MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the next witness is Maj du Preez. His statement of his evidence also appears in the additional bundle and I would refer you to page 41 of that additional bundle, Mr Chairman. Du Preez is present and he will give his evidence in Afrikaans. He has no objection to taking the prescribed oath.
S G DU PREEZ: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Did you say page 41 of bundle B?
MR VISSER: Of the original bundle, and page, I'm sorry, of the additional bundle and page 10 of the original bundle, Mr Chairperson. In the original bundle his amnesty application, he deals with the Tekere matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I've got that, thank you very much.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: At page 12, I think it is. Mr du Preez, you are also an applicant in the amnesty application with regard to the death of Mr Tekere?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Do you have - have you studied Exhibit A and read through it?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Are there any parts of Exhibit A which are not applicable to you?
MR DU PREEZ: The parts with regard to Lesotho and Botswana.
MR VISSER: And with regard to the remaining parts of Exhibit A, was this on the grounds of your own knowledge and on the grounds of reports that were sent to you and your general knowledge? Can you confirm those parts?
MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And you ask that these be considered in the consideration of your application?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: You have previously given evidence in the Ndwandwe matter and the so-called kwaMashu 3 which was Ntjale Villakase and Sibusiso?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: As well as Mr Pumezo Mcubini?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Mr du Preez on page 42 of the additional bundle, you have said that your memory is quite vague and in the introduction you said that these events took place over a long period and you were involved with several instances and there are no documents which you can refresh your memory by and base your memory on, is that correct?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And in your original application indeed you have said that the incident as to which you will give evidence, excuse me we will repeat that, but with regard to your application you said that you could not recall anything at that stage with regard to this incident.
MR DU PREEZ: It is more that I was confused with all the events.
MR VISSER: Yes, that is what I wanted to ask you. At that stage you were not certain as to which facts fitted in with which events?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.
MR VISSER: And you require that your evidence be elaborated by means of a document which was handed in. Can you please proceed with paragraph 3 on page 42, the additional bundle. Oh excuse me, maybe I should just ask you beforehand, during this incident you were stationed at Durban, is that correct?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Who was your Commanding Officer?
MR DU PREEZ: If I recall correctly, it was Botha.
MR VISSER: And that is what you said the previous time when you gave evidence?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.
MR VISSER: And which Commander was above him?
MR DU PREEZ: It was Col Taylor.
MR VISSER: What was your rank, Sir?
MR DU PREEZ: I think I was a Lieutenant or a Captain at that stage.
MR VISSER: And you are currently a Major?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.
MR VISSER: With which you retired from the Force?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Please continue from paragraph 2.
MR DU PREEZ: I think I will start at paragraph 3, we've already dealt with paragraph 2. It was arranged that Wasserman and I, ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Please excuse me, will you please start at paragraph 2?
MR DU PREEZ: I am only able to recall certain matters in this incident and I recall that Col Taylor called me on one day and requested me to go to a farm in the Elandskop area with W/O Wasserman. This farm, according to my knowledge, was used as a safe-house by Col Vorster.
It was arranged that Wasserman and I would meet Vorster in Pietermaritzburg and we followed him in our vehicle to the farm, where we arrived at dusk. On the farm we met Col Taylor and a black man. While the black man was left behind in the house, Col Taylor told Vorster, Wasserman and myself certain information outside the house. As far as I can recall, the information was to the effect that the man, Tekere was a trained terrorist and that he was a member of the ANC's Special Operations Unit. He was arrested while he was on his way to place an explosive device in the Durban area.
Col Taylor also informed us that he tried to recruit Tekere, but that he was not successful. Taylor was of the opinion that he could not release Tekere because he would disclose the identity of askaris to the ANC and that he would continue with his terrorist activities. He also did not have any evidence which he could use to have Tekere prosecuted. Col Taylor informed us that he consequently decided that Tekere had to be eliminated and he ordered Wasserman and I to carry out this order. From this information it became clear that Tekere was abducted and was detained unlawfully.
On the grounds of the following actions I associated myself with this. Vorster indicated a place to us in a plantation of pine trees close to the road which led to the garage. Wasserman and I dug a grave there with the spades which Vorster supplied to us. When we were done, we returned to the house where Tekere was informed that he would be moved to another place and he was blindfolded. I think Tekere was cuffed all the time, with his hands behind his back.
Wasserman and I walked Tekere down the road and at some point close to the grave, Wasserman hit Tekere over the head with a baton and he fell unconscious. After he fell on the ground, Wasserman shot him in the head and chest with a silenced Makarov pistol. We removed Tekere's clothing, placed him in the grave and closed the grave. Afterwards we went back to the house.
The clothing of Tekere was burned right there on the farm, if I recall correctly, a fire was made outside the house. Afterwards we returned back to Durban.
MR VISSER: And you say that the actions and omissions which were committed by you, were done in the execution of your official duty and you acted here in the instruction of a senior officer, whose instructions you were obliged to execute and this was in the opposition of the struggle to protect the government and the National Party's interest and to combat the revolutionary onslaught and you bona fide believed that you acted within your implicit or expressive authority?
CHAIRPERSON: You know there's a limit to way questions are put. You know, you don't make a statement to him, you put a question him. We've reached so far in this matter that at this stage that it can't prejudice anybody.
MR VISSER: Yes, I thought so Mr Chairman, but if you feel that I should lead it to the witness to say it out of his own each time, then I will gladly do so.
CHAIRPERSON: No, but I think that as far as crucial aspects of the evidence are concerned, let that come out of his own mouth.
MR VISSER: Yes, of course.
CHAIRPERSON: Rather than him saying yes or no, if you don't mind.
MR VISSER: Yes. Chairperson, do I understand you correctly to say that I can go a bit quicker over the issues pertaining to the past as I've just done?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, quite right, there's nothing wrong with that. We can understand because there has been a great deal of evidence that's already been led.
MR VISSER: Yes, I thought so, Chairperson, with respect, but as far as his evidence on the facts is concerned, I'd rather let him tell you that out of his own.
CHAIRPERSON: Quite right, for example the precise extent of his participation.
MR VISSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Must come from him.
MR VISSER: Yes, certainly, Chairperson. Thank you, Chairperson. If I may turn to page 41 Chairperson, we again refer to the question of the abduction. In our minds we're not entirely certain what the legal position is of a man who finds somebody and he comes to the conclusion in his own mind that the man must have been abducted and he associates himself with that.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don't know whether one can go to that extent.
MR VISSER: Well technically it might be argued by the Attorney-General that he therefore became associo criminus in the abduction itself. We're not entirely certain what the legal position might be but perhaps ex abundanti cautela, Chairperson, we should ask you to consider A on page 41 in the case of Vorster as well as this witness and Mr Wasserman, for what it might be worth, but clearly they realised that he was not in legal detention and therefore B would be relevant, C would also be relevant, as well as any other delict or offence committed and as shown by the facts. Mr Chairman, we notice it is now 5 past 11, we're not certain whether you want to take the tea adjournment now or continue with the next witness.
CHAIRPERSON: We'd like to dispose of this witness's evidence.
MR VISSER: Certainly, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel, any questions you wish to put?
MR NEL: I've got no questions, thank you Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, any cross-examination of this witness?
MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, I do.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: In your evidence Mr du Preez, you have indicated that Col Taylor informed you, Vorster and Wasserman outside about the deceased, M K Tekere, is that correct?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.
MS THABETHE: And you've also indicated that he informed you that he was called whilst on his way to place a bomb, is that correct?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.
MS THABETHE: Did he inform you whether he did find anything with him? Was he in possession of those bombs, or not?
MR DU PREEZ: No, I cannot recall. I understood it that he was active in Durban with the execution of operations of placing bombs.
MS THABETHE: No, what I'm trying to understand is, was he caught whilst he was on his way to place bombs? Was that what you were told or, I'm just trying to understand that feature of the evidence.
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, but I cannot recall whether he was specifically on his way with explosives in his possession. I cannot recall if Taylor told me that he had explosives in his possession at the time of his arrest.
MS THABETHE: And were you involved in any way in the interrogation of Mr Tekere?
MR DU PREEZ: No, not at all. I met Taylor at the farm there with him. I never interrogated Tekere.
MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE
MR LAX: Mr du Preez, do you have any idea when Taylor had arrested Tekere, or whether in fact Taylor himself even arrested Tekere?
MR DU PREEZ: I have no idea.
MR LAX: And your recollection is that it was the three of you that were told by Taylor about this man together, you were all present together.
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.
MR LAX: Now and your recollection of what you were told is as it's contained here and as you've testified? That this man was arrested on his way to place certain bombs, that's how you've put it in these - is that your recollection?
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR LAX: You see, what concerns me is that if a man was arrested on his way to place bombs, he'd presumably have the bombs with him that he was intending to place, there would presumably consequently therefore be some evidence upon which you could then charge him.
MR DU PREEZ: That's correct. At that stage I cannot recall whether Taylor told me that he found explosives in his possession, or I never saw any of those explosives, or I've never heard of the circumstances surrounding these explosives.
MR LAX: You see, I'm just trying to put myself in your position on that day, being told that information and what would not have made sense would have then been the statement, well there was no evidence to charge him. You don't recall having questioned that or being uncomfortable with that in any way?
MR DU PREEZ: No, Chairperson.
MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: In other words what it really boils down to here is that you were told by Taylor that this man was about to place bombs in Durban. That ought to have conveyed to you that this man was - had either committed an offence for being in possession of explosives, or was planning to commit an offence. He could be arrested and he could be charged. Now, if that were so, then your evidence that you couldn't release this man because there was no case against him, you couldn't make a case against him, presents me with some difficult, because there would be a case against him if he was found in possession of explosives, or he was caught while he was about to place a bomb somewhere in Durban. Now I understand your position. As far as you are concerned, your recollection is that this is what you were told and you didn't question it.
MR DU PREEZ: Correct, Chairperson, maybe I should answer in the following. I had the fullest confidence in Col Taylor and if he said that the man had to be eliminated, I had the fullest confidence that there was no other way and if there were alternatives to charge the man, he would have done so or he would have used that option.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Have you any questions?
ADV BOSMAN: Mr du Preez, the same point which was raised by my colleagues is my problem as well. On page 43 you say there he was arrested while he was on his way to place an explosive device in Durban. You do not qualify it as saying that he was unlawfully arrested and then later you say, because of the information that he was, you know that he was abducted and unlawfully detained. Are you not uncomfortable with this where you say he was arrested and then later you said that he was abducted, which contradicts arrest, are you not uncomfortable with this now?
MR DU PREEZ: With regard to the arrest, at the time of his arrest I don't know whether it was an arrest or an abduction. When I found the man at the farm and Taylor gave us the instruction to eliminate him, it was clear that it was an abduction.
ADV BOSMAN: But now ex post facto you say that he was arrested, why don't you say that he was abducted while he was on his way to place the explosive device? This is what bothers me because in this written statement you contradict yourself. Shall I put it to you, did you initially think that he was arrested?
MR DU PREEZ: I assumed that Taylor must have arrested the man and later this arrest turned into an abduction.
ADV BOSMAN: Why did you not say in your statement that he was abducted? Why did you say he was arrested?
MR DU PREEZ: It might just be a choice of words. When a policeman says that when a person is taken, he is arrested.
ADV BOSMAN: But you were a senior policeman and you retired with a senior rank from the police force, for a policeman there must be a great difference between arrest and abduction? Thank you. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?
MR VISSER: Yes, please, Mr Chairman.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: For you as a policeman, was there a difference between a lawful and an unlawful arrest?
MR DU PREEZ: Yes, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: An unlawful arrest and an abduction, what is the difference between the two?
MR DU PREEZ: I would say unlawful arrest would be abduction.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Any questions you wish to put arising out of all of this?
MS THABETHE: No, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Thank you very much.
We'll take the short adjournment at this stage and resume in 15 minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, in the adjournment Mr Nel indicated to us that he would ask you to allow him to ask some questions which he hadn't put to the witness, du Preez. Du Preez is still present and he's still under his former oath.
S G DU PREEZ: (s.u.o)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do proceed.
MR NEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Mr du Preez, what I would like to do is to put to you Col Taylor's role with regard to his work and also with regard to the persons under his command, just to clear it up for the Committee's sake. To begin with, when did you arrive at the Security Branch?
MR DU PREEZ: 1979, that is when I began at the Security Branch in Durban.
MR NEL: And when you arrived there was Col Taylor already at the branch?
MR DU PREEZ: Yes, for quite some time. I suspect that it may have been from approximately 1973 or 1975.
MR NEL: Am I correct in saying that initially you did not serve under him, but from your arrival he was already in control of the terrorism unit?
MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.
MR NEL: And for how long did you serve under his command in the same section?
MR DU PREEZ: Since 1980 or 81, I began working under his command.
MR NEL: And Col Taylor was, up to his discharge as medically unfit, in control of the terrorism unit?
MR DU PREEZ: In approximately 1990 or 1991, we went to Head Office in Durban and that is where we resided. Taylor was still involved with the askaris, but in 1990 or 1991 we went to Durban.
CHAIRPERSON: I didn't, it seemed a bit disjointed to me. What happened in 1990, 1991?
MR DU PREEZ: That is when I went to the Regional Office in Durban, I was transferred there.
CHAIRPERSON: I see. In other words you met Taylor for the first time once you came to Durban in 1990, 1991?
MR DU PREEZ: No, 1979.
CHAIRPERSON: 1979?
MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.
MR NEL: Now, during this period before you went to Head Office and worked directly under his command, who was the bearer of dossiers and the Chief Investigator of that section?
MR DU PREEZ: It was Col Taylor.
MR NEL: And what was the role of the other members under his command? Did you also carry files, or what was your task?
MR DU PREEZ: We were field workers and we also assisted with investigations or rumours.
CHAIRPERSON: May I just interrupt at this stage? May I ask you, what is the purpose of all this questioning?
MR NEL: Mr Chairman, I just wanted to enlighten the Committee as to what sort of a person Mr Taylor was.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think I'm going to allow that. We are concerned with the amnesty application by people who have applied before us. We are not going to pass judgment on Mr Taylor, we're not going to make an assessment on Mr Taylor's achievements or demerits. Do you understand?
MR NEL: I understand, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: We've got to confine ourselves to the applicants for amnesty and what they did. We have accepted the information placed before us, that they all accepted orders from Col Taylor.
MR NEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I was merely trying to try and enlighten the acceptance of an order from for instance Mr du Preez from Col Taylor.
CHAIRPERSON: We accept that, you see. We haven't questioned anybody when they said that they'd accepted instructions from Col Taylor because of his seniority and we have accepted that.
MR NEL: Very well then, thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Your questioning of this witness doesn't go beyond just trying to establish?
MR NEL: No, it does not, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, thank you. Well then you're excused.
MR DU PREEZ: Thank you Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
