--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: The system is now in order and I've also been requested to start from scratch again because what we said previously didn't come through, so I'll just introduce the Panel. On my left is Adv Sibongile Sigodi, a member of the Amnesty Committee. She comes from Port Elizabeth. On my right is Acting-Judge Chris de Jager, also a member of the Amnesty Committee, he comes from Pretoria and I am Selwyn Miller, I'm a Judge and I come from Umtata. Mr Lamey if I could ask you again please to place yourself on record.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. The surname is Lamey, I'm from the firm Rooth and Wessels and I represent the applicant, Mr Chris Mosiane in the two incidents that are before the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson. Lyn Coleridge acting on behalf of Mr Rodney Toka. Chairperson I just want to place on record all the persons that have been notified in terms of being implicated in Mr Mosiane's two incidents. Simon Radebe, Eric Sefadi, Eric Maluleke, Col Prinsloo and Mr Eugene de Kock, Chairperson and then just the annexures that we've marked. Exhibit A, Chairperson, which is Mr Toka's statement and then Exhibit B, which is a Request for Further Particulars from Mr Mosiane with his reply thereto and then Chairperson, I'd like to place on record that it's my instructions that we are not opposing Mr Mosiane's amnesty application. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Coleridge.

CHRISTOPHER MOSIANE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Mosiane in this hearing before this Committee you are an applicant in two incidents, namely the kidnapping of a person known as MK Bomber to you and then also a house raid at Mabopane and the kidnapping of an unknown person there, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Initially you completed an amnesty form, which is in the bundle before the Committee, page 1 to page 7, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And attached to that first application of yours was a statement written out by yourself, of which an extract we find from page 17 up to page 34 of the bundle before the Committee, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Then a typed copy was also prepared relating to that written statement of yours, is that correct, which we find from page 8 of the bundle up to and including page 15 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR SEXWALE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: While we're at this first application, Mr Mosiane, is it correct that short particulars of your involvement in these two incident appear from page 14 and 15 of the bundle before the Committee, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then after you had obtained legal representation, a supplemented application was prepared, which we find from page 37 of the bundle, that is the form up to and including page 41 and then the relevant extract relating to this incident of the kidnapping of MK Bomber, page 48 up to page 50 and the kidnapping of the unknown person, page 50 up to page 53, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now Mr Mosiane, in your first application as well as in your supplemented application, you have given background relating to you becoming eventually a member of Vlakplaas and as such then also a member of the erstwhile Security Police, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct, Mr Mosiane, we're ...(indistinct - background noise) before the Committee, we're not going into all the detail, but the crux of this was that you were abducted at a certain stage from Swaziland before you became a member of Vlakplaas. Before that you were yourself a member of the ANC's Military Wing, Umkhonto weSizwe, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: The applications for amnesty by the persons who abducted you from Swaziland were also heard previously in which you also participated in that hearing as a victim, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now coming from that background and after you became involved with the Security Police, you were referred - a persons such as yourself were called askaris, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is so.

MR LAMEY: And it was in that capacity as an askari that you got involved with these two incidents that are before the Committee?

MR MOSIANE: That is so.

MR LAMEY: Now, also just to confirm a bit of the background, the operational workings of Vlakplaas were such that Units comprising of black permanent force members of Vlakplaas as well as askaris were often, with the approval of the Officer Commanding of Vlakplaas, sent out to assist other units, Security Branch units, mainly for the purpose of tracing the whereabouts and tracing MK members that might be in the country, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now at the time of the kidnapping of the person you know as MK Bomber, you were, you were, your unit comprising as you say on page 48 of the bundle, were assisting a unit of the Northern Transvaal Security Police under the command of Col Prinsloo, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now I want you to read out for the purposes of Mr Rodney Toka, who I believe also operated at the time with the pseudonym of Michael Bomber and who is present at the hearing, would you just read out what you have stated regarding this incident, his kidnapping, from page 48? I just want you, before you do that, you have said in your application, you couldn't recall the date, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now Mr Toka has, in the statement Exhibit A, said that he was arrested on the 13th of June 1998 by members of the Security Branch in Mamelodi. Could that date be correct, as far as you know?

MR MOSIANE: That could be true.

MR LAMEY: Would you please proceed and for the sake of the Committee as well as Mr Toka, read out the nature and particulars of this incident?

MR MOSIANE: This incident occurred during the same period when we were deployed in Mamelodi and attempted to obtain information from the sister of Pat Mahlangu.

MR LAMEY: Can I just stop you there? You also applied for amnesty relating to that incident that you referred to in paragraph 1, when you attempted to obtain information from the sister of Pat Mahlangu, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that application has already been heard by another Committee, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Please proceed.

MR MOSIANE: Acting on Col Prinsloo's information, a unit from Vlakplaas comprising of Simon Radebe, Eric Sefadi, Tshabalala, Eric Maluleke and myself were ordered to patrol the streets of Mamelodi. Simon Radebe, as the Youth Commander, explained to all of us that we were to be on the lookout for a member of the underground unit of ANC. The suspect who was known to Simon, was called Bomber.

MR LAMEY: Now just a minute here. You're talking about a unit from Vlakplaas. You're in fact referring to that smaller unit of which Simon Radebe was the Section Leader at the time, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Please proceed further.

MR MOSIANE: Bomber was spotted by Simon and we arrested or kidnapped him, put him in the kombi and took him to Vlakplaas where he was interrogated for a short time. Later ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: You say interrogated and tubed for a short time, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Yes. Did you participate in the interrogation or the tubing?

MR MOSIANE: I did not participate although I was present when it took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just for purposes of the record, when you refer to the tubing is that when - it's a form of torture really.

MR MOSIANE: It's a form of suffocation, yes, that's torture.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you put a rubber tube over the person's face to restrict breathing and then ask questions and release it and pull it back on, that sort of thing?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: But you were present when that happened, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: I was present when that happened.

MR LAMEY: Please proceed.

MR MOSIANE: Later, Simon, Col Eugene de Kock, Eric Sefadi and some white Security policemen continued interrogating him while awaiting the arrival of Col Prinsloo. We were then, that is myself and other askaris, asked to leave. I last saw the man locked in the showers at Vlakplaas.

MR LAMEY: Please proceed there.

MR MOSIANE: I never saw or heard of Bomber again. I don't know if he is still alive. Eric Sefadi and Simon Radebe had a strong bond, despite the fact that Eric was an askari while Simon was a policeman.

MR LAMEY: Ja. Can you just please proceed further?

MR MOSIANE: As far as I can recall, there were no physical injuries to him, he was interrogated and tubed for a short time at Vlakplaas. Simon Radebe and Eric Sefadi did the initial interrogation and tubing, which lasted for a short time. I don't know what happened further to this person.

MR LAMEY: If you talk about a short time, can you just tell us more or less how long did this take while you were present?

MR MOSIANE: It could have lasted for a period of between 20 to 25 minutes.

MR LAMEY: That is now before de Kock arrived, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now could you just also read further on page 50 regarding your statement about the political objective?

MR MOSIANE: Bomber was suspected of being one of the members of an underground MK unit, operating in Mamelodi. He was suspected to have been trained locally. It would appear that he was known to Simon Radebe.

MR LAMEY: Now where did you get this information from, that what you've stated there?

MR MOSIANE: The information was given to us by Simon Radebe. It was for this purpose that he was kidnapped, in order to ascertain information from him regarding his activities and the activities of other members of his unit on which information was supplied by Col Prinsloo of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch. I don't know whether any information was obtained from him, as I was not part of the interrogation team. The objectives were to trace MK operatives suspected of operating in Mamelodi. I acted under orders from my superiors.

MR LAMEY: Right and then your superiors you refer to there, you received your immediate orders from Simon Radebe, who was your leader, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: While doing street patrols in Mamelodi in order to trace these MK people, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then as far as you know, Simon Radebe acted under orders of Col de Kock, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you also, as far as you know, the request came from Northern Transvaal Security Branch to assist him with the patrolling in the streets of Mamelodi and tracing of members of the MK unit, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now, before we proceed further with the Request for Further Particulars that were asked, how exactly did it happen? How as MK Bomber kidnapped? Can you just explain that, what is your recollection, how did you manage to kidnap him, or how did it happen?

