CHAIRPERSON: Then it will be Mr du Plessis.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman, I beg leave to call Mr Gert Beeslaar and perhaps we can just do a little bit or re-arrangement here if you will just give us the opportunity?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

If I said you are excused I think it was a mistake, you can stand down but if you have other requests to make regarding your available and attendance, you can talk to Mr Booyens.

EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, before we just start here, I just want to make a following remark about the question which Mr de Jager asked, I just want to also place on record that it’s not my instructions from the two applicants that any of the Pebco 3 people - or that they saw that any of the Pebco 3 people, were hit a with physical object by anyone which is alleged by Mr Mamasela.

I beg your pardon Mr Chairman. Mr Beeslaar, can we start on page 53 of the application and before we start there could you perhaps just tell the Committee, at present you are living in Pretoria?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You are not in the force anymore?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I’m not.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Since when?

MR BEESLAAR: Since 30.11.1991.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And your rank was that of Warrant Officer during this incident?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you were working at the security branch Northern Transvaal?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I was working at the security branch at head office.

ADV DU PLESSIS: For how long did you work there?

MR BEESLAAR: Since 1971, I worked at head office. Originally I was a clerk and later in a financial capacity.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, let’s have a loot at page 53, I will present your testimony with regard to your written application. In paragraph 7A you say that previously you also voted for the National Party but during 1980 for the Conservative Party, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, as far as I can remember.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And both these parties supported the ideology of apartheid?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you also supported the ideology of apartheid?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And evidence was given by Brigadier Jack Cronje and different applicants that the security police were in reality the military arm of the National Party, would you agree with that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I do.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you also confirm what is given in 7(b)? Do you confirm that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Then we go to page 54, there you give an exposition - well, let me put it to you, how old are you now?

MR BEESLAAR: I will be 60 in February.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You were born in 1938?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And your memory isn’t what it was?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And in the second paragraph on page 54 you say that four years ago you stopped drinking, before that you used alcohol?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And that affected your memory?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And paragraph 3 you say, you were also referred to a psychiatrist Doctor Verster and that you are also treated by him?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we will hand the certificate in together with our heads of argument, I don’t have a copy with me at the moment.

Mr Beeslaar, in other words is it correct to say that with regard to certain aspects your memory is not 100%?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: With regard to this incident?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: We’ll then page to page 55. We are not going to present it in detail to the Committee, do you confirm that your history and your background is correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I do.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Just a few main points - In 1971 you were transferred to security head office in Pretoria and there you worked till your retirement in ‘91? (transcriber’s own translation)

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You did the financial administration and then you were also transferred to Section C1?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And all you did at Vlakplaas was administrative affairs but periodically you also went out with operational teams?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did you do that?

MR BEESLAAR: That was to gain more experience with regard to the activities, it would help with my administrative work and then also in some instances if the Askaris gave satisfactory evidence, there was a decision made to make of them policemen and then I sometimes went out to do the necessary paper work to attest them to become policemen.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But you weren’t permanently involved with field work?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you ever involved with interrogation?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I had no training for any interrogation methods, I was purely an administrative person.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, the next paragraph it gives an exposition of the struggle of the South African Government against the liberation movements, do you confirm the correctness of that paragraph from page 55 up to page 60?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I confirm.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You also had the opportunity to hear Brigadier Jack Cronje’s evidence concerning the background, you read it?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I confirm that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The next paragraph on page 61 and that’s the activities of the activists - the informants, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the instructions, do you confirm that as being correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And let’s just stop at the instructions with this particular incident, under whose instructions did you act?

MR BEESLAAR: We were under the instruction of Cronje, we were sent to Eastern Province to assist them with the identification of infiltrators.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you were under direct instruction of Captain Venter?

MR BEESLAAR: I was under direct instruction but we were also under the command of the Divisional Commission of the Eastern Province.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you executed Captain Venter’s instructions?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I would have carried them out.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And did you accept that instructions that Captain Venter would have given to you that they would have been authorised from above?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you have any reason at that stage to question Captain Venter’s instruction?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And does the same go with regard to any aspects in relation to the Eastern Cape police?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Then we go to page 62, do you do you confirm the paragraph dealing with the deaths of activists?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And also the race basis, do you confirm that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then on the next page the paragraphs there, do you confirm that as being correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then on page 64 also?

MR BEESLAAR: I confirm that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then from page 65, Mr Beeslaar, up to page 73 - that is a general background of political objectives with regard to political actions, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And that is the general background that is included into the application and also with regard to other applications, not just with reference to this one and what is given in here is not only - doesn’t have bearing only on every paragraph in this application but do you confirm that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then on page 73, the last paragraph - further information and evidence, if there is anything that you are going to testify that is not specifically included in your application, would that have been omitted on purpose?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you try to give all the information in your application?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Then we go to page 74 and you apply for assault, abduction and also lesser offences and other offences which might come forward from the facts?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, maybe if I can just ask for an amendment there - any dilictual liability as well - any dilictual liability, that wasn’t included Mr Chairman and just for completeness sake.

CHAIRPERSON: So, you say that’s on page 74 under paragraph 9(a) Roman I.

ADV DE JAGER: Doesn’t that follow automatically?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I think so, I’m just mentioning it.

Please turn to the next page, 75, could you please start reading the with the 1st paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you please read the next paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall the size of this contingent?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, Captain Venter and myself came with a vehicle and then there were three station wagons with Black members. If I can remember correctly we must have been - including the Black people, we were about 20.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you please read the next paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Beeslaar, you mention the names of Koole, Radebe, Mogoai, Mamasela, did you know a person with the name of Moss?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I did.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was he?

MR BEESLAAR: He was an Askari, he later became an officer in the force - I may be incorrect, but in ‘85 he died but there was a person by the name of Moss.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he accompany you here?

MR BEESLAAR: I think yes, it’s possible. There was another Black officer who was also present but as I read from the applications, it became a bit clearer.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was the other person? Can you mention - name the person?

MR BEESLAAR: The other officer? (transcriber’s own translation)

ADV DE JAGER: Yes.

MR BEESLAAR: It was Captain Letsatsi.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, before you continue with the last paragraph on that page, were you specifically sent down to be involved in the case that you are applying now for?

MR BEESLAAR: No, we weren’t sent for that specific purpose. When we left Pretoria we had no knowledge, we were sent with the purpose of identifying ANC/PAC terrorists.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And Vlakplaas different groups or contingents, were they sent out to different places in the country to execute similar tasks?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you please read the last paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then on page 76?

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I just stop you there before you continue, were you ever informed by Captain Venter about everything or just concerning that that you needed to know?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, only where it had any effect on me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you continue?

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do I understand you correctly that you were never informed precisely what they were involved with?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I just made the deduction that they were involved in some political organisation but not specifically and I can’t remember.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And can you remember whether you were ever informed for what reason the Vlakplaas members would have been used in this operation?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember the Vlakplaas members were used for this operation because of the fact that if some of the local Black members would have been used and then something could have gone askew with this whole operation, then these Black members could have been identified and it would have had a very bad influence or negative effects for them and their families. Because our Black members were unknown, I believe that they were actually used for this operation.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether anything was told to the Askaris we used in this operation to what period this operation would go?

MR BEESLAAR: I can’t remember that this was put to them and how long it would take.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Please continue.

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Please stop there. What do you recall with regard to Radebe? Was he present? Could it possibly have been someone else?

MR BEESLAAR: It is possible, as I say I really can’t remember, it’s such a long time ago, I can’t remember who went along but it could perhaps be that it could have been someone else.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And this particular minibus, were the windows tinted in a dark colour?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, they were.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you also heard evidence of Mr Lotz that he went to Glen Connor and he returned with you, is that correct? Can you remember something in that regard?

MR BEESLAAR: I can’t remember for sure but it is possible that he could have gone along and then he could have returned with the Black people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why did you travel in two vehicles?

MR BEESLAAR: We travelled with two vehicles because Captain Venter and myself would have returned and the Black would have continued to where they should have gone and they had to go to protect the people or rather to guard the people should anything happen.

ADV DU PLESSIS: There was a bit of a disturbance.

Is it correct - I just want to make quite sure, was the bus taken along because activists had to be transported?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Please read the next paragraph.

MR BEESLAAR: (transcriber’s own translation)

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember whether you ever saw the Askaris at the security branch office or did they not come there? (transcriber’s own translation)

MR BEESLAAR: No, they never came to the security branch offices, I’m not quite sure where they waited at that stage.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I’m not referring to that specific day but generally.

MR BEESLAAR: No, they were never allowed to visit the security branch office.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, can you recall whether you were ever informed of the purpose of the operation?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, I’m not quite sure but I only had knowledge that the people were going to be interrogated, that’s all that I can remember.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And was there ever - at this stage, was there any suspicion on your side or did you consider it as a possibility that these three activists would be eliminated?

MR BEESLAAR: No, not at all, I wasn’t aware of it and I didn’t know what the final result would be of this operation.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it ever conveyed to you?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman I see it is 1 o’clock, perhaps this is a convenient place or should I carry on? All right.

Please continue to the next page, page 77. Please read the first two sentences:

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember whether it was dark or whether the sun was shining?

MR BEESLAAR: It was dark because the lights were on at the airport.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In which vehicle were you?

MR BEESLAAR: I was in the Nissan Safari.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember who was with you?

MR BEESLAAR: I’m not sure but Captain Venter was with me, I’m not sure about the other members of the security branch. I can’t remember whether they were waiting in the vehicle with us or not.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the Askaris in the minibus, where were they?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember they drove in front of the airport and it makes a turn, - it makes a turn to the right, as far as I can remember at that turn they stopped.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember whether there was any radio contact between the security branch vehicles?

MR BEESLAAR: Could be, I can’t remember.

ADV DU PLESSIS: At the airport itself, can you remember if it was busy, were there other people, was it quiet?

MR BEESLAAR: It was quiet as far as I can remember.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And can you remember how far you were from the minibus?

MR BEESLAAR: It’s difficult, it could be something from 50 to 75 to 100 metres, it’s many years ago and things have changed quite a bit at the airport so it’s very difficult to check that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Please read the next sentence, that’s the 3rd sentence.

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you precisely see what was going on or could you not see?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I could not see, I just saw some movement that’s all

ADV DU PLESSIS: The next paragraph please.

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, let’s stop there. There was a bit of a problem in Captain Venter’s evidence in relation to the question that it was at the sea, could you perhaps just elaborate on that?

MR BEESLAAR: It was in a Northerly direction, I didn’t know Port Elizabeth that well although we had been there a few days but it’s - from the main road, I would say it was something like 20 metres from the road that we went to a right hand side the sea side and as I can remember there were some of these port jackson bushes, that’s where we got together.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So it’s not necessarily next to the sea where you could have seen the waves?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I didn’t hear it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was it light, were there lights?

MR BEESLAAR: It was dark.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you have any idea of what kind of place it was?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I’ve no idea.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Please continue with the 2nd paragraph, the 2nd sentence.

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Could you see whether they were handcuffed?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I can’t remember, I couldn’t see whether they were handcuffed.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And how sure are you with regard to the question of the heads that were covered?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember - I could have made a mistake, but as far as I can remember their heads were covered.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Please continue to the next paragraph.

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: You’ve listened to the evidence of the other applicants, how sure are you about saying what you’re say about van Rensburg? Do you suspect that he was there? What do you say about that?

MR BEESLAAR: I could be wrong that he was there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Please read the next paragraph.

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Let’s just stop there for a moment. Why would you have gone back to the other Askaris at Glen Connor?

MR BEESLAAR: We had completed our task, mine and Captain Venter and to leave such a large group alone would perhaps give problems and the procedure as far as I know, the Blacks were never left alone for such a long period.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Would Captain Venter at that stage have visited the security branch office at Cradock?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that’s possible.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember whether you were invited and Captain Venter, whether he was invited to the place where the interrogation would take place - Post Chalmers?

MR BEESLAAR: No, not as far as I can remember, I wasn’t aware of the fact that we would visit the place but it is possible that it could have happened.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you ever requested - Captain Venter and members of Vlakplaas, were they ever requested to be present at the interrogation of the three activists?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Please turn the page to 78, can you just read that paragraph to us please.

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Let us just stop at that paragraph. When you were taken there, was it just you and Captain Venter in the vehicle who went to the security branch?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And with which vehicle did you travel?

MR BEESLAAR: With the Nissan Safari.

ADV DU PLESSIS: How many persons did you take to the police station?

MR BEESLAAR: As I said, as far as I can recall it was only one person who was unknown to me.

ADV DU PLESSIS: There was testimony from Captain Venter and it was also testified by the other applicants that a Major Winter was at the security branch, can you recall anything about him?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot remember who he was but we did go to the Branch Commanding Officer, it could be Winter.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you went to the Branch Commanding Officer of the Security Branch, not of the police station.

MR BEESLAAR: Correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Let us look at the first sentence of this paragraph where you say:

Now what is your recollection, was it either the following day or the day after that or can’t you say?

MR BEESLAAR: I would say that it was the next day. When I handed in my application, this is quite a while ago and I wasn’t quite sure but I believe that it was the next day.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I will refer later to a statement Mr Beeslaar made to the Attorney General’s officer, I’m just going to refer to one passage therein and I’ll hand the statement up a little bit later.

You also said the same in the statement that you made to the Attorney General?

MR BEESLAAR: I’m sorry I didn’t hear the question.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I’m saying that you said the same in your statement to the Attorney General, not so? You said that:

That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you please read the next paragraph.

MR BEESLAAR:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Let us stop there, you say that it was late the afternoon but the sun was still shining. You heard the testimony of several other applicants, Mr van Zyl, Lotz and Niewoudt regarding this whole matter of when you and Captain Venter were there, whether you arrived there late the afternoon or stayed over from the previous evening or you were there the morning of the 9th and if you’d departed later that morning, can you just tell the Committee how sure you are of exactly when you arrived there and what your approach is to this dispute?

MR BEESLAAR: As I’ve already mentioned earlier, my memory is not what it used to be and there could have been a difference as far as the time is concerned, I’m not exactly sure what happened when.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In other words - can I just ask you, if you were to be asked if it was possible that you did not return the next day but you stayed over that evening and returned the day after to Glen Connor, would you say that this could be possible?

MR BEESLAAR: That same afternoon, that is the afternoon just after the abduction as far as I can recall, we left, we did not stay over another night.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you say that it is possible that Mr van Zyl and Mr Lotz could be correct as well as Mr Niewoudt, that you were there that evening and only returned to Glen Connor the next morning?

CHAIRPERSON: Let’s take it in two stages.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, all right.

CHAIRPERSON: Let’s deal first with whether they slept there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Sorry? I beg your pardon? Mr Chairman, I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I was saying, let us deal with the two aspects separately.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, all right, fine.

CHAIRPERSON: First as to his recollection with the regard to whether or not the witness and Captain Venter spent the night of the abduction at whatever place and if so - being the next aspect, when did they leave.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, let us do it as Judge Ngoepe has requested, let us look at the question as to whether it would be possible that you did not return to Glen Connor after the abduction but that you went directly to Post Chalmers and spent the evening there.

MR BEESLAAR: It is not possible that we would have spent the night there but that we could have gone with them but it’s a possibility but as a result of my memory loss I’m not quite sure. We had to go back to Glen Connor due to the Black people but I could have made a mistake but it is possible that we could have gone with, I’m not sure.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And if we look at the second aspect, you testified ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: You say that it’s improbable that you would have gone with, why is that?

MR BEESLAAR: Because the other Black members who had remained behind, we could not have left them or we would not have left them alone under normal circumstances.

ADV DE JAGER: Earlier you said that it was because your task had been completed that you returned to Glen Connor.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct, and the other reason was that of the Black members.

ADV DE JAGER: According to your testimony you had no task at the airport, what were you supposed to do there?

MR BEESLAAR: We only one vehicle in which the Whites travelled and I accompanied him to the airport.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you support Captain Venter during the operation - the abduction?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I did not, I just travelled along with him, I did not take part physically.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Was Captain Venter in command of the Askaris?

MR BEESLAAR: At that stage he was present and if he was present then he would have been in command up to the stage where they were no longer under his command it would have been under the command of Captain van Zyl.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Let us just look at the second aspect as to when you left Post Chalmers. Your testimony is that you arrived there late that afternoon, you had a barbecue, you had some drinks and then left a while after that. Then at the bottom of page 78, the evidence or the testimony of the other applicants was that the morning between 10 and 12 you actually left Post Chalmers, what is your comment based on that?

MR BEESLAAR: As I’ve already mentioned, due to my memory loss I cannot recall the exact times, it is possible but I’m not sure.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Let us go over to the other aspect while we are pausing at this paragraph, namely the matter of the barbecue and drinks, can you recall that when you were at Post Chalmers - were you sure that you braaied meat?

MR BEESLAAR: I could have, Captain Venter and I could have had a barbecue and we could have eaten some of the meat but I’m not sure whether we made an extra fire or another fire to braai meat or whether we had meat that they had braaied, I cannot recall.

ADV DU PLESSIS: As far as the drinks were concerned?

MR BEESLAAR: Captain Venter and I each had two beers because we did not know what the real purpose of the operation was.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you were not busy working at that stage?

MR BEESLAAR: We were on duty but we - Captain Venter visited the local branch and Captain van Zyl also went to fetch the Askaris and as far as we were concerned they should have been finished.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether any other - whether you saw any other members of the Port Elizabeth security branch use alcohol?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall, it was only Captain Venter and I who had two beers each.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You say that there were three Black men present approximately 5 metres from where you standing and you say that their heads were covered?

MR BEESLAAR: It was approximately 5 metres and as far as I can recall their heads were covered.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you read the next paragraph to us, it’s the 3rd paragraph on page 78?

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll adjourn until 2 o’clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Beeslaar, you are still under oath.

GERHARDUS CORNELIUS BEESLAAR: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr du Plessis?

EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Beeslaar, can we look at page 78 the 3rd paragraph, do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you have any knowledge of assaults that took place on the there activists during the period that they were there at Post Chalmers? Do you have any personal knowledge of any assaults?

MR BEESLAAR: I have no knowledge.

ADV DU PLESSIS: That’s now besides yourself? (transcriber’s own translation)

MR BEESLAAR: No, I have no knowledge of any assaults.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Were you present during any interrogations?

MR BEESLAAR: No, we were not involved in any interrogations.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In the 3rd paragraph you say - starting at the 2nd line:

Is there a mistake in that sentence?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember I did talk to them or there was something I wanted to ask them.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Just stop for a moment, I asked you whether there was a mistake in that sentence? Shouldn’t the sentence being correct as being:

Mr Chairman, I just want to draw your attention to that fact. My instructions right from the start were that only one was kicked and the sentence should have read:

You will see later that accords with the previous affidavit Mr Beeslaar attested to.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you just explain to the Committee, did you want to talk to the activists?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: As I’ve already said, they stood approximately 5 metres from where we were standing - they were sitting, and I walked towards out Black people who were with them and I wanted to talk to them but I cannot recall what it was about. I cannot say why I wanted to kick or why I kicked one of the Black men, whether it was to draw his attention or what. I cannot say whether I asked him a question, I don’t know what led to me kicking him - I can’t recall.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Is it a possibility that it was to draw his attention?

MR BEESLAAR: That can possibly be, I’m not quite sure but that could be a possibility that I wanted to attract his attention.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember how hard you kicked him?

MR BEESLAAR: It’s difficult to say, I kicked him with my foot but I won’t say it was a very hard kick.

ADV DU PLESSIS: If you have to choose between reasonably medium or hard, what would you say?

MR BEESLAAR: I would say a medium kick.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you kick him just or the enjoyment thereof?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I would not have done that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And would you kick somebody under such circumstances purely for enjoyment?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

ADV DE JAGER: But if you can’t remember what the reason was, then surely you can’t say whether it was for enjoyment or what the purpose was.

MR BEESLAAR: I don’t believe that I would have done it out of enjoyment.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Let me just ask you once again, would you kick anybody just because you enjoy doing it?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I wouldn’t.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the last paragraph on page 78?

MR BEESLAAR: As it stands, yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: On page 79, do you confirm the 1st paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the 2nd paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the 3rd paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR: Correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And as far as the 4th paragraph is concerned, did you accept when you saw the media reports, that they were the same three persons with whom you were involved?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the 4th paragraph, do you confirm that?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The 5th paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR: Correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The 6th paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR: Correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the last paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR: Correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you discuss the event afterwards with Captain Venter?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember I could have but I can’t recall it.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Page 80, the 1st paragraph, do you confirm the correctness?

MR BEESLAAR: I do.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you have any suspicions that the watch belonged to any of the men?

MR BEESLAAR: None.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The 2nd paragraph, do you confirm that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The 3rd paragraph?

MR BEESLAAR: Correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And then the last paragraph refers to the oath that was handed in at the amnesty hearing of Jack Cronje and the others who applied to amnesty together with him, is that the statement that you made to the Attorney General?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I beg leave to hand up copies of this affidavit, I believe that would be Exhibit M, I’ not 100% sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should be have this as an exhibit Mr du Plessis, for what purpose is it ...[intervention]

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I will come to that now.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I will simply ask him one or two questions in respect of this and it is important for one reason Mr Chairman, that is the fact that you will remember that Mr Beeslaar testified in support of Captain Venter’s application - you will recall that, and this affidavit was handed in during that evidence in support of Captain Venter’s application, so I deemed it important to hand the affidavit in again.

The other reason for that Mr Chairman, is that this affidavit was made long before Captain Venter applied for amnesty or testified before this Committee. The affidavit is dated 24 May 1996 and it was attested to before a representative of the Attorney General’s office. Although it is a previous consistent statement, I will argue at the end of the day that this still has some bearing upon the credibility of Mr Beeslaar if one takes into account the circumstances under which this affidavit was attested to and eventually his amnesty application.

If you look at the document, if you look at Exhibit M - Mr Chairman, I beg your pardon for the informal amendments on this affidavit.

There are two aspects that you wanted to correct in this affidavit?

MR BEESLAAR: Just repeat the question please.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you turn to the second page, paragraph 6, you’ll see that a line has been drawn in ink and a change has been made in the middle of that paragraph, the original sentence was:

It’s been correct:

Is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the only other aspect that you’ve changed was on the next page, paragraph 9.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: There you said:

And your testimony now before the Committee is that:

So, that "lightly touched" is not quite correct.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The rest of the oath/affirmation/affidavit, do you say that this is true?

MR BEESLAAR: It’s true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you gain any personal benefit from this involvement in this operation?

MR BEESLAAR: None.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if you’ll just bear with me for one second.

ADV DE JAGER: Just for the sake of the record and other people who might not know that you refer in paragraph 2 to Advocate de Jager.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct, this was at the Attorney General’s office.

ADV DE JAGER: It’s definitely not me?

MR BEESLAAR: No, no, it’s not you, I’m not referring to you.

ADV DU PLESSIS: After you made this affidavit at the Attorney General’s office, did they ever contact you again?

MR BEESLAAR: The only time that they contacted me after this was a week or two afterwards. Some of the investigative officers came to me, they were very rude and the one person just threw this statement on my coffee table in my lounge and said they were not interested in it at all.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did they give you any indication as to why?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot remember that they did but that is what happened.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, this evidence - I know it may sound as if it’s strange that I’m leading this evidence, there’s a specific purpose which become more clear later during the course of the proceedings in this matter. I just want to draw your attention to the fact that I’m leading this not unnecessarily.

There’s one aspect that I neglected to ask and that is that it deals with the question as to why or can I put it differently - would you be able to leave the other Askaris for a long time on their own at Glen Connor?

MR BEESLAAR: The period that I went out on field work with the security branch, we would not have left them any longer and I can just give you an example as to why we would not leave them without supervision for a long time. One evening at Glen Connor - approximately 100 to 200 metres from where we slept, there were people and we had supper there that evening and we also visited for a while.

When we returned to our house or place where we slept - some of the Blacks slept in a garage outside the house, others slept inside the house with us, and then we heard that there was something going on in the garage. When we opened the garage Captain Venter and I, approximately five or six were sleeping there and on the camp bed of each, each one was busy with a Black woman and they were definitely not having a normal party and that is the reason why we could not leave the people without supervision for such a long time.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In other words you would not have been able to leave alone for two nights or three days?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s out of the question.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Beeslaar, as you started your statement and all the qualifications that you have, it is true that many of the things that you are saying here to a large extent are based on reconstruction and on logic. You say things because is what you thought you would have done, not so?

MR BEESLAAR: That is true as I can remember.

MR BOOYENS: It’s quite understandable, I’m not trying to say that you are trying to mislead the Committee. Can you for example - if we just look at a few aspects, the fact that the whole purpose of the presence of the Askaris was that they were only to assist in the arrest - let us call it arrest for lack of a better word, of the people at the airport?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

MR BOOYENS: So there was no reason for them to spend a long time at Cradock, they had to arrest the people, accompany them and return.

MR BEESLAAR: That was correct until we joined them.

MR BOOYENS: If we look at the situation, you’ve already conceded that you cannot remember very well but we know that from the view of the Port Elizabeth security branch, it was a highly secretive operation and they didn’t want anybody to know about this, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: So logically, did you tell them that you wanted to arrive only on the next day as you can recall or do you just think it was because you had to go and look after the Askaris?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot remember whether there was an arrangement between van Zyl and Venter or whether we just went for the sole purpose of visiting the security branch, so I’m not quite sure what they discussed.

MR BOOYENS: You could even have gone to Cradock on another occasion and not on this occasion?

MR BEESLAAR: It’s possible.

MR BOOYENS: Is it also quite possible - you’ve already conceded, that you went with that evening and that you left then and that the visit to the security branch might have been done on your way back?

MR BEESLAAR: That is possible but I’m not sure.

MR BOOYENS: You see, why I’m saying that in this highly secretive organisation - plan, they would have been - would not have wanted you to come to a place where you would have had to ask somebody how to get there and that an outsider would have come there from another security branch, not true?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

MR BOOYENS: As far as the people who were there are concerned, you referred to Captain Moss and you said died in ‘85 or ‘86, do you remember that?

MR BEESLAAR: It could be later but I’m not sure.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Niewoudt says that he remembered that he worked with Moss in ‘89.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s possible, I can’t remember.

MR BOOYENS: You’ve already said - as far as I can remember, that Moss was with you when you were here, is it possible that Moss was one of the four people who were with you when you went to Cradock? (transcriber’s own translation)

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember, it was Mamasela, Koole and Mogoai.

MR BOOYENS: I thought the fourth member was Radebe.

MR BEESLAAR: It could possibly have been Captain or Lieutenant Moss at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: Because you say that you were told to get your best Askaris and Moss must have been one of the best because he became a Captain later.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

MR BOOYENS: So, it could possibly have been Moss.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: We are talking of a long time ago and I do not want any details but can I make the statement that you were involved in quite a few Vlakplaas operations?

MR BEESLAAR: I was involved in very few operations, I was only involved in this one and the other three for which I’m applying for amnesty.

MR BOOYENS: If say: "involved", I did not mean involvement in the negative sense but involvement in the fact that you were present in things where nothing improper happened.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct, it’s possible.

MR BOOYENS: And this was also one of the operations that as far as you could see then, nothing improper went on.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct, as far as I was concerned I did not foresee that anything strange was to happen.

MR BOOYENS: So you had no reason to recall this incident specifically?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But the abduction of people, was it a common practice?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I’ve already mentioned, I went out with these people periodically and I cannot say how many times we abducted people.

CHAIRPERSON: We must just be careful because you have just said that nothing improper happened on that day.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct but I am wrong, I’m sorry that I made such a wrong statement.

MR BOOYENS: Just for purposes of clarification - I possibly understood you incorrectly, did you at that stage - in other words at the airport, already know that it was to be an abduction or did you only find out afterwards?

MR BEESLAAR: I could have known this at the airport already or only at a later stage but I can’t remember.

MR BOOYENS: The purpose of the presence of the Askaris, they had to intercept the people so that they could not be identified - the people who were to take them away?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct, they were unknown and the reason was that if the local members of the security branch were used it would have created problems.

MR BOOYENS: Furthermore as far as the Askaris are concerned, at that stage they had no background information regarding the Port Elizabeth situation, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: So in order to give real input with regard to interrogation would have been difficult for them?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct, in my opinion it would have been impossible.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, I just put it mildly.

MR BEESLAAR: So, apart from the fact that they had to look after the people, transport them and intercept at the airport, they had no real function?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I’m concerned that’s true.

MR BOOYENS: That is also why - according to your recollection, that you left the next day? According to the other applicants you left the previous evening and that is why the Askaris were withdrawn because they had no real further purpose?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

MR BOOYENS: The times when you were involved - I’m now speaking about involvement in operations for which you applied for amnesty or where you were also innocently involved, was it standard practice when Vlakplaas operated to cover the people’s faces?

MR BEESLAAR: Not as far as my knowledge goes, where I was concerned this was this only case that I can remember, I cannot recall any other case where this was done.

MR BOOYENS: You will remember that the evidence or the testimony of the other people was that their heads were not covered, can it be possible that you are confusing this with another case where the heads were covered?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall but I can possibly be wrong with this fact that their heads were covered, I’m not sure - I remember that they had but I can be wrong.

MR BOOYENS: I understand that completely.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, the witness said he had not witnessed any incident where people’s heads were covered, am I wrong?

MR BEESLAAR: Mr Chairman, the witness said - I asked him ...[indistinct] he involved in any of the other Vlakplaas operations, whether it was standard practice to cover heads and he said: "No, it wasn’t standard practice". He initially said he could only remember this incident and he’s now actually conceded that he may be wrong as far this one is concerned and they may be confusing it with another occasion.

CHAIRPERSON: No, after that you actually asked him whether he had witnessed any incident where people’s heads were covered or he said something to that effect, he actually said so. He said he had never seen an incident where people’s heads were covered.

MR BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He said so.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, I’m aware of ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: That is why I don’t understand your question to him that you’re probably confusing this incident with some other incident.

MR BOOYENS: I take your point Mr Chairman.

Let’s leave this qualification of confusing it with another incident, let’s just say that another applicant said that their heads were not covered, can it be possible that you’re making a mistake?

MR BEESLAAR: It could be, I had very little to do with operations, I was not up to date as to how they carried out the operations.

MR BOOYENS: Do you recall if any of the other members - other than the four Askaris, were in the Kombi - namely the three deceased?

MR BEESLAAR: Not as far as I can remember, I don’t know whether they left before us or whether there were any others in the minibus.

MR BOOYENS: You cannot recall that you met a central point and that the bakkie was brought there by one of the Askaris?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot recall that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman sorry, I don’t want to interrupt my learned friend but in all fairness the witness did testify that they - after the airport, that they went to a specific place and I don’t know if that’s the central place that my learned friend’s referring to. I just don’t want the question to be wrongly interpreted, perhaps my learned friend can just make the question clear.

MR BOOYENS: What I’m referring to is, after the people were picked up and put into the Kombi, are you aware that the Kombi moved to a certain place and stopped there? - you heard Mr Niewoudt’s testimony in this regard.

MR BEESLAAR: Directly - what happened after the path that we went to after the airport, I have no knowledge of that.

MR BOOYENS: It is possible that you slept at Post Chalmers one evening, is that what you say?

MR BEESLAAR: There is a possibility, I cannot remember but it could be.

MR BOOYENS: Let us see what you would expect to remember. I think that one can summarise it by saying that based on the evidence of the last two applicants, there was a case where a large group - perhaps even six people, kicked and hit the people during interrogation and without recalling any details if such assaults took place would you have remembered it?

MR BEESLAAR: I would have remembered it if it had happened in my presence.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Mamasela ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I’m going to interrupt you because we are not sure where the witness is certain and where he is not certain. I don’t understand his evidence with regard to whether he had possibly on a previous occasion slept at Post Chalmers, did you ask him that?

MR BOOYENS: No, I asked him whether he could have slept one night at Post Chalmers, perhaps I should just qualify that because on the one version he would have slept at Post Chalmers because they came that night and they left the next morning.

CHAIRPERSON: You are asking with regard to this particular incident?

MR BOOYENS: I’m dealing with this incident Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry.

MR BOOYENS: And during the day while you were there, if any assaults took place in the way which I described to you, you would surely have remembered that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I would.

MR BOOYENS: And then you would have mentioned it?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I would.

MR BOOYENS: Let us look at your departure - for purposes of this question, it doesn’t actually matter whether you arrived there the next day or whether you went with the previous evening your purpose was in any case to return with the Askaris?

MR BEESLAAR: That was correct yes, we had to come back with them.

MR BOOYENS: So, did you and the Askaris leave together?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall, yes, I cannot see any reason why they would have remained behind any longer.

MR BOOYENS: And if we talk about the Askaris, you say that Mamasela was definitely included in this group?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

MR BOOYENS: Mamasela makes allegations about people - in the period that they were there, who were hit or killed - beaten to death with iron pipes as a result of the assaults that took place. If something like that had happened would you remember?

MR BEESLAAR: I would most certainly have remembered.

MR BOOYENS: When you left were the deceased still alive? And you saw no signs of any serious assaults?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

MR BOOYENS: Was there no-one who seemed to have been assaulted very badly with an iron pipe?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

MR BOOYENS: If you had been there, would you have participated in the interrogation yourself or would you have any interest in it?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

MR BOOYENS: The Askaris who were with you at times, their primary task was the identification of exiles, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: They were not trained policemen?

MR BEESLAAR: No, they had no police training. If I recall correctly, in later years some of them could have gone to the police college in Hammanskraal for training but I’m not sure about these Askaris, whether they just had the basis background

MR BOOYENS: But you’re referring to later years?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: No, we are talking about ‘85/’86 now. From what you can recall about post Chalmers, was it a remote place? Were there any people in the vicinity?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember it was very remote, I saw no other houses and it was the first time that I was in that vicinity, it looked particularly remote.

MR BOOYENS: And it is merely based on your observation, so if a person had screamed there would have been no necessity to keep him quiet as Mamasela alleges?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nolte?

MR NOLTE: Mr Chairman, Mr Booyens is appearing on behalf of my client and therefore the questions will be directed by Mr Booyens if that pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you cross-examine on behalf of ...[intervention]

MR BOOYENS: Unless you insist on that, I’ll take a second bite of the cherry Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No. Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Beeslaar, are you sure you have testified - and a lot of reference is made to your problems with your memory, uncertainties and so forth, you have also tried to convey your problems with your memory to the Committee. Could you perhaps remember that three members of Vlakplaas would go to the airport?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember ...[intervention]

ADV LAMEY: I just want to rephrase it, can you remember for a fact that three members of Vlakplaas would go to the airport?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember three went along.

ADV LAMEY: Are you unsure about this?

MR BEESLAAR: It could possibly - ass I can remember there were four. (transcriber’s own translation)

ADV LAMEY: You say: "It could possibly be", could it possibly have been three? (transcriber’s own translation)

MR BEESLAAR: Possibly, I can’t remember whether it was four.

ADV LAMEY: In this statement you refer to Peggy Radebe.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: Isn’t it perhaps possible that you mention Peggy Radebe’s name because the minibus that he usually used would be used in this operation?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson as I mentioned, there are so many possibilities and it is possible.

ADV LAMEY: You mention Radebe in your statement, you had to get hold of this name Radebe somewhere.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct but I can’t remember why specifically Radebe, I suspected that he was one of those that went along.

ADV LAMEY: Did you suspect that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is how I can recall it.

ADV LAMEY: My instructions are that there were only three but Captain Venter told the two applicants whom I represent that they had to take Peggy Radebe’s minibus.

MR BEESLAAR: That is possible.

ADV LAMEY: But isn’t it probable?

CHAIRPERSON: He’s conceding that he might be wrong, he is conceding.

ADV LAMEY: As it pleases you.

And their testimony will be that Moss didn’t go along in this operation.

MR BEESLAAR: It’s possible, I can’t remember. They could have been four or it could only have been the three, I’m not sure.

ADV LAMEY: In the light of Mr Booyen’s question whether it was possible of Captain Moss - and you just mentioned anyone’s name, anyone could have been possible?

MR BEESLAAR: I don’t understand that I said anyone.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I don’t understand this question.

ADV LAMEY: Can I put it to you in this way, why do you concede when Mr Booyens questioned you when he told you about Niewoudt that he said it could have been Moss and that you said that?

MR BEESLAAR: I can’t remember, it could have been possible as there were many people who accompanied us, something like 20.

ADV LAMEY: No, I’m not referring to the group who went to P.E. in general, I am referring to this specific incident.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember it was Radebe, it could possibly have been Moss, I’m not sure.

ADV LAMEY: Are you sure ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, I don’t think you have to ask him whether he’s sure, I don’t think he’s sure about anything. I think you should ask your questions in a different way because I don’t think Mr Beeslaar is sure.

ADV LAMEY: As it pleases you.

Mr Beeslaar, I want to ask you something, in your statement - I’m asking because it’s important concerning the version of the two applicants I’m representing, that at a particular occasion you were at a braai at Post Chalmers and in the statement it says that it was a day or two later.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I said that in my statement but my original statement - that was the first time after many years and I wasn’t sure, that is why I made provision for the next day.

ADV LAMEY: So it could even have been a day later, another day later, is that what you’re saying?

MR BEESLAAR: It’s possible but improbable that we would have been away from the Blacks that long.

ADV LAMEY: Your statement is that a day or two later you and Captain Venter went to Post Chalmers - that’s on page 78.

MR BEESLAAR: I have that.

ADV LAMEY: You concede it could have been the second day after that?

MR BEESLAAR: As I’ve already said it would not have been the second day because I did this and I relied on my own memory. It could not be the case because as I’ve said earlier, we could not have left the Black for such a long period on their own at Glen Conner.

ADV LAMEY: If I understand you evidence correctly, you testified that you would just have gone to Cradock or to Post Chalmers where Captain van Zyl was.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: What has this have to do with the fact that you couldn’t leave the Blacks for that period at Glen Connor? I’m not saying, I’m just asking you according to your own version.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, now I’m totally confused. My learned friend should just put the question - the evidence was the following day or the day later he went to Cradock and the witness testified that it couldn’t have taken another day longer because of the fact that he knows that they wouldn’t have left the other Askaris for as long as that at Glen Connor. I really don’t understand my learned friend’s further question.

MR BEESLAAR: Perhaps I don’t understand your answer Mr Beeslaar. In your statement you say that:

Do you concede that it could have been the second day after that that you could have gone to Cradock.

MR BEESLAAR: As I stated earlier, at the time when I made the statement it was long before this incident or issue because I wasn’t quite sure and because of facts pertaining to the fact that we couldn’t have left the Blacks for such a period we would not have stayed a day longer at Cradock.

ADV LAMEY: And then also you put it quite pertinently in the statement on the same page, it’s in the second paragraph:

That particular aspect, why do you put it so positive in your statement without being unsure about it?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is the case but I could be wrong with regard to the time.

ADV LAMEY: If you say you could be wrong with regard to the time?

MR BEESLAAR: Well, we could have arrived there earlier and we could have left earlier, I can’t precisely remember the time because it was in winter.

ADV LAMEY: If we then have a look at page 78, the last paragraph you stated quite pertinently that:

MR BEESLAAR: As I have told you there may be a problem with the time - an error.

CHAIRPERSON: What page is that?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, at the bottom of page 78.

Mr Beeslaar, I want to put it to you that the impression - my impression is that you make certain allowances in favour of the other applicants so that your application or version actually fits theirs.

MR BEESLAAR: No, that is not true.

ADV LAMEY: Can I ask you, the two applicants whom I represent say that late in the afternoon of the next day - the day following the abduction, late that afternoon and that evening there was a braai, what would be your answer?

MR BEESLAAR: That is possible, as I said I can’t remember. It could be that we also braaied a bit later but I can’t remember exactly what the time was.

ADV LAMEY: You also relied in your testimony on what would be logical and probable, you also testified that Captain Venter and yourself were at Glen Connor before you went to the airport and that you also followed the Askaris in the minibus, or the Askaris followed you.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Could it be the other way around, that the Askaris were told to depart to the designated place in Port Elizabeth and that you would later get them there?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is possible, I don’t know how we departed - in which order.

ADV LAMEY: Would you agree that it is - under these circumstance, not logical that Mr Lotz would have accompanied them or would have fetched them at Glen Connor as he testified and would have driven with them to Port Elizabeth, because you and Captain Venter were there?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, isn’t this question simply speculation that’s expected from this witness? The way I understand it is that the witness is asked to speculate about something.

ADV DE JAGER: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The speaker’s microphone is not on.

ADV DU PLESSIS: As far as I can remember the evidence was that he heard the testimony of Lotz that it could have been possible, he testified that he can’t remember it precisely.

CHAIRPERSON: What Mr Lamey is putting to the witness, is he not simply saying to the witness that it is probable or improbable that such and such a thing can happen? Is he not just putting a probability to the witness Mr du Plessis.

ADV DU PLESSIS: If he puts it like that Mr Chairman, then ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: That’s how I understand the question.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, if he puts it like that.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I must just say that I did in my question - when I remember, refer to the fact that he referred in his evidence to what is logic and what is - that he recalls a specific thing measured against logic and probabilities and it’s on that basis that I addressed this question to him.

Do I have to repeat the question or did you hear the question?

MR BEESLAAR: Please repeat it.

ADV LAMEY: Would it not have been illogical because of the fact that you and Captain Venter were at Glen Connor and improbable that Mr Lotz would have arrived there to fetch the Askaris and to take them to Port Elizabeth?

MR BEESLAAR: It’s possible that Lotz was there and that he took the Askaris. If they had to go to a point or an unknown place and we had to follow them then they would not have known where to go - it’s possible, I can’t really say.

ADV LAMEY: You can’t say?

ADV LAMEY: The questions was, is it not illogical and improbable - keeping in mind that you and Captain Venter were at Glen Connor, that Mr Lotz would have arrived there and fetched the Askaris given the fact that you would also have gone to Port Elizabeth?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, I don’t know what the arrangement was between Captain Venter and Captain van Zyl as to how the people were to be transported from Glen Connor to Port Elizabeth. It’s possible and it’s - I don’t know whether Lotz was there, I originally thought that Lotz wasn’t there but it’s possible that he could have been there and that they travelled with him.

ADV LAMEY: I don’t know whether you understand the question correctly. What I’m asking - given the fact that you and Captain Venter were at Glen Connor, isn’t it illogical and improbable - and because you would also have gone to Port Elizabeth, that it is now improbable and illogical that Lotz would have come to fetch the Askaris there?

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t know if there was an arrangement between Venter and van Zyl, surely if there was such an arrangement it’s not illogic and it’s not unlikely, it would simply be pursuant to arrangement between Venter and van Zyl.

ADV LAMEY: As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

Can you recall - and this was my instruction from Koole, that they daily received instructions - him as permanent member of Vlakplaas, from Captain Venter while you were there in Port Elizabeth and that there was also a specifically designated point where the other Askaris had these meetings on a daily basis?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson this instrument of mine - I didn’t hear the first part of the question, could you please repeat that?

ADV DE JAGER: What he put to you is that Warrant Officer says that you received instructions daily from Venter that you had to gather a specific place.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Was everyday at the same place or at different places?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I remember it wasn’t at the same place everyday, there was always an arrangement made with the drivers to get them at specific point so sometimes it could have been the same spot but it depended on their movements and where they were.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember that one of these pre-arranged places was a place not far from the security branch office close to a railway station?

MR BEESLAAR: It’s possible.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Beeslaar, are you sure and convinced that the only purpose of the involvement of the Askaris was the abduction?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I know that was the only purpose and that was to assist with intercepting the people and then also transporting the people and perhaps to help with guarding them when we arrived at Post Chalmers.

ADV LAMEY: You say: "and perhaps guarding them", are you speculating or are you sure?

MR BEESLAAR: I’m quite sure, I don’t know when we arrived but they would have assisted with guarding the Blacks.

ADV LAMEY: Isn’t it also possible that their presence during integration would have been necessary bearing in mind the purpose of the assistance and support of Vlakplaas and the Askaris at Port Elizabeth?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it’s possible. I didn’t have enough knowledge to really know how they worked on the outside but I also did that to gain some experience but I don’t know precisely what their instructions were.

ADV LAMEY: If Captain Venter says - as you had testified at his amnesty hearing and I refer to page 190 of Exhibit H:

As I understand his testimony one of the main purposes that he had knowledge of was interrogation.

MR BEESLAAR: If he said that it could have been that while I didn’t have any knowledge of how they went about their work.

ADV LAMEY: In the light of your being unsure about many aspects, why are you prepared to make this statement that if there had been an assault and if you had been present at that stage at Post Chalmers, then you would have remembered it?

MR BEESLAAR: Could you please repeat the question?

ADV LAMEY: Given the fact of your being unsure with regard to different facts in your version and in the light of the problems you have with your memory, on what basis are you still prepared to testify here that if there had been assaults at Post Chalmers and should you have been present there, you would have remembered it?

MR BEESLAAR: Assaults, had it been violent I would have remembered it but as far as I can remember there were no violent assaults or no assaults except in the case where I was involved.

ADV LAMEY: You make a distinction between violent assaults and assaults, is there a distinction for you?

MR BEESLAAR: I would say any assaults.

ADV LAMEY: You would have remembered it - any assaults?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: And if the two applicants whom I represent say that there were assaults?

MR BEESLAAR: That is their version, I didn’t see any assaults in the time that we were there.

ADV LAMEY: That is actually not the question, the question is if the applicants that he’s referring to come and say that assaults did take place, will you still be certain that assaults did take place or will you again - as you have been on other aspects, be uncertain as to whether assaults did take place? - that is the questions.

MR BEESLAAR: If there had been assaults and if I had seen the people but as I say I cannot remember that there had been any assaults while we were there.

CHAIRPERSON: So, as far as the assault is concerned, you are not uncertain? With regard to the assault you are definitely sure that it did not take place, that is the essence of the question.

MR BEESLAAR: While I was there, there were no assaults.

CHAIRPERSON: And of that you are sure?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I am very sure.

ADV LAMEY: Can I just understand it correctly, have you already conceded that you could have gone to Post Chalmers the night of the abduction?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, ...[intervention]

ADV LAMEY: I just want to complete my question - and that you also were present the next morning?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, but it’s possible that we could have returned but it is quite possible that we went with the team.

ADV LAMEY: I also want to put the question to you. In the light of your testimony I cannot understand - if the Askaris had to assist the P.E. members with the abduction, why you and Captain Venter actually went to the airport and why didn’t you stay behind at Glen Connor?

MR BEESLAAR: The arrangement made by Captain van Zyl and Venter was - perhaps because he was in command and there was an operation, that is why I believe that he said that Captain Venter and myself - and we only had one vehicle, that is why we went along.

ADV LAMEY: At that stage, how many years service did you have at the stage of the Pebco 3 incident? (transcriber’s own translation)

MR BEESLAAR: I just want to work this out, it was approximately 30 years.

ADV LAMEY: And in the security police as well?

MR BEESLAAR: Not all the time Mr Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: Could I just ask you, before this incident with Pebco, did you have experience of other interrogations where there were assaults?

MR BEESLAAR: No, none.

ADV LAMEY: None?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

ADV LAMEY: Not a single instance?

MR BEESLAAR: As I’ve already said, most of my time was spent with administrative work at head office and I was doing office work, financial matters. I was on the outside for a bit but it was for a period of approximately two years but nothing that I really can remember.

ADV LAMEY: But at Vlakplaas you also went along where they did field work?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, as I said, I was an administrative officer and periodically I went out - perhaps once every two or three months, it could have been less but I didn’t accompany the operational members regularly.

ADV LAMEY: Captain Venter says in his evidence that he expected that the normal interrogation methods would be applied, that is violence, assault, intimidation and I refer to page 194 of his evidence, Exhibit H.

MR BEESLAAR: I don’t have it.

ADV LAMEY: That is Captain Venter.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, Sir?

ADV LAMEY: And as I understand his testimony it was not abnormal for something like that to happen.

MR BEESLAAR: I have no knowledge of that. Captain Venter was an old investigative officer, he did interrogation and I don’t know which methods they used.

ADV LAMEY: I just want to refer you to your own application - I just want to find it. I refer to page 70 of your application:

And then you also state:

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just come in here. I’ve made the point right at the beginning that this part of the application is a general part of the application which doesn’t relate to a specific application but which relates to all the incidents for which Mr Beeslaar applied for amnesty.

If you will read through this you will see that it’s exactly the same political motivation that was included in all my other client’s applications and we’ve had this over and over and over again. However I try to make the point that these allegations do not all specifically pertain to a specific application, we end up in the situation where my clients are always cross-examined about something that’s not necessarily relevant to the application.

Now, clearly on my client’s version - my Beeslaar’s version: "ondervragings", is simply not relevant to this application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I have listened to Mr du Plessis when he led his client but what is - I also understand that it is in general form with regard to lay a basis for all the incidents for which he applies for amnesty but this question is more directed in view of his own evidence and of his own role - of his own evidence with regard to his own usual role.

Now, my next question will be: "If that is so, on what basis does he testify personally to this information contained in his amnesty application"?

CHAIRPERSON: These are general grounds on which you would justify whatever he would be asking amnesty for. I think the problem comes when you - you are trying to say simply because in the general grounds you mention elimination for example, then it means in this case: "You took part in the elimination".

ADV LAMEY: No, no.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the point which Mr du Plessis is trying to convey to you. The fact that mention of intimidation is made in the general grounds showing or justifying acts in respect of which he applies for amnesty does not mean that he - in this particular instance, he intimidated anybody.

ADV LAMEY: No ...[intervention]

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I also want to come in here. The evidence of Brigadier Cronje - you must remember that Brigadier Cronje was the commanding officer of approximately all the clients that I represent.

When we started with the amnesty hearings we made it perfectly clear that Brigadier Cronje was going to give evidence because we didn’t have the help of any of the politicians or any of the Generals at all and that Brigadier Cronje will have to give evidence about the background of the struggle and all other related matters.

He did give evidence in - I think, about 400 typed pages about this which included extensive evidence on specifically the issues included in Mr Beeslaar’s application and I asked Mr Beeslaar - in evidence in chief, if he had read Brigadier Cronje’s evidence and if he confirmed it as correct and he so.

So, for purposes of that, this evidence is included because Brigadier Cronje’s evidence about this is used in support of this application. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Mr Beeslaar says that he knows about: "Ondervragings en die tegnieke van ondervragings", that’s an unfair question.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Chairman, may now also ask leave to come in?

Mr Beeslaar, I have listened to your evidence - and please tell me whether I’m correct or incorrect, your memory according to you - whether it is now correct or incorrect, is so poor that you cannot remember whether this or that took place and you are prepared to concede whatever any of the other applicants say could have happened because you don’t know.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: There’s only one thing that you are quite sure about and that is that no assaults took place in your presence. (transcriber’s own translation)

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: So the evidence of Mr Lamey’s applicants you can’t refute because you cannot remember?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: I just wanted to explain that I understand what Mr du Plessis is saying, this is a general part.

ADV DE JAGER: I don’t want us to debate about this, we are really wasting valuable time with arguments and other people still have to ask questions.

ADV LAMEY: As it pleases you.

Mr Beeslaar, I just want to mention one aspect just to get your comment. Mr Koole didn’t state in his statement but during consultation he was asked whether he knows anything about the watch that you apparently bought from Mr Mamasela and my instructions are - from Mr Koole, that Mr Mamasela - and I just want to put it to you, that he took this watch from Mr Hashe at a point where he was unconscious and Mr Koole says that he can remember that at Post Chalmers Mamasela and you talked about a price for the watch.

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, Mamasela came to me - it was the morning after this incident when he came to me at Glen Connor, and he mentioned to me that he had financial problems and whether I didn’t want to buy his watch and I asked him whether it was his personal watch and he confirmed that.

We then agreed on a price and I bought the watch from him because as far as I know it was his property. Had I known that this watch belonged to one of those people I would never have taken it or bought it from him.

ADV LAMEY: I just want to ask you, did you know that Captain Venter and Warrant Officer Koole had been together for quite a while and that they had worked together at the security branch at Zeerust before he went to Vlakplaas and before Captain Venter came to Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: That is what Captain Venter told me, that they had come a long way together. In this week he said again that they had come a long way together.

ADV LAMEY: Is there any reason that you can think of why Warrant Officer Koole or even Mr Mogoai would now want to make up facts about assaults to the extent that he and Captain Venter are also being implicated?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot say.

ADV LAMEY: To save some time - you know what there version was, I’m not going to put every aspect of that to you. You know that their version differs dramatically from yours?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV NYOKA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Beeslaar - I don’t know whether I’m pronouncing your surname correctly, tell me if I do insult you, when exactly did you learn about the death of these three? I know you’ve got a memory

problem but just try to think, when did you learn that they died?

MR BEESLAAR: I think it was when the Attorney General’s investigative people came to me and this was more or less two years ago.

ADV NYOKA: 1995?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV NYOKA: And you did not go to Mr Venter and say: "But did those chaps die"? after learning about that - your senior at the time or Mr Cronje.

MR BEESLAAR: They were all retired, I didn’t know where they were and I didn’t have any contact with them at that stage.

ADV NYOKA: You said that when you left Port Elizabeth for Cradock, you left your Vlakplaas Black colleagues behind but you did not go to Cradock the previous night because you didn’t want to leave your Black colleagues behind, not so?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV NYOKA: Then why did you leave them for about six hours because - I will you allowance, from where you were to Cradock is about two hours and then back would be another two hours giving you a further allowance of two hours at Cradock. Why did you leave them behind because they were unguarded so to speak?

MR BEESLAAR: They were not unguarded, there was a Black officer with them. We were not planning to stay away for such a long time and that is why we why we left them alone together with a Black officer under his supervision.

ADV NYOKA: But was that officer not present the previous night? But was that officer not present the previous night?

MR BEESLAAR: No. I do not know if you’re talking about Moss but there were two Black officers, Captain Letsatsi and Bos. At that stage - I’m not sure of their rank, but there were two officers and the one who remained behind with them.

ADV NYOKA: You were asked: "The place was so remote that there would be no need for anyone to be restricted from screaming", not so? - you were asked by Mr Booyens.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I could see the place was very remote.

ADV NYOKA: If that is the case there would be no need for a silencer to be used for a weapon if there was no need to restrain a person from screaming, do you agree with me?

MR BEESLAAR: I do not know how the people operated on the outside and what their methods were, I had no knowledge of any operations. As I’ve already said, I was more an administrative man and if you ask me any questions about administration I will be able to help you.

ADV NYOKA: I accept that you were in administration, my point is that - follow my logic, the logic is that if there was no need to restrain a person because the place is remote, there will be no need for a silencer to be used for a weapon. Is that not the same? - I’m not talking about administration now.

MR BEESLAAR: That is possible.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman with respect, he wasn’t involved in the elimination at all.

ADV NYOKA: Mr Chairman, the question was asked ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: But he wasn’t involved in the alleged strangling either, he could have objected when Mr Booyens put that question to the witness and said that he was not involved in the strangling of people.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, well I just simply can’t see the relevance of this witness’s evidence about silencers on guns if he wasn’t involved in the elimination ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: It’s to counter-balance what he said to a question by Mr Booyens, so if we allowed the previous one we must allow this one.

ADV DU PLESSIS: All right Mr Chairman.

ADV NYOKA: May I continue Mr Chairman?

Mr Venter stated that when the car of the three activists disappeared from the airport he thought that they could be killed. As you were with him in the car on your way to Cradock and back, did he not verbalise this thought to you that: "Hey Mr Beeslaar, I think these people are going to be killed"?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot recall that he said anything to me in that respect - as to what had happened to them or what was going to happen to them or what had happened to the vehicle.

ADV NYOKA: Were you not curious to find out what had happened to it - to and from Cradock?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I did not find out or try to find out.

ADV NYOKA: On the way to Cradock - I understand you were not invited to go there, you went there on your own volition not so?

MR BEESLAAR: Are you know referring to the next day?

