--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: We deal now with the applications in respect of the killing of Mr Lubane. We have concluded hearing viva voce evidence in respect of the applicants, Mr Prinsloo and Mr More. Who are we going to commence with this morning?

MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, if I may. Mr Mathebula will be the following witness. He'll be testifying in Tswana.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mathebula, you'll be giving your evidence in seTswana.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

SMUTS PHILEMON MATHEBULA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Motata. You may take a seat, Mr Mathebula. You may commence, Mr Joubert.

EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Mathebula, you have given evidence before this Amnesty Committee on more than one occasion, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And your political motives, the situation in which you found yourself at the stage of these incidents, has been fully canvassed, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now relating to this specific incident which you are testifying about, your application from pages 128 to 132, deals with this specific incident. Do you confirm the content thereof?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: There are certain issues in this application which I would like to address and for you to provide the Committee with clarity. If we refer to page 129 of your application, it's still part of paragraph 1 which starts on the previous page, the third or fourth line from the bottom, you state-

Is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Did you know whether this was indeed Paul van Vuuren's father's farm or was this merely something that you heard along the line?

MR MATHEBULA: It's something I heard.

MR JOUBERT: Then in paragraph 2 on the same page, more-or-less in the middle of that paragraph, where it pertains to the interrogation of Comrade X, you state that -

Now the context in which this has been stated here, indicates that Capt Prinsloo was present and involved in this assault, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Prinsloo was present, but at the time I was kicking, maybe he was somewhere in the house because it was a big house.

MR JOUBERT: If I understand you correctly then this is merely an indication of what transpired there, it's not the exact detail pertaining to the assault as such. There may have been instances where you and Capt Prinsloo may not have been together during this interrogation, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: You have heard the evidence of Capt Prinsloo and of Const More, pertaining to a pen and a piece of paper which was handed to Mr Lubane, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Do you have any personal knowledge of this pen and paper?

MR MATHEBULA: I've no knowledge because I did not observe that.

MR JOUBERT: Now Mr More testified that at the stage when Mr Lubane was taken onto the stoep of the house and given the Amstel, thereafter yourself, Mr More, Mr Matjeni and Sgt Mbatha were sent to go and buy beer. Is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And upon your return from this excursion you found Mr Prinsloo and other members of the Police Force in the veld, close to the house, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: In your application on page 131, at the top, you indicated that this was approximately 60 metres from the house. Could it have been further?

MR MATHEBULA: It is possible that it may be more than 60 metres.

MR JOUBERT: Upon your return to the scene, the evidence was given by Mr More and this is also set out in your application, that you were requested by someone to assist in looking around for certain evidence or certain pieces of flesh that may be lying around, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Were you at all informed of what had happened to Petrus Lubane?

MR MATHEBULA: Nobody informed us about what happened to him.

MR JOUBERT: What did you assume had happened?

MR MATHEBULA: I thought he was killed.

MR JOUBERT: And thereafter you returned to the house, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Mr More has testified, and you also set this out in your application, at that house you had, or some of the people had beer to drink, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Can you specifically state who partook in this drinking of the beer, or was it just some of the members?

MR MATHEBULA: I would not know who drank what amount of liquor, but there was liquor which was drank generally, but I'm not able to state who drank how much.

MR JOUBERT: And is it after this or during the period, that the decision was taken to remove the Ford Cortina and to go and have this burnt?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now the evidence is that you were the person who drove the Cortina to the scene where it was burnt. Can you recall whether you were in fact the driver?

MR MATHEBULA: It is possible that I was the driver, or Jerry Matjeni. It's possible that it would be me. I would not dispute that fact.

MR JOUBERT: And is it then correct also that you gave the indication as to the scene to which the Cortina had to be taken, where it was burnt. Is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson, I'm the one who pointed out that place.

MR JOUBERT: And after the vehicle had been torched, your application indicates that you all returned to your homes, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: I have no further questions to Mr Mathebula, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr Jansen, do you have any questions to put to Mr Mathebula?

MR JANSEN: None, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Mathebula, you state in your affidavit that Mr Prinsloo interrogated Mr Lubane about the Magistrate's Court in Johannesburg. I put it to you that he did not put any questions in that regard, pertaining to the explosion at the Magistrate's Court. He wasn't even involved with that case, Capt Deetliefs from John Vorster Square in Johannesburg was investigating that matter. Do you have anything to say about this?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well he was asked about that issue.

ADV PRINSLOO: But there was no reason for Capt Prinsloo to interrogate him about an explosion at the Johannesburg Magistrate's Court, because he wasn't investigating the matter and therefore he wasn't involved in it. Are you not confusing Capt Prinsloo with somebody else within another matter?

MR MATHEBULA: It is possible because there were many things which we were investigating, but if I remember well I think he was interrogated about that issue.

ADV PRINSLOO: And what may have contributed to your confusion is that you state in your affidavit that Capt Steenkamp visited the place during the interrogation, and as you know Capt Steenkamp was from the Springs Security Branch at that stage. Did you know that he was from there, from Springs, Capt Steenkamp?

CHAIRPERSON: He says that, Mr Prinsloo, in paragraph 3 at page 130, that members of the Springs and Germiston Security Branch were present.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, they were present.

ADV PRINSLOO: I would just like to put the following to him. I would like to put it to you that Capt Steenkamp in no way visited Capt Prinsloo with regard to the interrogation of Mr Lubane, he came to see him about a completely different matter. Would you be able to dispute this?

MR MATHEBULA: I would not dispute that because they used to come and talk to Capt Prinsloo. I don't know about other issues which they were discussing.

ADV PRINSLOO: And as I understood your evidence with regard to the kicking, mention is also made that the man was suffocated with an inner tube. You heard Capt Prinsloo's evidence and he stated that he slapped the man and that he never saw the man being kicked or suffocated with an inner tube, nor did he perform any such actions himself. What do you say about that?

MR MATHEBULA: It is possible that he was not present at that particular time, but I took part in that assault. He may not have seen what happened.

ADV PRINSLOO: And inasfar as it involves the place where this person was blown up, according to Capt Prinsloo the hole was not filled up. A crater was caused by the explosion and there was no reason to cover or to fill the hole.

MR MATHEBULA: What I remember is that we had some shovels, then at the time when they were asking us that we should look around to look for some pieces of flesh, they were busy filling up the hole.

ADV PRINSLOO: Are you aware that there were two explosions in order to destroy the body completely?

MR MATHEBULA: I would be lying because I didn't know what happened, even with the first explosion. I don't know as to whether it was one or two explosions.

ADV PRINSLOO: And Capt Prinsloo has no recollection that he ever asked you whether or not you were afraid as you have stated in your application. That's just by the way, it's nothing serious really.

Just a moment's indulgence, please Chairperson. Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

So you put it in your affidavit on page 130, paragraph 3, that you and Jerry were on the farm all the time and that your primary task was to guard the person there. I put it to you that Mr Bester and Mr Jerry guarded the person, that it was their task. They remained with him all the time that he spent on the farm. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR MATHEBULA: I remember about Bester, but myself and Jerry were busy guarding that person and we were giving him food and water.

MS VAN DER WALT: I put it to you further that Mr Bester slept in the same room as the deceased and that it was his task to guard him on such a basis of urgency. Do you have any comment about that?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't dispute that. That's why I'm saying I began to recollect about his presence there from yesterday.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, before I come to you, Mr van Heerden, I have omitted to request the legal representatives of Mr Strydom and Mr Cronje to cross-examine Mr Mathebula. It's just that I didn't see Mr du Plessis' face. Do you have any questions to put to Mr Mathebula?

MR DU PLESSIS: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Mathebula, you state that members from Springs and Germiston Security Branch interrogated the deceased. Can you recall this clearly?

MR MATHEBULA: I remember about Steenkamp, that he was present because at the time when I was working at Vlakplaas, we used to go to him. He came, but I don't remember when he talked to the deceased but he usually came to talk to Capt Prinsloo, though I don't know the content of their discussion.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall that he interrogated the deceased?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember. It is possible that he interrogated the deceased, but I remember that he was present at the farm.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You state in your affidavit that the was interrogated by members of the Springs Security Branch, to which other members are you referring?

MR MATHEBULA: As I've already stated, Capt Steenkamp was present. They used to talk to Capt Prinsloo. I thought maybe they were interrogating him.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Which members of the Germiston Security Branch were present?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember their identity, but I knew that they were present and then we were informed that they were from Germiston Security Branch. I don't remember their names.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall that they conducted an interrogation of the deceased?

MR MATHEBULA: As I've already stated that it is possible that they interrogated the deceased. We used to guard him, the three of us. At times I would be alone, at times Jerry would be alone, at times Bester would be alone. So we would not know what they are talking about with the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden.

In your application you stated as a fact that they participated in Mr Lubane's interrogation. Would you have been mistaken?

MR MATHEBULA: It is possible that I made a mistake, but I remember that they were present and they used to have a discussion with the deceased but I don't know about what.

CHAIRPERSON: So you didn't witness any interrogation by members of Germiston and Springs Security Branch Police?

MR MATHEBULA: I saw him talking to him. I would say that is the case.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean you saw him talking to him? Are you referring to a member of the Springs and Germiston Security Branch?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, Capt Steenkamp from Springs and together with members of the Springs(sic) Security Branch, they came together at the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you witness any interrogation or any discussion being held by any member of the Springs and Germiston Security Branch with Mr Lubane?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, I observed that discussion, but I didn't know what about.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did this discussion take place with Mr Lubane?

MR MATHEBULA: Inside the room where we were sleeping together with the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: And were you in the same room during the discussion?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, yes I was present in that room.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you hear what the discussion was all about?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember well, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Lubane, during this discussion, manhandled in any way by a member of the Springs and Germiston Security Branch?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: How long did this discussion take place?

MR MATHEBULA: Approximately 20 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: 20 minutes.

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson, approximately 20 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: And during that time you were in the room with Mr Lubane.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, I was. That room is too big and then when you are just on the door you are able to observe everything.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't say whether it was an interrogation or not?

MR MATHEBULA: I'm not able to say that it was an interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Notwithstanding the fact that you observed this discussion for 20 full minutes?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

What injuries did the deceased sustain?

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR MATHEBULA: He didn't have any injuries.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall where this farm is situated?

MR MATHEBULA: I knew that it was near the Rust-de-winter road. I know the road towards that area, but I'm not able to point that particular farm.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You've heard the evidence of Capt Prinsloo that there were two explosions, were you present at all times at the scene?

CHAIRPERSON: That's not the evidence, Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Excuse me, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: That's not his evidence. He wasn't present at the scene, he came back.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That is now Mr Mathebula?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's his evidence.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I'll then leave it there, Madam Chair, thank you. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to put further questions to Mr Mathebula?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No further questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Mr Mathebula, in paragraph 2 on page 129, the very final line, there you state -

Do you state by that that you obtained no information from Mr Lubane?

MR MATHEBULA: During my presence I don't remember him responding to any question. During my presence I don't remember him responding to any question. During my presence I don't remember him responding or saying anything during the interrogation.

MR MALAN: Can you recall what was put to him?

MR MATHEBULA: I'm not able to recollect about the questions, Chairperson. That is why I just wrote about the explosions. I think that is the only issue I remember.

MR MALAN: Did you participate in the interrogation?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, there are times where I questioned him, but I did not take long.

MR MALAN: Can you recall what you interrogated him about?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember as to whether it was about Johannesburg or about Wachthuis, as it has already been stated here.

MR MALAN: Do you have no recollection of Wachthuis?

MR MATHEBULA: It is possible that I questioned him about Wachthuis. It is possible that I did.

MR MALAN: My question is whether or not you have any recollection that Wachthuis was ever mentioned during the interrogation. Can you recall Wachthuis in any way as a part of your interrogation?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Do you have no recollection of information which you possessed, indicating that they proposed to blow up Wachthuis?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember anything because Kenny More was engaged in that all the time, because I did not know what was happening.

MR MALAN: And then just with regard to the explosions. You state that you did not hear any explosion.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And you can recall that the hole was filled up after you arrived there, and you are completely certain that you were requested to help search and that someone picked up a piece of meat.

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Are you not perhaps mistaken with regard to that?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, I'm not mistaken. As Capt Prinsloo has already stated that I was scared.

MR MALAN: Capt Prinsloo states that he cannot recall that you were frightened, but on page 131 you state that Dos Santos told you that you were to search the vicinity for pieces of meat or flesh. Is that what Dos Santos requested you to do when you arrived there?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Now I just want some clarity, Mr Mathebula, about this assault in the house. You say it was a big house. I want to know whether you were taking turns in assaulting him or what was the position when he was assaulted during interrogation? Were you all around him asking questions, assaulting him, or were you taking turns in doing so?

MR MATHEBULA: He was not surrounded by many people. Capt Prinsloo, when he was interrogating that person, he didn't want many people to be around there, he only wanted two or three people to be around during the interrogation.

ADV MOTATA: Could you recall how many were around him then, when you say about two or three?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well there were three.

ADV MOTATA: Then we know yourself and Capt Prinsloo, who could the third one be?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember, Chairperson.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you Madam Chair, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mathebula, you have indicated that you can't remember if Mr Prinsloo participated in the assault on Mr Lubane in the manner that you have described in your affidavit at paragraph 2. Mention has been made by you that an inner tube was used to suffocate Mr Lubane during the alleged assault or torture. Can you recall who used the inner tube to suffocate Mr Lubane?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember well, it's possible that I was responsible for using the tube.

CHAIRPERSON: Now if you had used the tube, isn't it something that you should be able to remember?

MR MATHEBULA: I was not alone in that room, that's why I'm suggesting that I may be responsible for the tubing.

CHAIRPERSON: To the best of your recollection, what kind of assault did you cause to be inflicted on, or what was the nature of your participation during Mr Lubane's interrogation?

MR MATHEBULA: Fists and open hand.

CHAIRPERSON: That's what you participated in?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you stated that he was suffocated by an inner tube, did you say that as a fact or it's something that you were merely mentioning but you couldn't remember to have happened?

MR MATHEBULA: The tubing method was used, but I not able to remember who was responsible for that.

CHAIRPERSON: Now at whose request did you participate in the interrogation and assault on Mr Lubane?

MR MATHEBULA: Mainly you would not do anything without the authorisation or the instructions of Capt Prinsloo, you would not do that on your own initiative. I think it was through the instructions of Capt Prinsloo.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you thinking or you know this as a fact, that you were requested by Capt Prinsloo to participate in both the interrogation and the assault of Mr Lubane?

MR MATHEBULA: As I've already state that because Capt Prinsloo was our commander, you would not do anything without his authorisation, request or instruction. Though I don't remember that he instructed me directly to take part.

CHAIRPERSON: Now in your affidavit you stated that you and Mr Matjeni conducted a later interrogation on Mr Lubane, after he had initially been assaulted, which assaulted included the suffocation by means of an inner tube. Are you sure that Mr Matjeni was also involved in Mr Lubane's interrogation?

MR MATHEBULA: When I talk about the assault it was on the first day when he arrived at the farm, after that he was not assaulted again.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not talking about the assault, I'm talking about the interrogation. In your affidavit you say that after he had been assaulted you and Mr Matjeni again interrogated Mr Lubane. You see that that is what you say on page 129, paragraph 2, and that is the fifth or fourth line from the bottom.

MR MATHEBULA: It is correct. There was a time where we asked him about general questions, then I learnt that he was staying at 181 at Katlehong and that he was employed at the hospital.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, do you have any re-examination?

MR JOUBERT: I have no re-examination, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mathebula, you are excused as a witness.

MR MATHEBULA: Thank you, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I call Mr Dos Santos.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------JOSE ANTONIO TYIXYIVA DOS SANTOS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated. Sworn in, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Dos Santos, your amnesty application is contained within bundle 1. The formal application form appears from page 380 to 382. Annexure A, which deals with this particular incident, appears from page 383 to 386, and then we have your political motivation which appears from page 387 to 399. Is that correct?

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were also a member of the South African Police during the years 1986, or at least '87 and '88.

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: At which branch were you stationed?

MR DOS SANTOS: The Northern Transvaal Security Branch.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what was your rank at that stage?

MR DOS SANTOS: I was a Warrant Officer.

MS VAN DER WALT: And who was your commander?

MR DOS SANTOS: Capt Crafford.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Capt Prinsloo, was he from the same division?

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You've heard the evidence of the three previous applicants. I just want to refer you to certain aspects in your application on page 383 and 384. There you make mention of information which was found with regard to the person by the name of Comrade, you yourself were not involved with the interrogation. How was this information conveyed to you?

MR DOS SANTOS: It would have been by Capt Crafford or Capt Prinsloo.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that at the Security Branch there was always a series of lectures during which the information would be conveyed to you?

MR DOS SANTOS: It wasn't really a lecture basis, it took place on the need-to-know basis.

MS VAN DER WALT: But there were such information sessions during which the information would be conveyed to you?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: There was evidence that you were with Mr Prinsloo after Comrade had been abducted in a vehicle there by Klapperkop. Do you have any knowledge thereof?

MR DOS SANTOS: I cannot recall it, but it has been testified to by two persons, therefore I would accept that I was there.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then there has been further evidence that you are the person who blew up the body of the deceased with explosives.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who gave you the order to do this?

MR DOS SANTOS: Capt Crafford.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what sort of explosives did you use?

MR DOS SANTOS: I used two limpet mines, which I detonated with Pentolite Cortex and a shell.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you offer any input when it came to administering the beer containing the sleeping drug to the deceased?

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you know about it?

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Furthermore, you heard that it would appear as if Mr Strydom would testify about it that all the persons there on the farm on that particular day, were drinking. Did you have anything to drink at all?

MR DOS SANTOS: Before I worked with explosives I would not have had anything, afterwards it is possible that I may have had something to drink.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you continuously present on the farm during the interrogation of Comrade?

MR DOS SANTOS: No, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you state in your application on page 386, that after Comrade was placed in the hole and shot by Capt Crafford, you destroyed the body of Comrade with explosives. You have heard that evidence has been given about two explosions, what do you have to say about that?

MR DOS SANTOS: It is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You just did not specify this in your application.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you cause the second explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: There were clues which had been picked up and placed in the hole again and explosives were once again placed on this evidence and they were blown up again.

MS VAN DER WALT: You mentioned limpet mines during the first explosion ...(intervention)

MR DOS SANTOS: No, I spoke of landmines.

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon. What did you use during the second?

MR DOS SANTOS: A commercial explosive, which we as demolition explosives experts used quite often.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon. You were asked what did you use afterwards, you say that afterwards you would have used Pentolite.

MR DOS SANTOS: I definitely used it.

MR MALAN: When you were asked initially by Mrs van der Walt - and I apologise for interrupting because this is a key aspect which we might as well deal with right away, when you were asked whether or not you were involved in the explosion you stated "Yes", and when you were asked what you used, you said "Two landmines".

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Then why didn't you mention what you used during the second explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: I didn't think about it.

MR MALAN: Very well. Thank you, Mrs van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just with regard to Mr Malan's question, I would like to know from you, would there have been any specific reason why you would tell the Honourable Committee that there was a second explosion if there wasn't a second explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: I cannot think why.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then yesterday the Honourable Chairperson stated that there was evidence before this Committee that a person's body would be blown up by explosives to create the impression that he had blown himself up. What was the purpose with this explosion? Firstly with the landmines and then with the other explosives?

MR DOS SANTOS: To obliterate the person completely, because I used two landmines in the beginning which contained quite a lot of explosives.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in this case was the order not given to you to create an explosion which would make it appear that he had blown himself up?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct, there was no such order.

MS VAN DER WALT: You had to obliterate the body completely?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where did you obtain the explosives from?

MR DOS SANTOS: From our office. We always had explosives there which we had obtained by means of arrests or caches. We used the explosives for demonstrations or tests which we conducted at the office.

MS VAN DER WALT: Furthermore, do you confirm the evidence of the other applicants inasfar as it has bearing on you?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also confirm your application as it appears in bundle 1.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you commit this act out of any sense of personal gain for yourself?

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you commit this act because you had any lust for revenge against this person called Comrade?

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: You did not know him before the time?

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you commit this act in the course of your police duties and under the order of a higher officer?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Therefore you request amnesty for any offence or delict which may emanate from the death of Comrade?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Chairperson - I have a number of questions for you Mr Dos Santos. You confirm the content of your application, but if I understand you correctly, you state that you did not have the knowledge which you state in your statement, you did not know about the details of your application from paragraph 1 leading up to at least paragraph 6, because you were not directly involved.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Then let me put it as such, so that we can have clarity about this between each other. It became the practice that when there were more than one applicant who was being represented by the same legal representative, the statements would appear in the same written form, with the same choice of words, but that the details would differ from person to person. That is the case here. There are many persons who are applying with the same words.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You confirm the correctness of this statement. Now I want to know from you, do you have any knowledge of the content of paragraph 1 on page 383, any personal knowledge of what appears there?

MR DOS SANTOS: Only what I was told.

MR MALAN: When were you told this, Mr Dos Santos and by whom?

MR DOS SANTOS: I cannot recall precisely. I would have been informed by Capt Crafford and Capt Prinsloo.

MR MALAN: Let me just repeat this before you answer, because I just want an honest answer from you because I want to know what information was at your disposal. And I will repeat that I understand that the application was drawn up, it is one application which has appeared in the names of there persons. It is not information which was shared by all three persons, you have just confirmed this.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So some of the information was presented because it related the entire story and you signed it, but you did not have knowledge of some of this information?

MR DOS SANTOS: Not personal knowledge.

MR MALAN: And some of this information was not conveyed to you by Capt Crafford or Capt Prinsloo, it simply emanated in the compilation of your application.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Now what I want to know is, which aspects of this information was part of your personal knowledge or not. I will repeat the question because I do not wish to trick you, I just want to know honestly what you know. And I will not blame you if you confirm something that you didn't really know.

MR DOS SANTOS: It is difficult to remember, Chairperson. I was informed about Wachthuis, but I didn't have personal knowledge of all the details about it.

MR MALAN: Yes, Mr Dos Santos, you were also not informed about some of these aspects by Mr Prinsloo or Mr Crafford.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: It was only via your legal representatives who inserted this during the composition of your application, because they had obtained the information from Crafford and Prinsloo at that stage.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Then I will begin again. I will deal with the content without referring to the document. When you applied or when this incident took place, did you know that Kenny More was handling the informer? You didn't know that at that stage?

MR DOS SANTOS: I don't believe so.

MR MALAN: That's correct, you didn't know. You didn't know that the man had received instant training and that he was trained in explosives and AK47s.

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MR MALAN: You didn't know that he was acting as a courier, you were not on the farm during the interrogation and during the assault and you were not involved in these actions, you were called in to destroy a body.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And in your evidence-in-chief upon a question from your own legal representative, when you she asked you about information, you said that this took place on a need-to-know basis.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You didn't have lectures, you were not informed on a daily basis of everything that had come to knowledge.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Therefore you didn't know about Kubuza and that he was acting as courier between him and an MK unit?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You didn't know that he was recruiting new members.

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MR MALAN: You didn't know that he had reconnoitred Wachthuis and that he had set up sketch plans.

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MR MALAN: And that this was never conveyed to you.

MR DOS SANTOS: I was simply told that they had planned an attack on Wachthuis.

MR MALAN: When were you informed about this?

MR DOS SANTOS: I cannot say.

MR MALAN: Before you killed him or afterwards?

MR DOS SANTOS: I think it may have been before the time.

MR MALAN: You think it was before the time, but you are not certain.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Very well. So if you say that he confirmed all the information that you had about him in paragraph 5, it is simply a reiteration of Prinsloo and Crafford's statements because you don't really know anything about that.

MR DOS SANTOS: Correct.

MR MALAN: You didn't know that he posed a veritable threat in terms of that information, you just knew that this man was dangerous, that you were going to kill him, you were going to drug him and then blow him up and that your job was to obtain the explosives.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Very well. You didn't know that he was not prepared to act as an informer, it was not your decision, it was the decision of Prinsloo and Crafford.

MR DOS SANTOS: Correct.

MR MALAN: You were not aware that Crafford had obtained permission from Cronje, you just got the order to destroy him.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Very well. Up to and including paragraph 7, you are confirming to us that this is not knowledge which fell within your personal knowledge, this is just something which emanated from the compilation of the affidavit. I don't have a problem with that, but my dilemma is that you are confirming something as if it was within your personal knowledge, but in actual fact it wasn't.

MR DOS SANTOS: Correct.

MR MALAN: Well let us just deal with paragraph 8 then. And this is the point from which your affidavit differs from the others and this has to do with the one or two explosions. And I will ask you once again, are you completely certain that a second explosion took place?

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, I am certain of it.

MR MALAN: Are you completely certain that you did not bury any remains, even if they were partially buried?

MR DOS SANTOS: If they refer to bury, I think it may have been that as they picked up the remains with the spades and tossed the remains back into the grave, they may have been referring to that.

MR MALAN: But then why would you pick up pieces of flesh and toss it onto a heap and simply leave it there?

MR DOS SANTOS: But that is when I destroyed it with the explosives.

MR MALAN: Mr Dos Santos, you have heard the evidence from both More and Mathebula, who state that they did not hear an explosion, not a first nor a second, and they don't know whether or not there was one or two explosions. When they arrived at you, from that moment onwards there was not another explosion. You heard their evidence.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is not correct, there was definitely a second explosion.

MR MALAN: No, listen carefully to what I'm saying. They say that whether there was one or two explosions, they were not present during either one of the two.

MR DOS SANTOS: That may be so, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Do you have any recollection that they were present during the explosions?

MR DOS SANTOS: As far as I can recall, after they returned they helped to pick up the pieces of evidence and tossed these pieces of evidence into the hole. Naturally they would have moved away because that was the custom when we were working with explosives.

MR MALAN: Yes, and you would have moved away as well.

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, but when I commence with a detonation I would have been there alone.

MR MALAN: They must have heard the explosion then once the explosives were detonated.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: But their evidence is that they never heard such an explosion, that evidence was never placed in dispute, in actual fact it was confirmed that were sent away. And you heard that according to the best of Capt Prinsloo's recollection, the explosions took place before they returned.

MR DOS SANTOS: I cannot recall whether this was before or after. No, they returned and they assisted us with tossing the evidence into the hole. After that they departed and I destroyed the remains.

MR MALAN: Did you tell your legal representative that Mathebula and Matjeni were present during the second explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: They were on the farm.

MR MALAN: Had they not been sent away to purchase goods?

MR DOS SANTOS: That was with the first explosion.

MR MALAN: And you state that after the second explosion you did not collect any evidence, you then just left things where they fell.

MR DOS SANTOS: Well nothing would have remained.

MR MALAN: Can you tell us why you have just stated that nothing would have remained?

MR DOS SANTOS: Because there was so little and the explosives which I used were quite powerful.

MR MALAN: Did you know from the beginning that you would have to conduct two explosions, was that part of your plan?

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MR MALAN: Then why did you bring the second set of explosives with you?

MR DOS SANTOS: I was a demolitions expert and I also always drove around with explosives in my vehicle and sometimes it would be necessary to make use of explosives when we were clearing a scene. We always had explosives in our vehicle.

MR MALAN: I don't know if I've misunderstood your evidence, but when you were asked from where you obtained the explosives, you stated that you fetched it from the office.

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, those were the landmines.

MR MALAN: And the others were in the vehicle with you?

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, we always had Pentolite and other forms of explosives that we used for destroying things. We would also have explosives which had been picked up by people on their property. We had many sorts of explosives which we would make use of.

MR MALAN: I just wish to refer you to paragraph 10, and I also want to ask you why in your original application did you not also refer to two explosions?

MR DOS SANTOS: I didn't think about it.

MR MALAN: Just look at the third line in paragraph 10, why did you state expressly -

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: But you have just told me that they were there when you blew up the last remains, as I can recall it. Now would you like to make up your mind and tell us. Can you recall that they were there or can you not recall that they were there?

MR DOS SANTOS: During the first explosion they were not present.

MR MALAN: And are you now certain that they were present during the second explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: They must have been there.

MR MALAN: No, I'm not asking you if they must have been there.

MR DOS SANTOS: I'm certain that they were there.

MR MALAN: Therefore your statement that they were not present during the destruction of the body is not entirely put to us in clarity, because they then further destroyed an already desecrated body.

MR DOS SANTOS: Well there really wasn't much of a body left to destroy, only a few remains.

MR MALAN: Paragraph 11 then. Did you state that or is this something which was inserted with the composition of your statement? Did Crafford tell you specifically that he had informed Cronje after the time?

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MR MALAN: He didn't tell you this?

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MR MALAN: Because it wasn't the custom to report back to a subordinate officer.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Well then if we return to your application, then the only aspects of which you really had any personal knowledge would be paragraph 8, 9 and a section of 10. Of the others you don't really have any personal knowledge.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And in fact paragraph 11 is incorrect, it is false, because you were never informed.

MR DOS SANTOS: No, I was not informed.

MR MALAN: Now Mr Dos Santos really, I just want to ask you, this is a process during which people come to say what they have done and what they know and one would expect that you would be honest with the Committee and simply tell us what you know. And if there is anything that you wish to clarify, emanating from my questions, you should best take this up with your legal representatives and come clean. Please do not confirm things to us which you don't really know. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to respond to that, Mr Dos Santos.

MR DOS SANTOS: Nothing, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Motata? I note that Mr Jansen wants to say something.

MR JANSEN: Yes, sorry Chair, I know I didn't have any questions when it was my turn, but I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Can I allow Mr Motata to ask questions if he has any, then give you an opportunity if you so wish?

MR JANSEN: Yes, certainly, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: To ask one or two questions.

MR JANSEN: Yes, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata, do you have any questions?

ADV MOTATA: Just one, Madam Chair.

Mr Dos Santos, for how long were you at this farm near Rust-de-winter before the destruction of the body?

MR DOS SANTOS: It was on that day when it took place.

ADV MOTATA: In other words, only one day.

MR DOS SANTOS: I had visited the farm on a previous occasion as well.

ADV MOTATA: How many days had you spent there?

MR DOS SANTOS: If I recall correctly, I had been there twice.

ADV MOTATA: Twice. Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Yes, thank you Chair. With your permission, may I just ask some questions about this issue of the presence of Mr Matjeni at the second explosion? I hadn't picked it up in his viva voce evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it wasn't that clear. I will allow you to ask that question.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Dos Santos, could you perhaps assist us regarding when you recalled this second explosion again?

MR DOS SANTOS: I'm aware of the second explosion, I've always been aware of it, it is just that I did not set it out that clearly in my application.

MR JANSEN: Thus, according to you it is a faulty omission from your application?

MR DOS SANTOS: That would be correct.

MR JANSEN: You would agree with me that the most important reason why More, Mathebula and Matjeni were sent away was precisely that they would not be eye witnesses to the explosions and the desecration of the body.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Can you recall where this farm was situated and where the shop was to which you had been sent?

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MR JANSEN: Matjeni's recollection is that the shop was situated quite a distance away from the farm.

MR DOS SANTOS: I don't know.

MR JANSEN: You are also aware of Matjeni's version that he was not at all present during any explosion and that he had not heard any explosion either.

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, I am aware of it.

MR JANSEN: Can you think of any reason on earth which would indicate why he would be lying about it?

MR DOS SANTOS: I don't know.

MR JANSEN: Therefore you say that he is mistaken if he states that.

MR DOS SANTOS: As far as my recollection goes, they, or some of them were present at the scene. I cannot say whether he was present, but some of them were there.

MR JANSEN: Yes, but there is quite a large difference. Can you recall which other persons were present on the farm?

MR DOS SANTOS: Capt Crafford, Capt Prinsloo, me, Sgt Bester.

MR JANSEN: You were on that farm for a number of days, or at least the other members had been there for several days.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Were you only there on that day?

MR DOS SANTOS: The second time on that day, yes.

MR JANSEN: I don't understand. Was it the second time that day or was it your second time there on the farm?

MR DOS SANTOS: My second time there on the farm.

MR JANSEN: So you have Matjeni, Mathebula and the others on the farm on the previous occasion that you had been there.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Would you not be prepared to concede that it is a possible faulty reconstruction of yours to say that Mathebula and Matjeni and the others were there during the second explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, that may also be possible.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen.

Mr Dos Santos, how soon after the first explosion had taken place did the second one occur? In terms of minutes?

MR DOS SANTOS: Approximately half an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: And approximately how long after the first explosion had taken place, did you observe Mr Matjeni, Mr More and Mr Mathebula on the farm?

MR DOS SANTOS: I think it took place while we were looking for remains after the first explosion. That is when they arrived there. That is according to what I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Who gave you authority to cause the second explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: I cannot recall precisely, it is simply a decision which was taken there.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this a decision which had been taken prior to the first explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was the decision that was taken after the first explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the reason for making that decision after the first explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: In order to obliterate all clues completely.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware of the reason advanced, or were you aware why Mr Matjeni, Mr More and Mr Mathebula had initially been sent away to the shops to buy some items?

MR DOS SANTOS: I assume that they were not present with the first explosion, with the destruction.

CHAIRPERSON: I know that, I want to know if you were aware of the reason why they had been sent away from the farm.

MR DOS SANTOS: According to me it was so that they would not be present.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this explained to you by Mr Prinsloo?

MR DOS SANTOS: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what was the basis of your assumption?

MR DOS SANTOS: That they were not present, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That they had been sent away in order not to be present.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now on what did you base that assumption?

MR DOS SANTOS: I don't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's come back again to my initial question. Did you know why Mr Matjeni and Mr Mathebula and More had to go to the shops?

MR DOS SANTOS: I knew that they had been sent to the shops and I assumed that it would be so that they would not be present when we were busy with the destruction of the body.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you think it was important for them not to be present when you were busy with the destruction of the body?

MR DOS SANTOS: Probably so that there would be fewer witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So this is what you assumed at the time when they were sent away to the shops?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you caused the second explosion in their presence, why did you do that? Bearing in mind that this is what you had already assumed why initially they had been sent away to the shops.

MR DOS SANTOS: I assumed that they knew what was going on and that it didn't make a difference anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: Now at which stage did you assume that it no longer mattered whether they had to be around or not? Because I thought I understood your evidence to say that you assumed that they had to be away because they didn't need to witness what you were going to do in the destruction of Mr Lubane's body.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when did you then start believing that it didn't matter whether they were around or not?

MR DOS SANTOS: When they returned and we were still busy. They saw us in the veld. That is my only response, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this after you had been given authority to cause the second explosion?

MR DOS SANTOS: I wouldn't say that there was authorisation. After the first explosion we searched the area for clues and I think it was during that process that they arrived and assisted with this. That is when I once again placed explosives on the remains and destroyed the remaining remains, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So the second explosion occurred at nobody's authorisation, you used your own initiative. Is that what you are saying?

MR DOS SANTOS: No, the person in command would have authorised it. I cannot say that he specifically gave me that order. The order was for use to search for evidence and to destroy the evidence, so inherently it was actually an order.

CHAIRPERSON: You have read the affidavit of the other applicants in relation to this incident, is it not so, Mr Dos Santos?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You are aware of the affidavit of Mr Strydom, amongst others.

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, I am aware.

CHAIRPERSON: You are aware that he refers to the explosion wherein two landmines were used in order to destroy the remains of Mr Lubane. That's on page 415.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that he says that immediately thereafter the grave was filled and that you left after the grave had been filled up. You are aware of that?

MR DOS SANTOS: I see it now, but it is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You say this is not correct?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Just following from these questions. You say that after the first explosion you searched for remains.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And you also participated in this search?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Why were you searching for remains?

MR DOS SANTOS: In order to remove all evidence.

MR MALAN: And then you said that after the first explosion the decision was taken to launch a second explosion. This was not part of the prior planning?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct. Perhaps I could just put it as such, if with the first explosion we had not found any remains, we would not have conducted the second explosion.

MR MALAN: Or if it was so small that you could simply have buried it, you would simply have done so?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: In either event there was not many remains. Can you recall for how long you searched for remains in the area?

MR DOS SANTOS: It was not long.

MR MALAN: Very well. And when you decided to conduct this second explosion you had to fetch the explosives which you had in your vehicle, I would assume.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Then you had to return to the house to fetch the explosives.

MR DOS SANTOS: I would have to fetch the explosives in the car.

MR MALAN: Yes, but the car wouldn't be near the quarry, it would be near the house.

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes. I think I moved it closer to where we were, if I can recall correctly.

MR MALAN: So that you wouldn't have to carry the landmines all the way, or why?

MR DOS SANTOS: That would be the reason.

MR MALAN: But you would in either event have gone to the vehicle?

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Do you think that you moved the vehicle closer to the quarry or is it in actual fact the case?

I don't wish to create any further problems for you than what I have already created.

MR DOS SANTOS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall I would have drawn the vehicle closer. It is not that I am trying to tell lies.

MR MALAN: Yes, I know, but I am not certain of what is in your memory and what are constructs. As far as you can recall, these are constructs. But let us not dispute this. You can recall that you returned to the vehicle to obtain the other explosives for the second explosion.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Can you recall who instructed you to conduct a second explosion? Was it Prinsloo, Crafford or was this your initiative?

MR DOS SANTOS: I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: And you cannot recall that they asked you specifically whether you had any more explosives to conduct the second explosion with?

MR DOS SANTOS: No.

MR MALAN: But you are certain that there was a second explosion.

MR DOS SANTOS: Yes, I'm completely certain of that.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Emanating from that, Mr Dos Santos, do I understand you to say that a person in command would have authorised the second explosion? You've already testified to that effect and what I want to know is, the person in command would have been Crafford, as opposed to Mr Prinsloo, is it not so?

MR DOS SANTOS: The senior person on the scene was Capt Crafford.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now when you in your evidence say that a person in command would have authorised the second explosion, who are you referring to, Mr Crafford or Mr Prinsloo?

MR DOS SANTOS: Probably Capt Crafford then.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. He had been the one to give you the initial order for this - he gave you the order for the first explosion.

MR DOS SANTOS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you wish to conduct any re-examination, Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dos Santos, you are excused as a witness.

MR DOS SANTOS: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I think this would be an appropriate time to have the tea adjournment for 10 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: We have been advised in chambers that Mr du Plessis would like to call Oom Struis as the next applicant to be heard.

MR DU PLESSIS: I think Brig Cronje first and then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Oom Struis next.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. May I call Brig Cronje please.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------JAN HATTINGH CRONJE: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, Chairperson, sworn in.

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Brigadier, your application is embodied in the second application, which is a separate document which has been served before the Committee, which has three schedules and your application appears on page 19, the third schedule, where you apply for actions of your subordinates which you cannot specifically recall, but which you know took place while you were their commander, is that correct?

BRIG CRONJE: Not which took place. I cannot recall when they took place or whether they took place.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, pertaining to what you cannot recall having taken place, but what they undertook while you were their commander.

BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Comrade X can be found on the last paragraph of page 19.

BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And is it correct, Brigadier, that you cannot recall anything about this incident?

BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You have studied the affidavit of Mr Crafford, in which he has stated that he approached you about Comrade X Lubane. That is on page 488 of the first bundle. Do you see this?

BRIG CRONJE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Crafford said that you gave the order for him to be interrogated, and then later in this second paragraph he states that a submission was made to you for his elimination and that you extended your approval for it. Can you recall anything about that?

BRIG CRONJE: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what is your attitude towards this, would you accept that he says this, would you accept the correctness of his evidence?

BRIG CRONJE: I trusted Crafford, and I don't believe that he would have lied to me, therefore I accept it.

MR DU PLESSIS: And when he compiled his amnesty application, did he come to you about this?

BRIG CRONJE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did he tell you about this?

BRIG CRONJE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Mr Jansen, do you wish to put any questions to Brig Cronje?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair.

Brigadier, during the period that you were the commander and Capt Crafford served under your command, there must have been numerous interrogations of various persons during that period in time.

BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And Capt Crafford would have brought you up to speed about all these interrogations and the matters which were being investigated.

BRIG CRONJE: Yes, he would have.

ADV PRINSLOO: And today you sit here without any notes or any record of who those persons were and what exactly took place.

BRIG CRONJE: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is it possible that Capt Crafford may have discussed this matter with you and my have received an order from you to eliminate this person?

BRIG CRONJE: Yes, it is so.

ADV PRINSLOO: Given the facts which are presented here with regard to this specific persons, Comrade X, if the facts were presented as such by Capt Crafford to you, would you have issued the order to him or extended permission to him to eliminate Comrade X?

BRIG CRONJE: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And Brigadier, was it the custom - or let me rather put it this way. In the case where a person was to be eliminated, to the extent that nothing was to remain of him, was it also viable, as it occurred in this case, that the person be destroyed completely and that there be no suggestion of him accidentally having blown himself up? Would this have been viable?

BRIG CRONJE: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: In the period to which has been referred here, and there has been evidence about this, there was a reasonably severe onslaught and a total onslaught particularly in the Pretoria area, by the ANC on the Security Forces.

MR MALAN: You can accept that we know about that, Mr Prinsloo.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. The speaker's microphone.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, I beg your pardon, Madam Chair.

Mr Cronje, in this case where there was a plan to destroy the Wachthuis building and The House of Coffees, this would have had dire consequences if the plan had indeed been carried out.

BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And it would have been a tremendous victory for the ANC in their campaign.

BRIG CRONJE: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: It would have dealt a serious blow to the police and would have influenced them and the public.

BRIG CRONJE: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And it would have been of tremendous advantage to the ANC in the struggle which was being waged at that stage.

BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: Just one, Madam Chair.

Brigadier, we believe in this incident of Mr Lubane, Mr Crafford was in command. Do you recall that specifically?

BRIG CRONJE: He was in command of the interrogation division. I cannot recall this case, so I assume that he must have been in command, yes.

ADV MOTATA: We have heard evidence here previously and in mind comes Justice Mbizana, that if I recall the evidence correctly it was that he was new in the Security Branch and he had for some stage to work under Mr Prinsloo, so that he learns the ropes. But if we look at this incident together with that of Mbizana, it's during the same period. Would we say with this incident he had learnt the ropes, that is Crafford?

BRIG CRONJE: He did not work under Prinsloo, he was still his senior and his commander but for the purposes of interrogation he was not as connected to the Security Branch. However, he was an experience detective and he was well experienced when it came to interrogation.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Mr Cronje, you say that you do not recall this incident at all.

BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Isn't it strange that if there was such a plan to blow up Wachthuis and if there were already sketch plans and reconnaissance had been undertaken for these plans, that you cannot recall anything about it?

BRIG CRONJE: Chairperson, I simply cannot recall. I see your point, that if it was such an extensive matter I must recall something about it. But I cannot say whether or not I was informed about it either.

MR MALAN: And you have no recollection that Wachthuis and the police arcade and The House of Coffees sketch plans were presented to you and you were informed about what they had done and that on the basis of this the man was to be eliminated?

BRIG CRONJE: I cannot recall ever viewing any plans.

MR MALAN: Perhaps we are in a disadvantageous position in the sense that we could not have read all the previous evidence. Why do you say that you do not recall this, what other reasons for your lack of recollection of this, among others?

BRIG CRONJE: I cannot say, my memory has simply failed me. That is all.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You have in other instances given evidence before the Amnesty Committee in which you stated that you couldn't recall the many incidents that you might have been involved in as a Commander of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, is it not so?

BRIG CRONJE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to re-examine?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Just one question that relates to this issue, just to provide more clarity Mr Malan.

You will recall Madam Chair, that at the beginning of our applications we indicated that Brig Cronje, Capt Hechter, van Vuuren and Mentz to a lesser extent, were all involved in various incidents, in lots of incidents. In fact, there were applications where they said "We were involved in lots of bomb attacks, but we cannot even remember where, who, how, what. We cannot identify them anymore. We know we were involved in them." And we approached on post-traumatic stress, Professor Robertse, who did a whole profile on all the applicants, and may I just point out that in that report he highlighted the fact and the result of post-traumatic stress as being a kind of a selective memory situation. And you will remember Capt Hechter has the worst of that. He would remember one incident to the finest, finest detail of the incident and then another incident there is just nothing. And there's no sort of explanation why he would remember one incident. He would remember an incident of grave importance, which he would remember vaguely and then a small incident which he shouldn't be supposed to remember even, he remembers in the utmost detail. And Professor Robertse said that that is one of the symptoms of post-traumatic stress. He highlighted that in the report. And I think you will recall with Brig Cronje's evidence, to lesser extent that was the situation too in respect of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We have that on record.

MR DU PLESSIS: May I just request a question, Madam Chair.

May I just ask you, Brig Cronje, do you recall that Professor Robertse undertook such an evaluation of you and your memory?

BRIG CRONJE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, my next witness is Mr Strydom.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, you will note that I have handed a document up to you, if you will allow me to, which is an affidavit of Mr Strydom. You would have seen in his application, his affidavit in his application was very short and I felt it prudent to deal with some of the issues. So I would request you to regard this affidavit as part of his application. I can either let him read it to you into the record, or just confirm it. You obviously haven't had a change of reading it, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We haven't had the chance to read it, but have your colleagues been afforded an opportunity to go through the affidavit?

MR DU PLESSIS: We have presented them with copies a while ago, during this morning. I don't know if they've had an opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, have you had an opportunity to have sight of the affidavit, the supplementary affidavit that is being handed up to the Committee?

ADV PRINSLOO: I've gone through it briefly, I'll be able to proceed, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: I will be in a position to proceed, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, will you be in a position to proceed? Have you had sight of the affidavit handed up?

MR JANSEN: Yes, I've read the affidavit, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I will also be able to proceed, thank you, Madam Chair.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Strydom, will you put on your headphones and tune into the Afrikaans channel. The application of Mr Strydom in this incident you will find on page 414 to 415.

Mr Strydom, do you confirm the general information which has been set out in your application - I beg your pardon he has not been sworn in.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, you probably are proceeding a little bit faster than the Committee, we have to swear him in. Oom Struis, will you please rise to be sworn in.

JOHANNES JAKOBUS STRYDOM: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, please be seated.

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Strydom, you application has been set out from page 396 to page 428. Do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the particulars have been set out with regard to this incident, from page 415 to 416. Do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then you have also submitted a supplementary affidavit just to clarify certain aspects and to place the matter in better perspective. Do you confirm the correctness of the affidavit which you have submitted?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then you say in paragraph 22 of the affidavit - if I can just take you there, Madam Chair. You state -

Did you have contact with any of the other applicants when you set up your original affidavit and application which appears in the bundle?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct, I did.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you have detailed contact with them?

MR STRYDOM: No, I simply listened to their evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, listen carefully to my question. When you compiled your application on page 415, at that time, two years ago, did you discuss this with any of the other applicants?

MR STRYDOM: No, not at all.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you compile this on your own?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I compiled it by myself.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you state now that your memory has been refreshed.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, my memory has been refreshed.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the version in this affidavit is what you can recall.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And if you cannot recall something, you have stated that you could not recall it.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, I could not recall it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Strydom, this incident took place quite some time ago, is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And it has often been said that women's memories fail them, but men's memories also fail them.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: You were not as involved in this matter ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Be careful, Mr Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: I did qualify it, Madam Chair.

Is it correct Mr Strydom, that you were only involved on the last day?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: So you were not involved in the investigation of this matter?

MR STRYDOM: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: Apparently you were merely a person who accompanied Mr Prinsloo.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, can you recall specifically that Prinsloo bought beers at Pienaarsrivier, or was this elsewhere?

MR STRYDOM: It was at Pienaarsrivier.

ADV PRINSLOO: Why do you recall this so specifically?

MR STRYDOM: Because I drove with him and because he stopped there at the hotel and the off-sales division of the hotel and that is where we bought the beers.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is his evidence correct when he says that he had six beers on him?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: You heard his evidence in that he said that he gave a beer to the deceased and that he himself had a beer.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you don't have any problem with that because he couldn't have expected the deceased to have a beer by himself and him just sit there. If he had done that to someone, it would have looked very suspicious firstly, and secondly, it would have been very impolite.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: There would never have been a case of the one having a drink and the other one not having anything.

MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: We accept this knowledge, Mr Prinsloo.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, your evidence is not that at that stage you were having beers with them.

MR STRYDOM: No, not at that stage. To which stage have you referred to?

ADV PRINSLOO: No, we are referring to the stage when Mr Prinsloo would have given the deceased a beer and that he himself would have had a beer as well.

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Are you saying that at that stage you had a beer or was it later?

MR STRYDOM: At that stage I also had a beer.

ADV PRINSLOO: There with Mr Prinsloo on the veranda or wherever it took place?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you stand there with him having a beer?

MR STRYDOM: All of us were standing there.

ADV PRINSLOO: Who is all of us?

MR STRYDOM: Some of the other members, but I cannot recall who they were.

ADV PRINSLOO: But you have heard Mr Prinsloo's evidence in that he said that he had a beer with the deceased and not the others.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you could not have been standing aside ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: May I just come in here. The last portion of the question has been very unclear, could you please repeat it. May I ask that, Madam Chair, please. He asked the question and he said - "Capt Prinsloo had a beer and that the others never had a beer", but the last section was very unclear.

ADV PRINSLOO: I will do so, Chairperson.

The evidence of Capt Prinsloo is that he and the deceased each had a beer, is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I agree with that.

ADV PRINSLOO: But what is not clear is the stage at which you had a beer and where and with whom.

MR STRYDOM: At the house on the veranda all of us had beers. I just want to state it clearly for the Committee, that Prinsloo gave the deceased an Amstel beer and the other members did not have Amstels, neither did I, it was Lion beer.

ADV PRINSLOO: I didn't hear you.

MR STRYDOM: Lion beer.

ADV PRINSLOO: Who did you say provided that beer?

MR STRYDOM: Those were the beers that we bought at Pienaarsrivier.

ADV PRINSLOO: That "we" bought, or who bought?

MR STRYDOM: Prinsloo and I.

ADV PRINSLOO: So you yourself bought beers?

MR STRYDOM: We bought it together.

ADV PRINSLOO: So are you saying that beer was jointly purchased?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: You bought beers and Prinsloo bought beers?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: So if Prinsloo says that he had six beers and that these were Amstel, would you agree with it?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Would you then also agree that he used one of those Amstels for himself and one for the deceased?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I agree with that.

ADV PRINSLOO: So you are not saying that he gave the remaining four Amstels to you or any of the others?

MR STRYDOM: It is possible.

ADV PRINSLOO: But that's not what you've said, you haven't put that as a fact. Did Prinsloo give the four other beers to the others?

MR STRYDOM: I'm saying that it is possible that he may have handed the other four.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is that a fact or are you speculating?

MR STRYDOM: I'm speculating.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well.

MR MALAN: He is making a concession, if I understand him correctly, Mr Prinsloo. He is saying that it is possible.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, are you saying that there was drinking in the vehicle before you arrived there at the farm?

MR STRYDOM: Do you mean while we were travelling?

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR STRYDOM: I'm not certain, I don't believe so.

ADV PRINSLOO: Because I have just very briefly studied your affidavit and I just wish to be certain about this ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: May I just assist with this? Paragraph 9, I don't know if I should refer you to this, paragraph 9, the final sentence.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

ADV PRINSLOO: In paragraph 9 it is stated that there was no consumption before the time. Thank you, I have seen this now.

Inasfar as it involves the persons who, according to you on page 3 in paragraph 8, were at the unoccupied house, Dos Santos, Bester and Putter and then Jerry and Smuts, this other person de Pino, are you certain that he was there or are you reconstructing the fact that he was there?

MR STRYDOM: I am reconstructing his presence, I'm not one hundred percent certain that he was there.

ADV PRINSLOO: Because according to Capt Prinsloo he was not present there, he was involved in other investigations. As he recalls de Pino was involved with stockpiles.

MR STRYDOM: It is possible that de Pino was not present there.

ADV PRINSLOO: You have heard the evidence of Prinsloo, when it was put to him he said that he did not purchase beers at Pienaarsrivier. Then we get to the assault and you state that you did not see the deceased being assaulted yourself.

MR STRYDOM: No, I did not see that he was assaulted.

ADV PRINSLOO: You state that you saw scars or injuries on his person.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I saw that there were injuries to his face.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, can you recall precisely what sort of injuries these were?

MR STRYDOM: His eyes were swollen. They were not swollen completely closed, but it was clear to me that he had been assaulted. There were marks on his face, there were points of swelling on his face.

ADV PRINSLOO: So if I understand your answer correctly, Mr Strydom, his face was swollen but not lacerated.

MR STRYDOM: There were no open wounds, there was light swelling, as I have indicated.

ADV PRINSLOO: You did not know this person previously?

MR STRYDOM: No, I did not know the person previously.

ADV PRINSLOO: Therefore you would not know what his appearance would have been, how his eyes would have appeared under usual circumstances?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Therefore you are assuming that his eyes were swollen?

MR STRYDOM: No, I could see clearly that the man had been assaulted, due to fact that his face was swollen. His face did not appear to be normal, as the face of another.

ADV PRINSLOO: Could you clarify that, what do you mean?

MR STRYDOM: I could see when someone had been assaulted.

ADV PRINSLOO: Because nobody here has testified that the man had any injuries or a swollen face. There was evidence about an assault, but nothing of injuries or a swollen face. No-one has mentioned anything about that, you are the first to state anything about that. Can you clarify this?

MR STRYDOM: I have just stated ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is that correct, Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that correct? I recall Mr Mathebula saying that he didn't have any open wounds, but he didn't go as far as saying that the face was not swollen.

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, what I put to the witness is that there was no witness that said that his face was in fact swollen, as Mr Strydom's now testifying. But it's also correct on the opposite side, Mr Mathebula didn't qualify that. He never said there were any open wounds.