MR MOSIANE: It was during the day, I cannot recall the exact date, during the day but the day that falls within working days of the week, it wasn't a weekend and we were patrolling in Mamelodi on a lookout for a man I did not know, driving around Mamelodi when suddenly Simon Radebe stopped the kombi, forcing an unknown person to me who was walking leisurely on the pavement, forcing him towards the fence with the car and exclaiming: "This is the man, this is the man" The kombi was stopped at that time. He opened up his door and we did the same, from one side of the door, because we were seated in the passenger compartment of the kombi. We went out. Bomber was hastily dragged into the car and driven to Vlakplaas.

MR LAMEY: So did you get to know his name, MK Bomber, subsequent to that, not before that?

MR MOSIANE: Before to that I knew we were looking for a man by the name of Bomber, but I did not know his identity, I couldn't identify the man.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Alright, you didn't know the man personally to identify him.

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now Chairman, I'm coming now to Exhibit A.

MR LAX: The Request for Further Particulars and the Response thereto.

MR LAMEY: Yes. Now I want you - is it correct Mr Mosiane that this answer to the Request for Further Particulars you supplied in consultation with your legal representative, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And after consultation with him, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now let us just look at the first question. The question was, what information was given to them by Col Prinsloo? Now could you just read that out, paragraph 1.1?

MR MOSIANE: Applicant received his instructions to accompany the unit to look for the person called Bomber from Simon Radebe. Applicant assumed that Radebe must have been given some information by Prinsloo, or instructions, as they all fell under the command of Prinsloo at the time when the unit was working in Mamelodi, assisting the Northern Transvaal Security Branch.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm that to be correct, in answer to that question 1.1?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Let's go to the next question.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is it really necessary to go through all the questions, or could he confirm the contents of this?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, if it pleases you, we can just confirm that, it is actually merely for the sake of the victim that we're doing that. I've been told by the Evidence Leader that ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: If you feel there are certain particulars that he wishes to emphasise, be free to do so.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I'm sure he also has a copy. Mr Mosiane is it correct that you have had an opportunity to go again through these questions and the answer, is that correct, which is before the Committee and do you confirm that that is, to the best of your belief, true and correct in answer to the questions insofar as you are able to furnish particulars to the questions?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I think that is then the evidence-in-chief relating to this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Just before I ask Ms Coleridge, Mr Mosiane, did you personally assist in dragging Mr Toka into the kombi, or were you just a witness standing by?

MR MOSIANE: I cannot recall if I assisted in dragging him to the car because already Simon had him by the cuff of his shirt then, by the collar of his shirt then and holding on to his trousers belt and he showed him into the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

MS COLERIDGE: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Mr Mosiane, just in relation to Simon Radebe, do you know how he came to know about Mr Toka?

MR MOSIANE: No, I don't know but I believe he must have received information from either Col Prinsloo or de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean that information, it seems from your evidence that he actually knew Mr Toka, that he could identify him from a number of people walking on the pavement, so he must have had some personal knowledge of Mr Toka.

MR MOSIANE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But you don't know where he gets that personal knowledge, where he had met Mr Toka before this incident, or had seen him before the incident?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE: And then I just want to place Mr Toka's version which just slightly differs to you in relation to the time when the incident occurred. We know that this happened a long time ago and your memory is not that accurate. He said that he was kidnapped at between 1.00 a.m. and 3.00 a.m. in the morning in a house in White City in Mamelodi and that's where he was kidnapped. Would you like to respond?

MR MOSIANE: If that is the version of Mr Toka, then we could not be speaking about the same person. If that is his version and he sticks to it and as clear as he recalls it, then we are not speaking of the same man.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Coleridge, Mr Mosiane were you involved in other abductions of this nature in your career as a member of Vlakplaas?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What are you saying? Are you saying it's possible that you're making a mistake about Mr Toka, or are you saying that Mr Toka must be mistaken about saying that he was arrested in the early hours of the morning in a house?

MR MOSIANE: The man who was arrested in the early hours of the morning, according to the time Mr Toka is saying, cannot be the very same Bomber I was involved in, in Mamelodi.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mosiane, you see Mr Toka sitting next to Ms Coleridge there. Can you recognise him now, you know the fact that you - because I notice in the statement that you read out, you said that you'd never seen him again and you didn't even know if he was alive. Well we know he's alive, he's here. When you take a look at the gentleman, can you recognise him?

MR MOSIANE: Excuse me Chairperson, I was involved in both kidnapping of Bomber and the unknown person.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, say maybe ...(intervention)

MR MOSIANE: The 1.00 a.m. to 3.00 a.m. in the morning, I was there, but I did not know that man, but I knew that the one arrested in Mamelodi during the day, during the day, was Bomber.

CHAIRPERSON: But that other one that you're talking about that you refer to as the kidnapping of an unknown person from a house, that was in Mabopane, was it? Where is White City?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Where is White City?

MR MOSIANE: It's somewhere in ...

CHAIRPERSON: Is White City Mamelodi?

MR MOSIANE: No, no, Mabopane.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it Mabopane? Sorry, I thought it was - somebody said White City, Mamelodi.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, it is White City in Mamelodi and then just in terms of the facts of the situation, this is MK Bomber, Chairperson, that's been identified and the other fact refers to my client, Chairperson, so he's not disputing any of the other facts.

CHAIRPERSON: The tubing and the interrogation etc.

MS COLERIDGE: And that he was taken to Vlakplaas and that Prinsloo was involved and so forth, so we are not disputing, it was just the time.

CHAIRPERSON: And the place.

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on Ms Coleridge.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So is it suggested perhaps that he's confused about the names, that Bomber was in fact kidnapped during the night and the other unknown person was kidnapped during the day?

MS COLERIDGE: That's possible. And we just want to place on record that after this incident had occurred, Mr Toka was then charged for 51 counts of various incidents, murder, attempted murder and malicious damage to property and so forth. He then managed to escape from prison and he was in exile since then in Zambia, Chairperson and that he came back to South Africa in 1994 with the new Government and so forth and that's all we'd like to place on record, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Mosiane, the Honourable Judge Miller, the Chairman, has asked you can you recognise Mr Bomber here, thinking back at the time. Do you recognise him, or can't you recognise him?

MR MOSIANE: Chairperson, I'm battling with my memory to put in the right position to recall the face. He's not the man we kidnapped during the day.

MR LAMEY: Well can I ask, is it possible ...(intervention)

MR MOSIANE: It is possible that he could be the man we kidnapped during the night, in the early hours of the morning, as he puts it.

MR LAMEY: Well, let me just get this clear.

CHAIRPERSON: I should imagine, sorry Mr Lamey, Mosiane that Mr Toka has a vivid memory of his being snatched from a house at 2 in the morning. It only happened to him once in his life, whereas you were involved in various abductions, so I think one can accept that he was in fact the person who was taken from the house in the night.

MR MOSIANE: I can never deny that Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Then just one more point. The person who was taken from the house, we know that Mr Toka hasn't denied that he was thereafter taken for interrogation, tubing etc. Did the same thing happen with the person who was captured during the day? They were both taken and ...

MR MOSIANE: That was standard procedure.

CHAIRPERSON: So, you are then prepared to accept that you've just confused Bomber with the person who was taken in during the day on the streets in Mamelodi, whereas in fact he was the person who was taken from a house in White City?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, do you have any questions you'd like to ask?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did you apply for both incidents or intend to apply for both incidents of kidnapping, the one in the street and the one in the house, or did you in fact forget about the one in the house?

MR MOSIANE: I applied for both incidents Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we haven't - I think we may as well, before we deal with the other one, because we only dealt with the one in the street.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So just carry on with the house raid at Mabopane and if you could clear up the place, if it's White City or Mabopane or Mamelodi.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Mosiane I think perhaps you should only - in this incident would you also - can you just clarify for us, that is the next ...(indistinct - background noise) incident that we're dealing with. You referred here to another operation

where you were involved with Simon Radebe, Eric Sefadi and yourself and you said you raided a house in Lebanon, near Mabopane and arrested the man, it was a night raid, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Now you've heard now that White City has been referred to by Mr Bomber, do you know where White City is, or a place named White City?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, I am corrected now, I realise it was not in the place I stated here.

MR LAMEY: Could this reference be wrong here, to Mabopane?

MR MOSIANE: That could be wrong.

