Amnesty Hearings

GARY LEON POLLOCK: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Pollock, you are the applicant for amnesty in several matters. Now these are all contained in volume 1 from page 59 onwards to page 70. Now this application is in terms of Act 34 of 1995 and a form was signed by yourself on the 3rd of July 1996 at Boksburg Prison, is that correct?

MR POLLOCK: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now we'll deal with your incarceration a bit later. Mr Chairman I believe that we're only going to deal with one aspect today and that is on page 65(iv), the Barbara Hogan matter, that is our understanding, so I'm only going to lead Mr Pollock a bit in general for background and then I'm only going to deal with that aspect. Mr Pollock before we turn to the specific incident regarding Barbara Hogan, I would just like you to give a short background to the Committee, personal background. It is actually contained in your statement as from page 62 volume 1. If you could just briefly deal with that. You're a South African citizen. You state there that you grew up in Johannesburg and you matriculated here, correct, 1979?

MR POLLOCK: That is correct, yes.

MR BIZOS: Chairman, may I put something on record which may be of assistance to the applicant and my Learned Friend, that we have instructions not to oppose this application, Mr Chairman, so that it can be dealt with more speedily than would otherwise have been necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Bizos. Fine. Now Mr Pollock let's just get straight to the point where you joined the South African Police Force in 84 and subsequently you resigned and re-joined in 1987, is that correct?

MR POLLOCK: Actually I joined in 1980 and I left in 1984, January 84 and then I was recruited in May 87.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is when you joined the Security Branch, Johannesburg Police?

MR POLLOCK: That's right.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now I would just like you to then sketch briefly your career in the Security Police and then get up to the stage when the Barbara Hogan incident actually took place. You don't have a specific date here, but I believe it was in 1992.

MR POLLOCK: Ja.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now just take us very briefly through your career with the Security Police.

MR POLLOCK: As I say, I was recruited in 1987. I went to a unit called I.J., Intelligence Johannesburg, which was the Intelligence Division, a division of Intelligence of the Security Branch. It was a surveillance unit, seconded from the John Vorster Square. I spent almost a year there and from there I was sent to Alexandra Security Branch which fell under John Vorster Square where I was a general field worker and I also recruited and handled informers and I was there until 1992, whereupon I asked for a transfer to the Durban Security Branch and I was transferred in January 1993 to the Durban Security Branch.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes and you were employed at the Durban Security Branch until your arrest on certain charges of possession of automatic firearms, is that correct?

MR POLLOCK: That is correct. I was arrested on the 11th of June 1993.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you were subsequently convicted and sentenced to six years imprisonment.

MR POLLOCK: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Of which you served four months imprisonment.

MR POLLOCK: That's right.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you were then released.

MR POLLOCK: I was released.

MR DU PLESSIS: Fine. Now you've mentioned that at Alexandra Security Branch you were handling several informers, is that correct?

MR POLLOCK: Yes, I recruited up to 30, sometimes 40 informers and handled them, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now you have dealt in your application with several incidents, some of them happened before February 1990, when the so-called new dispensation was announced or at least Mr de Klerk indicated a complete change of policy and then after February 1990, you were also involved in certain incidents, one of which there is the Barbara Hogan incident where you set her vehicle alight. Is that correct?

MR POLLOCK: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now let's deal with the situation then. We will not then be dealing at this stage with the situation before February 1990. After February 1990, why were the Security Police, or was the Security Police section then still involved in this kind of conduct?

MR POLLOCK: What transpired was, the Pretoria Minute and the Groote Schuur second was established and it was then agreed that hostilities would cease, both on the side of the Security Branch and the Security Forces as well as the ANC. We were no longer supposed to recruit informers and carry on working as we did before and neither were the ANC supposed to recruit and arm youths at the township any more. This caused great concern and great confusion amongst the Security Branch members and at that time three Generals, Gen le Roux, Gen Engelbrecht and Gen Basie Smit came and spoke to 14 of our members at Alexandra and assured us that our tasks were still the same and that they needed a lot of leverage in the negotiating process at CODESA, so we were to step up our activities to assist them in this end.

MR DU PLESSIS: How would that now come to fruition? How would they get any benefit from that?

MR POLLOCK: Well they'd create an environment of instability. It was a classic divide and rule structure where they made opponents of the ANC, for example INKATHA Freedom Party. We must continue stirring the pot and make sure that the violence just kept on going, thereby the ANC would lose credibility. They would be termed just another terrorist organisation, as they were trying to remove or move from a terrorist organisation to a political party, so it was seen.

MR DU PLESSIS: And black unity would also at that stage then be countered?

MR POLLOCK: Yes, well you know the more you could divide the leftists, the stronger your position would be as a white government.

MR DU PLESSIS: And these things were set out to you by the generals whom you mentioned?

MR POLLOCK: Yes, that's right.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now let's then straight away move to the Barbara Hogan incident. What happened there? Why did you get involved in this situation where the vehicle was set alight?

MR POLLOCK: Well when I was working at I.J., we never used to call them suspects, we called them subjects. Barbara Hogan was one of our subjects. It was widely believed that she was a very prominent member of the underground structures of the ANC and she was involved in Operation VULA, to some extent, so I'd heard of her name before and I knew that she was - I didn't know whether she was MK trained, but I knew she was involved in underground structures and one night I was asked to remain after work by my Commanding Officer.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was he?

MR POLLOCK: Col van Huyssteen and I remained, we remained after work and well there were two incidents, the one incident is noted there in (3), but specifically Barbara Hogan. Ja we got addresses, we went after ...(indistinct) he got addresses out of his car and he decided that we should go and target Barbara Hogan. We climbed in the car and we drove to her house. I didn't know where it was, he knew where it was. We drove to her house in Yeoville and there was a Toyota vehicle in the driveway and we torched it, we set it alight.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you in fact told that that vehicle belonged to Barbara Hogan?

MR POLLOCK: Yes, I was under the impression that it was hers.

MR DU PLESSIS: This wasn't your own information?

MR POLLOCK: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: How many people were involved from the Security Branch?

MR POLLOCK: There were four of us.

MR DU PLESSIS: You actually described the situation where, on page 65 of your application, volume 1 (iii) where you were involved in another incident and from there you moved to Barbara Hogan's premises and then the car was set alight, is that correct?

MR POLLOCK: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now did you consider this also as a political incident?

MR POLLOCK: Ja, well Barbara Hogan was thought of, as I did and many others, that she was a terrorist and she was involved in the underground struggle, so she was a legitimate target in our minds.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall Mr Pollock more or less when this occurred, the date?

MR POLLOCK: It's very hard, it was sometime in 92 I think.

CHAIRPERSON: Some time in 1992.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now you have then already mentioned your political views at this stage. I'm not going to deal at length with that. You were obviously a supporter of the old dispensation, even before February 1990, is that correct?

MR POLLOCK: That's true, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Believing that the sovereignty of the white state had to be protected, is that correct?

MR POLLOCK: Absolutely.

MR DU PLESSIS: And after February 1990, you were of the view that the new dispensation had to be as favourable to people from the old dispensation who were then in power as possible, is that correct?

MR POLLOCK: That's true.

MR DU PLESSIS: And because of all that, you committed these crimes?

MR POLLOCK: That's right.

MR DU PLESSIS: Just perhaps to round off. Today you're still living in South Africa. In what business are you?

MR POLLOCK: In the plant hire business.

MR DU PLESSIS: Your own business?

MR POLLOCK: It's my own business, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And as far as the new democratic dispensation is concerned, do you support it?

MR POLLOCK: Yes, it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be all those years back. With hindsight we can see that.

MR DU PLESSIS: And how do you feel about the incidents you were involved in as listed in your ...

MR POLLOCK: Well, I'm very disgusted in my role in all of this. As Paul said, you know, these young minds, impressionable minds, I must say I worked in a township where I saw the revolution first hand and that helped me to - it spurred me on to doing most of these things, but I'm a different person, I've changed my point of view. Even if you differ with somebody it doesn't mean to say you've got to go out and lynch them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, Members ...

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr du Plessis. Mr McAslin, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr du Plessis?

MR McASLIN: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR McASLIN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, do you have any questions you'd like to put?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BIZOS: Mr Pollock, you were in the Security Police in the 90's?

MR POLLOCK: In 87 to 92, yes, 93 rather.

MR BIZOS: Up to what date in 93?

MR POLLOCK: The 11th of June 93.

MR BIZOS: During that period, in the early 90's, many innocent people were killed on the trains, at taxi ranks, by men with balaclavas and with automatic weapons. Now being in the Security Police, was it a concern of the Security Police to discover who was responsible for that violence?

MR POLLOCK: Yes, we were actually involved in investigations especially in the taxi violence where, near the end of my tenor at Alexandra, we were in the process of recruiting informers within the taxi structures, to stop that violence, yes.

MR BIZOS: And what about the indiscriminate ...(indistinct) of killing innocent people on the trains, was that ever investigated by the Security Police?

MR POLLOCK: You see, I was at Alexandra Branch, so that would have fallen under John Vorster Square. I was seconded to Alexandra and we kept ourselves generally busy with Alexandra things, but I would imagine, I would imagine that they did, but not to my knowledge.

MR BIZOS: Did you ever come across any information as to who might be responsible for that violence?

MR POLLOCK: I never had information. I had my suspicions but never information, no.

MR BIZOS: Well once you speak of suspicion, your job was to destabilise the country, in order to show that what was called the possible new dispensation, would not be able to rule the country. These people committing these acts of violence were not caught, therefore not prosecuted and there was fear among people to use the trains. Did that fit in with your purposes, destabilisation purposes? Did you think that it was parallel to your own function?

MR POLLOCK: Yes I would.

MR BIZOS: Were there discussions amongst yourselves? After all the Security Police were responsible for protecting the public at large. Were there discussions among yourselves what was happening to so many innocent people on the trains, at the taxi ranks?

MR POLLOCK: Yes, well as I said, especially the taxi ranks, there was discussion amongst us where plans were underfoot at the time that I left to start recruiting people amongst the taxi organisations to address that. As I said, the trains were a different story. There wasn't a station near Alex, so I can't speak for the trains, but certainly amongst the taxis.

MR BIZOS: Trains don't go to Alexandra?

MR POLLOCK: There wasn't a station near there.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now, you were under the orders of the Generals to destabilise the country. Public statements were made by political leaders that there was no third force, that this violence was unrelated to the Government structures. Did you believe those assertions to be true or false?

MR POLLOCK: They were absolutely false. The third force was made up of different people from different organisations. The third force was made up of Security Branch members, of ANC members, of PAC members. It was - that's just the way it was. It was, people were doing perpetrations of violence and things like that and they were blaming this common pool called the third force, so the third force, yes, existed in all of our organisations.

MR BIZOS: Who was paying the bill for that third force?

MR POLLOCK: Well on the part of our side it was the National Party.

MR BIZOS: The National Party or the taxpayers?

MR POLLOCK: The taxpayers eventually, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say the National Party you mean the Government?

MR POLLOCK: The Government, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And/or.

MR POLLOCK: And/or yes.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Now where was this meeting where the Generals gave you these instructions?

MR POLLOCK: It was in our offices at 11th Avenue.

MR BIZOS: Alexandra township?

MR POLLOCK: Just outside the township.

MR BIZOS: What were the ranks of the three senior police officers?

MR POLLOCK: They were all three Generals. I don't know if they were Major Generals or Lieutenant Generals.

MR BIZOS: Just let's have their names again for the sake of clarity.

MR POLLOCK: Krappies Engelbrecht.

MR BIZOS: Krappies Engelbrecht, yes.

MR POLLOCK: Le Roux, that is Johan le Roux and Basie Smit.

MR BIZOS: Yes. Did any of those three Generals have a high profile at the negotiations at CODESA, do you know?

MR POLLOCK: I'm not sure, I can't say for certain. I would imagine, well they told us that they were giving input there, so I wouldn't know what their actual roles were ...(indistinct)

MR BIZOS: Your personal attitude as a result of those instructions, were you in favour of an election taking place, or against it?

MR POLLOCK: At that time I was against it. They were talking about a single voter's roll and obviously we were in a position, we thought that you know obviously if there's an election we're going to lose it and we'll just be overrun by the Communists.

MR BIZOS: And were your activities and the third force activities that you knew or expected to exist, calculated in order to prevent a successful election?

MR POLLOCK: Yes, I think so.

MR BIZOS: Didn't it appear strange to you that three Generals had come to how many of you?

MR POLLOCK: Fourteen of us.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that at your offices in Alexandra?

MR POLLOCK: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: They made a visit to the Security Branch.

MR POLLOCK: Ja, it was pretty strange, I must say.

MR BIZOS: Do you remember the names of the other thirteen people to whom this was said?

MR POLLOCK: Yes, most of them.

MR BIZOS: Please put them on record.

MR POLLOCK: It was my Commanding Officer, I think it was Capt Britz.

MR BIZOS: Who was your Commanding Officer, Captain Britz?

MR POLLOCK: Captain Britz.

MR BIZOS: Yes.

MR POLLOCK: It was Col van Huyssteen, it was myself, it was Sgt Cronje, Sgt Roe, Sgt Alwood, it was everybody that was seconded to Alexandra at that time.

MR BIZOS: In the Security Police. What was it that they have to believe that you would respect the confidentiality of the things that they were telling you?

MR POLLOCK: Well by me, eventually the fact that they asked us to do things which would appear to normal people to be unlawful. They had our allegiance, they knew it, we were totally loyal towards them.

MR BIZOS: What sort of crimes did they expect you to commit?

MR POLLOCK: Well those that I've set out in my amnesty application, that kind of thing.

MR BIZOS: Damage to property?

MR POLLOCK: Yes.

MR BIZOS: Kill people?

MR POLLOCK: I suppose so.

MR BIZOS: Why do you suppose so?

MR POLLOCK: Well I wasn't asked specifically to kill anybody, but I'm sure people died, we heard about Mr Aggett, I don't know how that happened.

MR BIZOS: Yes, but that was before this time. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BIZOS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos. Ms Patel, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Pollock?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. Just one aspect I'd like clarity on.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Can you put a date to the time when the three Generals came to Alex, more or less?

MR POLLOCK: That's hard. I have a bad memory. what had happened was, maybe in that light, just after the signing of the Accord,

MS PATEL: The Groote Schuur Accord?

MR POLLOCK: The Groote Schuur Accord.

MS PATEL: Okay.

MR POLLOCK: There was a lot of concern amongst us because we had to change our whole way of working and a lot of the Security Branch members went for psychiatric help and there were some attempted suicides and things like that amongst us and they came out specifically to talk to us, to reassure us, so it was just within a few months, or weeks actually, after that singing of that Accord.

MS PATEL: Okay. And in respect of Gen Krappies Engelbrecht specifically, are you absolutely certain that he was aware of your unlawful activities at the time, or is this something that you infer?

MR POLLOCK: By mere virtue of the fact that he was in the Security Branch, they have to have known. We learned from them.

MS PATEL: Okay. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel. Do you have any re-examination, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Nothing thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Bosman, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr Pollock?

ADV BOSMAN: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Sibanyoni?

MR SIBANYONI: I've got no questions, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pollock, all these other matters in your application, is this your first hearing you've attended, amnesty hearing?

MR POLLOCK: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you Mr Pollock, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Are any witnesses going to be called, besides the applicant?

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Chairman, not from Mr Pollock's side.

MR McASLIN: And neither from Mr Erasmus's side.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bizos, any witnesses?

MR BIZOS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: No thank you Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that then concludes the leading of evidence at this hearing. It's now just for submissions to be made. Mr McAslin are you in a position to start?

MR McASLIN: I am in a position to start Mr Chairman. I'm not certain what time the Committee breaks.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you can start. It's twenty to eleven now, so it's not yet tea time.

MR McASLIN: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR BIZOS: May I indicate, in order to facilitate the proceedings, that we are under specific instructions not to oppose the application for amnesty for Mr Erasmus either. I am particularly instructed by Dr Liz Floyd who is here and who is actually, has participated in the effect of the violence and the sort of contact in her professional capacity, that it is her view that the Commission and the amnesty process was actually enacted for the very purpose of people to speak in the manner in which we have heard these two applicants speak this morning and we are under instructions not to oppose the granting of the amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Bizos. We appreciate the attitude. Mr McAslin, you need be brief. I think perhaps just one point which we probably have to deal with, the question of personal gain and the taking of goods. With regard to full disclosure, I don't think we need to be convinced on that and also with regard to, generally speaking, the political objective of the actions, we don't have to be persuaded by that. It's just - we'd just like to hear you on the one aspect, we're not saying it's necessarily fatal to the application, but we'd like to hear you on the question of personal gain.

MR McASLIN IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have prepared a full argument with full submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: If you want to state them, please do so, we don't want to have made you work for nothing.

MR McASLIN: No Mr Chairman, I'll take guidance from your words now and I'll address you only on the issue of personal gain.

Mr Chairman, the evidence displays quite clearly that Mr Erasmus had been a member of the Security Branch for a few days only, when he was approached by his Commanding Officer at that time, Col Jordaan and it was explained to him that in addition to his ordinary office tasks, which was to do during office hours, it was expected of him to work after hours and the work entailed the harassment and tormenting of persons perceived to be political opponents. It's also understood from Mr Erasmus's evidence, that there was no added remuneration in regard to these activities. Mr Erasmus testified that his salary throughout was really quite little. No remuneration was received for this after hours service.

The Committee has also heard Mr Erasmus saying that on occasion they would go on what he terms stationery raids, that during these raids photocopiers, telephones etc., would be stolen from various entities and these very photocopiers and other equipment would then be used in the everyday activities as members of the Security Police. Mr Chairman, you also heard Mr Erasmus use the term "untouchables". That was the free range and the scope of authority which these persons had. Almost anything was acceptable and it brings me to my submission, Mr Chairman, on the issue of personal gain. Given the facts outlined now, I submit Mr Chairman, it does not take a quantum leap for any of these members to have justified in their own minds that they were indeed untouchable, that they could operate with absolute impunity and that if a member happened to see an item which he liked, in Mr Erasmus's case a tent, perhaps we don't know what went through his mind, he thought: "Well I don't have a tent, I want a tent", he knew that that was okay in so far as his superior officers were concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: And also it's come across that when they went to do these raids, it wasn't - the prime intention wasn't to steal stuff, but to intimidate, sort of a by product of the raid was the taking of loot.

MR McASLIN: That's entirely correct, Mr Chairman, it was fortuitous pilfering, if I can put it as high as that.

But Mr Chairman, in conclusion, on that point, if I can just refer to my notes, Mr Erasmus in his testimony made that abundantly clear that his motivation in all of this was always to counter the perceived political struggle which was raging at the time and if I may use Mr Erasmus' words, it was never for personal enrichment.

Mr Chairperson, whilst these acts did take place, it was never the sole purpose, it was done under or at least with the approval and the sanctioning of superior officers and it was by virtue of the circumstances, justified in the minds of each member.

Mr Chairman, I'm not certain whether you would want me to address the Committee on anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: No, thank you Mr McAslin. Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS IN ARGUMENT: I'm just going to submit with respect that Mr Pollock's application complies with the requirements of the Act. It is clearly a politically motivated crime and I'm submitting that he made full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems that incident of the motor vehicle, he was acting under direct orders as well.

MR DU PLESSIS: Direct orders, yes, of his Commanding Officer. So unless there is anything further, I'm not going to burden the record any further.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it's very straight-forward, thank you Mr Du Plessis. Mr Bizos, I don't know if you want to say anything ...

MR BIZOS: We do not wish to add anything, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms Patel.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

MS PATEL IN ARGUMENT: Just perhaps in respect of the question of personal gain. My respectful submission is that Mr Erasmus cannot qualify or does not qualify for amnesty in respect of the theft of the goods, because they cannot be linked, or my submission is that he hasn't made out a case that the theft is linked to a political motive, Honourable Chairperson, as prescribed in the Act. However, in respect of the other offences that he has applied for, I have no submissions in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: So what are you saying Ms Patel, that, let's for instance take the case where there's been a raid on a house. They go to the house of an activist with the intention of intimidating, harassing etc and in so doing, they also steal some goods, steal a clock or whatever. Are you saying that that whole incident should be discounted because of the fact that stuff was stolen, or are you just saying the actual theft?

MS PATEL: No I'm limiting my submission to the actual theft.

CHAIRPERSON: But the raid on the house, the other unlawful activity, the intimidation and the trespassing, whatever it is, the breaking of a window.

MS PATEL: Yes, my submission is that that would comply with the requirements of the Act, but not the theft itself.

CHAIRPERSON: Just the actual ...(indistinct)

ADV BOSMAN: Ms Patel in the so-called stationary raids, where the articles were taken for use by the Security Police, surely that would fall within a political objective, what are you views on that? Should one not distinguish those articles that were taken for personal use and articles such as the clock and the tent which are still in the possession of the applicant, but not the computers and technical stuff that was used?

MS PATEL: Yes certainly I should have drawn the distinction between the articles that were then taken, as you have described them and articles such as the tent, etc., that were taken home and perhaps used and are still in their possession.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you get a sort of shady area like a cheque book which was stolen but the cheques were then forged, but with the intention of discrediting the owner of the cheque book.

MS PATEL: My submission is specifically in regard to items that were stolen for personal use, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McAslin, do you have any reply to what Ms Patel has said?

MR McASLIN IN REPLY: Just a brief reply, Mr Chairman and it picks up from what you yourself said, Mr Chairman. These raids during which various items were taken, were primarily conducted with political objectives and each member who participated in that raid was fully aware that almost anything would go, anything was acceptable. Mr Chairman, the Committee has heard of the harassment policy, which had various political objectives and in that respect too it was accepted that anything would be tolerated. If you could achieve the objective through whatever means, including the theft of the pot plant and later phoning the person and saying I know where you pot plant is, then that was, even though you yourself had the pot plant in your possession,

CHAIRPERSON: So you're saying, yes, that the taking of the tent, the pot plant, the clock, wasn't just solely for personal gain, but also had the effect of irritating whatever the victim.

MR McASLIN: That is my submission. It is, I think ...

CHAIRPERSON: Inconveniencing the victim.

MR McASLIN: Mr Chairman I submit that it can be properly explained with regards to what Mr Erasmus said: "The so-called big brother is watching you" and to impress upon these persons that big brother could get to any aspect of your life, no matter how personal you thought it was and in that regard Mr Chairperson, I would submit that there was indeed always a political objective. Thank you Mr Chairman.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr McAslin, surely if it was simply intended to intimidate, or to be of some nuisance value, items such as those, if they had no use for it at the Security Police offices, could have been dumped somewhere. Doesn't this sort of, I would almost say second appropriation for personal use make a difference?

MR McASLIN: I would submit not, Mr Chairperson, as I intimated earlier. It doesn't take a quantum leap to justify in your own mind that this is just reward for what you are doing. If you're not going to be paid by the institution that's instructing you to do this, then you're going to see remuneration in whatever form you can obtain it and so long as the superior officers were not adverse to this form or to these acts, as I stated earlier Mr Chairman, I don't think it's a quantum leap to justify in one's own mind. Whether it can objectively be seen as an act of theft, is an entirely different argument, but whether each member subjectively believed that he was committing the act of theft, my submission is that it can be doubted.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr McAslin. We will be reserving our decision in this as it's our policy to hand down written decisions. The decision will not be long in coming out. We're getting very close towards the end of the process now so we have to have the decision out in the near future.

I would like to thank the legal representatives for their assistance in this matter. Thank you very much. This is now the end of our role. The other matter has been postponed.

MS PATEL: That is so, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I would therefore like to thank the owners of this very convenient venue once again for making it available to us. To all the people who made these hearings possible, the camera men, the interpreters for their hard work, the Security people, Joe Jafta our logistics officer, Molly my secretary, thank you very much indeed. If I've left out any names, it hasn't been intentional. Thank you very much. We will now adjourn and as I say, that decision won't be long in forthcoming. Thank you.

HEARING ADJOURNS