CHAIRPERSON: He said there were no open wounds.

ADV PRINSLOO: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: That does not mean that the face wasn't swollen.

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes. But on the other hand, with respect Madam Chair, there was no, it wasn't his version that his face was swollen. Just a moment please, Madam Chair.

Mr Strydom, I have noted in your affidavit on page 5 in paragraph 15, that you state that you yourself helped to dig the hole. I beg your pardon, that is not paragraph 15, or yes, it is paragraph 15. That you helped to dig the hole ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: May I just come in there, Madam Chair. Just for record purposes, my learned friend put that he said that he also dug the grave and he says -

ADV PRINSLOO: So you do not say that you helped to dig the grave? Because I do not understand precisely what you have put there. Could you explain to the Committee.

MR STRYDOM: I myself did not help to dig the grave.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, you also do not say that you were under the influence of alcohol on that day when these incidents took place. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR STRYDOM: No, I don't say that, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you also do not wish to say that the other members who were present there were under the influence.

MR STRYDOM: I wouldn't say that we were under the influence, but beers had been consumed.

ADV PRINSLOO: That is a very broad idea. If a person has had a beer, he could be under the influence. You are an experienced policeman.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct. Well whether you've had one or two beers, regardless of that, you are under the influence of alcohol.

ADV PRINSLOO: Well I'm glad that you are not testifying against somebody in Court on that basis, that he would be under the influence of beer. Did you see any person who appeared to be inebriated in your opinion, except that you saw a person having a beer.

MR STRYDOM: Well as I've stated, I saw that there were persons having beers, but I didn't observe that anybody was drunk.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you cannot tell the Committee who specifically had a beer or not.

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall specifically who had beers.

ADV PRINSLOO: But you recall that you yourself had a beer.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, you have heard the evidence that there were two explosions, first the primary explosion during which the person's body had to be destroyed and was destroyed and afterwards remnants were picked up and these were once again blown up.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson, the first explosion I can recall and I recall that after the first explosion, remnants of flesh and hair lay about, but I cannot recall a second explosion.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, you would agree with me that the whole purpose behind this exercise was to completely destroy the body of the person, so that nothing would remain. Is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And if one had caused an explosion and if one picked up remnants and tossed them into a hole and did not destroy these remaining pieces, somebody may have been able to find this and then scientifically it could be proven who the person was who had been killed and that would have destroyed the ends of this exercise. Is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And that is what took place there.

MR STRYDOM: The first explosion, as I have already stated, went off and there were remnants of flesh with hairs which remained, but I cannot recall the second explosion.

ADV PRINSLOO: But Mr Strydom, the idea was to completely destroy the body of the person. There is a person who was particularly involved with this. For example Dos Santos, Prinsloo, Crafford and Bester and certainly efforts would have been made to ensure that absolutely nothing remained because it was a very serious matter, isn't that so?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't this within his knowledge, Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Was the reason why Mr Lubane had to be blasted within Mr Strydom's knowledge and the fact that his remains were to be completely obliterated within his knowledge?

ADV PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Madam Chair, that must have been within his knowledge because he was present when he was blown up and according to his own version there were pieces collected. He says it's only his memory, he can't recall exactly as to whether there was a second explosion or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, isn't that sufficient?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, what I'm putting to the witness is that the whole purpose was to destroy all evidence completely, otherwise it would be futile to blow up the person and certain remains remain, where traces could be found and later be linked to this particular person, to a human that was blown up there.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the objective explained to him? Because I still don't know whether he is answering a question that is within his personal knowledge.

ADV PRINSLOO: Well I'll ask him whether it was within his personal knowledge, Madam Chair.

Mr Strydom, did you know that the entire purpose was for this person's body to be completely destroyed, so that there would be no remains which could indicate that there was any evidence of someone having been blown up there at a later stage?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct. But I will reiterate, I cannot recall a second explosion.

ADV PRINSLOO: I have nothing further.

ADV MOTATA: But Mr Prinsloo, when he says in paragraph 17-

Is it not also destroying the evidence of any remains?

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect, Madam Chair, with regard to the question of Mr Motata, that will be futile if you merely cover it up, because the hair will still be traced there and you could link it later on.

ADV MOTATA: I suppose it's a question of argument, we cannot take ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think this is a question for argument.

ADV MOTATA: It is a question for argument, we cannot take it over with Oom Struis.

MR DU PLESSIS: I wanted to suggest that we swear in Mr Prinsloo now.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it's a question to be argued when you do your submission, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Strydom, you have submitted a further affidavit which you have presented to the Committee as the result of having read the other applications and having heard the other evidence and that your memory has been refreshed as a result of this.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: But isn't it true Mr Strydom, that your evidence and the statement which you submitted is completely different to your application which is embodied in bundle 1?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, it differs.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, because I just wish to point out to you, on page 414 it is stated that -

That is entirely incorrect because you were not involved in any interrogation.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, I was not present.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then in the same paragraph at the bottom ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I just perhaps come in here. In his affidavit now he explains in paragraph 20, he says the following - ...(intervention)

MS VAN DER WALT: I just wonder if the witness couldn't perhaps answer the question under cross-examination himself, because otherwise we'll just have to swear Mr du Plessis in.

MR DU PLESSIS: Ag Madam Chair, please, I'm not going to go to level of responding to that. I'll leave it there and let Mrs van der Walt just carry on with her questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Ms van der Walt, you may proceed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Once again I will refer you -

What do you say about the fact that beers were given to the activist?

MR STRYDOM: I refer to the beers which Capt Prinsloo had given him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just that one beer?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what do you say about the fact that "The man was gravely assaulted by all the members during the interrogation"?

ADV MOTATA: But Ms van der Walt, is that not cured by paragraph 20 of the supplementary affidavit?

MS VAN DER WALT: I deal with that if I may.

So what appears here is actually incorrect, which appears in your application, page 415?

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, that is exactly the point. If you read that as saying "The man was assaulted by all of our members during the interrogation", meaning an interrogation that happened there when they arrived there where he was present. Then her question is valid, but that's why I pointed to paragraph 20, where he says ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We are aware of what paragraph 20 ...

MR DU PLESSIS:

With the greatest of respect, that can be interpreted in different ways.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, will you afford Ms van der Walt an opportunity to conduct her cross-examination.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

Mr Strydom, I just wish to read that sentence to you again, and I'm not trying to argue with you here, but there are certain aspects of my client's evidence which will be placed before the Honourable Committee, which differ from yours. What I'm reading to you is this -

And that is correct in the sense that you do not know who it was or whether he was assaulted by one or ten persons, or by your members. Is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then why have you inserted this there?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, as I have stated, since I made this statement up to now, my recollection has recovered completely and what I said at the stage when I made the initial affidavit, has occurred to me now as being incorrect.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see, I understand if your recollection was faulty, but here you state a specific action which took place and you state, or you do not state that you don't know whether an assault took place because you cannot recall, you state that the man was gravely assaulted by all of your members. And what I mean is that I don't understand how you can simply recall this or not recall this, because you are making specific allegations here. Why?

MR STRYDOM: When I made the affidavit I was incorrect in what I wrote in the affidavit at that stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you include incorrect facts?

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, will there be any point in pursuing this line of cross-examination, bearing in mind that he has already conceded that he was incorrect in his application, pertinently in relation to this issue, because of his faulty recollection. And having also given evidence right at the beginning that he has since had an opportunity to confer with the other applicants and in so doing his memory was refreshed. Isn't this a matter to be argued when you present your legal argument?

MS VAN DER WALT: May I just over to the new affidavit and what he says on page 4, paragraph 10.

Now after you have read all the statements and recovered your memory you have said that you could see quite clearly that he had been assaulted during interrogations, due to the fact that he had marks and lesions which appeared to indicate a serious assault. Now I want to know, did you compile this affidavit yesterday, because this is quite fresh in your recollection? Is that correct?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Which marks did you observe?

MR STRYDOM: There were marks of swelling.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now when you refer to marks it wouldn't really be correct, this would have to be swelling as such.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, swelling.

MS VAN DER WALT: And which scars did you observe?

MR STRYDOM: Well if one had hit someone in the face with the fist there would be swelling which would lead to scarring or lumps.

MS VAN DER WALT: What form of scars? You will have to tell the Committee, because it is quite important. Marks are now swellings, and what is the difference between a swelling and a lump?

MR STRYDOM: Well there isn't really a difference I suppose.

MS VAN DER WALT: But then what do you mean by scars?

MR STRYDOM: I would say according to my information and my experience, swelling would be the result of a fist blow or a slap which had been dealt to the face.

MS VAN DER WALT: And a scar?

MR STRYDOM: A scar would be an open wound.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Now what open wounds did he have on his face?

MR STRYDOM: I've already stated that there were no open wounds.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you have just said that scars are open wounds.

MR STRYDOM: You asked me for an example.

MS VAN DER WALT: No, I wanted to know what you said here. What did you see?

MR STRYDOM: There were no scars, there was swelling and lumps, as I have stated.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you are also mistaken with what you stated in your affidavit? Because you state that this assault took place during the interrogations.

MR STRYDOM: It was before my arrival and I suspected that that was when the assault took place.

MS VAN DER WALT: So it is also not correct that it took place during interrogation, because you cannot say this.

MR STRYDOM: Not in my presence.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you put this in your affidavit?

MR DU PLESSIS: May I just know precisely to which affidavit and which sentence she has referred?

MS VAN DER WALT: The new affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 10, page 4.

MS VAN DER WALT: If you do not know that this took place during interrogation, why did you put this in your new affidavit of we have received half an hour ago?

MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, it could have been assault during interrogation before I arrived there.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you don't this.

MR STRYDOM: I don't know.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Because I put it to you ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Ms van der Walt.

Did you put that in paragraph 10, that he must have been assaulted during interrogation because you assumed that was the whole reason for abducting and keeping him on a farm? It would be for no other reason except to interrogate him.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You may proceed, Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see Mr Strydom, I put it to you that Mr Bester was, from the very first day when Mr Lubane arrived on the farm, Mr Bester was tasked to guard Mr Lubane. He was with Mr Jerry Matjeni. It was the primary task of the two of them. Mr Bester will testify that he has absolutely no knowledge of the slaps which Capt Prinsloo dealt to Mr Lubane. But he states that during the entire period of time that he was present on the farm there was no assault on Mr Lubane that he observed. But Mr Lubane had no marks on his face or on his body, that he sustained no injuries, that he would definitely have observed this because he slept in the same room as Mr Lubane. Do you have any commentary about that?

MR STRYDOM: I have no comment for that because I was not there. I was only on the farm at one stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: But do you have any comment regarding the assaults which you observed?

MR STRYDOM: I have no ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: He did not observe any assaults.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't observe any assault, Ms van der Walt. That's not his evidence.

MR MALAN: Your microphone is not on.

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon. I refer to the injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: He has already said he can't comment on Mr Bester's observations.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I would like to take you to page 5, paragraph 15. And I want to put it to you that Mr Bester cannot recall whether or not you were present when the grave was dug, but that he will testify that he and Mr Putter and Mr Botha dug the grave. Any comment?

MR STRYDOM: It is possible.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then I would also like to put it to you that Mr Bester will also testify that there was a second explosion. And you have already stated that you cannot recall this.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: You mention in your amnesty application on page 416, that you departed from the farm - that is the inference that I have drawn. Perhaps you could tell me whether or not I am mistaken -

Is that what you have stated there, that you departed from the farm where the incident took place?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then you went to another farm.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now I put it to you that Mr Bester will state that the yellow Cortina vehicle was on the farm where the incident took place. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR STRYDOM: I have no comment.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is your version correct?

MR STRYDOM: I wouldn't say that my version is one hundred percent correct, but it is possible that I may be mistaken.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you do not address it in your new affidavit.

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, sorry. May I just point out, the last paragraph would have remained the same and for some reason my secretary didn't retype that paragraph into this affidavit and that is why it's not in this affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Strydom, how many times had you been on this specific farm?

MR STRYDOM: Just this once.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall where the farm is situated?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall at all where the farm is situated.

MR VAN HEERDEN: This hole which was dug, how deep was it?

MR STRYDOM: I don't know how deep the hole was, because I was not as close to the hole so that I could observe the depth of it.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How far away were you?

MR STRYDOM: Approximately four to five metres.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And did the man's body fit comfortably into this hole?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So you could see the hole? Or let me put it like this. How long was the hole?

MR STRYDOM: It was approximately two to three metres long.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall its width?

MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall how wide it was.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And the depth?

MR STRYDOM: I also cannot recall the depth.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And after the explosion you returned to the hole and remnants of the remains had been picked up.

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you participate in picking up the remains?

MR STRYDOM: No.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall how the remains were picked up?

MR STRYDOM: By means of shovels.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And these remnants were then tossed back into the hole.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was the hole any deeper after the explosion than before the explosion?

MR STRYDOM: No, it wasn't deeper than before.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you see when the hole was filled up again?

MR STRYDOM: No.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I've no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you through with your cross-examination, Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Just with regard to your final answer to Mr van Heerden's question. You state in your affidavit on page 6, paragraph 17 -

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR MALAN: How do you know this?

MR STRYDOM: Well I assumed that the hole would have been filled up.

MR MALAN: I don't understand your answer. Did you leave immediately after the explosion?

MR STRYDOM: No, I did not leave the farm immediately after the explosion.

MR MALAN: No, what I mean is the hole.

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR MALAN: Then how do you know that remnants of flesh, bone and hair had been picked up?

MR STRYDOM: Because I saw it. Just after the flesh and the bones had been picked up I left the scene.

MR MALAN: You saw how it was tossed into the hole?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did you depart on your own?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: But you did not see them fill up the hole, you just saw them toss the remains into the hole with a spade.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, and I assumed that they would have covered the hole or filled it up.

MR MALAN: And you also state that you have no recollection of a second explosion.

MR STRYDOM: No.

MR MALAN: Can you recall whether the black members returned upon the retrieval of the remnants of flesh and bone and hair?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: You cannot recall when they returned?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall when they returned.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you see if they also participated in the retrieval of the remnants?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall that, Chairperson, I cannot recall whether they participated.

MR MALAN: And then, when did Prinsloo tell you that the activist would be eliminated?

MR STRYDOM: When we arrived on the farm.

MR MALAN: So all the way in the car when you were travelling with him, absolutely nothing was said, he simply said that you were to travel with him to the farm?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct. We chatted, but I cannot recall what we chatted about.

MR MALAN: And the first that you knew was when you saw the activist and you saw that he was swollen and you spoke to Prinsloo and he told you that the activist was going to be eliminated?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Who is de Pino?

MR STRYDOM: He was a Sergeant who worked with us at that time in our unit.

MR MALAN: In C-Section?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, in C-Section.

MR MALAN: Northern Transvaal?

MR STRYDOM: Yes.

MR MALAN: Very well. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Strydom, paragraph 19 of the supplementary affidavit, you say -

Do you see this?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, I see this.

ADV MOTATA: Who sent them away to buy more beers?

MR STRYDOM: If I recall correctly it was Capt Prinsloo who sent them away to buy more beer.

ADV MOTATA: Was it the order that they were to go and purchase more beer?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, that was the order.

ADV MOTATA: Did they return with the beer?

MR STRYDOM: Yes, they returned with the beer.

ADV MOTATA: What happened to the beer, was it consumed or what happened?

MR STRYDOM: Some of the beers were consumed.

ADV MOTATA: Who on the farm had the beer?

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

ADV MOTATA: No, who? Because we only know that More, Mathebula and Matjeni were there. Did others, such as Bester, Putter, Dos Santos, also participate in the consumption of the beers?

MR STRYDOM: Everybody had beers.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Not Mr.

ADV MOTATA: Madam Chairperson. I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, earlier on in your testimony you evidenced that on your way to the farm you stopped at Pienaarsrivier Bottle Store, where you bought some beers and Mr Prinsloo bought Amstel. Can we infer that you bought Lion? Did I understand your evidence incorrectly?

MR STRYDOM: I just wish to correct something. I had no knowledge of those Amstel beers, I did not see them in the car. Both of us bought Lion beers at Pienaarsrivier.

CHAIRPERSON: So you both bought Lion beer at Pienaarsrivier.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these cans or bottles?

MR STRYDOM: Cans.

CHAIRPERSON: To your recollection the drink that was given to Mr Lubane, was it an Amstel beer to your recollection?

MR STRYDOM: According to my recollection it was an Amstel beer.

CHAIRPERSON: And were the other members who were around the veranda at the time of Mr Lubane drinking this Amstel beer, also having Amstel?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall precisely whether or not they drank Amstels.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of beer did you drink?

MR STRYDOM: I had Lion beer.

CHAIRPERSON: But your recollection is that whilst Mr Lubane was drinking his beer, other members also were drinking beer around the verandah where Mr Lubane was.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALAN: Mr Strydom, I suppose I should have asked Mr Prinsloo this question because I cannot recall whether this evidence was specifically led. But if it is in correlation with his practise that beer must have been prepared beforehand because he knew what he was going to do, he put the sleeping drug into the beer. I don't think he gave specific evidence. If Mr Prinsloo wishes to assist me, Mr Harry Prinsloo, then he can do so. Can you recall that you were told, because you do not say anything about it in your affidavit, that you were told that there was a sleeping drug in the deceased's beer?

MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: You just recall that he drank the beer and that it affected him and rendered him unconscious.

MR STRYDOM: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, counsel, would I be correct if I encapsulate my memory of Mr Prinsloo, the applicant's evidence, as having been to the effect that the pills were ground on the farm and a portion was inserted inside the beer on the farm? I thought Mr Prinsloo's evidence was quite clear in that regard. That's how I recall the evidence.

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I was just looking now to find that place, but my colleague indicates that there was evidence that the beer was, it was placed at the farm, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's how I recall his evidence. In that regard you don't need to recall Mr Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: I don't think so, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, do you wish to conduct any re-examination?

MR DU PLESSIS: No re-examination, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, or should we say Oom Struis, you are excused as a witness.

MR STRYDOM: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

MS VAN DER WALT: We just need to switch the microphones please, Chairperson.

I will then call the following applicant, who is Mr Bester.

MR BESTER: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated. He has been sworn in, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan.

INTERPRETER: Chairperson, Chairperson, just one minute.

CHAIRPERSON: I am requested by the translators to afford them just a minute. You may now proceed, Ms van der Walt.

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Bester, your amnesty application appears in bundle 1, the formal application form, from page 366 to page 368. The incident which has been served before the Committee today appears from page 369 to page 372, and you political motivation which is Annexure B, is from page 373 to 379, is that correct?

MR BESTER: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now during this time that the incident took place, where were you stationed?

MR BESTER: Security Branch Northern Transvaal, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what was your rank?

MR BESTER: I was an Investigating Sergeant, Detective Sergeant.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who was your commander?

MR BESTER: Capt Crafford.

MS VAN DER WALT: And on this particular day, or on a certain day, of which you cannot recall the date ...

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: ... you are of the opinion that it should be either 1986 or 1987.

MR BESTER: It was late in the year. I had not been at the Security Branch for very long. Late '86 early '87.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. You then went to a certain farm, is that correct?

MR BESTER: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And at what time approximately did you arrive at the farm?

MR BESTER: In the evening.

MS VAN DER WALT: And was Capt Prinsloo then already on the farm?

MR BESTER: Yes, he was on the farm.

MS VAN DER WALT: And was anybody else on the farm?

MR BESTER: It was Capt Prinsloo, Const Matjeni, More and Mathebula and Crafford.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now can we just deal with the problem which has been experienced there by the Honourable Committee. You have the same legal representatives during the composition of your amnesty application, as Mr Dos Santos and Mr Prinsloo.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you discussed this matter with your fellow applicants.

MR BESTER: That is correct. ...(end of side A of tape)

MS VAN DER WALT: ... application was compiled, which you read subsequently and signed.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the details which are embodied in that application have been given to the applicants by the legal representatives.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I would like to take you to your application of page 369, and refer you to paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4. This is certain information which was conveyed to you.

MR BESTER: Yes, by Capt Prinsloo. When I arrived that evening on the farm he briefed me and gave me a background of what was going on.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was it necessary to brief you, as you have put it?

MR BESTER: Because I would have been primarily responsible for guarding him along with Matjeni and I would also have been involved in the interrogation.

MS VAN DER WALT: So if you were involved in the interrogation, do I understand you correctly, that you would then have required background because otherwise you would not have been able to interrogate the man?

MR BESTER: Yes, it would have been senseless.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you then informed at that stage when you arrived on the farm, that this person's MK name was Comrade?

MR BESTER: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you ever know his real name?

MR BESTER: No, I only saw it in the applications when I studied them.

MS VAN DER WALT: And were you informed that there was a certain informer who provided certain information?

MR BESTER: Capt Prinsloo told me that when I arrived at the farm that evening.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you Const More at that stage?

MR BESTER: Yes, very well, we worked together in the same Section C.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was there any information with regard to him which was conveyed to you on the farm?

MR BESTER: No, not about More himself.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know that he was handling an informer?

MR BESTER: I simply knew that it was More's informer which had led to the arrest, according to Prinsloo.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. And did you have any knowledge at that stage that this person had a handler, this Comrade, that he had received order from certain persons to conduct certain activities in South Africa?

MR BESTER: Yes, as it appears in paragraph 1 to 4, Prinsloo informed me and asked me to confirm it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now what do you mean by confirm?

MR BESTER: Well I had to verify whether this was the case or not.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is that with Comrade himself?

MR BESTER: Yes, with Comrade himself.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then do so during interrogation?

MR BESTER: Yes, in the four days.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you obtain confirmation of certain information?

MR BESTER: Yes, Comrade told me.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Then you continue in paragraph 5 and state that you were there on the farm, that is when you described the activities on the farm, and you state that you thoroughly interrogated Comrade for approximately four days and he confirmed all the information that you had about him. Now who are these people that you refer to?

MR BESTER: As it appears in my application, it was Putter, Dos Santos, Prinsloo, More, Matjeni, Mathebula and Botha.

MS VAN DER WALT: You heard Mr Dos Santos say that only once before the incident had he been involved on the farm, and it would appear from his evidence that he had not conducted interrogation. What do you say about what you have stated in paragraph 5?

MR BESTER: As I could recall, upon occasion, not all the time, but upon occasion Dos Santos was present.

MS VAN DER WALT: So he was not consistently present?

MR BESTER: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Can we just go to paragraph 6 where you deal with the sketch plans which were found in the vehicle of Comrade, according to Capt Prinsloo's evidence, which pertained to the onslaught on Wachthuis. What do you know about this?

MR BESTER: There were three sketch plans which Capt Prinsloo showed me. I was not present when they were found in the vehicle, but I was aware of them.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you see them?

MR BESTER: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was this after they had been found and brought to you?

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. And then you continue on page 371 and you state that -

What do you say about that? What should the Committee infer from that?

MR BESTER: That Capt Prinsloo, as I knew him, would have wanted confirmation of whether or not those plans had been drawn up by Comrade himself.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you present when the request was put to Comrade to draw up the plans?

MR BESTER: Correct, I was present, More was present and the Captain was present.

MS VAN DER WALT: That was when the paper and the pen were given to him?

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did he draw up any plans?

MR BESTER: On one piece of paper he sketched the arcade, the coffee shop and the parking area, more-or-less.

MS VAN DER WALT: As it appeared on the other sketches?

MR BESTER: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then furthermore, you state that

Were you present? I beg your pardon, after that you state that you were not present.

MR BESTER: Yes, but I know about it because Capt Hennie informed me about it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know that as it appears in Capt Crafford's application, that he went to Brig Cronje?

MR BESTER: Well Capt Hennie told me that he was going. I don't know whether he actually went there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did he leave the farm?

MR BESTER: Yes, he did.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did he return later?

MR BESTER: If I recall correctly, this discussion took place on the one day and Capt Crafford returned on the following day with the answer.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Then I would like to refer you further to paragraph 8. You state -

Were you present during this request, as I may put it, to Comrade?

MR BESTER: Yes, upon Capt Prinsloo's request I had to make this request to Comrade because I slept in the room with him, Matjeni and I, and I had to try and turn his mind.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now what other interrogation did you also conduct? I think a statement was put on behalf of Capt Prinsloo, of a certain photo album.

MR BESTER: Yes, that is correct. I cannot recall whether it was on the second or the third day that Capt Hennie, who was in the farm on and off, showed me or brought me a terrorist album as well as loose photos of terrorists who were wanted. I received the order to show these photos to Comrade, which I then did and he identified certain internally trained terrorists in the album to me and also with the loose photos he identified a terrorist by the name of Brown Sugar. That was all that he could tell me at that stage. And this Brown Sugar was apparently active in Soshanguve.

MS VAN DER WALT: And this Brown Sugar, who was the person?

MR BESTER: Later his name emerged as Konne Lekumbi and he was called Brown Sugar.

MS VAN DER WALT: This is the same person about whom Capt Prinsloo testified, who was later involved in a criminal trial.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And during this interrogation of yours and the period during which you were with Comrade, what was your relationship with each other?

MR BESTER: Comrade basically co-operated, if I may so. There was no reason to assault him. I made him food. Jerry and I ate together with him. I was also primarily responsible for guarding him. That is why Capt Prinsloo entrusted this task to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were not present when Capt Prinsloo initially arrived on the farm with Comrade, but since your arrival at the farm, did you observe any assault by any person?

MR BESTER: Neither I nor Jerry who was there, know anything about that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you notice any injuries on him?

MR BESTER: I noticed no injuries on him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Would you have noticed if he had sustained any injuries?

MR BESTER: Definitely. I would have remembered it. I could not remember anything like that.

MS VAN DER WALT: You state that on the following day Mr Crafford returned, is that correct?

MR BESTER: Yes, it was on the third or the fourth day, but I am speaking under correction.

MS VAN DER WALT: And according to your application on page 372, paragraph 10, Lt Prinsloo gave you the order to dig a hole in the veld.

MR BESTER: To me, Putter and Botha. The three of us left there with spades.

MS VAN DER WALT: Putter and Botha, both of them have passed away.

MR BESTER: Yes, Putter died in a motor vehicle accident and Botha shot himself.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now could you describe to the Honourable Committee what the hole looked like, because I don't think that at this stage there has been any such evidence. How did it look, how did the environment look?

MR BESTER: It was in the veld between low bushes, a dual track path went past the quarry. There was a deep enough dip there. It took us approximately half an hour. The three of us worked very hard to dig this hole very quickly. It was approximately 60cm deep and 2m long.

MS VAN DER WALT: And are you aware of any order which was given to some of the black members by Mr Prinsloo, to go to a shop?

MR BESTER: At approximately the same time when we went to dig the hole, the black members left the farm to go to a shop.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know what their order was?

MR BESTER: No. Capt Hennie, I am aware that he sent them and that he sent us at approximately the same time and he told us to hurry up.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were they to purchase something at the shop?

MR BESTER: That is what I assumed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Furthermore, you state in paragraph 12 that -

What do you say about that?

MR BESTER: Capt Hennie told us to hurry up, that is why he sent the three of us, that he was going to put sleeping tablets into beer and give this to Comrade. We were to hurry so that we could return.

MS VAN DER WALT: So is it your evidence that he would prepare this there on the farm?

MR BESTER: That is what Capt Hennie told me.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is that what he said. Very well. And did you see that Comrade was unconscious?

MR BESTER: When we returned he lay there on the veranda.

MS VAN DER WALT: And was Comrade then placed in the hole?

MR BESTER: Yes, he was placed in the hole and Putter and Botha remained at the farmhouse. As I can recall, Crafford, Dos Santos, Prinsloo and I drove in the bakkie and placed him in the hole where Crafford shot him with the pistol.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened after that?

MR BESTER: Afterwards Dos Santos destroyed the body with explosives.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know what sort of explosives?

MR BESTER: There were two landmines.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now you have already described the hole as you dug it. After the body had been destroyed with the two landmines, how did the hole then appear?

MR BESTER: It was a crater, it was big.

MS VAN DER WALT: Had you ever before been on scenes where similar landmines had exploded?

MR BESTER: No, I have never been.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now when you refer to a crater ...(intervention)

MR BESTER: I refer to a large hole

MS VAN DER WALT: ... because two landmines ought to cause the creation of a reasonably large hole. What happened afterwards?

MR MALAN: Can you tell us how big this hole was, because you told us that the initial hole was 2m in length by 60cm in depth.

MR BESTER: More-or-less what we had dug.

MR MALAN: Yes, and afterwards, could you give the dimensions?

MR BESTER: From this table to that table.

MR MALAN: What would that have been, a bit more than three meters.

MR BESTER: Yes, it was much deeper as well.

MR MALAN: How much deeper?

MR BESTER: I would say almost a meter deep or deeper.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. And what happened subsequently?

MR BESTER: Subsequently I'm not certain, but we used the spades to pick up remnants of flesh which remained after the first explosion.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who is this "we"?

MR BESTER: Dos Santos, Prinsloo, Crafford and I. I don't know whether everybody picked up remnants of flesh but I did, and we used the spades to toss these back into the grave. After that Dos Santos once again destroyed those items of flesh and that is when we left.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know from where he obtained the explosives which he used to destroy the remnants?

MR BESTER: W/O Dos Santos drove a blue Sierra vehicle which was his explosives vehicle. This was parked in the dual track path between the farmhouse and the hole which we dug.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did he fetch the explosive from there?

MR BESTER: Yes, for the first and the second explosion.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mrs van der Walt, before you continue.

The explosives that he fetched, do you know anything about explosives, are you a trained demolitions expert?

MR BESTER: No, I'm not.

MR MALAN: Can you recall how the other explosives looked? You can say if you cannot recall, I just want to know.

MR BESTER: They weren't landmines. The second explosives were not landmines.

MR MALAN: Can you recall how they looked?

MR BESTER: I recall it being plastic explosives which had the appearance of clay.

MR MALAN: Plastic explosives, is that what you suspect?

MR BESTER: Yes.

MR MALAN: But I cannot recall this or say this specifically?

MR BESTER: No, I cannot.

MR MALAN: Can you recall how he placed it on the remains, was it below or above?

MR BESTER: When we tossed the remains into the hole, when we had finished this I walked away and he continued on his own, W/O Dos Santos. This was after he had already fetched the explosives in the motor vehicle, the second time.

MR MALAN: Where did you go when you left?

MR BESTER: I walked back because there was going to be a second explosion, I didn't want to be there when the explosion took place. I walked away and after the second explosion I went back with the bakkie.

MR MALAN: You did not return to have a second look at the hole?

MR BESTER: No, not again.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just with that point, you have heard the evidence of Mr Dos Santos, where he has stated that if he worked with the explosives he would work alone and that is understandable, isn't it?

MR BESTER: Yes, it is custom.

MS VAN DER WALT: I was busy asking you whether Cost More, Mathebula and Matjeni were at the hole at any point or at any stage. Did you see them there?

MR BESTER: When I arrived back after the explosion, they arrived there with Jerry's E20 panel van. They were not there to pick up any remnants of flesh. I cannot recall that.

MS VAN DER WALT: And furthermore, in paragraph 13 on page 372, you simply state that the body was destroyed with explosives, you do not describe the two separate occasions.

MR BESTER: What I meant here is that the body was completely destroyed, so that no forensic investigations could be conducted subsequently.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when you arrived at the farm, what did you do then?

MR BESTER: After that I went in the bakkie with Putter and Botha, back to Pretoria.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. After my cross-examination of Mr Strydom had been completed, there was a question which was put by the Honourable Committee to Mr Strydom with regard to drinking the beers and so forth. And I don't wish to overemphasise this, but it has been stated that everybody had beer and your name was then also mentioned in connection with this. What do you say about that?

MR BESTER: Firstly Chairperson, I don't drink beer. I do drink, but I don't drink beer at all. I did not have beer and it was also not the custom. Discipline was very strict in the unit under the command of Capt Crafford and Capt Prinsloo, we would never have been allowed to have beer during an action.

MS VAN DER WALT: Afterwards yes?

MR BESTER: Yes, subsequently, indeed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. You then request that the Honourable Committee grant you amnesty with regard to the death of Comrade or Mr Lubane, as you have heard him to be now, with regard to any offence which may emanate as well as any delict, is that correct?

MR BESTER: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you receive any personal gain or rewards emanating from your participation in this incident?

MR BESTER: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any personal vengeance against Mr Lubane?

MR BESTER: None.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr du Plessis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Bester, how long had you been with the Security Branch, in total?

MR BESTER: Approximately 18 months.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you served under Capt Crafford.

MR BESTER: First under Prinsloo and then afterwards under Crafford. He was my senior.

MR DU PLESSIS: And for how long did you work with Capt Crafford?

MR BESTER: I cannot recall for how long I was at the branch when Capt Sakkie arrived there, that would be Crafford. I cannot recall, but I had been there for a number of months when he arrived there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall anything about his drinking habits?

MR BESTER: I know that Capt Crafford was a diabetic and ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: But can you recall anything about his drinking habits?

MR BESTER: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall that he was a heavy drinker? Because I'm just putting it to you that that was the case.

MR BESTER: Well I would believe you if you say so, but Capt Crafford and I never went out in the evenings after work or visited each other at each other's homes or anything like that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. You have testified, as I've understood you, that you were there on the farm all the time, is that correct?

MR BESTER: As Capt Hennie informed me, on the same day that he was abducted and arrested, I arrived on the farm that evening.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And from that point onwards you were there all the time?

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And were you present during all the interrogations?

MR BESTER: Not all of them. During most I was present, that is correct, because I stayed with him day and night and slept in the same room as him.

MR DU PLESSIS: And according to you he was never assaulted?

MR BESTER: Not in my presence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Do you know whether or not he was assaulted?

MR BESTER: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you not know, or are you saying that he was not assaulted?

MR BESTER: Well as I've said, not in my presence and no-one informed me that he had been assaulted.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you every see that he had been assaulted?

MR BESTER: No. As I have testified, I did not see anything like that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you have any explanation for us as to why he was detained on the farm?

MR BESTER: As I've said, Capt Hennie briefed me when I arrived there and he told me that the man had been abducted and that I was to guard him.

MR DU PLESSIS: And for four days you detained him there on the farm, just to put some questions to him.

MR BESTER: Yes, among others, Capt Hennie gave me the order.

MR DU PLESSIS: And it was necessary to detain him there an not in the offices, although you didn't want to assault him, you had to keep him there so that you could ask him the questions.

MR BESTER: The decision to keep him there was not mine.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, that I understand, but you see there is a determined pattern that I am trying to test here and that is the whole question that he was not assaulted. I know that Capt Prinsloo said that he slapped him a few times, on one occasion, but your evidence and Mr Dos Santos' evidence and Capt Prinsloo's evidence which has been served before this Committee, assumes one pattern and that is that 'we merely detaining the man on the farm so that we could interrogate him and we never really assaulted him during the interrogation'. Is that correct?

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect, Honourable Chairperson, that is not the evidence of Capt Prinsloo, he said that he slapped right at the beginning and that he assaulted him right at the beginning.

MR DU PLESSIS: But I have referred to that. On one occasion he slapped him a few times and not again after that and the other witnesses have stated that they don't know anything about an assault.

Now my question is Mr Bester, it would appear to me as if the pattern of the evidence is, and I accept that Prinsloo said that once he dealt him a few slaps, but for the rest of the time this man was never assaulted while he was detained on the farm.

MR BESTER: Not according to my knowledge or not in my presence.

MR DU PLESSIS: You did not see that he was assaulted?

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: So he was specially detained on the farm where three, four or five people had been appointed to stay with him and to be with him all the time and so forth, just so that he could be interrogated about issues about which he could have been interrogated here in Wachthuis.

MR BESTER: But the man had been abducted according to Capt Hennie.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, let me give you the correct picture according to Brig Cronje, as he has testified before. His words were simply "You wouldn't take a man to the farm if you didn't want to assault him during interrogation".

MS VAN DER WALT: Honourable Chairperson, I don't understand the extent of this cross-examination. Did Mr du Plessis place evidence before this Honourable Committee, via his client or via any other witness or via Mr Cronje, that on this farm during interrogation there was assault, with the exception of what his client states, that there were marks on the face of the victim. And with respect, that evidence was rather weak. There is no evidence from any of Mr du Plessis' clients that there was assault during interrogation. How can he put such statements of what Mr Cronje had said in previous matters. The Honourable Committee should at least limited themselves to the relevant facts of this matter. I am really lodging an objection to this line of examination by my client, because Mr du Plessis cannot sit here and give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, the fact of the matter is simply the following. My client, Mr Strydom, says that when he arrived there on the fourth day there were marks on the face of this person. Now the only person who testified that there were assaults was Prinsloo, who said that he assaulted him probably four days previously.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the objection is in relation to what you are now putting to Mr Bester with regard to Mr Cronje.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, but I'm getting to the purpose of the cross-examination. The purpose of the cross-examination is to indicate that it is totally improbable that the person would have been kept there without having been assaulted. I don't have any other evidence to put to the witness, of anybody who saw him having been assaulted, I'm exploring the probabilities. What I put to this witness was evidence that was given by Brig Cronje previously and especially in the Mandla matter, where my learned friend, Mrs van der Walt was present. If she doesn't remember it, then - well she doesn't say she doesn't remember it, she objects against the fact that I made the statement to the witness. And if you want me to retract the statement I'll retract it, I don't need that evidence for purposes of what I'm trying to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bester was not involved in the application of Mr Cronje in relation to the Mandla incident, so he doesn't know what was said by Mr Cronje.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I will withdraw it.

Very well. Mr Bester, you were here when the evidence of Mathebula was presented.

MR BESTER: That would be Smuts?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct. And his evidence was that the man was quite severely assaulted.

MR BESTER: Yes, I heard so.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall this?

MR BESTER: Yes, I can recall this.

MR DU PLESSIS: In fact his application says that he was assaulted with clenched fists and that he was kicked and that he was suffocated with an inner tube.

MR BESTER: Yes, I heard the evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what do you say about that?

MR BESTER: Not while I was present.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you say that it is possible that it may have occurred while you were not present?

MR BESTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you say that it is possible that it may have taken place while you were not present? Is that what you said?

MR BESTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: I just want to put it to you that I will argue that it is quite probable that the assault, as Mr Mathebula testified, did indeed take place and that it is possible that there were further assaults during this period that he spent on the farm. What is your comment about that?

MR BESTER: Once again I will confirm that I heard Mr Mathebula's evidence, but that I can also recall that he never mentioned my name or stated that I was present when it took place.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I understand that, but you conceded.

MR BESTER: I said that it was possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. In other words it is possible that there were further assaults of which you had no knowledge?

MR BESTER: Once again not while I was present.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, while you were not present. I agree with you.

MR BESTER: I was on the farm all the time with the man, from the first evening that I arrived there to the day that he was killed and I am not aware of this.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't understand this. You say that you were with the man all the time, does that mean that he was always in your presence?

MR BESTER: What I mean is I slept in the same room as him, I interrogated him, I gave him food. I also said that I was not present during every single interrogation.

MR MALAN: But then you mustn't say that you were with him all the time, because there were times that you were not with him.

MR BESTER: I beg your pardon.

MR DU PLESSIS: And were there times that Capt Crafford interrogated him?

MR BESTER: I cannot recall. I know that there were times when I was present, but in my evidence on page 5, Prinsloo, Dos Santos, Putter, Botha, we were all members of the interrogation.

MR DU PLESSIS: But what I want to know is whether or not there were times when Capt Crafford interrogated him?

MR BESTER: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you would concede that it is possible that Capt Crafford may have assaulted him during those interrogations.

MR BESTER: It is possible, but I was not present.

MR DU PLESSIS: The reason why I ask you is because on page 485 of the bundle, Capt Crafford is not here today to give evidence and he does not say anything about assault in his application. Madam Chair, he does ask for assault ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: 48?

MR DU PLESSIS: 485. He does ask separately from the murder, he asks for amnesty for assault. Now I never consulted with him at the time when this was drawn, so I don't know exactly what the situation is pertaining to Crafford, I'm just making that point that it may be a possibility that he wanted to ask for assault. But I can't take it further than that.

Very well. And Mr Bester, this second explosion, why wasn't this incorporated in your original application?

MR BESTER: Paragraph 13 of my original application states and I quote -

I also didn't say one explosion, I meant completely destroyed as I stated in my evidence, so there would be no forensic investigation, but I am completely certain that I was present and that with the exception of the landmine explosion there was a further explosion of the pieces that we had picked up. That is what I mean by "destroy with explosions".

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no further questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I think before we proceed to affording Mr Jansen an opportunity to cross-examine, it will be an appropriate time to have a lunch adjournment for 45 minutes.

MR BESTER: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, do you wish to put any questions to Mr Bester?

MR JANSEN: I have no questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair, I just have a few questions.

Mr Bester, in your application and in your evidence you've indicated - and I refer you to page 370, paragraph 5, the very last sentence where you give the names of those who were present on the farm and the last name that you provide is that of More. You would recall that when More gave evidence he stated that he was on the farm only for a few minutes and then thereafter he returned. Is it possible that you may be mistaken in identifying him as present there when you arrived there? Isn't it possible that he was already departed from the farm when you arrived there?

MR BESTER: As I understand this Chairperson, there were various interrogations and various members entered the farm from Pretoria and returned from the farm. I would accept that according to your reference he was there for a few minutes, but he returned, the same as Mathebula.

MR JOUBERT: Mr More's evidence is that he was there shortly after the abduction of Comrade X and that he returned to Pretoria directly afterwards and that he only returned on the day when the elimination of Comrade took place. Would you dispute this?

MR BESTER: Yes, I would dispute it, that is not the way that I recall it because Putter, Botha, Mathebula, More and Capt Prinsloo and Crafford and the others went back and forth and Jerry and I guarded primarily in the evenings.

MR JOUBERT: And if you dispute it then, could you be able to tell us when Mr More was there?

MR BESTER: In this period of four days I definitely saw him there when I was there.

MR JOUBERT: Upon how many occasions?

MR BESTER: I would not be able to tell you, but he was there.

MR JOUBERT: And what did he do when he was there?

MR BESTER: He was member of the interrogation.

MR JOUBERT: Did he physically participate in the interrogation?

MR BESTER: It is possible, yes.

MR JOUBERT: I'm not asking you whether it is possible, I want to know whether or not you observed him physically interrogating the person.

MR BESTER: I can remember quite clearly when Capt Hennie gave the paper and the pen to Comrade to draw up the sketch plan of Wachthuis, then More was there and shortly after he commenced the sketching, More left.

MR JOUBERT: But that is More's evidence as well, but you state that he participated in the interrogation of the person and I want to know what he did.

MR BESTER: Let me just put this clearly, Madam Chair, that the interrogation during which I was present, along with More, Mathebula, Matjeni and the others, we would remain silent, we wouldn't say anything, but we were present during the interrogation and Capt Hennie would do the talking. Then we were part of the interrogation as I saw it.

MR JOUBERT: You see Mr Mathebula and Mr More and the others were present, but Mr More wasn't there the whole time, he only returned on the day when the elimination took place, he was not consistently present on the farm. Are you not perhaps mistaken by saying that he was there in-between? Are you perhaps not confused?

MR BESTER: No.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Joubert.

Mr Bester, when you say that Mr More was a member of the interrogation team and participated in the interrogation of Mr Lubane, are you saying that he would be present during the interrogation conducted by Capt Prinsloo, but wouldn't do anything, wouldn't put questions to Mr Lubane?

MR BESTER: Correct, I was also part of similar interrogation. When Capt Prinsloo spoke, we would remain silent and observe and take in what was being said.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you say he was part of that interrogation, at no stage did he put any questions to Mr Lubane.

MR BESTER: No, not usually that I can recall of Capt Prinsloo's interrogation, unless we were given the opportunity to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you given such an opportunity and was Mr More in particular, given such an opportunity?

MR BESTER: I cannot recall Mr More, but I specifically had such an opportunity when Capt Prinsloo told me to use the photo albums, but that was after the interrogation, that I was to continue after their departure.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And that would be done after Mr Prinsloo had left the interrogating room.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to put it to you that Mr More at no stage participated or formed part of the interrogation, with the exception of the time when the pen and paper was handed over to Comrade X. And that any reference that you have made to him, could be due to possible confusion in your mind, because your evidence indicates that you are not completely certain of every single event. You have answered on several occasions that as far as you can recall, or if you recall correctly, or this would have been the practice, but you never make a factual statement. Am I correct?

MR BESTER: You may be correct, but I recall the man being there.

MR JOUBERT: And then just one further aspect. You testified that after the alleged second explosion you returned to the house, is that correct?

MR BESTER: I first went to the bakkie, then the explosion took place and that is when I went back to the house with the bakkie and then Putter and Botha and I went to Pretoria.

MR JOUBERT: But you testified that when you were there at the house, as far as you can recall, or you said that at that stage the black members arrived there with Jerry's E20 panel van.

MR BESTER: Yes, the white panel van, that is correct.

MR JOUBERT: The evidence of Mr Mathebula and the other black members is that they arrived at the scene of the explosion and that they participated in the search for any pieces of evidence. Can you recall specifically whether this was not the case, or are you simply inferring?

MR BESTER: As far as I can recall we four were there at both explosions, "ek, Prinsloo, Crafford, Dos Santos. Ek kan nie onthou dat die mense daar was nie".

MR JOUBERT: I'm referring to the second explosion.

MR BESTER: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: So you would not be able to dispute that they were at the scene?

MR BESTER: No.

MR JOUBERT: I have no further questions to put to the witness, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van Heerden?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you recall where the farm was?

MR BESTER: It was in the vicinity of Rust-de-winter. That is all that I can recall, because I arrived there at 1 o'clock, I arrived there late afternoon and the day after the explosions I left. I did not travel back and forth, which would enable me to remember where the farm was located. Besides that I travelled with Putter, so I would not be able to locate the farm again.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was the farm used only on this one occasion, according to your knowledge?

MR BESTER: Well I was only there for that four day period, yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

Do I understand you correctly when you say that you left there on the day after the explosion?

MR BESTER: No.

MR MALAN: But those were the last words that you stated when you were asked where the farm was. You said you arrived there that evening and it was the day after the explosion that you left.

MR BESTER: No, it was the day of the explosion, after the explosion I departed.

MR MALAN: Very well. How long after the explosion, can you recall?

MR BESTER: It wasn't very long because Putter and Botha and I returned to the office with the bakkie.

MR MALAN: Where were Putter and Botha while these explosions were taking place and the search was conducted?

MR BESTER: They were at the farmhouse.

MR MALAN: Why did they remain at the farmhouse?

MR BESTER: It was the order of Capt Prinsloo.

MR MALAN: Very well. I just want to understand what your idea of participation in interrogation is, because you said that if Prinsloo spoke, you kept quiet.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Would that mean that if Prinsloo was present during an interrogation, only he would conduct the interrogation?

MR BESTER: Yes, only he. Because I had been involved in many other investigations where he had taken the lead and one couldn't always interrupt while he was speaking, there had to be order.

MR MALAN: But you were present.

MR BESTER: Yes, one would be present.

MR MALAN: But you wouldn't say anything.

MR BESTER: No, not a word.

MR MALAN: Very well. If I could take you back to your application and specifically paragraph 6 on page 370, at the very bottom of the page, onto page 371. You state that Prinsloo asked you to ask Comrade to draw up sketch plans. Is that correct?

MR BESTER: No. Prinsloo asked Comrade himself in the presence of More.

MR MALAN: Very well. He did not give you an order to obtain sketch plans from him during your interrogation of him?

MR BESTER: Not upon that occasion.

MR MALAN: On no occasion?

MR BESTER: No, on that occasion he asked him, he gave him the pen and the paper.

MR MALAN: No, listen to my question. We have the evidence that he asked Comrade to draw up sketch plans.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And you state in your application that Prinsloo asked you to ask Comrade to draw up sketch plans.

MR BESTER: I was present when Prinsloo asked Comrade, he didn't ask me directly.

MR MALAN: Therefore paragraph 6 is incorrect, in which you state that Prinsloo gave you the order to get Comrade to make sketch plans during interrogation.

MR BESTER: Yes. I assume that it was the order because I was present. Because the sketch plans which were drawn up ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, please just answer me. Did he give you such an order or not?

MR BESTER: As I have stated previously, I was present, he did not directly order me.

MR MALAN: That is correct. So you cannot assume that it was an order to you because no such order was ever issued to you.

MR BESTER: Correct, I was present.

MR MALAN: You didn't receive an order.

MR BESTER: No, not specifically.

MR MALAN: You heard coincidentally that he asked Comrade to draw up the sketch plans.

MR BESTER: Not coincidentally.

MR MALAN: No, because you were there, you were present.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: How often was Comrade interrogated when you were not present? You didn't spend the whole four days with him in the room, you must have left the room when others interrogated him.

MR BESTER: That is correct, I was not present with every interrogation, as I have already testified when such a question was put to me. I was not there all the time, but I was on the farm.

MR MALAN: Very well. And you and Matjeni received the order to guard him, but it was not both of you all the time because you also took turns.

MR BESTER: Yes, and we stayed there at night.

MR MALAN: Yes, at night you stayed there and at night he was not interrogated, you were asleep.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And during the day he was interrogated, but the both of you were not always present.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And sometimes neither one of you were there because you were sent out when he was interrogated.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So you were not always present with every interrogation.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So we could deduce that for the greater proportion of his interrogations you were not present.

MR BESTER: No, with many of them I was present.

MR MALAN: Would you say that you were present with the majority of these interrogations?

MR BESTER: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Very well. Then I would just like to know from you, you have heard that Mr Dos Santos stated that paragraphs 1 to 5 were not within his personal knowledge, that this was part of a compilation of his complete application and that he does not have personal knowledge of these offences. I don't know what the evidence-in-chief is with regard to your personal knowledge, because Mrs van der Walt has referred you to paragraphs 1 to 5 and if I understand you correctly, you stated that Capt Prinsloo specifically informed you as such.

MR BESTER: Yes, when I arrived there on the farm on the first evening, he gave me a briefing of his available information and I was to confirm this for him, as I have stated in paragraph 5, and he confirmed all the information that we had about him.

MR MALAN: Very well. Then on this point I would like to ask you, if I had to infer correctly, from the 1st of September you were with the Security Branch, from the 1st of September 1987.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And this took place at the very latest, at the end of 1987.

MR BESTER: Yes.

MR MALAN: And you testified that you were probably there for a month or two.

MR BESTER: I had not been there for a very long time.

MR MALAN: Yes, you were there for quite a short period. My experience of all the evidence - and you have also heard Mr Dos Santos refer to the need-to-know principle, we have had much evidence that if it was someone's order to guard someone, then only he would undertake the guarding and guarding alone, no interrogation. There appears to be a discrepancy here. The other most important discrepancy for which I would like an explanation from you, because I find it rather strange, is that you had only been there for two months, but you were called to the farm to guard someone. Despite the need-to-know principle, you received a thorough briefing which if I understand you correctly, included all the details from 1 to 4. In fact, yes, 5 would be your own experience. But all those details were conveyed to you.

MR BESTER: That is correct. Upon the first question I would say that I had only been at the branch for two months, but I had five years worth of detective experience before I went to the Security Branch and I was an experienced detective. This was not the first person that I had interrogated. I don't know why Capt Hennie chose me.

MR MALAN: Yes, and we have evidence from Capt Crafford who was his superior, and Capt Prinsloo didn't even trust Capt Crafford because he wasn't that experienced in these matters, but you were completely briefed. Are you sure that he gave you all this information upon the first evening?

MR BESTER: I don't know whether Capt Crafford was connected only the uniform branch and that he didn't have sufficient detective experience and that is the reason perhaps why Capt Prinsloo did not involve him to a greater extent. But I was an experienced detective.

MR MALAN: No, but I understand that Capt Crafford was also an experienced detective.

MR BESTER: Well I wouldn't know.

MR MALAN: Very well. And then you made a remark, do you have any particular expertise in forensic matters?

MR BESTER: No, but in the detective course we would learn that hairs and flesh and teeth and bones and other such items could provide forensic links.

MR MALAN: That is correct. Now I don't know how to interpret this second aspect of evidence regarding the second explosion, because the message that we have to infer from this would be that every single piece of evidence would be completely destroyed during the second explosion, that it would never be found again, that one would never even detect a hair or a shred of bone or a shred of flesh after the second explosion. Is that what you're trying to tell us, is that your information?

MR BESTER: Yes, there may have been further remains, but as I have stated, not much was picked up, and this was again destroyed by Dos Santos. After I had placed it in the hole and walked back to the bakkie, I never again visited the crater, I went back to the house.

MR MALAN: Where were you when you heard the second explosion?

MR BESTER: I was at the bakkie which was near Dos Santos' vehicle, a safe distance away. And after the explosion I got back into the bakkie, drove to the house and drove back to Pretoria afterwards.

MR MALAN: Were you alone

MR BESTER: Yes, up to the farm and that is where I found Putter and Botha and the three of us travelled back to Pretoria together.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Bester, when you refer to Capt Hennie, you're referring to Capt Prinsloo.

MR BESTER: Yes, I apologise for addressing him so informally.

ADV MOTATA: What were your instructions when you were taken on the farm on the evening when Mr Lubane was taken to the farm? Were you instructions to look after him or to interrogate him, what were your instructions?

MR BESTER: My instructions were - and I beg your pardon, he would have addressed me at Kat, that was his nickname for me. He gave me the background information and I was to confirm this information and guard the man. He told me these two things.

ADV MOTATA: Interrogate the man and guard him.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

ADV MOTATA: Now you say you were there like September '87. How long after you were engaged by the Security Branch, for how long did you work with Capt Prinsloo?

MR BESTER: As I have previously testified, approximately 18 months.

ADV MOTATA: That is before this incident?

MR BESTER: No, that was the total period of time that I had been with Unit C at the Northern Transvaal Security Branch.

ADV MOTATA: I want to know before this incident of Lubane, when you were requested to interrogate and look after him.

MR BESTER: Approximately two months.

ADV MOTATA: And you knew his modus operandi in full.

MR BESTER: Correct, because as I stated I had been involved in previous interrogations where Capt Prinsloo was involved and we swiftly realised how he thought and what he expected.

ADV MOTATA: Let's take this incident. Before this incident, how many other incidents were you involved with him where you got his modus operandi?

MR BESTER: What I can recall is Sipho Solly Makwena, an ANC member whom we charged with terrorism. That is a specific incident which I can recall.

ADV MOTATA: Now you say you were given a background of this Comrade, that is Lubane, were you told by Capt Prinsloo that he was assaulted before he was brought onto the farm?

MR BESTER: No.

ADV MOTATA: Now if the suggestion as it was made, that he was assaulted, can you deny that?

MR BESTER: I have already stated that I cannot deny it. However, I am before this Committee because I was involved in a murder. If I had known about an assault in my presence, or if someone had informed me about an assault, I would openly have spoken about it here. I have admitted to much more heinous acts and I would have freely disclosed this before the Committee.

ADV MOTATA: I think we'll go much faster if you can confine yourself to the questions, we don't want to know your past at this stage. Was Matjeni, Jerry, always with you when you looked after Lubane?

MR BESTER: Primarily at night, yes.

ADV MOTATA: And when you were shown this terrorist in an album and loose photos, was it during the day or in the evening?

MR BESTER: I suspect that it was later afternoon. But Jerry and I were responsible for him, yes.

ADV MOTATA: Can you recall whether Jerry was present?

MR BESTER: I suspect that he must have been present.

ADV MOTATA: You have testified that the black members were sent off to go and buy some items. Did they come back to the farm whilst you were still there, after the body was destroyed?

MR BESTER: That is correct, I have stated that after the second explosion took place, I went back to the farmhouse with the bakkie. Shortly after that they returned and then Putter and Botha and I left for Pretoria again.

ADV MOTATA: Then I want to know, had you already departed?

MR BESTER: No, I stated that I was there in the farmhouse when they arrived there.

ADV MOTATA: Now what items had they gone to buy?

MR BESTER: I wouldn't know, I didn't see what they had with them.

ADV MOTATA: Oom Struis said there was drinking on the farm and he went further and said that More, Mathebula and Matjeni were sent to buy more liquor. Did you see any drinking?

MR BESTER: No, I didn't.

ADV MOTATA: From the scene of the explosion where the body was destroyed, did you go back to the farmhouse or you drove away?

MR BESTER: I drove directly from there to the farmhouse.

ADV MOTATA: Now when you were given instructions to dig, I may say "the grave" for Lubane, did you hear the instructions given to More, Mathebula and Matjeni, that they should purchase certain items from a shop nearby?

MR BESTER: Capt Prinsloo spoke to them first and they departed, then afterwards he gave us our instructions. I know that they were sent to a shop to buy certain goods. I don't know what they were supposed to purchase, I cannot recall, but I know that they were sent away from the farm.

ADV MOTATA: Did you hear the instructions "Go to the shop and buy"?

MR BESTER: It is possible, otherwise I would not have stated it in my application.

ADV MOTATA: I don't think there's a necessity to be sarcastic, I want to clear my mind about certain things and I would appreciate if you could do it in the same spirit because I'm not here to cross-examine you, but to clear up things which are not clear to me. And I would very much, I repeat very much, and emphasise that, that I won't stand any sarcasm. Do we understand each other? Before we proceed.

MR BESTER: I humbly apologise, if that is the impression that I created, it was not my intention.

ADV MOTATA: Because it becomes strange to me that if you heard somebody being sent to a shop to buy items, that selectively you would not hear what he's sent to buy. It becomes very strange to me.

MR BESTER: As I have stated, they were sent to a nearby farmstall to purchase certain goods and I don't think they sell beer in a farmstall.

ADV MOTATA: In all fairness to you, Mathebula has testified to the fact that they were sent to buy more liquor and Mr Strydom also testified to that fact that they came back after being sent with more liquor. Could you have missed such instructions?

MR BESTER: It is possible, because I have stated that I didn't see any liquor. I didn't see what they had on them when they returned from the shop.

ADV MOTATA: Because if you have listened to Strydom, he says there was drinking, but he cannot with certainty say which people were drinking, but there was drinking on the farm. Even Lubane was given an Amstel to drink.

MR BESTER: I did not see this, and Strydom also said that I was drinking if I recall correctly and I stated that I don't drink beer. I did not drink anything on that farm.

ADV MOTATA: Did you see when Lubane was given a beer?

MR BESTER: No, as it appears in my evidence I was away to dig the hole with Putter and Botha at that stage.

ADV MOTATA: Is it not an essential element, Mr Bester, that ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interject.

That's not what you say in your evidence, Mr Bester.

ADV MOTATA: It was under cross-examination, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh. I have been corrected.

ADV MOTATA: That wouldn't it be an essential element when we come to the actual elimination, that when it is a requirement that there must be full disclosure, that we should be should be told up front in an affidavit, on an application, that two occasions were made of the explosives there to destroy the body. Wouldn't you say that is an essential element regarding full disclosure, that we are not just told on viva voce evidence only?

MR BESTER: Correct. As I have stated in my previous evidence, the explosives were used to destroy the body completely in order to prevent any forensic evidence, as I have stated and I do not state that there was only one explosion in my application. Explosives were used to destroy the body and there were two explosives that day.

ADV MOTATA: No, no, I don't want interpretation, it must be clear. Are you saying because the victims are here, that they would interpret it as you do right now, that if I say he had to be destroyed with explosives, then it must be read that we meant two explosives? Are you suggesting that?

MR BESTER: The destruction by explosives would include the two explosions.

ADV MOTATA: Madam Chair, I'm not taking it any further, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Motata.

You are saying that the reason why explosives had to be used was in order to destroy any forensic evidence.

MR BESTER: That is correct, that is what I stated, because it would destroy forensic evidence completely.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BESTER: The body, the pieces of the body, that is what I am referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: And would that not be destroyed by the first explosion? Will that kind of evidence not be destroyed by the first explosion?

MR BESTER: I think that that was the objective with the first explosion, but when they saw that there were remains, that is when the second explosion took place in order to destroy the remains completely.

CHAIRPERSON: How far were you from Dos Santos when the first explosion took place?

MR BESTER: I was not near him, I was approximately 100 metres or 80 metres to 100 metres away from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see Dos Santos being spoken to by Capt Prinsloo or Capt Crafford, immediately after the first explosion?

MR BESTER: It is possible, they must have had a discussion, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Why must they have had such a discussion?

MR BESTER: I think because the order came after that to look for any remains.

CHAIRPERSON: Now who issued the order to look for any remains of Mr Lubane?

MR BESTER: As far as I can recall, Capt Prinsloo said we had to look for the remains.

CHAIRPERSON: And how long did it take you to look for such remains?

MR BESTER: Approximately 10 minutes, 5 to 10 minutes, perhaps 15 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: And how long after you had looked for the remains of the blown up body of Mr Lubane, did the second explosion take place?

MR BESTER: As the remains were found we tossed them back into the grave with the spades. After that Dos Santos went to fetch explosives in his car again and it would have been approximately 20 to 25 minutes from the second explosion to when I drove back to the farmhouse and departed from the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: How big would you say were these pieces of the blown up remains of Mr Lubane that you had to look for?

MR BESTER: They were pieces, they were not large chunks of flesh, small pieces with hairs.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you be able to make out the particular part one's body from the blown up pieces? Like, could you make up a head or - I'm trying to find out just how big these pieces were.

MR BESTER: Some were pieces of flesh. The pieces of flesh with the hairs on may have come from the head, but they were not large body parts such as an arm or a leg or a hand or anything like that.

CHAIRPERSON: So these were not large body parts that you had to retrieve?

MR BESTER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You have evidenced that you were given a profoundly important duty to persuade Mr Lubane to turn into an informer for the Security Branch. You recall saying that?

MR BESTER: Yes, I recall that. I remember that I said that I had attempted to turn his mind.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And these instructions came directly from Capt Prinsloo.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now can you recall - as you have already stated, you were on the farm for approximately four days, how long after you had been on that farm were you given such instructions?

MR BESTER: I would assume that it must have been from the second day when it was said to me, because it was not said to me on the first day. On the first day when I arrived there, I was to confirm certain information which was conveyed to me by Capt Prinsloo. I can recall that that was my very first order.

CHAIRPERSON: By that stage had the sketch plans been found in Mr Lubane's car, when such a request was conveyed to you to try and turn Mr Lubane?

MR BESTER: The sketch plans, I cannot recall on which particular day the sketch plans were found. I cannot recall that, no.

CHAIRPERSON: Can't you recall even if it's in relation to when you were instructed to turn Mr Lubane? This was quite an important responsibility I imagine, to try and turn someone into an informer to me is very important. That is why I've actually selected my words that it was a profoundly important duty for you to have been selected to try and turn him. That's a fundamental responsibility.

MR BESTER: That is correct, it was a profound responsibility. But as I have stated, I cannot recall upon which particular day those plans were found.

CHAIRPERSON: You are able to recollect however, that the instructions to turn him were conveyed to you on the second day of your arrival on the farm.

MR BESTER: That is correct, because I stated that it was definitely not on the first day.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how did you go about discharging this important duty of turning Mr Lubane into an informer?

MR BESTER: Basically I spoke to him about his involvement which he had already confirmed and I basically attempted to convince him verbally to become an informer for us.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do? What did you say to him?

MR BESTER: I would have put it to him that because he was already involved and because he had admitted that he was internally trained, he should come and work for us as an informer because we would have been able to use him again. If he was an informer of ours, I believe that it would have been possible.

CHAIRPERSON: How long did you take in your attempts to turn him into an informer?

MR BESTER: I think it was during the evenings when Jerry and I were alone with him and showed him the photos in the late afternoon. I would have discussed it with him various times, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You were there for four days, Mr Bester, and as you have vividly recollected, the turning operation you conducted on the second day of your arrival. Now how long did it last? Did you attempt to turn him up to the fourth day of his detention on that farm, shortly before he was killed?

MR BESTER: As I have stated, it may have been the second and the third day, possibly also the fourth day. All I know is that I had discussions with him about it during the evenings, as I have already told you.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are conceding that there is a possibility that you could have proceeded with your attempts up to the last day of his existence.

MR BESTER: Or possibly the day before, before the decision was taken to eliminate him.

CHAIRPERSON: I wasn't there, I am trying to find some clarity from you. Is it something that is within your recollection or is it something that you do not know or you can't remember?

MR BESTER: I believe it would have been on the day before Capt Crafford departed for Brig Cronje. I believe that it would have been up to that day or on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when to your knowledge, did Capt Prinsloo depart to speak to Brig Cronje?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, with respect, there's no evidence that Capt Prinsloo ever went to Brig Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought that's what the witness has just stated.

ADV PRINSLOO: Not what I heard him say, Madam Chair, with respect. I heard that he said Capt Crafford went to Brig Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: Capt Crafford.

ADV PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr Prinsloo.

Let me correct myself then, Mr Bester. To your knowledge, when did Capt Crafford depart to have a meeting with Brig Cronje?

MR BESTER: It was the second-last night before the day of the elimination.

CHAIRPERSON: That would have been the third day of your arrival on the farm, am I correct?

MR BESTER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this within your personal knowledge? Are you aware that he actually left, or is it something that you heard from someone?

MR BESTER: I know that he left the farm because he drove off and Capt Hennie told me that he was going to Brig Cronje.

CHAIRPERSON: What time of the day was this?

MR BESTER: It must have been in the afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: You and Mr Matjeni were given instructions by Capt Prinsloo to look after Mr Lubane, am I correct?

MR BESTER: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you together at all times when looking after Mr Lubane, or were there occasions when you and you only looked after Mr Lubane and were there occasions when it was only Mr Matjeni who would look after Mr Lubane, in your absence?

MR BESTER: At night both of us would have remained with Mr Lubane, but during the day, as I have stated, I was not always present.

CHAIRPERSON: So by so saying you are in short saying there were occasions when Mr Matjeni would look after Mr Lubane alone, not in your presence, and there were occasions when you and only you would look after Mr Lubane without Mr Matjeni being present. - save for the nights.

MR BESTER: Yes, during the day. That is correct, it is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. May I be granted just an indulgence, I want to confer with my notes to see if there is something else I had indicated to my brain that I wanted to ask you. I cannot recollect. Yes, Mr Malan will ask you a question whilst I do that.

MR MALAN: Chairperson, while you are consulting your notes.

I'm sorry, but I omitted to ask you about your evidence concerning the discipline and the disallowance of alcohol during an operation. I would just like to a definition of that sort of operation. What would the operation be, the explosion of the body or the week on the farm?

MR BESTER: The operation to which I have referred was the explosion of the body and the stay on the farm. That was one operation, but there were also other operations where we would penetrate homes and look for suspects.

MR MALAN: But an operation wouldn't be four to five days on the farm. You have beers while you were on the farm.

MR BESTER: No.

MR MALAN: Well not you specifically, I'm referring to the other members. What I mean is, there wouldn't be a ban on drinking beer if members spent four days or a week on the farm.

MR BESTER: It would depend on whether or not Mr Prinsloo had sanctioned it.

MR MALAN: Would he tell you beforehand, you're allowed to have beer here, or you're not allowed to have beer here?

MR BESTER: Not during operations when I was present.

MR MALAN: But you told me that the operation would be when you conducted a home penetration or when you blew up the body.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Now question refers to when you were out in the field for quite some time, such as with this case, according to your evidence, approximately four days. Upon the evidence of others it was perhaps a week or even longer. Now question is, upon your recollection, would it have been acceptable that beer was used or that alcohol was used somewhere during the course of the period of time that you spent on the farm?

MR BESTER: According to me it would acceptable, but I didn't see any liquor.

MR MALAN: I'm not asking whether it was acceptable to you, I want to know whether or not there were any rules about it. Was it permitted or was it not permitted?

MR BESTER: According to me there were definitely rules, yes.

MR MALAN: And what did these rules say? You are not allowed to drink at all while you were on the farm?

MR BESTER: Or on another operations, yes.

MR MALAN: So no alcohol was ever consumed while you were on the farm, except for the time when you were on the veranda when the Amstel was given to Mr Lubane, which you don't really even know about because you were informed about it by Capt Prinsloo after you'd dug the hole.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: He told you that he had put sleeping tablets in the Amstel and that is how he had immobilised Mr Lubane. But to the best of your knowledge, whenever you were in the field, no drink was allowed because it was an operation, as you described it?

MR BESTER: Yes.

MR MALAN: And none of the other members ever participated in drinking at such a place?

MR BESTER: Not when I was present, not that I know of.

MR MALAN: Yes. In other words, according to the best of your knowledge, no drinking was ever allowed.

MR BESTER: We had drinks after operations.

MR MALAN: Where, on the farm or back at the office?

MR BESTER: No, back at the office.

MR MALAN: So you would be drinking in the office?

MR BESTER: Or we would braai at Wonderboom near the Apiesrivier.

MR MALAN: Are you telling me that you drank in the office and when you went for a braai at the Apiesrivier, but not when you were on the farm?

MR BESTER: I didn't drink in the office.

MR MALAN: Only at the Apiesrivier.

MR BESTER: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did the others drink at the offices?

MR BESTER: Not that I know of.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: There's just something which Mr Malan stated, which is not entirely correct, which I wish to address.

You stated that he only became aware of the beer containing the sleeping tablet after he had dug the hole. That is not Mr Bester's evidence, Mr Bester's evidence was that when he received the order to go and dig the hole, Mr Prinsloo told him that he would now put the sleeping tablet in the beer and that he would have to hurry up. Just to clarify that.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I confirm that evidence, Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one question, Mr Bester. During your evidence-in-chief you stated that you had a very good relationship with Comrade, to an extent that he was able to cooperate with you and because of that kind of co-operation, there was no reason for you to assault him.

MR BESTER: That is correct, because he conducted the identifications for me and he also disclosed Brown Sugar to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And how would you describe this co-operation, what did it entail? Did it entail you asking him questions and he immediately responding to the questions that you had put to him, in a manner that you found quite satisfactory?

MR BESTER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that would be by disclosing information that you sought from him through such interrogations.

MR BESTER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why did this interrogation have to last for four days if he offered this kind of co-operation?

MR BESTER: I wouldn't be able to answer that, it was Capt Prinsloo's decision.

CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence is that Capt Prinsloo brought you up to speed with Lubane's activities and gave you questions that you had to put to Mr Lubane in order to obtain information from Mr Lubane, is it not so?

MR BESTER: And to confirm what Prinsloo had told me, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean, and to confirm what Prinsloo had told you? Mr Prinsloo would request you to conduct an interrogation only to confirm what had already been told to him by Mr Lubane. Is that what you mean by confirmation?

MR BESTER: By confirmation I refer to the briefing that he gave me when I arrived at the farm the first evening. That is the confirmation that I referred to. The further information had to do with the identifications that he made to me with the photo albums as well as the loose photos.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Were you required to conduct an interrogation that had not been covered by Mr Prinsloo? I'm trying to find out what kind of interrogation you conducted and what kind of interrogation was conducted by Mr Prinsloo.

MR BESTER: If he had made any information known to me by means of identification and so forth, I would have conveyed it to Mr Prinsloo. But that is what I can recall, what I told Prinsloo about the photographs and Brown Sugar. And I confirmed what he had conveyed to me on the first evening, which I confirmed upon the request of Prinsloo. Comrade told me this when I discussed it with him.

CHAIRPERSON: You have stated that you conducted several interrogations on Lubane, were you on each and every interrogation you conducted of Mr Lubane? Am I incorrect when I say - Mr Bester, are you saying no?

MR BESTER: As I have stated, I was not present with every interrogation, I was present with the most of them, as I have stated, as I can recall, but not with every interrogation which was conducted with Mr Lubane on that farm.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm talking about the interrogation conducted by you on Mr Lubane. You have stated that you conducted several interrogations on Mr Lubane, on your own.

MR BESTER: That would have been during the evenings, with regard to the identifications with the photographs and also then to attempt to turn him to become an informer.

CHAIRPERSON: Now apart from the photographs and the order to try and turn him into an informer, were you given any specific information on which to conduct any interrogation other than the one that related to the photographs and the one that related to attempting to turn him into an informer? Did you conduct any other interrogation, other than those?

MR BESTER: No, except for when I was present with other interrogations and I remained silent. I did not conduct any other interrogations.

CHAIRPERSON: So the co-operation you are referring to is one referring to when you were conducting an interrogation about the photo album, and secondly, the one that related to turning into an informer. Those are the two interrogations you conducted.

MR BESTER: That is correct. Which I personally conducted.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you state that you received Mr Lubane's co-operation, it is in respect of those two interrogations that you refer to the co-operation you received from Mr Lubane. Am I correct?

MR BESTER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And in fact you didn't receive any co-operation at all from Mr Lubane with regard to the second interrogation that was aimed at turning him into an informer.

MR BESTER: As I understood, you just asked me whether or not I had his co-operation with the photographs. He did not give me his co-operation to become an informer, but I did interrogate him about it, I did try to turn him. But you are correct when you say that he did not give me his co-operation when I attempted to turn him to work on our side. You are correct when you say that.

CHAIRPERSON: And you have earlier on testified that the reason why you did not assault him was because he offered you his co-operation, but in respect of an attempt to turn him into an informer, you didn't get his co-operation. Did you not then try and assault him?

MR BESTER: No, definitely not. I don't believe that I would have been able to convince him in such a manner.

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

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Just a singular aspect.

I would just like for you to offer perhaps an explanation when you say that you interrogated Mr Lubane with regard to the photo album. According to your evidence, certain persons were identified to you with the photo album, not the loose photos.

MR BESTER: The photo album was the terrorist photo album which was held at the unit with regard to ANC terrorists who were wanted.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were there many photographs inside?

MR BESTER: Yes, it was quite thick.

CHAIRPERSON: So it took quite a time.

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now if a person had been identified by Mr Lubane, would you then remain silent if he made the identification, or would you question Mr Lubane with regard to the persons whom he was identifying?

MR BESTER: Naturally I would have questioned him about their MK names, as it happened with Brown Sugar when he pointed him out to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: Well if I put it like this, there would be no sense to it if he pointed out a photo to you and you didn't ask him about the name or of the circumstances of this particular person?

MR BESTER: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bester, you are excused as a witness.

MR BESTER: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, are we to take it that you are going to call Mr Matjeni as a witness?

MR JANSEN: Indeed, Chair.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------MR JANSEN: He'll sit on my left-hand side here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Can we request that the headphones or microphones be rearranged accordingly.

MR JANSEN: His evidence will also be in Tswana, Madam Chair.

ADV MOTATA: Mr Matjeni, give us your full names again.

KOKELA JEREMIAH MATJENI: (sworn states)

ADV MOTATA: Sworn in, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Motata. Mr Jansen?

EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Matjeni, you previously testified before this Committee in other incidents, in respect of your personal background and your background in these South African Police.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you want the Committee to consider that evidence when they consider your application in respect of this incident.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: You also previously testified about the initial application which you handed in before the cut-off date, and that was handed up to the Committee at a previous hearing.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now your application in respect of the incident relating to Comrade X, is found on pages 80 to 85, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you confirm the correctness thereof.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now your rank in 1987 was that of a Constable, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you were in C-Section of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: From who did you get your orders in respect of this incident?

MR MATJENI: In regard to this incident I received my orders from Capt Prinsloo or Capt Crafford, both of them because they were in charge.

MR JANSEN: Now just two of the, or some matters that became contentious between some of the other applicants. You state in your application that Mr Lubane was not assaulted in your presence, do you confirm that still?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: There was also evidence by Mr Bester that according to his memory, you were also present when certain photographs or maps were shown or dealt with, with Mr Lubane. Can you remember something like that?

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson, I don't remember anything of that sort.

MR JANSEN: Now at the time of this incident you were fully aware of the fact that Mr Lubane was not legally detained.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson, I knew.

MR JANSEN: And when you returned from going to buy beer at the shop, as you say in your application at page 82, you then saw for instance, human remains being picked up, being some hair and part of the scalp.

MR MATJENI: I did not see that, I heard somebody say later that he picked up a piece of hair on that place, but I did not see that myself.

MR JANSEN: When you say you heard it, you heard it at the time when you were still there on the farm?

MR MATJENI: Yes, it was later after that incident, but we were still at the farm when I heard about that.

MR JANSEN: And these things led you to assume that Mr Lubane had been killed.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson, I did not know his name, I only knew him as Comrade.

MR JANSEN: And as you have previously testified, you regarded it as part of your job to remain silent about what had happened to this person.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now can you remember where this farm was?

MR MATJENI: It is on that side of Rust-de-winter, but I don't know directly where it can be.

MR JANSEN: What do you remember of the approximate location of this farm?

MR MATJENI: When you arrive at Rust-de-winter Police Station, you'd turn left, then you'd take a road towards KwaNdebele.

MR JANSEN: Is that a road - when you say turn left, is that a road that goes North?

MR MATJENI: From Rust-de-winter that road goes towards Rust-de-winter, towards KwaNdebele.

MR JANSEN: Let's just try and get the directions again. It's correct as you describe in your application, that first you travel North with the N1, the big highway?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And then you turn right at ...(intervention)

MR MATJENI: You turn right at Pienaarsrivier.

MR JANSEN: Yes. The Pienaarsrivier turn-off. The Pienaarsrivier would be on your left-hand side, if you're on the highway.

MR MATJENI: On the highway, Pienaarsrivier, that area is Pienaarsrivier, then from there you turn left, then you turn right again.

MR JANSEN: Ja, but I'm just trying to find out how you drove. You turned right, when leaving the highway you turned right towards Rust-de-winter.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson, you turn right towards Rust-de-winter.

MR JANSEN: And that road eventually takes you to the Rust-de-winter Police Station.

MR MATJENI: It doesn't go straight towards the police station, you'd find a T-junction towards Rust-de-winter, when you turn right you go to the police station and then when you turn left you go to join the road towards KwaNdebele.

MR JANSEN: And how long along that road going to KwaNdebele - or can you remember how far along that road one goes?

MR MATJENI: I don't know, Chairperson, it's quite a distance. If I remember well, it's quite a distance.

MR JANSEN: And was this farm next to the road?

MR MATJENI: It is near the road on your left-hand side of the road.

MR JANSEN: And you will be prepared if requested so by the TRC or the victims, to attempt to find this place again, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: If it was like other farms which I was able to identify, but this one, it would be difficult for me. I'm not able to commit myself to do that.

MR JANSEN: No, but you would be prepared to assist. Obviously you may not find the place, but you will be prepared to assist, am I correct if I understand your instructions in that way?

MR MATJENI: I would try to help, but I don't think I would be able to find the farm.

MR JANSEN: Now as far as this incident is concerned, is it correct that you received no special remuneration or anything, apart from your ordinary salary for this?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson, I didn't have any special benefit.

MR JANSEN: And Comrade X, as he was known to you at that stage, the only knowledge that you had of him was that he was a political activist of some sort.

MR MATJENI: I heard so, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Swart, do you wish to put any questions to Mr Matjeni?

MR SWART: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Matjeni, in your application on page 81, the second paragraph, you say there-

Are you not perhaps mistaken with the time period, because you have heard all the other witnesses speak of a week or less?

MR MATJENI: I'm confusing these incidents, I don't know exactly how long we stayed at that farm.

ADV PRINSLOO: You had been with the Security Branch for quite some time and you must have been involved in numerous interrogations.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And with regard to this incident you are relying on your memory, not on any notes that you may have compiled.

MR MATJENI: I only state what I'm able to remember about this incident.

ADV PRINSLOO: And this incident took place approximately 12 years ago.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you were also asked about a photo album, can you recall specifically that there was no photo album, or do you simply think so, or were there cases in the past during which a photo album was used, or is it impossible for you to say?

MR MATJENI: I'm not able to state anything in regard to the photo album because it was used in various operations, it was shown to many people. But I don't remember in this particular instance whether the album was used.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson, nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Matjeni, in paragraph 2 on page 81, it would appear from your statement that you and Smuts - that would be Mr Mathebula, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: ... and Kenny More, Mbatha, Chris Putter, Kat Bester, Prinsloo, Dos Santos and other persons who you cannot recall, participated in the interrogation, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: I did not take part in any interrogation. If I remember well, the only person responsible for the interrogation was Capt Prinsloo and then again Capt Crafford.

MS VAN DER WALT: If you were alone with Mr Lubane, did you never speak to him?

MR MATJENI: It was myself, Mathebula and Bester who would always be with him all the time. If someone was outside, always I would cook, I would look for wood and I would leave him with them.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see the reason why I'm asking is because you stated in your statement that you had participated in the interrogation.

MR MATJENI: That would be a mistake because we were not allowed to take part in the interrogation of any person.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you were present. If I study the first section of paragraph ...(intervention)

MR MATJENI: Yes, I was present.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I would like to refer you to page 82, paragraph 4, where it is clearly stated and you also testified to this -

You were not there by the hole, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: When we returned - it was a distance from the house where we were staying, then I left them at the farmhouse, then I dropped them there and then returned to the farmhouse.

MS VAN DER WALT: I don't really understand, I don't know if it was correctly interpreted. You say that you returned and you left who at the farmhouse?

MR MATJENI: We black members went to the bottle store in Pienaarsrivier, then when we returned I dropped them on the road and when I say "on the road", I mean where white members were, then I took the car to the farmhouse, but within the same farm.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then I understand you. You were not at the hole, you dropped the others off next to the road and you went back to the farmhouse, is that correct? I don't wish to misunderstand you.

MR MATJENI: Yes, it's within the same yard. I don't want you to confuse this because you say I'd left them in the street. I left them within the farm where the white members were, then I took the car within the yard to the farmhouse, then I returned on foot to where they were.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what is being sought from you is, at what stage did you hear about a piece of flesh having been discovered.

MR MATJENI: That is when I returned and joined them. They were busy looking for something there. Then thereafter, I don't remember well, but he did not tell me on the scene, he told me after that he found a piece of scalp together with the hair.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you didn't see that a piece of scalp was actually picked up, you heard about this later. This that you heard later, was this when you were once again back at the farmhouse? Would you give me an opportunity to finish my sentence please.

CHAIRPERSON: Please listen carefully before you respond to the question, give her time to finish her question, then thereafter you can have the opportunity to answer the question.

MS VAN DER WALT: May we just begin again, Mr Matjeni. Your evidence was that you heard that a piece of scalp had been picked up. You did not see it, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson, I did not see that, I heard about it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Then you went ahead and stated that you heard this upon a later occasion, that a piece of scalp had been picked up. Is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Please repeat your question, I don't understand.

MS VAN DER WALT: You testified, Mr Matjeni - and this is not me that is saying this, this was your evidence, you testified that it was only upon a later occasion that you heard that a piece of scalp had been picked up.

MR MATJENI: I repeat again that one of them, I don't remember who, as to whether it was Kenny or Smuts, one of them informed me that he picked up a piece of scalp.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when were you informed about this?

MR MATJENI: I repeat again, I don't remember what time, as to whether it was on the scene or in the farmhouse.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because if I have understood your evidence correctly, you stated that you were there at the hole, but that it was only upon a later occasion that you came to hear about this remnant of scalp and now you say that you cannot recall whether it was at the hole or in the house. Therefore, you are uncertain, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: Firstly, I would say - when you say I was next to the hole, I don't know what you're talking about, I was not there. I don't know what you're talking about when you say at the hole or in the farmhouse.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Were you not at the hole at all? When you returned and dropped off the persons there where the white members were and returned to the farmhouse, did you then remain at the farmhouse?

MR MATJENI: I went to where they were, but I would not say it's a hole, I would say it was a ditch or it was levelled at that time when I arrived.

MS VAN DER WALT: Therefore you didn't see that this remnant of scalp was tossed into a hole and covered up.

MR MATJENI: I did not see, Chairperson, I heard.

CHAIRPERSON: As you state in your affidavit.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Now Mr Matjeni, you've just given evidence now that you at no stage went close or near to a hole, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: At the place where they were I was there, but I did not see a hole.

MR JOUBERT: Now if I refer you to paragraph 4 on page 82 of your application, the second line thereof, you say -

Can you explain this?

MR MATJENI: Yes, I will. I'm trying to distinguish the two issues, because I learnt that Bester said they dug a big hole, I saw a ditch. I would say if I can put my leg there, it would be a little bit shallow.

CHAIRPERSON: It was nevertheless a hole that you observed ...(intervention)

MR MATJENI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Forget Mr Bester's evidence, you are being questioned about your evidence.

MR MATJENI: Yes, it was a small hole.

MR JOUBERT: And do you know whether this hole was filled up afterwards? Closed up, filled?

MR MATJENI: I'm not sure, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Did you hear ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: On papers you have stated that it has been filled up.

MR MATJENI: Yes, the filled up the hole, but I'm not sure about that, as to whether it was full or not. I don't remember well.

CHAIRPERSON: When you wrote on your statement, were you writing according to your knowledge or were you trying to remember?

MR MATJENI: I was not remembering well, but I was trying to speculate of what had happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just one or two other issues. On page 81, paragraph 2 where you provide your list of people partaking in the interrogation, you mention Mr More, is there a possibility that you may be mistaken when referring to Mr More as partaking in the interrogation?

MR MALAN: I'm sorry, we have the last sentence of that paragraph and he confirmed that in evidence, that the black members did not participate in the actual interrogation. So it's a confusion. He says -

... but then he continues to say -

MR JOUBERT: Very well, I'll leave the aspect there then if it is clear to the Committee.

One final issue. You've testified that you were informed by either Kenny or Smuts, that being Mr More or Mr Mathebula, about this piece of scalp that was picked up. Is it possible that you may be making a mistake as to who informed you or who picked this piece of skin up?

MR MATJENI: That is why I'm saying I don't remember who informed me about that. It may be Bafana, because he was present there. I don't remember well.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: But you do recall that you were told by a black member of your unit.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, one of the black members informed me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.

You stated in your evidence-in-chief that you would be prepared to assist the family in detecting the place where the deceased was killed. Did I understand you correctly?

MR MATJENI: I would try to find out, but I'm not able to tell that I will be able to find that place.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would you for example, travel around in that area with the family and have a look, or go there with an investigative team?

MR MATJENI: What I'm trying to say is that if we can take that direction, maybe I would be able to identify that place. If I'm not able to identify that place, nobody should blame me because I don't know who is the owner of the farm and it was for the first time I went there, during this incident. It is not the same as the two farms which I've stated earlier that that one was Pretorius' farm, the other one was Mr Smith's farm. I don't know where this farm is and I don't know the owner.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Are you saying that you would not be able to find the place?

MR MATJENI: I don't want to commit myself.

MR VAN HEERDEN: The only thing that bothers me is that you say you are prepared to assist, but that you have already decided that you won't be able to be of any assistance.

MR MATJENI: I don't want to commit myself so that in future I will be blamed that I stated that I will be able to show them the place. So I don't want to commit myself on that particular issue.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I just want to know if you are prepared to help.

MR MALAN: Mr van Heerden, I think that there is some form of mis-communication here. The applicant has stated that he is prepared to go out there and to assist with the search, but that he cannot guarantee that he would be able to find the place. He has his doubts because he does not know who the owner of the farm was, nonetheless he is prepared to go out and participate in a search. He just doesn't want the Committee to blame him if their search in fruitless, but he is prepared to go along and assist.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, I will then leave it at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I've got none, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: None, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Matjeni, you are excused as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Are we in a position to proceed with legal argument in relation to this incident?

MR JANSEN: Madam Chair, I will, I would however just like to have a few minutes at least to get my sort of ideas in some sort of order. If you intend starting now, we'd just ask for a short adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm in your hands, I'm seeking your guidance.

MR JANSEN: I would obviously prefer to start tomorrow morning, Madam Chair, but again in that regard we're in your hands. If you want to continue now, I would just ask the indulgence of 10 minutes or so.

CHAIRPERSON: We definitely would be quite amenable to granting you whatever indulgence in terms of minutes, you sought in order for you to proceed with your legal argument today. Mr Prinsloo, what is your position?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, if we may ask your indulgence, could we do it tomorrow morning? If I'm given time now for a brief while to get my mind organised, I could do it or attempt to do it, but I think it would be better suited if we could do it tomorrow morning, if it will suit the Committee. I'm in your hands, Madam Chair, as Mr Jansen also indicated to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, what is your attitude about proceeding today, rather than tomorrow morning?

MS VAN DER WALT: "Ek sal maar soos 'n vrou, die minderheid wees. Ek dink dit sal goed wees as ons môre kan begin. Ek moet vir u sê dit is ontsettend warm in die saal, ek dink ons kry almal a bietjie swaar hier laat in die middag. As ek dit mag aan u voorstel dat ons dit dan môre oggend doen."

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not getting any translation. I was however able to understand what Ms van der Walt was saying. I think you've switched off your button.

INTERPRETER: I beg your pardon, Madam Chair, I was on the wrong channel.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your position, Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, I will be able to proceed if we have a short adjournment, but I understand the predicament and I think it would probably be advisable to continue tomorrow morning. But I'll be in your hands obviously.

CHAIRPERSON: Having considered the request made by counsel and their preference to have legal argument presented tomorrow rather than today, I must say we as a Committee have decided to grant your wish to have your argument presented tomorrow, because we trust that you will be short, crisp and to the point tomorrow morning, probably better than you would have been this afternoon. So we will postpone legal argument for tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.