ADV NYOKA: Precisely.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember Captain Venter had to visit the branches and if there was an agreement between him and Captain van Zyl - so that if he had visited the branch, to come along there I wouldn’t know of that.

ADV NYOKA: Is it not correct that at that stage you did not know whether the three security branch members wanted the Askaris not to know what was going to happen eventually to the activists? You didn’t know about that at that stage, not so?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I did not know.

ADV NYOKA: Is it not correct that the Askaris could have been left under the command of Mr Zyl, in other words they could have returned with them? - from that point of view since you did not know what their intention was.

MR BEESLAAR: Could they have come back with Captain van Zyl?

ADV NYOKA: Yes.

MR BEESLAAR: No, as far as we were concerned it was just for the abduction and for the time that they had to guard them until we arrived there and then they left with us, they were not aware of anything further that was to have happened.

ADV NYOKA: When you left you base you did not take anything with you, you just left on your own? Please answer.

MR BEESLAAR: Which base are you referring to, the one at Glen Connor or where?

ADV NYOKA: Yes, precisely - Glen Connor.

MR BEESLAAR: Whether we took anything with us?

ADV NYOKA: Yes.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I can’t recall us taking anything with.

ADV NYOKA: Then those two beers you each had, you must have got them at Post Chalmers because you did not take anything with you, not so?

MR BEESLAAR: We could also have bought the beer at Cradock.

ADV NYOKA: You did not mention anything about buying beers, you just said you had two beers each on arrival, I assume that you got them there, not so?

CHAIRPERSON: Your assumption might have been wrong.

ADV NYOKA: I agree Mr Chairman.

Do you recall where you got the beers from?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember we could have bought beers in Cradock for Captain Venter and I.

ADV NYOKA: Let’s say that is the case, you did not think about your poor Askaris who were there - whom you had gone to fetch, whether they would like beers too? Did you not think about that?

MR BEESLAAR: I did not know whether they might have had their own. I did not know what the circumstances were before we arrived at Post Chalmers.

ADV NYOKA: You must not - you must please understand, I don’t drink and I don’t smoke but if you can buy two beers each, did you intend to stay there? A beer you just drink it once and finished, it doesn’t make you drunk. You just bought two beers each but you remained for a few hours, I find that very strange.

MR BEESLAAR: It did nothing to us - I don’t smoke either and I’ve now stopped drinking and we were still on duty too.

ADV NYOKA: I won’t be long on this drinking aspect. And you said that you drank because you did not know what your mission was there? Not so?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I knew, the operation only consisted of the abduction and that the branch that was to question them. We served no purpose there except that we had to remain there for a few minutes and then we were to return again.

ADV NYOKA: I thought that you would have gone to any local shop near Glen Connor, buy your beers, make a braai and remain there because you didn’t even give you colleague Mr Niewoudt something to drink and meat - I’m very disappointed. Any comment?

I’m going to leave that aspect now Mr Chairman.

MR BEESLAAR: No comment.

ADV NYOKA: Thank you. Let me just be clear about this, you said there were several members of the security branch - by several it means many people, do you agree? I don’t know what it means in Afrikaans.

MR BEESLAAR: That is what I said, I cannot remember how many there were but there were a few as I recall.

ADV NYOKA: These several members, did they include the Askaris or just the security branch members proper? Were you including the Askaris in "several members"?

MR BEESLAAR: It is members of the security branch and - actually I didn’t include the Askaris but I’m talking about the security branch people who were there.

ADV NYOKA: Mr Beeslaar, I’m sure you will agree with me. If there was Mr Niewoudt, Mr Lotz and Mr van Zyl surely you can’t say there were several members, you will just say there were three members. Several means a number of people, not so?

MR BEESLAAR: That is true but this all happened 12 years ago. I cannot recall how many - what the position was there.

ADV NYOKA: There’s a contradiction between yourself and Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai about heads being covered and you said you cannot recall whether that happened so I’ll leave that. Although you say may have made a mistake but your mistake is confirmed by factual information. You said you could have made a mistake about heads being covered but your mistake strangely is factual.

MR BEESLAAR: That is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes but Mr Chairman, on the other hand the other applicants testified that the heads were not covered. Now it seems to me that Mr Beeslaar is the only one who is making a proper concession in respect of his memory, so my learned friend can’t say that it is supported by fact. There is other evidence that doesn’t support the fact that their heads were covered.

ADV NYOKA: I’m talking about Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai, their evidence is factual to that effect.

You had no business to talk to them, why did you try to talk to these three Mr Beeslaar? I’m very curious to find out.

MR BEESLAAR: Our Blacks were there and I walked to them and I cannot recall exactly what I asked them or why I wanted to talk to them, I cannot recall the circumstances when I went to talk to them.

ADV NYOKA: If they were sitting down and you were walking towards them, why was there a necessity for you to kick any of them because you were moving towards them?

MR BEESLAAR: I did move but I was talking to our Blacks close by, it could have been a while that we were taking before the discussion moved to their side. I didn’t just walk to them and kick one of them.

ADV NYOKA: But why did you have to kick, why could you not have gone forward and touched the person or called the person and say: "You with the green jacket" - you would know what he’s wearing, why did you have to kick?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot give the reason as to why I kicked him, I just mentioned it but there must have been a reason.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the reason not precisely because their faces were covered and he doesn’t see you and for him to pay attention to you because he doesn’t see you, you’ve got to kick him?

MR BEESLAAR: That could possibly have been the case and that he could not have identified me at a later stage and said that I had assaulted him.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that in fact indicate probably that their heads were covered? Because I can’t understand why in order to attract somebody’s attention you have got to kick him unless his face was covered.

MR BEESLAAR: That is possible, yes.

ADV NYOKA: I put it to you that you kicked them because the atmosphere was that of violence towards them.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s not correct.

ADV SANDI: Mr Beeslaar, could you not just touch this gentleman with your own hand and indicate that you want to speak with him?

MR BEESLAAR: That is possible but as we’ve already said - the circumstances and why it could have happened, maybe that was the correct method of attracting his attention.

ADV NYOKA: You did not tell anyone that you kicked one of them?

MR BEESLAAR: No, some of our Black people were standing there and they could have seen it had I done it.

ADV NYOKA: Did you apologise to this person for kicking him?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

ADV NYOKA: Why not? It was wrong what you did.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot remember because we could not communicate and therefore I left them and I returned, I just stayed there for a while.

ADV NYOKA: With due respect Mr Beeslaar, you said you tried to talk to one of them, that was communication not so?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV NYOKA: Then why do you say that you could not communicate with them?

MR BEESLAAR: I did not know whether he understood my question, I spoke Afrikaans.

ADV NYOKA: Can you repeat it? Can you repeat what you said?

MR BEESLAAR: I spoke in Afrikaans and I don’t know whether they understood me. I didn’t know what their attitude was as to whether they understood what I was saying.

ADV NYOKA: Whether you understood each other or not that is communication but misunderstood communication, not so? Not so?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV NYOKA: You don’t remember you left with the Askaris, you don’t know what you talked with them about, were you under the influence of liquor Mr Beeslaar?

MR BEESLAAR: The Askaris remained behind and I went back to the others.

ADV NYOKA: Answer my question, were you under the influence of liquor?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I was not under the influence of liquor.

ADV NYOKA: And who drove the car back to Glen Connor?

MR BEESLAAR: Our vehicle was driven by either Captain Venter or myself, we could have changed along the way. After we had left we could have taken turns to drive.

ADV NYOKA: I will assume - on a light note, that as you drove under the influence of liquor your also including that in your amnesty application because it’s an offence to drive under the influence of liquor being a policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka, we are finding it difficult to imagine that we will finish this case, we value every minute dearly.

ADV NYOKA: Okay.

Mr Mamasela said that you throttled Mr Hashe with a stick.

MR BEESLAAR: That is false.

ADV NYOKA: And that you hit Mr Godolozi with a stick?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s false, I deny it, I did not do it.

ADV NYOKA: And Mr Koole said that you and him and Mr Mogoai and Mr Mamasela and Mr Venter interrogated on of the activists, Mr Hashe and that you assaulted him immediately after interrogating him, any comment?

MR BEESLAAR: No, comment.

ADV NYOKA: Why were you not curious when Mr Mamasela approached you about this watch the following day soon after the dramatic events of the previous day?

ADV DU PLESSIS: It wasn’t the following day Mr Chairman.

ADV NYOKA: The interpretation that I got that: "The following day Mr Mamasela approached me", this is the interpretation that I got.

MR BEESLAAR: I will say how I recall it. It must have been a Saturday morning at Glen Connor because our Black members did their washing on a Saturday and it was on such an occasion. It could have been the next Saturday or the Saturday thereafter even but that is how I recall the incident about the watch.

ADV NYOKA: Why did you not just loan him that R30-00 or R40-00?

MR BEESLAAR: He did not ask to borrow money, he asked me if I wanted to buy his watch.

ADV NYOKA: In the statement you said that he had financial difficulties, why did you not lend him the money?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV NYOKA: My point is, why did you not loan him the money?

MR BEESLAAR: Perhaps he would not have been able to give it back to me but he offered me the watch and we decided on a price.

ADV NYOKA: You did not have a watch of your own at that time?

MR BEESLAAR: I could have had one, I most probably did but in order to assist him I bought it from him.

ADV NYOKA: Finally on this issue, you said that you threw the watch at a dirt bin on reading the note by Mr Eugene de Kock. Had you thrown the watch before you learnt about this message from Mr de Kock or after you learnt about it?

MR BEESLAAR: After he showed me the letter which Mamasela was to have written that this watch had belonged to one of the Pebco 3 - I never saw the letter previously nor did I have any knowledge of it, I was totally in the dark until the day the at de Kock showed me this message.

ADV NYOKA: And at that stage you did not know that they were not alive? Not so?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot remember if I ever heard what happened to them thereafter.

ADV NYOKA: Why did you not contact the Eastern Province Commander and say there’s a watch of one these people because they could still have been alive but under detention without trial? Why did you not contact them to return the watch rather than throwing it away?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot comment on this.

ADV NYOKA: To me it means that you knew that they were dead otherwise you could have measures or means to return to the watch back to Port Elizabeth.

MR BEESLAAR: Anything is possible, I cannot comment on this.

ADV NYOKA: ...[inaudible] possibility including the fact that you may have known they were dead, is that one of the possibilities?

MR BEESLAAR: That can be so, I cannot remember if I ever heard what happened to them because when we left there that day our activities here had been completed.

ADV NYOKA: I put it to you Mr Beeslaar that you were one of the assailants, one of the three people that were hitting the three Pebco leaders.

MR BEESLAAR: That is not true I only kicked the one, that is all I did and that is why I’m applying for amnesty. I was not involved in any other assaults.

ADV NYOKA: And if you did not know that the watch was stolen you bona fides believed that it belonged to Mr Mamasela then I find it strange that you would apply for amnesty for robbery for something that you were not aware of.

ADV DU PLESSIS: No, Mr Chairman, there’s no application at all for amnesty for this incident in respect of the watch. The amnesty application was made - you will see, in respect of assault and "menseroof"

ADV NYOKA: Mr Chairman, my translation is robbery and assault so I assumed it referred to that, it’s robbery and assault.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The evidence was: "menseroof - ontvoering" - "abduction".

ADV NYOKA: So my interpret - it’s my translator then?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, that’s proof that the translation is not 100% correct.

ADV NYOKA: Just in this instance.

Mr Beeslaar, you attacked the persons with others and caused their death.

MR BEESLAAR: Please repeat the question.

ADV NYOKA: I said that you attacked the persons with other applicants and caused that death that very, very, night.

MR BEESLAAR: No, that is not correct.

ADV NYOKA: And finally, I find it strange that you are the second applicant besides Mr Lots, who is suffering from memory loss suddenly, any comment? - who has got a recollection problem in other words.

MR BEESLAAR: No comment, I have a problem and I am being treated.

ADV NYOKA: You entire evidence except insofar it is not inconsistent with the instructions of my client, it’s a complete fabrication. Any comment?

MR BEESLAAR: No, it’s not.

ADV NYOKA: No further questions.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just enquire here? My learned friend has put a version to my client and I just wanted to know if that is correct that his instructions are that Mr Beeslaar killed or was involved in the assaults and killing of these three that night. I just want to know if what he put is his version of the facts.

ADV NYOKA: I may have made a mistake because I’m getting tired, it’s been a long day.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Because as I understand Mr Chairman, he previously put that the three weren’t killed that night and they lived thereafter. I just want to know if my learned friend is putting as his instructions or what exactly his instructions are.

ADV NYOKA: I made a mistake Mr du Plessis, my instructions are as before but I’m getting tired.

CHAIRPERSON: Miss Hartle?

MISS HARTLE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Beeslaar, I’m struggling to understand why it was ever necessary for you to come to the Eastern Cape with Colonel Venter and the Askaris if this wasn’t your speciality.

MR BEESLAAR: As I’ve said, periodically I went out with them and I can’t remember whether at that stage the person who had done field work with Captain Venter was available or not, I can just remember that I came with Captain Venter.

MISS HARTLE: But you would agree that the operation was out of the ordinary?

MR BEESLAAR: We didn’t have any knowledge when we left Pretoria that there would be any operation, it would just be general work pertaining to the identification of ANC terrorists and infiltrators.

MS HARTLE: Was it quite common for the Vlakplaas guys to out of

their area in which they operated from?

MR BEESLAAR: Our base was at Vlakplaas and as the divisions needed teams they made a requisition to head office and then the different teams were then sent to the different divisions for the purpose of identifying people.

MISS HARTLE: And was that your first visit to the Eastern Cape?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that was my first visit and I could be corrected but when I was a young policeman we came to fetch vehicles for the police here in a convoy and that was the only time that I had been in Port Elizabeth - besides that, that was the only time that I have been here in this particular working condition.

MISS HARTLE: Now, when you were approached by the special investigative team at the Attorney General’s office, how did they inform you of their involvement - what did they wish to extract from you?

MR BEESLAAR: I believe that Joe Mamasela mentioned my name in his submission to the Attorney General and that is why my name came to their attention.

MISS HARTLE: And you were when they approached you - at that stage certainly, that the Pebco 3 were dead or just missing?

MR BEESLAAR: That was the reason why they came to me, it was because of Mamasela or I believe it was because of Mamasela’s allegations.

MISS HARTLE: So did you understand that they were investigating charges of murder in relation to the Pebco 3 or just simply their disappearance?

MR BEESLAAR: As I understood it - as they put it to me, it was for murder.

MISS HARTLE: Prior to your interview with Advocate de Jager whom you mention in your affidavit which you deposed to before the Attorney General, did you discuss with any of your colleagues that you would be naming them?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I mentioned it to no-one.

MISS HARTLE: And prior to bringing this application for amnesty, were you part of the applicants - were you among those applicants who consulted with one another to determine the process that would be followed and how the applications would be brought etc.?

MR BEESLAAR: I did not approach any of the applicants sitting here or had any contract with any one of them up to the point where we started here last Monday. We could have seen each other at the previous case where the case was postponed but I didn’t consult with them on anything.

MISS HARTLE: When were you informed of the Pebco 3 operation which you understood to be an abduction only?

MR BEESLAAR: It was a few days after we arrived here in the Eastern Cape.

MISS HARTLE: How long before the abduction were you informed?

MR BEESLAAR: If I’m correct, it was the morning before the abduction.

MISS HARTLE: Now you say in your submission that you’re not sure if there was a meeting in this regard, you say:

That is correct.

MISS HARTLE: Could there have been meetings at which you weren’t present?

MR BEESLAAR: That is quite possible.

MISS HARTLE: Why were you involved if - you understand that this was a clandestine operation, did you know that at the time - that it was going to b a clandestine operation?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember, yes.

MISS HARTLE: And then you go on to say that mention was made - you think, in the tea-room where there were several persons present that a comment was made to the effect that persons would come to the airport.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MISS HARTLE: Are you sure that it was in the tea-room.

MR BEESLAAR: I can’t be sure where but people were together.

MISS HARTLE: Which tea-room would this be?

MR BEESLAAR: I don’t know whether - if it was the unit working with terrorists, whether it was in their tea-room but of the people were there.

MISS HARTLE: It appears from your submissions that it wasn’t such a secret that there was a plan to lure them to the airport - for it to be openly discussed in a tea-room?

MR BEESLAAR: As I said, it could have been with the section’s table and there couldn’t have been many people there.

MISS HARTLE: How do you know that the three persons that were abducted from the airport that day were in fact the Pebco 3?

MR BEESLAAR: At that stage I didn’t know who they were and to which organisations they belonged.

MISS HARTLE: From your submissions it’s apparent that you never saw them, that you were a distance from the scene, that their heads were covered and later when you went to Cradock -Post Chalmers, again their heads were covered.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember their heads were covered.

MISS HARTLE: In your previous affidavit which you deposed to for the Attorney General’s purposes, on page 3 you say in relation to the so-called assault in which you were involved:

That was the initial ...[indistinct] in that affidavit.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MISS HARTLE: When was that amended?

MR BEESLAAR: That was with a previous session in Pretoria and I believe the Chairperson and Advocate de Jager were present when we made the amendments - Judge Mall was the presiding officer.

MISS HARTLE: And you changed it to read:

Just read what is written there above:

MR BEESLAAR:

And that ends there full stop.

MISS HARTLE: And you amended that at the time you made this affidavit for the Attorney General’s purposes?

MR BEESLAAR: Please repeat the question.

MISS HARTLE: The amendment to this affidavit, was it made at the same time that you deposed to this affidavit, in other words on the 24th of May 1996?

MR BEESLAAR: No, it was after that. The Attorney General sent this back to me and then at a later stage in Pretoria with one of the sessions, we changed it.

MISS HARTLE: Is it not perhaps so that you thought that - with the Attorney General’s investigations, you might be implicated in assault so it would be fair to say that you were involved at least to a small extent in assaulting the Pebco 3?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot comment on that.

MISS HARTLE: I’m at a loss to understand why you had to change it, there’s a big difference between merely kicking somebody to get one’s attention and assaulting one.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it’s positive I didn’t just touch him, I kicked him.

MISS HARTLE: Why did you first say that you just did it to get his attention?

MR BEESLAAR: As I said, when I made the submission it was the first time that I tried to remember this, I couldn’t remember everything at first.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Beeslaar, I think - I don’t want to use the word insinuation but the gist of the question is that you lied to Attorney General.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I didn’t tell him the truth in this affidavit.

MISS HARTLE: I get the impression Mr Beeslaar - from your evidence in chief today, that you wanted to revert to the earlier position and that you wanted to persuade this Committee that you did indeed kick one of the detainees as you called them, to get his attention rather than - as my learned friend put it to you, that you were involved in an assault - that there was a climate of violence there.

MR BEESLAAR: At the stage that we were there, there was no climate of violence or anything of that nature.

MISS HARTLE: In you affidavit to the Attorney General you say that you kicked him, was it your intention - when you made that affidavit, to say that: "I assaulted one of the victims" - in the true sense of the word? In other words, that you had no excuse that you used force for no reason whatsoever.

MR BEESLAAR: No, as I say I put it correctly - I didn’t lightly touch him. It is the first time after all these years that I’m confronted with this and I could not have remembered everything clearly at that moment.

MISS HARTLE: Mr Beeslaar, I don’t want to belabour the point, but you either kicked him because you intended to assault him without any reason whatsoever or you kicked him to gain his attention, now which of the two would apply in this instance?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember I kicked him to draw his attention, I did not kick him for the other reason.

MISS HARTLE: Why did you change your affidavit for the Attorney General’s purposes?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I just want to make it clear that the affidavit wasn’t changed for purposes of the Attorney General, the affidavit was changed after I had consulted with Mr Beeslaar before he gave evidence in Captain Venter’s amnesty application and it was changed because when I asked him: "Was it a little kick or was it a kick", he said to me it was a kick and it wasn’t properly stated in the affidavit and we wanted to place the full picture before the Committee.

That is the reason why the affidavit was changed, not for purposes of the Attorney General. It was the people of the Attorney General who took down the affidavit who didn’t take it down properly.

MISS HARTLE: Mr Beeslaar, I didn’t mean to say: "for purposes of the Attorney General", I’m referring to - if I can call it, the Attorney General’s Affidavit was changed. Initially you were quite clear that you kicked somebody to gain his attention and then it is amended to read simply that you kicked him which is an out and out assault, do you understand what I’m saying to you?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MISS HARTLE: And now today again in your evidence in chief you’re reverting to the earlier position that you kicked him because you wanted to get his attention. Do you understand this to have been a true assault?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it is assault.

MISS HARTLE: And this is what you’re seeking amnesty for?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is why I’m applying for amnesty but as I say, I can’t remember the specific incidents leading to that - whether it was to draw his attention.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, can I interpose for a minute Miss Hartle before you go to the next point?

Mr Beeslaar, just on assault, what political objective were you trying to achieve when you kicked Mr Hashe?

MR BEESLAAR: Because they were activists and I therefore kicked him and there was also political motivation why I had to then apply for amnesty for this particular assault.

MISS HARTLE: What was your purpose in going to Cradock at all after the abduction?

MR BEESLAAR: As I’ve already stated, Captain Venter visited the division - the security branch, at Cradock and between him and Captain van Zyl - that he had to visit him when he came to visit where some of the Black members were present so that the Black members could then accompany us back to Glen Connor.

ADV DE JAGER: Can I interrupt for a moment?

Wasn’t this abduction on a Friday night?

MR BEESLAAR: Not as far as I can remember, as far as I can remember it was early in the week.

ADV DE JAGER: I can remember that it was on a Friday evening and I would like to know whether it was.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I know it wasn’t on a Friday evening.

ADV DE JAGER: Can any of the other colleagues help me as to whether it was on a Friday night?

ADV DU PLESSIS: My information is that it was on a Wednesday evening.

ADV DE JAGER: But they went - they were lured to the airport on a Friday but I could be wrong, thank you.

MISS HARTLE: Did the Askaris go back with you to Glen Connor after your visit?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, they left with us to Glen Connor.

MISS HARTLE: In the Attorney General Affidavit - if I can call it that, you state as follows and that would be on page 3 in the first paragraph:

This is after you said:

It’s the third page.

MR BEESLAAR: I just want to have a look at my statement. At the bottom of page 78 of my application - the last sentence, I say:

MISS HARTLE: Wasn’t your whole purpose in going to Cradock - to Post Chalmers, to fetch them to make sure that they accompanied you back to the base?

MR BEESLAAR: That is possible because we were there and we weren’t necessary anymore for this operation.

MISS HARTLE: Why do you say that you think or rather you suspect that for identification purposes, the heads of the deceased were covered?

MR BEESLAAR: Because we thought that the real reason for the operation was that it was only for interrogation. As I understood it, it would have been for identification so that they would not know where they were - at which place and what’s happening around them.

MISS HARTLE: How were you in a position to comment that all three appeared to be physically normal to you - that there was nothing untoward about their appearance? You seem to want to assure us that they couldn’t have been assaulted.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes and one could see that they had not been assaulted. I couldn’t see their faces but if they had been assaulted seriously their body would also have shown that but as far as I could see they had not been assaulted.

MISS HARTLE: Mr Beeslaar, certainly they were wearing clothes when you saw them?

MR BEESLAAR: They did have clothes on.

MISS HARTLE: And if they had injuries you may not have noticed them ...[indistinct] sight?

MR BEESLAAR: It’s possible but you would have seen on their clothes if they had been assaulted in such a cruel way, it would have been torn but it seemed to me that they had not been assaulted.

MISS HARTLE: But they may well have been?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I could see, no.

MISS HARTLE: You go further and you say:

How did you ascertain that?

MR BEESLAAR: Excuse me?

MISS HARTLE: You go further and you say:

I’m referring to the Attorney General Affidavit on the third page, first paragraph. In the middle:

How did you ascertain that?

MR BEESLAAR: As I have said previously, I made this application or this affidavit - I can’t remember, they looked as if they were in good health. I made this affidavit without any consultation, I purely tried to rely on my memory and as I say that I have problems with my memory and they looked healthy and as you are sitting there you also look healthy.

MISS HARTLE: Did they appear to be in any distress? Mr Beeslaar, you see if I was wearing - if my face was covered you would be able to comment on my general state of health, I don’t know why it is that you’re so empathic that they were in good health.

MR BEESLAAR: As I say, according to me they were in good health.

MISS HARTLE: What was it that Colonel de Kock showed you that persuaded you to get rid of the watch which you had received or purchased from Mamasela?

MR BEESLAAR: He showed me a letter that this watch that Mamasela had sold to me belonged to one of these people.

MISS HARTLE: Who wrote the letter?

MR BEESLAAR: The signature - the autograph was that of Mamasela, I don’t know whether he had written it but according to de Kock, Mamasela gave him the letter and he wrote it.

MISS HARTLE: Are you sure it was a letter and not perhaps a newspaper report?

MR BEESLAAR: No, it was a written note.

MISS HARTLE: What was your purpose in wanting to strike up a conversation with the three persons who you found there at Cradock?

MR BEESLAAR: I mentioned that I cannot remember what the reason was why I wanted to talk to them and what we talked about.

MISS HARTLE: So why even mention it then?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot comment on that.

MISS HARTLE: Isn’t it so Mr Beeslaar that you were involved in an interrogation of these three persons and that would have been the reason why you spoke with them?

MR BEESLAAR: No, not at all.

MISS HARTLE: Was there a reason why you did not follow the crowd who were at the airport directly to Post Chalmers?

MR BEESLAAR: Let me just - my apology or waiting before I answer because I cannot really follow and the reason why we didn’t follow was because Captain Venter and myself only went up to that point and we didn’t have any interest and we had to go back to Glen Connor.

MISS HARTLE: Could the Askaris not have found their own way back? Why was it necessary for you to go to Cradock at all then?

MR BEESLAAR: As I have said previously, Captain Venter visited the different branches because he was an officer in head office and that is why we went there.

MISS HARTLE: This was supposed to have been a clandestine operation - you understood it at the time to be a clandestine operation although at that stage you understood it to be limited to the abduction and as I assume, an interrogation.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as we knew it was only for the abduction and then also the interrogation - that we would not have been involved.

MISS HARTLE: Did you understand it to be a clandestine operation?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I realised that.

MISS HARTLE: Who informed you that they’d gone to Post Chalmers or did you only find out when you went to the Cradock Police Station?

MR BEESLAAR: I can’t say whether Captain Venter had knowledge of that but we went to Cradock and they told us where the security branch people were. They should have known where they do their interrogation and I suppose it would not have been the first time.

MISS HARTLE: Did somebody accompany you to Post Chalmers - somebody from the Cradock Police Station?

MR BEESLAAR: Someone from the security branch - an unknown member, accompanied us to Post Chalmers.

MISS HARTLE: And did he enter in at Post Chalmers, did he enter into the building?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember, but I don’t think so because it was clandestine.

MISS HARTLE: In the Attorney General Affidavit you say:

MR BEESLAAR: On page?

MISS HARTLE: That would be on the second page in paragraph seven.

MR BEESLAAR: Could you please repeat the question?

MISS HARTLE: I’m just referring to the allegation you’re make in the affidavit or the statement rather:

MR BEESLAAR: I could be wrong with his presence.

MISS HARTLE: Why did mention his name at all?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember, it was one of the people from the division that I didn’t know that well but I knew of, it’s so many years later that I can just remember his name but I could be wrong, I don’t think he was present.

MISS HARTLE: Why do you remember his name specifically?

MR BEESLAAR: Later at head office he was there and that is how I remember his name and he was also from the Eastern Province.

MISS HARTLE: But you know him that well?

MR BEESLAAR: At that stage, no.

MISS HARTLE: I just find it surprising that you should mention his name in both affidavits, as being one of the persons who were present.

MR BEESLAAR: There’s not really a reason for that, it’s only that I got to know him better later on when he was at head office and I just linked him but it’s wrong.

MISS HARTLE: Who has reminded you that it’s wrong?

MR BEESLAAR: Afterwards I reconstructed it myself that he could not have been there.

MISS HARTLE: So, it’s one of those aspects that had not been affected by your memory - your recall of it?

CHAIRPERSON: Well it has, he has said so, so many times that he may be mistaken.

MISS HARTLE: Are there any of the applicants - was there anybody present there - either at the airport or at Post Chalmers, who are not applicants before this Commission for amnesty.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as can remember, everyone who is mentioned here and who is applying were present.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I point out that Mr Mamasela hasn’t applied for amnesty as far as I know.

MISS HARTLE: In conclusion Mr Beeslaar, I put it you that you were involved in the interrogation and that you partook of the violent assault.

MR BEESLAAR: No comment, because I did not participate.

MISS HARTLE: I’ve nothing further, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry, it’s not your turn yet. Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: I’ll be brief Mr Chairman.

Mr Beeslaar, can you just remind me, when were you first told that that these three people who were taken from the airport to Post Chalmers, were activists? When did you first gleam that information?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall specifically when I heard this for the first time.

MR BRINK: Okay. Are you able to tell me this, was it before or after you had visited Post Chalmers?

MR BEESLAAR: I think it was before - if I remember correctly, that the call they received was that these three activists were to come to the airport.

MR BRINK: But if the purpose of your kick was merely to attract the attention of your victim, it can’t possibly have been done with a political objective. You’re merely kicking a man to get his attention with a view to talk to him, how can that be political?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot remember what the question was about, whether it had a political motive, I can’t remember.

MR BRINK: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Beeslaar, can I link up with the last question. You cannot

recall exactly what you wanted to discuss with this specific activist?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And is it possible that you wanted to discuss something with him regarding his political activities?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Now, would you think that it’s rather possible that you would have wanted to discuss something like that with them than to discuss the whether with him?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the operation - even though you did not know what the ultimate objective was, but the operation had not been completed at that stage, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you were present at the operation - at an operation of the Eastern Cape security branch at that stage?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the person whom you wanted to speak to was an activist?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you were part of the security police who were fighting the activities of the activists or combating these activities?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And you action throughout - with regard to this operation regarding the abduction, did it have any other purpose other than a political purpose in your eyes?

MR BEESLAAR: No, it was merely political.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Were your actions aimed at combating the liberation movements?

MR BEESLAAR: Correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In other words the kick that you gave the activist, can one say that in the broader context, that it is something that took place in the broader context of the struggle against the liberation movements?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: If the activists were seriously assaulted one would have expected that they would be bleeding.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you see any blood on their clothes?

MR BEESLAAR: None.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Did you see any scratches or any other marks on their clothes which indicated an assault?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

CHAIRPERSON: He’s just testifying about something he’s not qualified to testify about.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: From the way you frame the question. There’s nothing wrong I suppose, in asking a person whether he observed any injuries but for you to say to him: "If these people had been viciously assaulted, would there have been blood"?, how can you possibly think that that is evidence?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, Mr Chairman, I will obviously argue.

CHAIRPERSON: There’s something like internal bleeding you know.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, I know Mr Chairman, I know. The purpose of the question was to ascertain if he saw any blood or not and I will argue that it would have been probable if he was subjected to the assaults that the Askaris and Joe Mamasela testify about - and we can look at those allegations, that there must have been blood.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Beeslaar, surely it is possible that these people could have been assaulted seriously even though you didn’t see any blood, what is your comment in this regard?

MR BEESLAAR: That is most probably possible that they could have been assaulted but as far as I could see they had not been assaulted but it is possible.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Lastly Mr Beeslaar, if you had been involved in any assaults, is there any reason why you would not have stated it in your affidavit to the Attorney General in May 1996 - except for the kick?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And if you were involved in any other further assaults apart from the kick that you testified to, is there any reason why you would not have included this in your amnesty application?

MR BEESLAAR: I would have included it if I had been involved in any assaults.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have not further questions.

ADV SANDI: Mr Beeslaar, what political objective did you have in mind when you bought the stolen watch from Mamasela? I suppose maybe you’ll say you did that unwittingly. It’s listed as one of the matters in which he’s applying for amnesty.

Clearly there cannot have been any political motive and I’m not trying to make out any case in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Beeslaar, it seems to me that there are a lot of things you are not sure of and you cannot remember around this incident.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact it seems to me you don’t even remember where you slept that night after abducting these people, you are not sure where you slept.

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct, as I said I think we went back to Glen Connor but I could be wrong - as I say, I can’t remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Why is it so, that must have been an outstanding evening - at the airport where you were party to an abduction and these people were taken somewhere else, you can’t even remember where you slept yourself.

MR BEESLAAR: As I recall, we went back to Glen Connor, Captain Venter and I because we were not required any further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Beeslaar, did you ever sleep at Post Chalmers?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can remember, we did not sleep there.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m talking about Mr Beeslaar. Do you remember whether Mr Beeslaar ever slept over at a place called Post Chalmers?

MR BEESLAAR: I never slept or spent an evening at Post Chalmers.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure of that because if you sure of that then you could not have slept at Post Chalmers that evening.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I am sure we never slept there.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe we are moving in circles. Yes, thank you very much.

ADV DE JAGER: I just want to ask you something regarding the watch. Why did you buy the watch if you could have taken it yourself?

MR BEESLAAR: That’s correct, if I could have taken it myself I would not have bought it. I did not take it, Mamasela sold it to me. I think it was the Saturday thereafter or even a week after that that he came to me and offered me the watch, he said that he had financial problems and this is how I obtained the watch.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I ask one question in that regard? When you bought the watch, did you know where the watch came from?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

ADV SANDI: Mr Beeslaar, when you bought the watch, what were you intending to do with it? I suppose you had your own watch?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know whether it was an old watch at that stage, I bought this one and I wore it for a short while.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think the audience is particularly cooperative this afternoon. Please do not drive us to the point where we will hold this hearing in my office. We will adjourn until tomorrow at half past eight.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS