: At the AG's office.

MR MATHEBULA: I was not helped by an interpreter.

MR JANSEN: How would you describe your own Afrikaans, reasonably good or not so good?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't understand the intention of your question. I know Afrikaans. This is your mother tongue so I want to exercise the right to use my mother tongue, because Afrikaans is your mother tongue. I am very proficient in Afrikaans, so that's your language and Tswana is my language and so I am exercising my right.

MR JANSEN: Don't misunderstand my question. I am not suggesting that you should change the language you are testifying in. I am just trying to ascertain, I am trying to find out how accurate or how correct we should regard your original statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is this leading us Mr Jansen? Is there a point to this cross-examination?

MR JANSEN: Certainly. I will have to obviously have to extensively - well I want to ask him what should we make of this statement in paragraph 3 and 4 which leaves us with a clear impression that Mosiane went to Mamelodi and Mosiane was involved in the abduction. And I don't want ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you do that? What stops you from putting it to him to find out why that's standing there. He was assisted here by his legal representative.

MR JANSEN: I am going to be ending, whether I do that now or whether I do that later it will inevitably at some stage be raised that some leeway must be allowed for the fact that this statement is not in his mother tongue.

CHAIRPERSON: He was assisted her by the legal representative. The statement has been read to him. We want to presume when people come here in preparation for these hearings their legal representative will go through the affidavit together with his client. And this affidavit has already been confirmed by Mr Mathebula just a few minutes ago.

MR JANSEN: It was confirmed that his evidence, I with greatest respect Chair, his evidence was specifically that as far as this issue is concerned might be making a mistake. So he clearly distanced himself from his statement here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JANSEN: In a subtle way.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JANSEN: And maybe even in an express way. So I'm investigating that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what is that to do with whether he was assisted by an interpreter when he made a statement before the Attorney General?

MR JANSEN: Well with the greatest of respect Chair, as cross-examiner I have always been told, and I have always assumed that my work is to be fair to a witness. I cannot jump on a witness and say this is a clear contradiction, explain the contradiction. What you are saying is a lie. I am trying to establish from this witness whether we must take cognisance of the fact that there may have been language problems at the time when he did this - when he made this statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Well he's already responded to that when he has stated that he is fairly conversant with Afrikaans even though it is not his home language.

MR JANSEN: Yes that was his answer to the last question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes you may proceed.

MR JANSEN: Thank you.

MR MALAN: To be fair to the witness again Mr Jansen, I am sorry, the only - he confirmed the name of Mosiane, he only said that he thinks he might have made a mistake on Mfalapitsa. But he confirmed Mosiane again.

MR JANSEN: Then I understood it incorrectly.

MR MALAN: Yes, he expressly confirmed that Mosiane was one of the people. He does not think anymore that it was Mfalapitsa, it might have been another person.

MR JANSEN: Then I am wrong in what I understood.

Now my instructions from Mr Ras is that it would not have been their practice to discuss such a thing as an abduction of somebody in your presence or in any other person's presence, whether they be black members, askaris or other white officers, unless it was necessary for operational purposes.

MR MATHEBULA: He may say so but I learnt that Connie Mahlangu must be abducted. I heard that on that particular day. Maybe in other days they were not usually doing that but on that particular day they were doing it.

MR JANSEN: So was there any discussions with anybody when the people arrived there with Pat Mahlangu and not Connie Mahlangu?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't understand your question.

MR JANSEN: Let me put it to you this way. You agree that there was a plan to - on your version there was a plan to abduct Connie Mahlangu?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: There was no plan to abduct Pat Mahlangu?

MR MATHEBULA: According to my knowledge the plan was to abduct Connie Mahlangu.

MR JANSEN: You have no knowledge of a plan to abduct Pat Mahlangu at that stage?

MR MATHEBULA: Not at all Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now my question is, wasn't something said, whether it was surprise that was expressed, unhappiness or anger, when the people arrived with Pat Mahlangu and not Connie Mahlangu?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen are you saying, was there any surprise expressed by white officers?

MR JANSEN: Well specifically by white officers, but it could even be wider, but by any of the white officers.

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember well because I knew that they wanted Connie Mahlangu, not Pat Mahlangu. But I don't remember as well if they were surprised or not.

MR JANSEN: You see you heard Mr Ras' evidence that he has no knowledge of any plans to abduct Connie Mahlangu at that stage. And I think for formal purposes I must put that to you is there anything else, or is there any comment that you want to give about Mr Ras' evidence in that regard?

MR MATHEBULA: I can't comment about what he says because I only knew that they wanted Connie Mahlangu. I was surprised later when a male came because I knew that they wanted a female person.

MR JANSEN: And I also want to put it to you that it's improbable that the officers would be discussing planning an abduction of Connie Mahlangu and then seemingly have nothing to say about the fact that another person is brought to the farm.

MR MATHEBULA: I don't know. What I am saying is that I heard them talking about the person of Connie Mahlangu.

MR JANSEN: Just a moment Chair. Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Mr Mathebula I refer you to your statement on page 142 which is in Afrikaans and I wish to put it to you that Mr Prinsloo's states that you are fluent in Afrikaans as per your evidence, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes he's telling the truth, as I was saying I know Afrikaans very well, but I wanted to use the right to use my mother tongue. He is telling the truth.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I would like to present to you this portion which you compiled along with Mr Lamey, in this application of yours that I have just referred to. Not the one that you deposed before the Attorney General.

MR LAMEY: I beg your pardon, there is something that I may highlight here. I don't think we can assume that it is not the same as the statement that was made before the Attorney General.

MS VAN DER WALT: No that is not what I said. I am referring to the statement, this statement which was signed long after the cut-off date after the amnesty applications, this was on the 17th of April 1998 and this is the statement that you made with the assistance of Mr Lamey, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: The statement which I made is that at the Attorney General's office, and then thereafter they said they would ...(indistinct) and then they referred us to Mr Lamey, then he asked me about mistakes in that previous statement. Then we corrected that statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt is referring you to a supplementary affidavit as at page 142.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct. That is the statement I made with Mr Lamey.

MS VAN DER WALT: And I hope the Committee will be patient with me, just this paragraph that I want to read out, paragraph 3.

What you see and hear there in your language, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is what I have already stated that I heard that they wanted to abduct Connie Mahlangu.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you have already confirmed that you can no longer recall whether Mfalapitsa went along but that you definitely know that Chris Mosiane went.

MR MATHEBULA: Maybe I am making mistakes about mixing the names, but what I remember is that I don't remember as to whether Mfalapitsa was there, but I may be making mistakes about other names.

CHAIRPERSON: But do you know as a fact that Chris Mosiane was there? You can't be mistaken about Chris Mosiane?

MR MATHEBULA: We were with him at the farm, that's why I am saying maybe I am making a mistake in my memory but I think he went there but I am not sure about Mfalapitsa.

CHAIRPERSON: We have already heard you saying that you are not sure about Mfalapitsa, what we want to know and establish is whether you are sure about Chris Mosiane.

MR MATHEBULA: I don't know, maybe I am making a mistake, but I remember that we were together.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt I am sure you want to proceed.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see I want to put it to you that you are adjusting your evidence as the shoe fits. Because you are being represented by the same legal representative as Mr Mosiane, isn't that so?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are aware of Mr Mosiane's version and you have sat here listening when the very same legal representative puts that version.

MR MATHEBULA: I did not meet Mosiane at any time. I consulted my lawyer alone, not with Mr Mosiane.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you heard what his version was. You sat there in the back.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, I heard that.

MS VAN DER WALT: And at the beginning of your evidence you stated pertinently that Chris Mosiane was there, why are you changing this now?

MR MATHEBULA: It might be a mistake, but what I remember is that we were together with Chris at the farm. I don't remember well as to whether they went to Mamelodi or not.

MS VAN DER WALT: Let me read the sentence to you that you compiled here with assistance.

so you are doubtful with regards to Mfalapitsa....

But I continue -

Sir you can only refer to Mr Chris Mosiane if you study the context of that paragraph in your application. I put it to you, you can only refer to Chris Mosiane. Do you have anything to say?

MR MATHEBULA: These things happened a long time ago that's why I don't remember well. He may have gone to Mamelodi but I don't remember.

MS VAN DER WALT: But it appears there. Why does it appear there if you cannot recall it? Did someone tell you what to say?

MR MATHEBULA: Nobody told me to say what I said. These things happened in 1986 and the statement was made in 1996. It may happen that I made a mistake in that statement.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you compiled this statement in 1988 along with a previous statement that you deposed before the Attorney General. There were various times that you were in contact with the evidence that you are giving here today. How can you say now that it is possible that it is incorrect?

MR MATHEBULA: If you may look at paragraph 1 I spoke about Jerry Matsea. I did not mention Roslee. That is a mistake which happened because I did not remember Roslee as whether he was present or not. And yesterday I saw him and today I saw him and I remembered that he was present on that particular incident.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, I want you to listen to me and then comment and say why you wrote this.

Is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is what I wrote in the statement. As I explained I may be mistaken as I have already explained.

ADV MOTATA: What was just read to you is it correct? That is what the question is all about, as it was read to you they want confirmation from you whether that is correct?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember but - I wrote there but I don't remember as to whether they went to Mamelodi or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why can't you remember today if this is what you wrote as at April 1998, that's over a year ago. The facts must have been fresher in your mind than they are today - over one year down the line. You are now changing your statement about issues which are very material to your application.

MR MATHEBULA: I made this statement in 1996. This statement is a modified statement of the statement that I made in 1996 which I made in the Attorney General's office. Maybe I am making a mistake about Chris Mosiane. I don't remember well who went there. He may be party to those who went to Mamelodi. I would not dispute that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you think you are making a mistake about Mr Mosiane, why do you think? This is what Ms van der Walt would like you to respond to her question. She is questioning you on why do you think you are making a mistake today when that version is standing in your affidavit which you signed quite earlier when your memory must have been much fresher than it is today. Why should you make a mistake today about the involvement of Chris Mosiane in particular? Leave alone Mfalapitsa for a moment.

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember well as I have already stated that I did not even remember Mr Roslee but they were present. That's why I say I may be making a mistake again with Mr Mosiane.

CHAIRPERSON: The involvement of Mr Mosiane relates to the discussion. If you talk about the discussion that Mr Prinsloo and some other white officers were planning to do concerning the abduction of Connie Mahlangu, that you then referred to Mr Mosiane and the other person as having been sent to Mamelodi. You didn't know why they were sent there. But later on they came back with this unknown black person who later on identified himself to you as Pat Mahlangu. You see you have been somehow chronologically in the way you have related the involvement of Mr Chris Mosiane. Now why should you think that today you were mistaken in April '98 when you made such - when you deposed to those facts?

MR MATHEBULA: As I have already stated that maybe I am making a mistake about him. He may have gone to Mamelodi but I don't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: So he may have gone to Mamelodi?

MR MATHEBULA: That is possible, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He may have been involved in the abduction of Mr Patrick Mahlangu.

MR MATHEBULA: There is that possibility, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: At this point I would like to ask the Honourable Committee, and I see that it is 4.30, I would like to determine from Mr Steenkamp whether or not he is in possession of the actual initial application of this applicant because I think that it is necessary that we have sight into that document, because what is noticeable to me is the formal form, which has been included with this, but not the accompanying statement.

MR MALAN: Mrs van der Walt if I recall correctly only the formal application form was handed in along with the AG's statement. So I think the question is whether or not we are in possession of the original AG affidavit.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes I would like to see it.

MR STEENKAMP: The position is that the original affidavit as I have it from the witness is in the possession of the AG which forms part of a dossier of the matter which is pending with regards to this case. Access was denied to the case dossier with the exception of possible inspection by certain members. I was not permitted to make any copies of the file and the material appearing in the third bundle is the only material which was available to the Amnesty Committee until yesterday. I was informed by the AG's office that the case dossier is sub judice and pending, so the documents in the dossier will not be made available to the Amnesty Committee.

MR MALAN: Perhaps we can ask Mr Lamey, who has assisted the applicants in this matter whether or not he has had any access to the documents.

MR LAMEY: I will have to return to my own leverarch file which contains the matters of this applicant. I have so many other applicants and it varies quite often. I can assure that the incorporated statements was given to the Amnesty Committee. At times I received computer printouts from the AG's office which appears to be an affidavit, but an unsigned sort-of computer printout of a version on the grounds of which the bundle deposition was compiled. But I will undertake further investigation.

MR MALAN: When you have done this will you liaise with Ms van der Walt.

Mrs van der Walt I want to ask you whether or not it is actually relevant whether the applicant says that he simply knew that Mosiane and Mfalapitsa and perhaps not exactly the two of them went to Mamelodi but that he didn't know what their orders were in either event.

MS VAN DER WALT: It is relevant. I will highlight this later.

MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe this would be an appropriate time to take an adjournment until tomorrow morning.

Mr Mathebula your cross-examination will stand until tomorrow morning.

MR STEENKAMP: Madame Chair just for record purposes, I have had the opportunity to speak to the head of the prison. He was available at 11 o'clock here at the hearing and they will make specific arrangements that Mr de Kock will be here before nine o'clock tomorrow morning. I have raised the question with their legal representatives as well not having proper visiting rights at the prison. That will be addressed as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Steenkamp for timely attending to this matter.

Mr de Kock we hope to see you here at nine o'clock tomorrow. We will just tread on the safe side, nevertheless commence our proceedings at 9:30 to see whether they will actually honour their undertaking.

Thank you.