MR LAMEY: Could it have been in Mamelodi also?

MR MOSIANE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: But you're sure that there were two incidents that you kidnapped a person? The one was in the night.

MR MOSIANE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: The other one was during the day.

MR MOSIANE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And in both instances this person was - well in the one case the person was taken to Vlakplaas, like you recall the one of Bomber, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And in this incident you say you drove the night to an open veld where you found Col Prinsloo and some of his men awaiting and you handed the person over there, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And it was after this person was handed over that he was put on the ground and he was assaulted?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And you were then ordered to go back to Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR MOSIANE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just getting a little bit confused, but perhaps Ms Coleridge could assist us with the assistance of Mr Toka. From the first incident described by Mr Mosiane, he says that the person was abducted on the street and then he was taken to Vlakplaas and he was locked up in a shower and tubed and interrogated in a shower and then on page 51 he says that this person was abducted from a house and then handed over in the veld and the interrogation, you weren't present at the interrogation thereafter. Was Mr Toka locked up in a shower, or handed over in the veld?

MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson, he was taken to Vlakplaas where he was interrogated there, Chairperson.

MR TOKA: Just for the clarity of this Commission, I think on the first incident, he's referring to one of my comrades, Peter Maluleke, who was the actual person who was kidnapped during the day after leaving his house and when they kidnapped Peter Maluleke they were looking for this Bomber, that's what happened and on the second incident, the house one where he even said members of Col Prinsloo's office were there, that's the incident he might be referring to me, when I was collected from my house. So its that possibly the applicant in this matter was supposed to be- he didn't get his facts right because he was supposed to apply for amnesty for the kidnapping actually, of Peter Maluleke, because that's the incident that happened during the day, as I can recall quite well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Toka, just for enlightening us, so we won't regard that as actually evidence, but we are in a Commission here and I don't think there's much in dispute or being opposed here, but we just want to clear the facts.

MR LAMEY: Yes, so it would appear according to the victim, Chairperson, they were in fact looking for MK Bomber, but they kidnapped someone else, a comrade or a colleague of his, that day when they grabbed him from the street, but in fact when they kidnapped Bomber it was at night from the house.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and the person who was picked up in the street was Mr Peter Maluleke.

MR LAMEY: Could that very well be the position, Mr Mosiane?

MR MOSIANE: Yes, that could be.

MR LAMEY: Can you - alright. Chairperson, I don't know whether you wish me to clarify this further. Does - now having been mentioned, the name of Maluleke, do you recall such a name?

MR MOSIANE: No, I'm hearing the name for the first time in this Commission.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, just to clarify this for me, did these kidnapping take place on the same day?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: What was the interval?

MR MOSIANE: The first one to be kidnapped was Peter Maluleke.

ADV SIGODI: Yes, and then?

MR MOSIANE: And the second one to be kidnapped was Bomber, as he's already explained.

ADV SIGODI: Ja, I understand that but did this happen, one happen during the day and then you went to get Bomber during the night or was there an interval, because I couldn't find a place, I know you cannot recall the date, but did it happen on the same day?

MR MOSIANE: No, Chairperson, there was an interval.

ADV SIGODI: How long was the interval?

MR MOSIANE: I cannot recall precisely how long the interval was.

ADV SIGODI: A week?

MR MOSIANE: Perhaps a week, or more, but certainly the first one to be kidnapped or abducted, was Peter Maluleke.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I don't think we can take it further. I think there is perhaps a logical explanation for the difference.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Any questions, Ms Coleridge?

MS COLERIDGE: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any more questions Judge de Jager, Adv Sigodi? Thank you Mr Mosiane.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to be leading any further evidence Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No, I've got no further evidence on behalf of the applicant, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge?

MS COLERIDGE: No, Chairperson, that is our case.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, I suppose you wish me to address you, just on the merits? Chairperson, yes it would appear that the possibility is that there could be a confusion. I think it's a bona fide one and I don't think the applicant has any intention not to reveal as far as best he can, the recollection of the true facts. We do have now the situation that possibly, regarding the first incident, another person was involved, a person likely to be by the name of Maluleke as referred to by Mr Toka. My submission is, with regard to both these incidents, that it was done under orders of Mr Mosiane who was at that time a member of the Security Forces as an askari and that the aim was to abduct, from the information that they received of MK, ANC people, specifically involved in MK activities in the area where the abduction took place and the purpose of the abduction, interrogation.

I would submit that the applicant qualifies for amnesty in both these incidents for kidnapping. Then although he didn't actively participate in any assault, he was a bystander and I submit that perhaps assault should also be included as an offence for which he seeks amnesty.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Would it be a kidnapping or was it a sort-of arrest, or...?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I - initially and has been my experience with also other applicants, that they be inclined to refer to the term arrest, but upon further consultation it would appear that the circumstances were such that the person was merely grabbed, he wasn't legally arrested in the strict sense of the word, like being informed of a charge, so I think it was merely grabbing of the person and taking away to Vlakplaas for interrogation, outside the boundaries of a normal arrest and where he was dealt with further in a way unknown to the applicant. I see from the statement of Mr Toka, I think, ...

JUDGE DE JAGER: Well he told us he was in fact charged with 51 charges.

MR LAMEY: He was charged later yes, but I think that the formal arrest was probably made after interrogation, but I do think that at the time it wasn't really within legal boundaries, Chairperson.

Chairperson and then any other delict that my be inferred from the facts. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, as we previously stated that we are not opposing Mr Mosiane's amnesty application and we will leave the decision in the hands of the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We'll reserve the decision and a written decision will be handed down in the near future. Thank you. Thank you Mr Mosiane, that concludes your application.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, just in relation to the second incident, just for clarity sake, Peter Maluleke, we know that he was also charged with a Mr Toka, Chairperson and he was abducted on the 10th of June, just a few days prior to Mr Toka and, now just for clarity sake, is Mr Mosiane applying for amnesty for the Toka incident and for the Peter ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I gather that it's in respect of both the kidnapping and the person that he refers to in his papers as an unknown person, would seem in all probability to be Mr Peter Maluleke.

MS COLERIDGE: Now Chairperson, then we obviously have a problem in relation to Mr Peter Maluleke, in that he wasn't notified because we didn't realise.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you had no information from the evidence, it was referred to as an unknown person, but I think that is unavoidable and it's not due to the fault of any person at all that he didn't receive notice, but for purposes of the decision, we will regard Mr Peter Maluleke as being a victim and make the necessary recommendation to the Reparations Committee, referring to him as being a victim, although Mr Mosiane didn't in fact know that it was Maluleke, but everything points to the fact that it is him.

MS COLERIDGE: Yes, Chairperson, and Mr Toka is in contact with Mr Maluleke, so we could also forward him a copy of the transcript and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I've got a note here that Mr Maluleke is the victim of the first kidnapping.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. That concludes this hearing. Ms Coleridge are you ready to proceed with the next matter, or should we take a short adjournment?

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, can we just take a short adjournment in order to get everybody here? Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a short adjournment now and then we'll proceed with the next matter on the role. Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll now be commencing with the application of Mr Goosen and others. Goosen, Gouws ...(intervention)

MS COLERIDGE: Mr Klopper Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The application of Mr Kobus Klopper. I don't know if everybody was present when we started the last application but I'd just like to introduce the Panel. On my left is Adv Sibongile Sigodi, member of the Amnesty Committee and she comes from Port Elizabeth. On my right is Mr Acting-Justice Chris de Jager, also a member of the Amnesty Committee. He comes from Pretoria and I am Selwyn Miller, I'm a Judge and also a member of the Amnesty Committee and I come from Umtata. I'd like to at this stage request the legal representatives to please place themselves on record.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson, Tony Richard, I act for Mr Mbuli the victim in the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson thank you. Lamey from the firm Rooth and Wessels. I represent the applicant Mr Klopper.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.

MS COLERIDGE: Lyn Coleridge, acting on behalf of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Chairperson I'd just like to place on record that the following people have been notified in terms of being implicated persons in this matter. Mr Abraham Grobbelaar. Chairperson, we have an affidavit that we received this morning from Mr Grobbelaar. Can we mark that Exhibit A, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Is everybody in possession of this affidavit? The affidavit of Abraham Grobbelaar will then be marked Exhibit A.

MS COLERIDGE: And Chairperson, the next implicated person is Mr du Toit and we've also received an affidavit from Mr du Toit this morning, can we mark that Exhibit B, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The affidavit of Joseph Hume du Toit will be received as Exhibit B.

MS COLERIDGE: And Chairperson, Mr van Tonder who's also implicated, we believe he's deceased Chairperson. We've got a note from the ...(indistinct) in relation to that as well. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. The applicant will testify in Afrikaans, if it pleases the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: If you wish to benefit from the interpretation, please get one of these devices, I don't know if everybody's got.

KOBUS KLOPPER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper in this Panel of the Amnesty Committee you apply for your involvement in the unlawful abduction of Mr Mzwake Mbuli, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Just an overview of your amnesty application. In the bundle before the Committee there is an extract from an initial application which you completed yourself, which we will find on page 1. Is that correct, up to page 7, the form thereof?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And attached to that there is a typed annexure in which you mention incidents for which you at that stage were planning to apply for amnesty for, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The incident which now serves before this Committee, is it correct that it is referred to in paragraph 3 (2) on page 9 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: As well as other incidents in your initial application which you did not repeat later because of the fact that you did not qualify for amnesty for those?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And later, after you obtained legal representation, a supplementary application was drawn up and we will find that in the bundle before the Committee, an extract thereof, the form you completed on page 13 to 17 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then also a typed annexure where, from page 18, you give an overview of your background and training?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then a specific incident, supplementary details page 23 and page 24 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Amongst others, you have also applied for amnesty for several acts where you as a member of Vlakplaas were involved, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Is it also correct that before you became a member of Vlakplaas, you were stationed at the Security Branch Soweto?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: This incident emanates from a time when you were a member of the Soweto Security Branch?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And can you remember what your rank was at that stage?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I was either a Sergeant or a Warrant-Officer, but I am not sure.

MR LAMEY: And who was your Commander?

MR KLOPPER: It was Col Grobbelaar at that stage, he was still a Major at that stage, but he is Col Grobbelaar.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You have had the opportunity to study the particulars before this Committee with regard to this incident, page 23?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And 24, that was supplied there?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the correctness thereof insofar as you can recall?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I do.

MR LAMEY: You mention that hand grenades, during a search of Mr Mbuli's house, were planted in the house.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR LAMEY: Who brought the hand grenades to the house?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly who brought the hand grenades there, I am not certain who brought it there, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Was it yourself?

MR KLOPPER: No, it was not I, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You assisted in the planting thereof?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, as I stated here, I was involved in the planting of the hand grenades.

CHAIRPERSON: How many hand grenades?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson I am not sure, I think it was two, but I am not certain.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Mr Mbuli and his wife, is it correct that they were charged with the possession of these hand grenades and they were arrested?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson. We took them, what I can recall, we took them to Protea to the Security Branch's offices.

MR LAMEY: And to whom were they handed over?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, the Security Branch there was divided into an investigative part and then the tracing part. I was part of the tracing team. We handed them over to the investigative team. I cannot recall who the persons were there, but I was part of the team who traced them. What happened from there onwards, I do not know.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Do you know what happened further with regard to the further progress of the legal process after the arrest of Mr Mbuli?

MR KLOPPER: No, I do not know, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether he was convicted?

MR KLOPPER: I have no knowledge, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You say in your statement that you possibly made a statement about the incident, but do you have any definite recollection thereof?

MR KLOPPER: No, I do not have a definite recollection thereof.

MR LAMEY: So it's possible that it did happen?

MR KLOPPER: It is possible that I did make the statement, yes.

MR LAMEY: And if there was a statement from you, it would have been false? If it would appear that a statement was taken from you, then it would be a false statement that Mr Mbuli had indeed ...

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, could we speculate whether he committed an offence in this regard? I presume you want to ask for, because he made the statement, for perjury and he can't remember whether he made a statement, should we accept that he made a statement?

MR LAMEY; Chairperson, no, perhaps I should ask the applicant a question about this. Do you know whether statements were made by other members?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I do not know whether statements were taken, but as I understood the legal process, statements would have been taken from the members who were involved at the house and who would have confiscated these hand grenades that's why I'm not sure whether I made a statement or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever have to go to Court and testify?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I never went to Court. In the whole time while I was at Soweto Security Branch, I never went to court, it never happened to me, no.

MR LAMEY: What I do suggest is that perhaps I address you in argument about this. You did foresee, is it correct, that the hand grenades were planted and that he was falsely arrested, emanating from this?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And he was handed over to an investigative team?

MR KLOPPER: Yes and the prosecution or the so-called prosecution would follow from there and then they would prepare it for Court, of the suspects.

MR LAMEY: So the objective of this exercise as far as you know, was to gain false evidence against Mr Mbuli to bring him to Court?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who did you go to the house with, Mr Klopper?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, there were various members. If my memory does not fail me, Grobbelaar was not there, but the rest of the tracing team of which I was a member, were all present there. We may possibly have been ten, maybe more and this was under the Command of Capt du Toit, he was the Commander of the team that evening, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Who are the members that you can recall?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, the whole team at that stage, but I cannot pertinently recall any names, I know Frans van Tonder was there.

MR LAMEY: And Capt du Toit.

MR KLOPPER: Yes, those are the names I recall.

MR LAMEY: And you have mentioned it here?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I have.

CHAIRPERSON: And you say the objective of that raid and the planting of hand grenades was to arrest Mr Mbuli?

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson. The Security Branch at that stage worked in the following manner, I hope it doesn't happen like this any more but if you can't catch him then one would plant something there, so one could remove him form the system Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know why there was a desire to falsely arrest Mr Mbuli?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as I stated in my statement, under our Security Branch members it was well-known that he was a sympathiser and collaborator with the ANC. I do not exactly know what the Commander's objective was, but according to my knowledge, we had to remove him from the system.

CHAIRPERSON: And what about Mrs Mbuli, his wife?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, she was present in the house, as far as I can recall, and that is why she was also taken away. Everyone who had access, I do not know what the burden of proof works like in that situation, but everyone who was present or who had access to that house was arrested and taken through interrogation and it is determined by other methods who the owners of the so-called objects were, found in that house.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you then specifically, did you understand that Mr Mbuli was a collaborator or a sympathiser?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that was my knowledge and that was what was conveyed to us.

MR LAMEY: But now the specific question was direct as Mrs Mbuli. Was there any information with regard to her involvement in the liberation movements, or do you not know?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall that I had any such information available to me.

MR LAMEY: The Further Particulars in this regard, did you have access to it, or did it come from above?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it came from the top, from above, and it came from the Commander himself.

CHAIRPERSON: If one takes a look at Exhibit A, Mr Klopper, this is a statement or an affidavit that's been submitted from Mr Grobbelaar and then also Exhibit B, affidavit from Mr du Toit, they basically deny giving an order and put up the reason, or one of the reasons for the denial as being that: "I wouldn't have given an order to somebody to place a hand grenade because they're not an explosives expert." What do you say to that?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, Frans van Tonder was indeed an explosives expert, but these are lies and if you would look at the way it was put together, it's like at school where children just write each other off.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have to be an explosives expert to hold a hand grenade?

MR KLOPPER: No, certainly not, I handled explosives many a time before I became an explosives expert.

MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper, I would just like to ask you something else. In the bundle that was made available and which we studied this morning, it would appear on page 52 and 53 of the bundle before the Committee, next to the month March 1989, entries were made which look like an entry into an incident record, or incident book.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The date there of March 1989, does this ring a bell? Were you still with the Security Branch then?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I was. I know that in October of 1989, I went to Vlakplaas, but at that stage I was still at the Soweto Security Branch.

MR LAMEY: And then there on page 53 is a specific entry in the first column from a Lieut du Toit and then next to him, there was the signature of a person who took over the dossier and then there are further entries with regard to, I do not know exactly what it is, maybe you can assist in that column, the third column.

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, the number 1 at the top are the addresses that we had.

MR LAMEY: Were these exhibits, or the evidence that you had?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, the hand grenades and it is indicated that the explosive expert destroyed the evidence, or he was supposed to destroy it.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabout is that?

MR KLOPPER: Page 54, 53, sorry Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: 53 at the bottom.

MR KLOPPER: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Where does it talk about destroying the ...

MR KLOPPER: On the top there it says: "Bewysig ...(indistinct) en datum"

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR KLOPPER: Number 1 is blank, there's no ...

MR LAMEY: And if we study further, it refers to the particulars of the accused: "Name, Race and Sex, Cell Register Number" and then we see next to 2(a) Mzwake Mbuli, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And then a cell register.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER; Well this seems to relate to the victims in this matter and it seems to relate to the incident where hand grenades were - I don't know whether they refer to hand grenades here.

MR KLOPPER: Page 52, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR KLOPPER: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAMEY: But the person who handed over the particulars to the investigative detective, was Lieut du Toit.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: So that is one of your members who was with you, the one you refer to as Capt du Toit.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Richard, do you have any questions that you would like to put to the applicant?

MR RICHARD: Not that many, but a few.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Mr Klopper, how old were you in March 1989?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I was approximately 22 or 23 years old. I was born in 1966.

MR RICHARD: Before the incidents of this particular evening, did you know anything about Mr Mbuli?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I knew he was known as the people's poet, same as Sipho ...(indistinct) Mabuse and other entertainers, that is the only knowledge that I had of him. Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Did you know which political party, if any, he belonged to?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson I cannot specifically recall, as I stated previously. My information that was conveyed to me, was that he was a sympathiser of the ANC. I cannot tell you whether he was a member of the ANC.

MR RICHARD: Did you have any personal knowledge as to whether he was or wasn't a sympathiser of any particular party?

MR KLOPPER: No, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now at page 9 of the bundle, numbered paragraph 3.2, there was a discussion obviously, that you referred to, between you, du Toit and van Tonder, where did that discussion take place?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, it was in Grobbelaar's office at Protea at the Security Branch, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And which of the three persons, du Toit, Grobbelaar or van Tonder said to you: "We must go out tonight to plant evidence in Mr Mbuli's house"?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, Grobbelaar was the overall Commander and we worked according to rank, down, but I cannot specifically tell you that it was told to me that : "Listen, you must just go and do this and that", but in group regard, this information or this instruction was carried over to us.

MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Please, you've been present in an office.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Somebody tells you: "Go and plant a hand grenade".

MR KLOPPER: Correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The question is, who told you that?

MR KLOPPER: It was Grobbelaar.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So it wasn't brought down from him to du Toit and then to you? You listened to him and he conveyed that to you?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, in a group regard, but not specifically to any individuals, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Well, who was going to do the planting, was it you or somebody else?

MR KLOPPER: It was within the group, Chairperson, no specific individual received an instruction to do it. I cannot recall how the planting had taken place, but in group regard, the command was given to us and that is how we executed it.

MR RICHARD: Did you see two hand grenades in the office?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall. I cannot recall whether I saw them there.

MR RICHARD: Now the long and the short of it is that you say that you participated in the planting of the hand grenades, you were involved?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, yes.

MR RICHARD: In what way were you involved? What did you do?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall whether I myself had a hand grenade or planted both hand grenades, but to get the area correct, to plant the hand grenades and the fact that I knew right from the start that that is what the exercise would entail, that was my role, but I cannot specifically recall whether I myself personally placed the hand grenades there.

MR RICHARD: Now did you ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: But who carried the hand grenades? Did you put them in the car? Who carried them?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall.

JUDGE DE JAGER: A hand grenade can't be lying round there.

MR KLOPPER: No, but it was definitely not I, Chairperson, I was not the one who physically carried it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And can you remember whether in the house you physically carried it and put it in a cupboard, or somewhere? It should be something that you could remember.

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall whether I planted it there myself, as I've told you, it could have been any of the three of us. I cannot specifically recall, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you remember seeing a hand grenade?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, I recall seeing the hand grenades afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but I mean at the time that you were at the house.

MR KLOPPER: In the house? Yes, after it was found, I can specifically recall that, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chair. Now tell me, I'm a bit confused now, did you see anyone put a hand grenade anywhere in the house?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot pertinently recall that, but I do recall the discussion and it was found there and that it was planted, but I cannot pertinently recall who placed it there and how it was placed there, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know where the hand grenade was found?

MR KLOPPER: What I read afterwards, it was in a wardrobe, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Were you there when it was found? Did you see it when it was found?

MR KLOPPER: I was in the room, yes, Chairperson. I cannot specifically recall whether it was I or du Toit, or one of the other members. I cannot specifically recall Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Tell me, how often had you done this thing, had you done this thing before of planting hand grenades in people's houses?

MR KLOPPER: No, this was the first time that I was involved in such a matter, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Was it the only time, or were there other times as well?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, there were other incidents in other amnesty applications that had taken place later at Vlakplaas where I was involved, yes, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Thanks.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now when you were told to plant the hand grenades, were you told why you needed to plant them?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall whether I asked, but it was general knowledge at that stage, that's how the Security Branch worked, that the enemies of them would be removed from the system, or they are eliminated. In most cases it was not even necessary to advance any reasons, Chairperson, one would just follow orders.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now I'm going to give you a list of names, I want to know if you know any of them. Venter, Fabricus,

CHAIRPERSON: Just - what was that?

MR RICHARD: Venter.

CHAIRPERSON: Venter.

MR RICHARD: Yes, from SANAB, or the Security Police or the Security at Vlakplaas.

MR KLOPPER: At Vlakplaas - there was a Venter at Soweto Security Branch, yes.

MR RICHARD: Do you remember his first name?

MR KLOPPER: If I recall correctly he's a tall, dark-haired guy, well-built, but I cannot recall his name specifically, I just know him as Venter.

MR RICHARD: Mr Brits?

MR KLOPPER: No, I cannot recall a Brits working with me.

MR RICHARD: Fabricus.

MR KLOPPER: Fabricus was a person who worked at SANAB in Pretoria.

MR RICHARD: With you?

MR KLOPPER: No, I never worked at SANAB in Pretoria.

MR RICHARD: Kriel.

MR KLOPPER: No.

JUDGE DE JAGER: A little bit slower, please. Fabricus worked at SANAB?

MR KLOPPER: Correct, Chairperson, in Pretoria.

MR RICHARD: And Kriel.

MR KLOPPER: I do not recall any Kriel, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And at this time in 1989, they weren't part of that particular Security Branch?

MR KLOPPER: No, Chairperson, they were not part of my group, no.

CHAIRPERSON: This group that went to the Mbuli house that night, were they all Security Branch members, Soweto, or did you have any outside people with you?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, we only had our own people and we only used our own people for security and because unlawful things took place, we just kept it within the group.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now on page 23, if I recall correctly, under 9(a)(i), "Assault emanating from the ...", what assault did you commit?

MR KLOPPER: I did not participate in any assault, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you witness any assault?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson I cannot recall whether I saw any assault of Mr Mbuli, I cannot recall that, but I cannot tell you, Chairperson, but it was general practice, if I may state it as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you proceed. When you say you can't remember witnessing any assault, are you saying that you may have witnessed an assault, but you've forgotten about it, or are you saying that one didn't take place in your presence?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall whether assault took place, it may be possible but I cannot recall seeing it, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now, both at that time and in general, were you ever aware of Mr Mbuli being detained?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, if I may state it as such, I started at the Security Branch in 1987, I think and then there was this whole ...(indistinct) about the red danger and there were these states of emergency, many people were arrested. I cannot recall specifically whether Mr Mbuli was detained.

MR RICHARD: Were you ever party to any of the other arrests and detention of Mr Mbuli?

MR KLOPPER: No, this was the only time that I saw Mr Mbuli, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: If we go to August the next year, 1989, were you aware of anything that happened in that month?

CHAIRPERSON: Is this the same year?

MR RICHARD: 89.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't the other one 89 as well?

MR RICHARD: Same year, sorry.

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson no, this is the only incident that I have knowledge of Mr Mbuli, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: So if I put it to you that during that period and I'm not being precise, he was arrested and detained on approximately 8 occasions, in August 1989, some hand grenades were thrown at his house, would you know any of these things?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson no, I don't have any knowledge of that.

MR RICHARD: Now when you planted, or were part of, as you say in your evidence, the group who went to Mr Mbuli's house to plant fictitious evidence, did you ever consider the effect it would have on him?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, it's logical that it would have an effect on him.

MR RICHARD: What would - did you realise at that time it would mean that he would be detained, that he would lose the confidence of his in-laws because he was being detained for a criminal offence, it could damage his life?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, the Security Branch at that stage, if you look at the evidence that you have heard so for, this was normal practice, so this whole incident did not have a great impact on us, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Did you suggest to anyone that it was unlawful to do what was going to be done?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, later I saw it myself, that when one would go against a system, or go against an instruction, then it would be the end of you. You cannot go against it, you cannot make such things in such an environment, you'd be the following person to die.

ADV SIGODI: What do you mean?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, these were not persons playing with toy guns, they did not hesitate to kill. It didn't bother anyone to kill anyone, Chairperson, so it became quite clear later from the people who were killed at Vlakplaas, when one would turn against the system, if you would have any information against them for example. So whether you agreed or not, you would shut up and you continued.

ADV SIGODI: In other words, you operated under duress?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, yes, these were instructions, you don't ask questions, you do not ask why or what, you do not give any indication that you want to oppose any of these things because it would mean the end of you.

ADV SIGODI: Tell me, were there any people at Vlakplaas who were killed, who were members of the Security Branch?

MR KLOPPER: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: Were killed for having ...

MR KLOPPER: Just because it was suspected that they had turned against the system, there was no proof at that stage and they were murdered, Chairperson. The evidence that has been heard so far, it is quite clear there was no hesitation to kill anyone, it didn't matter who it was, Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: And why was Mr Mbuli arrested?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as I have said, that was the information that I had from the other people, he was a sympathiser of the ANC and at that stage that was the great enemy and whether it was unlawful or not, they were regarded as the great enemy and any person who had contact with them, or sympathised with them, was part of the Security Branch's enemy.

ADV SIGODI: The wife, I'm talking about the wife.

MR KLOPPER: Well Chairperson, I do not know of Mrs Mbuli. As I have said, I think it was just circumstantial that she was present and that is the reason why she was also arrested, Chairperson. I cannot tell you about her.

ADV SIGODI: So she was, in the strict sense, not a political target in her own right?

MR KLOPPER: Not as far as my knowledge goes, no, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When you went to the house that evening, Mr Klopper, were there any other people besides Mr and Mrs Mbuli that were present on the premises?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I do not have an independent recollection thereof, but I read in the report that his daughter was also there, but I do not recall it independently Chairperson.

ADV SIGODI: Was there a person called Keshwa who was present with you?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, there was a person by the name of Keshwa who worked with us, but I cannot recall whether he was present there, but from the bundle it appears that he was indeed there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now to wrap it up, the way I understand it is that you and a number of others came to this house and you can't even recall who you found at the house.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct. I recall Mr Mbuli and his spouse, yes.

MR RICHARD: Do you recall a young child being there?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson I do not have an independent recollection, but later in the bundle, I did read that Mr Mbuli's daughter was there.

MR RICHARD: And then after going through the pretence of a search, somebody said: "Eureka, we have found some hand grenades".

MR KLOPPER: That was normal procedure, yes.

MR RICHARD: In your version, while you were part of the group, you weren't the person who brought the hand grenades there or carried them into any particular room, or put them in any particular cupboard?

MR KLOPPER: No, I didn't take the hand grenades there, Chairperson, I didn't.

MR RICHARD: But you are very clear that per, I think you said Mr Grobbelaar, the Chief of that particular unit, that was what you were going to do that evening.

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And if I'm - this is now a deduction, weren't you the most junior member of the team that went there?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, no, the rank system, as I told you, I'm not sure whether I was a Warrant-Officer or a Sergeant, but there were various constables who were junior to me, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now during the search, did you hear anything of what was being said to Mr Mbuli and his wife?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, this was a long time ago. Things would have been said, but I cannot recall what words were used, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: Now tell me, would you dispute that my client was called a "hond, kaffir, langgat"?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I would not dispute it. That is sort of normal practice during that time, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: So the fact that he might have been called a "poes, hond, kaffir," etc, is quite probable.

MR KLOPPER: It's quite possible, yes, Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: In other words the search was done in a deliberately intimidating and humiliating manner?

MR KLOPPER: Absolutely yes, Chairperson, if I think about it today, that is the exact reason why we did it Chairperson.

MR RICHARD: And even though there might well have been, though you can't remember, a young, young child, in fact my client's daughter who is sitting next to me, there at the time, you wouldn't even remember what happened to her after her parents were taken away?

MR KLOPPER: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall.

MR RICHARD: And after that, you had no further dealings with Mr Mbuli.

MR KLOPPER: No, Chairperson, that was the only time that I had any dealings with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Richard, what time of the night was this? Was it sort of supper time, or was it the early hours of the morning, people asleep in bed when you got there, what time of the night was the raid?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall the time, but we usually worked about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, because that was when people were sleeping at their best. I cannot recall whether that was the only house which we searched that evening. Over a period of time we searched many houses, but usually one would go at that time, that would case the most discomfort to the people and let us suppose that there are terrorists, during those days, then that would be the time when the people are the least alert, so if I would advance a guestimate, I would say it was about 2, 3 in the morning.

MR RICHARD: And then you wouldn't dispute that for the next two and a half years, my client was in and out of Court, involved in a prosecution about these hand grenades?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I do not know about that, but I would think that would have been the case Chairperson, yes.

MR RICHARD: And my last question, to go back to a question the Panel asked you, how often on other occasions were you personally involved in planting evidence on people?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, afterwards I was involved in similar incidents. I cannot recall how many or how often this had taken place.

CHAIRPERSON: But on a number of occasions?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, if I could read through the bundle, I would be able to see. A specific incident that I do recall is the incident in Nelspruit, where persons were killed. They were shot first and then explosives and arms were planted next to them, Chairperson.

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

MR RICHARD: May I just request an indication? My client would like to say something. I think this would be an opportune moment.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just finish with this witness, I will ask Mr Lamey if he has any re-examination and then we can put questions, but certainly Mr Mbuli will be given an opportunity to say something. Mr Lamey, do you have any re-examination?

MR LAMEY: One or two questions, thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Lamey and I didn't do it intentionally, I forgot about Ms Coleridge sitting on the side, let me ask her first. Do you have any questions Ms Coleridge?

MS COLERIDGE: No thank you Chairperson, after all of that, I don't.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination?

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper I would just like to take you back. Can you recall that during the time when Maj Grobbelaar gave you the instruction, whether specific reference was made to Mr Mbuli's wife, or was it just him?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, it was only Mr Mbuli. I cannot recall any talk of his wife.

MR LAMEY: And arrest? Was it Mr Mbuli and his wife, or just him?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, the normal procedure would be that one would arrest all the people who had access there and then the investigative team would sort out who the guilty parties were, if I may state it as such.

MR LAMEY: Who had to be charged?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, who had to be charged.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Was the reason for that, that you, if you make an arrest for being in possession and he didn't actually

hold it in his hands, there was a presumption that everybody in the house could have possessed the illegal explosives or firearms?

MR KLOPPER: Yes, Chairperson that is how we worked, unless there was information that there was a trained person present who was most likely the person to have been the owner of these objects.

MR LAMEY: In other words, when one would find something like that in a person's bag, it would be connected to that person, but if it's wider, in a room or in a wardrobe, then the persons in the immediate vicinity would be arrested?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you yourself physically execute the arrest?

MR KLOPPER: No, Chairperson, I know they were transported to the Security Branch's offices.

MR LAMEY: Very well, who was in command at the scene?

MR KLOPPER: That was du Toit, he was the most senior person.

MR LAMEY: Who was superior in rank to you, except for Mr du Toit?

MR KLOPPER: Mr van Tonder, I cannot recall who all was present there.

MR LAMEY: But both du Toit and van Tonder were senior to you?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson. van Tonder in years, if I was a Warrant-Officer, in rank order he would be superior to me also.

MR LAMEY: May I then ask you, the assault which is referred to in paragraph 9 and that is formulated with regard to the assault as touching the person and damaging his integrity, it's not like you want to say that there was real assault, you do not recall but with regard to your amnesty application, it was accompanied by the unlawful detention and taking the person?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Adv Sigodi, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant.

MR LAMEY: There's just one actually that I ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Mr Klopper, there are aspects here in this incident that are not clear in your memory.

MR KLOPPER: That's correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: For purposes of your amnesty application and evidence led before the Goldstone Commission, you had to recall incidents, is that correct?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: You, yourself, and that is why I re-examine you about this, you said you tried to forget these things. Would you just try to give the Committee an indication what your thought process was after the de Kock trial and then after you have evidence before the Goldstone Commission, you tried to escape from this for psychological reasons.

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, any person who tries to recall all these things, has to be sick in his mind, it is not a nice thing to do. It is nothing to be proud of. There are people who say that they are proud of the things that they have done, but they must have a look at themselves. I do not want to think about these things anymore. One cannot forget it, but one tries not to think about it the whole day.

MR LAMEY: So you're not trying to run away from the past, but is it correct that you are trying to lead a clean life as far as possible, or you are trying to lead a new life since then?

MR KLOPPER: That is correct, Chairperson, if one can.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Judge de Jager, any questions you'd like to put. Then, sorry, Mr Klopper, you said that towards the end of that year you then went across to Vlakplaas. Then how long were you a member of Vlakplaas, when did you leave that?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I left Vlakplaas in 1992 or 1993.

CHAIRPERSON: When you went to this house that night, you said there were about ten of you. Did you go in a number of vehicle, a Casspir?

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, we used unmarked vehicles. It would have been with various vehicles, mini-busses and sedan vehicles which we would have moved in, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was the situation? Do you get there and knock on the door or ring the bell, or you go and kick the door down, draw guns? If you could just describe how you went about it.

MR KLOPPER: Chairperson, I cannot recall the specific incident because we have searched so many houses and kicked down so many doors and broken so many windows, I can honestly not tell you whether it happened in this case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Any questions arising Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No question.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge?

MS COLERIDGE: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Klopper that concludes your testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you calling any further witnesses?

MR LAMEY: No, Chairperson, that is the evidence for the applicant, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Mr Mbuli would like to make a short address.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbuli, you can make a statement, just make a statement without taking the oath, or do you wish to give evidence and take the oath in which even you can be questioned by the other parties? It's up to you whatever you want to do.

MR RICHARD: My client has indicated that he would prefer to make a statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly Mr Mbuli, the floor is yours.

STATEMENT BY MR MBULI: Thank you very much Chairperson. I just heard exactly what has been presented before us here. I'm partly surprised and disturbed that the applicant came here to deliver whatever he said under oath, but he kept on saying he can no longer remember, I can't recall, "ek onthou nie", etc. This is not what I expected. I think that as far as I know is that this forum is for people to actually demonstrate full disclosure. One has been tortured, one has gone through hell from the period of 1985 to 1991. That Protea police station you're talking about has actually done the damage that cannot be quantified. Now all of a sudden maybe at last after so many years, then he comes forward. During that time he was afraid of being killed by his own fellow gangster members who happened to be police hooligans within the police force and now he comes here, it's the year 2000, he says he was afraid of his life, he took orders, he was a yes-man, etc. Now they talked about them being ten or more, what happened to the rest? And then it was said that, particularly Grobbelaar, he says he had no intention, he doesn't even agree to the fact that they went to my house and planted the explosives, so there's no unison, it's some kind of a contradiction here that much as he's saying something else, he's other you know partners who used to work with him, totally disagree with what has been presented here.

I personally feel let down and one has gone through a lots of humiliation, degrees cannot be quantified as I said degrees cannot be quantified, as I said, from being called a kaffir, ...(indistinct), poes and everything, as I have said and for me it's like selective amnesia, unless we need a mental check-up, I do not believe and agree to the fact that he can no longer recall certain specifics and certain specifics yes he can recall. So its a bit deliberate. So this, as far as I'm concerned personally, has not been full disclosure. I thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mbuli. Mr Richard, anything else?

MR RICHARD: That's my case.

CHAIRPERSON: No further evidence?

JUDGE DE JAGER; Mr Richard could I - he was later charged, as I - about these hand grenades, what was the result thereof?

MR MBULI: I was acquitted after two years. It means it was from 1989, 1990, 1991, going to Court you know and at the end the magistrate acquitted us but the whole trouble, standing in front of a magistrate, doing all the court formalities.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Your wife, she was also charged?

MR MBULI: She was also charged ...(indistinct - mike not on)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge, are you going to be calling any evidence?

MS COLERIDGE: No Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I'll then ask the legal representatives to make submissions, starting with Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson.

Chairperson, I have listened to the statement of Mr Mbuli and about the aspect of full disclosure. Chairperson, I think, in my respectful submission that what must be borne in mind here, was the relative lower seniority of Mr Klopper at the time. He came to this Committee to tell the Committee that he received, he was part of the group that received orders to plant hand grenades, he was not the bearer of those hand grenades and Chairperson that he cannot recall exactly who planted the hand grenades and who carried them.

Chairperson, in my submission, Mr Klopper being an applicant for several incident in which he was involved as an amnesty applicant also before other Panels of the Amnesty Committee Chairperson, the probability is very unlikely that Mr Klopper who also was a witness before the erstwhile Goldstone Commission, Chairperson and a witness in the de Kock trial and whose evidence has been led in other incidents, who received also indemnity for his evidence, would deliberately come and not tell the Committee facts that he remembers and is withholding from the Committee.

Chairperson, the relative unimportance of Mr Klopper at the time of the incident in fact lies in the fact that Mr Klopper was never called as a witness in the trial itself of Mr Mbuli, so there were others, Chairperson, and I submit on the balance of probabilities, who were in the position at the time at the scene of this, who would then be the so-called witnesses who would give the evidence about the hand grenades as well as the implication of Mr Mbuli therein. Chairperson, the only inference that one can draw was those more prominent senior people on the scene who were in fact implicated by Mr Klopper in this application.

Chairperson, one must also keep in mind at the time, it is a long time ago, the duration of time also has an impact on one's memory. One must also keep in mind the various incidents that Mr Klopper has referred to, specifically also incidents of searching of premises which at the time we all know was a very common thing to happen in the Security Police.

Yes, the planting of hand grenades is perhaps something not so common, but Chairperson, I think in the whole total picture of all other incidents, this is the one and if I say that I don't want to underplay this atrocity, which is in itself an atrocity to plant and falsely implicate, but in the broader picture, this is one of, I submit, one of the less prominent and less, and in the mind of the Security policemen, a lesser deed that happened Chairperson.

Then one also, by the mouth of Mr Klopper, he is a person who tries to forget the past in order to build up a new life, Chairperson and I think also there are these, with all respect, psychological factors that play a role in one's ability here to recall every bit and detail.

The crux of the thing is and I think the relevant fact is what has been disclosed in my submission, is sufficient for full disclosure, Chairperson, that he's the only applicant that comes forward before the Committee, tells the Committee there was an order to plant and falsely implicate Mr Mbuli. How it happened on the scene, he cannot recall exactly the detail Chairperson and I think that is - and I would submit and ask the Committee to approach that in a human-like manner, Chairperson. It is human to sort of forget certain details about this. It could have been one or more person who handled the hand grenades at various stages, Chairperson. To recall today who exactly had the hand grenades at a specific point in time Chairperson, I think it's difficult to say.

Chairperson, then furthermore, as far as the arrest of Mrs Mbuli is concerned Chairperson, it is so that the applicant wasn't in control of that situation. It did happen. His involvement on the scene as a policeman, strictly speaking one could have expected from him at the time to tell the people on the scene: "But no, no, why are we arresting Mrs Mbuli? The order was only, the focus was on Mr Mbuli". Now that he has also explained Chairperson that at the time and in the way that the Security Branch worked, I think it was impossible, virtually impossible for a more junior person to make that stand against his superiors at the time.

Chairperson, then in his position also, he acted upon orders and what information and what the Security Branch, as far as he knew, knew and that is that Mr Mbuli was a sympathiser or co-worker with the ANC.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, if one reads through his application, it wasn't a matter that he couldn't make a stand against his superiors, it was in fact a matter that he agreed with what his superiors, the whole policy of his superiors, he agreed with that ...(indistinct - mike not on) he was quite proud in participating in the Security Police.

MR LAMEY: Yes, certainly Chairperson, his ...(indistinct). Of course he was a voluntary participant and he joined the Security Police voluntarily at a stage and he was totally with the motivated Security policemen at this stage. What I'm saying is that as far as the happenings on the scene is concerned, the orders came - the focus of the order was on Mr Mbuli, that was the instruction. Now they're on the scene, now Mrs Mbuli is arrested, but the arrest is out of his control at that stage. It was not open for him at that stage, I think Chairperson, to come forward and say no, no, wait a bit, we're not going to arrest Mrs Mbuli, the order was to arrest Mr Mbuli, that is where I just want to draw the line, that a lower officer wouldn't be in a position at this stage to overrule his superiors, so to speak, Chairperson, that is only in that light that I refer to it,

it is not, no, in the total picture of his amnesty application, he wasn't a person that acted under duress, that is not the situation. He was a voluntary participant, according to his background. The point is, once you're in the system and that is I think perhaps not what Mr Klopper has, but which I would like to argue, that if you reach a certain stage during an incident or so where you might think well no, we're overstepping the line here, a lower ranking officer would be very reluctant to oppose his superiors because that was simply not done and he would - a wrong fate could fall upon you, Chairperson, as he has indicated, or question orders, or something to that effect.

Chairperson, in my submission, the offences which the applicant seeks amnesty, is his participation for what - I would submit I think it could boil down to the unlawful arrest, it's in fact also kidnapping of a sort, Chairperson and then the ...

CHAIRPERSON: Defeating the ends of justice.

MR LAMEY: Defeating the ends of justice is in fact the most important one here, Chairperson. Not necessarily perjury, I submit that because we have that, but that he did not in fact, according to his recollection, he says it's possible but he cant recall, Chairperson, I don't think then amnesty for perjury could be given. He also did not testify in court, but I also submit that although it's by definition a separate offence, by granting the applicant amnesty for defeating the ends of justice, it could be a duplication. It does overlap with perjury perhaps in this instance, Chairperson.

Chairperson and then the complicity regarding the hand grenades. It hasn't been specified, but it could be an offence in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act or the Explosives Act. I haven't had a look at that Act recently, but I submit that the illegal way in which these devices were used, could very well be an offence, so on behalf of the applicant I would also ask for amnesty for any possible offence under the Arms and Ammunition Act or the Explosives Act and then any delict flowing from the facts of this particular incident. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Richard.

MR RICHARD: Thank you Chairperson.

MR RICHARD IN ARGUMENT: In this matter what we have before us is the story of a junior policeman aged 22, going out with his Commanding Officers, who weren't that junior by any

stretch of the imagination, to defeat the ends of justice by planting false evidence on a person.

While clearly, the operation described is unmitigated abuse, the next question that we need to ask is whether Mr Klopper committed any act or deed himself, which constitutes an offence or delict for the purposes of the act for which he could be prosecuted or sued. It is only if one takes his evidence that he was part of the group, that would connect him to it and so if he's associated with common purpose with the group, I suppose in that sense he could be said to be guilty of an offence. However, as my client has outlined, the paucity of his detail leads one to question: what has he disclosed? Nothing besides the barest minimum. One can question. Surely to raid the house of the people's poet, who was well-known for his anti-establishment poetry and publications, is not an even that happens as a matter of course.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, just on that, he's been the only person to have made any disclosure at all about this incident, without - and I take the point about paucity of details, but without Mr Klopper there would still just be nothing more than a suspicion that the whole thing was a terrible operation carried out by the police wilfully to defeat the ends of justice and to falsely implicate Mr Mbuli in particular and without Mr Klopper having come forward and say: "Look, it was on the orders of Col Grobbelaar, it was an operation specific for that purpose. We went to the house with one thing in mind and that was to unlawfully arrest him", so although there is the paucity of detail, which I can understand completely what you are saying and what Mr Mbuli said, there has been a revelation by Mr Klopper in certain important respects.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I hear and understand the argument that's been put to me.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but I'm not arguing for Mr Klopper, I'm just responding to the question about not making any disclosure.

MR RICHARD: Sorry, my choice of words in the reply are not quite necessarily correct. Yes, Mr Klopper did make a disclosure which certainly goes somewhere to my client's understanding what happened to him in 1989 and onwards. However, I criticise Mr Klopper's evidence by pointing out that if it was such a particular incident of note, surely there was a lot more that could have been said and even under cross-examination as pushed, the answer: "I wasn't told, I can't remember, I don't know" became more and more frequent.

I don't think I need to label the interpretation of the Act, disclosure is full disclosure so that to paraphrase, the victims know and understand factually what happened as far as is able and my submission, as instructed, is to argue that there was not full disclosure, in fact there was an obvious withhold.

Then I never back to the point of common purpose. If one is a member of the police force and under orders, is that common purpose, it's a question ...(indistinct)

I rest the case there and I argue that on the basis of non full disclosure and the paucity of the act disclosed, that the amnesty application be refused.

JUDGE DE JAGER: The only benefit of the process, as far as testified today and amplified by Mr Klopper, is that at least the public would now know that Mr Mbuli didn't possess the hand grenades, that they were planted on him. I presume that is what he has been saying all the time, but at least now it's substantiated by a member of the force who could corroborate that he was in fact not guilty at that stage.

MR RICHARD: Chairperson, that is correct. That has been achieved, but then the question is why is there so little information. It is true that the stigma of being prosecuted, and it is a serious stigma in any society to be taken into detention and then prosecuted, is relieved. It is attenuated, but Mr Mbuli, as he said, feels that the paucity is such that he feels that there was a withhold of information. I can't take the point much further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Richard. Ms Coleridge do you wish to make any submissions?

MS COLERIDGE: Yes, thank you, Chairperson.

MS COLERIDGE IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, I agree in this instance that Mr Klopper has come forth in this matter with revelations that Mr Mbuli and his wife are now completely aware of Chairperson. I'd just like to add that it's common practise at hearings that implicated persons always give the Commission a bare denial Chairperson and that Mr Mbuli shouldn't just see it that it's one-sided or that Mr Klopper is not giving, giving a different story to persons that are implicated in this instance, Chairperson and then, we know that Mr Klopper has been involved in many other incidents and I would say each incident is very serious to each victim and so forth in it's own right, Chairperson and we know that Mr Klopper has been involved in many murders and worse incidents, Chairperson, and we'd just - my submission is that it's fortunate that nothing more serious had happened to Mr Mbuli and his family in this instance, Chairperson. Those are my submissions. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Coleridge. Mr Lamey do you have any reply?

MR LAMEY: Just very short, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY IN REPLY: My submission to you, Chairperson, is that the fact that Mr Klopper has testified on questions that he cannot recall, he cannot recall that detail, does not per se lead to an inference by him saying that, that he is not making a full disclosure. Chairperson, you must, with all respect, have other information and evidence before you before you can come to ...(indistinct - mike not on), because if that is Mr Klopper's evidence and there's no other evidence to the contrary, Chairperson, which indicates that he's deliberately withholding information, then that must be accepted as the truth, that on a specific question he cannot recall and that is the truth, that is the truth before the Committee, he can't recall. He's not - and measured against the other probabilities, Chairperson, we must also bear in mind that Mr Klopper being the only applicant here, didn't have the benefit of hearing other applicants about their version which could refresh his memory. And then, as far as the statements are concerned that were produced to the Committee, there's no motive on Mr Klopper's side, to try and obscure facts or minimise his role or the roles of others, Chairperson. He didn't specifically emphasise blame of others and underscore his own role, in fact he was also not certain about the roles of others on the superiors, Chairperson, but what he was very clear about is that the affidavits that were produced to you are not the truth and that he disputes the truthfulness of that. That in itself Chairperson, is a damning implication of the others that have not applied for amnesty, Chairperson. I think in all those, also these additional factors I've mentioned Chairperson, that Mr Klopper should be granted amnesty. As it pleases you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. We'll be handing down a written decision. We'll accordingly reserve our decision. I'd like to thank the legal representatives for their assistance in this matter. That then brings this hearing to a conclusion. Thank you.

Ms Coleridge, it's lunchtime. We'll take the lunch adjournment now. is there another matter on the roll for today that's ready to be proceeded with?

MS COLERIDGE: These are the matters that are set down for today Chairperson. Tomorrow we will be dealing with all the petrol bomb attacks in Mamelodi, Soshanguve, and Ekangala, Chairperson, but that concludes the roll for today.

CHAIRPERSON: So we can adjourn for the day now.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson.