Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, can I interrupt and just ask, can you just indicate to us in what order you’ll be dealing with these applicants because we read one thing in the evening and the next day we start jumping.

ADV BOOYENS: My apologies Mr Chairman, I should have told you a long time ago.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, not only you, I just mean everybody should tell us the order in which you are going to deal with this thing, if there is such an agreement.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, as reached between the legal representatives as I understand it, will be Lotz, Snyman ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just minute - yes, Lotz, Snyman?

ADV BOOYENS: Lotz, Snyman and Niewoudt will be the next three.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, those are your clients?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, then I will be finished hopefully Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and thereafter, do we know already or we will decide then?

ADV LAMEY: No, Mr Chairman, thereafter my client will give evidence and then ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Is that Mr Beeslaar?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Beeslaar and then Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole thereafter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much.

ADV BOOYENS: May I proceed Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: I call Mr Lotz.

ADV DE JAGER: Your full names?

MR LOTZ: Gerhardus Johannes Lotz.

GERHARDUS JOHANNES LOTZ: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: Mr Lotz, you are an applicant in this application, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you have the Annexure to your application for amnesty in front of you?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm the correctness of page 1?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm the information given on page 2?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And on page 3?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Just briefly, which has not been given quite fully, is the - what did you keep yourself busy with during the days in ‘84/’85 when you served as member of the security branch in Port Elizabeth?

MR LOTZ: The identification of exiles, persons who left the country.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you aware of the organisation Pebco?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I knew of them.

ADV BOOYENS: Let us talk about what you established personally in your own investigation, did you ascribe any specific role to them?

MR LOTZ: All that I can say is, many of the persons who left the country were either members of Pebco and PACO and that type of organisation.

ADV BOOYENS: From what was said at briefings or what you discussed with your colleagues, what was the impression that you had regarding the activities of Pebco - in a broader sense?

MR LOTZ: They were for more the general Black population in the townships.

ADV BOOYENS: According to what you were told, did they play any role in the general unrest that took place?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: How important was this role?

MR LOTZ: At one stage by means of the consumer boycotts, the rent boycotts and the unrest which was taking place and this was primarily started or caused by them to revolt against the Government of the day.

INTERPRETER: The speaker cannot hear.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you know the Pebco 3 as they are now known?

MR LOTZ: I did not know them personally but I knew a bit about them.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you know their names and their activities?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You are now applying for deeds and neglects which arise from the abduction and murder of these three people?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: On the 8th of May ‘85, you were approached by Mr van Zyl and given orders to form part of a group which would assist in doing an operation?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Did van Zyl tell you that it meant that some of these people had to be eliminated?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Did he explain to you why it was necessary that these people had to be eliminated?

MR LOTZ: He told me briefly that all other attempts to curb the unrest had failed and that this would be the only solution to save the situation.

ADV BOOYENS: You as a policemen who worked at grassroots level, what was your impression regarding the situation at that stage?

MR LOTZ: If I can put it - it was very close to anarchy and total chaos, petrol bombs, the burning of vehicles, attacks on policemen and their houses and these happened on a daily basis.

ADV BOOYENS: How effective was your policing?

MR LOTZ: Not effective at all, we couldn’t police as we did previously.

ADV BOOYENS: Let’s take ‘84 to ‘85, did they situation improve or not?

MR LOTZ: No, it did not, there was more anarchy and things just got worst.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you informed that the operation was authorised by a higher authority?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct. He said that it came from the top, that means a higher authority - who that was exactly I do not know.

ADV BOOYENS: You accepted it?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: At that stage you were a Sergeant?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: How old were you?

MR LOTZ: 24.

ADV BOOYENS: After this was told to you and taking into account your own background knowledge, were you satisfied that you could participate in this operation?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you satisfied that for political purposes it was essential that this operation be carried out?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: As far as you were concerned, was there any other motive other than the political activities to stop these political activities?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV BOOYENS: You were furthermore told that Roelf Venter and the Askaris were here?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: What instruction did you get then, what did you have to do?

MR LOTZ: I had to go to Glenconnor to pick up the Askaris there and then I had to take them through to Walmer to the township or the residential area there that was near the airport.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you drive to Glenconnor?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: With whose vehicle?

MR LOTZ: I’m speaking under correction but I think it was with du Plessis’s.

ADV BOOYENS: Did it belong to the security branch or Vlakplaas?

MR LOTZ: I think it was a vehicle from Vlakplaas.

ADV BOOYENS: Did it have tinted windows or not?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it did.

ADV BOOYENS: You then left for Glenconnor, were you told which Askaris you had to bring? Did you have any names or had they been contacted and told to be ready?

MR LOTZ: I’m speaking under correction, I think I did have the names and I did pick up the people there - the ones I was supposed to.

ADV BOOYENS: How many did you fetch there?

MR LOTZ: I’m speaking under correction, it was two or three, I’m not quite sure.

ADV BOOYENS: You picked them up and moved towards the airport?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And you waited outside the airport at Walmer?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You had a radio with you - a portable radio?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: What was explained to you, what did the Askaris have to do?

MR LOTZ: Their primary purpose was to intercept these people at the airport and to place them in the Kombi.

MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, may I just come in here. We would like to object on behalf of the families, we feel that the witness is being led and he should really be speaking from the heart and I don’t think it’s proper for him to be led to the extent that he is led.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, if I ask the man a question, what are you supposed to do at the airport and he gives the answer, I would like my learned friend to illustrate how that’s eluding question.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there a particular question that you’re unhappy with?

MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, we’re unhappy with the manner in which he’s being led, it’s been put to him that he had gone to the airport and I think there’s too much leading going on and he should just testify as to the salient features - he knows what they are.

CHAIRPERSON: There are certain facts which are not common cause, sorry, there are certain facts which are common cause, don’t you think that on such facts which are common cause he can put as it were leading questions to a witness.

MS HARTLE: In respect of those facts which are common cause, we have no objection but generally everything is being put to the witness as to what should follow.

CHAIRPERSON: I suppose Mr Booyens will bear in mind facts which are in dispute and not ask leading questions on that.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman, I was under the impression - perhaps wrongly so, that it’s common cause that these people went to the airport but perhaps I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I missed a great lot of what you’ve been saying because I was trying to move over from the one channel to the other.

ADV BOOYENS: I beg your pardon Mr Chairman, I was just under the impression that facts like going to the airport and so at this early stage is indeed common cause but if they’re not very well, I don’t mind.

MR NYOKA: Can I add Mr Chairman, what is wrong if a witness is asked: "What do you know about this incident", then he elaborates because he is under oath. Right through he is led from beginning to end, he must testify on his own - there’s nothing wrong about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that can be done but there is a way in which hearings should also be expedited, I mean if he’s asking leading questions on - supposedly leading question on points which are common cause, I don’t see any problem with that. I mean we can’t come in here and just sit and put every witness and say: "Tell us what happened" and sit back.

The witness must be guided towards relevant things because if you don’t guide a witness to say relevant things, we will sit here and the witness will just start telling us things which are not relevant - that’s what leading a witness means Mr Nyoka.

MR NYOKA: What surprises me Mr Chairman, is that everything is common cause from beginning to end and that’s very, very surprising and strange to me.

CHAIRPERSON: I thin you people are entitled to object to question which you feel are leading questions but certainly witnesses should be guided so as not to come and tell us - give us irrelevant information but you are perfectly entitled to raise an objection if a leading question is being asked.

MR NYOKA: I wish to register my objection strenuously, this is leading question that has been the trend with other witnesses.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I would like to deal with the objection if my learned friend can tell me which leading question is he objecting to.

MR NYOKA: I’ve not memorised them from the beginning up to this stage, I’ve not memorised listening to your witness and to you.

ADV BOOYENS: Can we stop this bickering and continue with the matter Mr Chairman?

ADV DE JAGER: I think we really - in other cases before this Commission witnesses were allowed to look at their affidavits, even their legal representatives read out the whole statement, like for instance in the St James’s Church and Amy Biel’s cases. Their whole statements were read out and at the end it was confirmed and then there was an opportunity given for cross-examination.

We’ve tried to expedite matters because as you know we’ve got a lot of matters to be heard but it could even be that a witness must now come in say: "Here’s my application, I confirm what’s on the affidavit" and leave it at that and then you’ll be allowed to cross-examine. But I think it’s in the interest - we’ve decided, it’s in the interest of the people listening that at least a short resume should be give publicly by the applicant. He can’t only say: "I confirm" because they haven’t got the documentation before them.

But I really think if we’re going to allow witnesses to carry on on their own - we had the experience, we’ll be here for months it may be. But let’s try and see whether we could reach an agreement on exactly how it should be done and Mr Booyens keeping that in mind proceed as professionally as is required from an advocate to do and I’m sure you’ll have the appreciation of your colleagues on this side.

ADV BOOYENS: Certainly Mr Chairman. I think before the objection was raised, you were at the airport?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: What happened at the airport?

MR LOTZ: If I take it from Walmer, we received a radio report that the persons had approached in a bakkie, we moved the Kombi into the terrain of the airport and parked in the parking area near the departure hall. I think shortly thereafter the bakkie arrived, they parked and the Askaris got out of the vehicle, moved towards the bakkie ...[intervention]

ADV BOOYENS: I’m sorry for intervening. You say that they got out of the vehicle, did they all get out? What was the position?

MR LOTZ: I’m speaking under correction, I think firstly two got out and thereafter the third.

ADV BOOYENS: You say that the Askaris moved to the vehicle, what happened then?

MR LOTZ: They met them there - if one can put it that way, they brought them to the Kombi, got into the Kombi and we then left the airport to a little veld road just outside the airport where we met van Zyl and Niewoudt - I’m speaking under correction.

ADV BOOYENS: At that stage, were you still in the Kombi?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: The Askaris came back as well as the three people they brought with them?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Was there any struggle, how did they bring these people - just explain to us.

MR LOTZ: They merely walked with these people to the Kombi and they got into the Kombi and we left.

ADV BOOYENS: So, the other three people got into the Kombi without any struggle, no force was used?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV BOOYENS: You then left for a little path in the field near the airport?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: There you met other members of the security branch?MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Was the vehicle in which they arrived at the airport, was it also brought there?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct. I’m speaking under correction, I think it was Lieutenant Niewoudt who brought the vehicle there, I’m not quite sure.

ADV BOOYENS: Thereafter did you and Captain van Zyl depart, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV BOOYENS: The vehicle arrived, you were at the vehicle - I’m just trying to shorten this a bit, you spent a while at the vehicle. Did some of the members of the security branch leave?

MR LOTZ: Captain van Zyl left in his vehicle and the Askaris left in the Kombi with him.

ADV BOOYENS: Were the three deceased still in the Kombi?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: What happened to the vehicle - that was the vehicle of the deceased?

MR LOTZ: Lieutenant Niewoudt at that stage got into the vehicle, we were told to burn it out - I’m talking under correction, I think it was Captain van Zyl who said this. We then left, I drove Captain Niewoudt’s vehicle and he drove the bakkie to Kwazakele township.

ADV BOOYENS: Was there a reason why this vehicle had to be burnt?

MR LOTZ: I’m speaking under correction, it was mechanically not sound.

ADV BOOYENS: You did not drive it yourself?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV BOOYENS: You then went to the rubbish dump at Kwazakele, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: What happened there?

MR LOTZ: The vehicle was set alight, I think the petrol pipe was cut off and the petrol could run out freely and then it was set alight.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you and Niewoudt then leave for Post Chalmers?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you alone in the vehicle?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: What time did you reach Post Chalmers?

MR LOTZ: I’m speaking under correction, it could have been at 11 o’clock that evening or more or less in that vicinity.

ADV BOOYENS: It was late in the evening?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Where were the Pebco 3 when you arrived there?

MR LOTZ: I’m speaking under correction, I think they were in the house - I’m not sure exactly where they were.

ADV BOOYENS: What if anything, happened there?

MR LOTZ: Nothing strange happened there. I think Captain or Lieutenant Niewoudt at that stage started talking to these people, I think that I was there. It’s possible that Captain van Zyl could have been there but I’m not sure.

ADV BOOYENS: The Askaris?

MR LOTZ: They themselves were not present at the interrogation or the discussions.

ADV BOOYENS: Were there any assaults?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Where were the people taken then a bit later - the deceased?

MR LOTZ: They were in the garage which was just behind the house, they were locked up there.

ADV BOOYENS: Did it have any windows or anything where they could get out from?

MR LOTZ: No, I don’t think so. (transcriber’s own translation)

ADV BOOYENS: Did you go to sleep?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: By the way, who were all present at Post Chalmers when you an Niewoudt arrived there? We know that the three deceased were there, we know that Niewoudt was there because you referred to him and we also know that van Zyl was there, who else was there that you saw? Did you see the Askaris there?

MR LOTZ: Yes, they were there and Captain Venter and Warrant Officer Beeslaar.

ADV BOOYENS: You then went to sleep, what happened the next day?

MR LOTZ: The next morning we stood up, we had no food at that stage. At a specific time I was in Cradock when I went to fetch - to buy food, bread, meat etc. I returned, we made a fire, we had a barbecue and the deceased ate with us as well as the Askaris. I’m speaking under correction but after the meal, the Askaris and Captain Venter left Post Chalmers.

ADV BOOYENS: What time did this meal take place?

MR LOTZ: It could have been at any time between 10 and 12 the morning.

ADV BOOYENS: That is the morning?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it was during the morning.

ADV BOOYENS: What happened further?

MR LOTZ: At one stage Colonel du Plessis arrived, he spoke to us all. He went to Lieutenant Niewoudt and Captain van Zyl, he spoke to them but I cannot remember what it was about.

ADV BOOYENS: Did he remain behind or did he leave?

ADV DE JAGER: At time did he arrive and who was all present when he did?

MR LOTZ: It was after the Askaris and Captain Venter had left, it was approximately 12 o’clock but I’m speaking under correction.

ADV BOOYENS: You already knew then that the people were to be eliminated, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And you also knew that the idea was that they were to be burnt?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And when was this elimination planned for?

MR LOTZ: It was planned for the evening.

ADV BOOYENS: What did you do the rest of the day?

MR LOTZ: After Colonel du Plessis left, Captain Niewoudt or Lieutenant Niewoudt continued talking to these people. Captain van Zyl and I gathered some wood from where there’s a river at the back of the house or the police station and we carried it towards the house. At some stage I left for Cradock to go and buy some diesel and things to drink, such as coffee, tea, cool drink etc.

ADV BOOYENS: Later that evening when it was dusk, what happened then?

MR LOTZ: The people were given coffee, there was a sleeping drug in it which was provided by Captain van Zyl or Lieutenant Niewoudt. It was put in their coffee and given to them, shortly thereafter they fell asleep and then the people were taken out of the garage one by one and they were eliminated.

ADV BOOYENS: Who did the shooting?

MR LOTZ: Captain van Zyl shot the first person, Lieutenant Niewoudt the second and I shot the third.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you use the same weapon or different weapons?

MR LOTZ: We used the same weapon.

ADV BOOYENS: What was it?

MR LOTZ: It was a .22, it was equipped with a silencer.

ADV BOOYENS: Thereafter the bodies - what was done with the bodies of the deceased?

MR LOTZ: The wood was placed in a large pile in the back yard and the people were carried to the wood, put on top of it.

ADV BOOYENS: All three of them?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: And?

MR LOTZ: It was set alight and diesel was poured over.

ADV BOOYENS: Were the bodies burnt out completely?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You heard - I will try to include certain of the allegations that were made that these people were actually not murdered that evening. You heard the statements which the other people made, that they were apparently seen days after this in Port Elizabeth, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Will you apply for amnesty for a murder that you did not commit?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Allegations were also made that it can be possible by Mamasela, that all three the people were seriously assaulted over a long period of time, that they were literally beaten to death and that they were finally transported in a brown vehicle, in other words, the shooting and the burning is rubbish, it never happened, what is your reaction to this?

MR LOTZ: That is not how it happened, what I said is what happened. The people were eliminated there, they were not assaulted, they were not beaten to death, this is all untrue.

ADV BOOYENS: You have already said that the people were not assaulted, if you had assaulted the person would you have applied for amnesty?

MR LOTZ: I would.

ADV BOOYENS: Because if they had been assaulted - and I’m only saying if they had, why would they have been assaulted?

MR LOTZ: I cannot say why they would have assaulted these people.

ADV BOOYENS: But you have no knowledge of an assault, we know that you were not there the whole time?

MR LOTZ: In the period that I spent there, there were no assaults.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you see any signs on any of the people of any assaults, I mean marks or blood or anything?

MR LOTZ: No, there were no such signs.

ADV BOOYENS: When these people died, were the Askaris and Roelf Venter still there?

MR LOTZ: No, only Captain van Zyl, Niewoudt and myself were there.

ADV BOOYENS: It was only the three of you?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: I tried to let you testify as briefly as possible, do you confirm the description as set out by you in the application as to how this incident took place?

MR LOTZ: That is how I can remember them.

ADV BOOYENS: On page you also deal with the political objectives.

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you confirm this?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you have anything that you wish to add?

MR LOTZ: No, I accept that this is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Before this application was launched you were not mentioned by any of these people, Mr Venter or the Askaris?

MR LOTZ: No, I have no knowledge of anybody who referred to me.

ADV BOOYENS: How do you feel today twelve years later regarding this incident and how it took place?

MR LOTZ: I feel very unhappy about it, it is surely something which happened which should never have happened but at the time I went along with it, we did it, we had an objective. Afterwards it’s now easy to point fingers and to say it’s not right, at that stage in my eyes it was the right thing to do.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you think that your actions - did it have any personal benefit or advantage for you?

MR LOTZ: No, it was seen from the objective of a political objective, it was part of my work to bring about normality in the Port Elizabeth area.

ADV BOOYENS: I know that you were only a sergeant and a junior officer and that you will possibly have a more restricted vision about matters as some of the more senior members but according to what you saw, did legal methods still work - I’m now referring to powers that you had under the Security Legislation such as detention, restriction, banning etc.,

MR LOTZ: Under those circumstances no, with the violence and the unrest these things would not have worked.

ADV BOOYENS: Let us look at the - as far as witnesses are concerned, what was the position with them? (transcriber’s own translation)

MR LOTZ: Those people were much too afraid and they were too intimidated to come forward. Up to today there are still people who fear for their lives, if it would become known that they would testify in cases or if it was to be made known that they were informants.

ADV BOOYENS: Speaking of informers, a statement was made by Captain van Zyl about your feelings towards informants and how you protected them and the fact that one policeman would not easily tell another about his informer.

MR LOTZ: That is correct. If I had recruited an informant I would have told it to my senior Captain van Zyl and discussed it with him and he would have had knowledge of this. Other person who worked with me would have had no knowledge of this and the reason being for the protection of the informant and to keep his identify a secret.

ADV BOOYENS: Your contact with the informant, would it have taken place in such a manner that his identity could be protected?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct. Informants in general only want to be dealt with by one person, possibly a second if the primary person is not available and they have to give urgent information which is to be conveyed.

ADV BOOYENS: The period that you spent in the Kombi at the airport after the people had been picked up, do you know whether their faces were covered or not? (transcriber’s own translation)

MR LOTZ: No, not as far as I can remember.

ADV BOOYENS: I just want you to qualify the "No", "No, I cannot remember or their faces were not covered up.

MR LOTZ: No, their faces were not covered up while I was in the vehicle.

ADV BOOYENS: The point to which you drove towards, I think it was about a half a kilometre further, am I correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it’s very close to the airport.

ADV BOOYENS: Were they handcuffed in the vehicle - I’m just referring to the period of time when you were there?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV BOOYENS: And you did not see when they arrived at the other side because you and Niewoudt only arrived later?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: While they were outside or at Post Chalmers rather, did you see the three deceased?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I did, I saw them often.

ADV BOOYENS: Were or weren’t their faces not covered?

MR LOTZ: No, they were not.

ADV BOOYENS: You confirm the political objectives and the contents of your amnesty application, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: In the garage, were they handcuffed?

MR LOTZ: No, not to my ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Or in - did somebody during the night stand guard to make sure that they would not escape?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, the Askaris slept in the Kombi in which they took the people to Post Chalmers and that Kombi was parked in

front of the garage.

CHAIRPERSON: You must have heard the name Joe Mamasela, especially recently?

MR LOTZ: I’ve heard about him.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he one of the Askaris who were there?

MR LOTZ: I believe so, I’m not 100% sure but I believe he was present.

ADV SANDI: Have you seen his face on TV sometimes?

MR LOTZ: Yes I have, I think it’s him but I’m not 100% sure but I think it could be him.

ADV SANDI: You think the picture you’ve seen on TV matches the person or one of the people you saw on that day, can you clarify that?

MR LOTZ: It’s like I’m saying, I’m not 100% sure but I think it was him. I went to Kirkwood where I went to fetch them and they were present with me in the vehicle and I saw them the following day at Post Chalmers.

ADV SANDI: I don’t want to make this an issue here, are you saying the picture of Joe Mamasela which sometimes appears on TV seems or appears to be one of the faces you saw on that day amongst the Askaris?

MR LOTZ: If I can put it in Afrikaans, I realised at that stage that there was a person who had a slight speech impediment when he spoke and that is why I thought it was the same person as the Joe Mamasela whom I saw on television because that was also a specific characteristic of that person’s speech and that’s why I’m saying that I think it was him who was present there.

ADV DE JAGER: Presumably his face is now just 12 years older?

MR LOTZ: Yes, and also - I may be wrong, but I don’t think he was wearing glasses 12 years ago, I’m not sure though.

CHAIRPERSON: Could there have been about four Askaris?

MR LOTZ: It is possible, I remember that there were two or three. I seem to recall that there was a policeman there as well who was with them but I’m not quite sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think maybe we should clarify that. I think you are right, it seems to me on the papers that there was a Black member of the security branch who would normally not be regarded as an Askari.

MR LOTZ: That is correct, I think it was a Vlakplaas policeman who’d come down to Port Elizabeth with them that is now apart from Captain Venter and Warrant Officer Beeslaar.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we will adjourn until 2 o’clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, you are still under oath.

GERHARDUS JOHANNES LOTZ: (s.u.o.)

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Villiers?

ADV DE VILLIERS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Lotz, you said it is possible that someone other than Lieutenant Niewoudt drove the vehicle from the airport.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV DE VILLIERS: You also told us - gave us the indication, that it’s possible that Captain van Zyl could have participated in the interrogation.

MR LOTZ: That’s possible.

ADV DE VILLIERS: Is it correct to say that you cannot recall specifically that he did participate?

MR LOTZ: If I say participate in an interrogation, it can be - I know that at one stage I was present to listen when Lieutenant Niewoudt was busy and that Captain van Zyl could also have been there. I withdrew at a later stage because Lieutenant Niewoudt spoke to them in Xhosa which I did not understand.

ADV DE VILLIERS: Is it correct to say that Lieutenant Niewoudt did the interrogation?

MR LOTZ: He did it most of the time, he spoke to them mostly.

ADV DE VILLIERS: There was also talk of these activists being shackled to rings in the house.

MR LOTZ: I have no knowledge of such events.

ADV DE VILLIERS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DE VILLIERS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Am I correct to say that one’s memory after a period of 12 years, can let you down?

MR LOTZ: That is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: There’s a few aspects that I just want to clear up. The purpose of the or rather let me put it differently, what Captain Venter and his team were told regarding their involvement, were you present? Do you have any knowledge of it?

MR LOTZ: No, I was not present.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you comment regarding the evidence that was given here, that the purpose of the operation was indicated to Captain Venter as being interrogation and elimination?

MR LOTZ: I cannot reply to that, I was not present.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But you do not doubt that there was evidence that Captain Venter was only told - was not told in detail of the purpose of the operation.

MR LOTZ: No, I won’t doubt that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What were the Askaris used for in the operation according to you?

MR LOTZ: To intercept the people at the airport.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And what was the reason for this?

MR LOTZ: They were not known in this area, this would eliminate the local people from being used.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you agree that the Askaris were also used to supervise the activists in the bus on the way to Post Chalmers?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, I accept that as the reason as to why they had to go with us.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Your experience as a security policeman or arising from your experience as a security policeman, would you say that interrogations where serious assaults took place, that this would have taken place in the presence of the Askaris under these circumstances?

MR LOTZ: I cannot say, nothing like this happened in my presence - I cannot really answer you on that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you remember a specific place after you were at the airport, the place along the way where you met one another? I cannot remember if you mentioned it in your application.

MR LOTZ: The little path?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes. Can you explain to us where it is?

MR LOTZ: If one goes from the parking area of the airport and you drive towards the T-junction where one turns right to get onto the road that goes to Humewood or Walmer, if one turns left then you are on a gravel road that later leads to the cargo section of the airport.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Is that where it took place?

MR LOTZ: That is true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you describe it as being on the side of the sea or the ocean?

MR LOTZ: It’s very far from the sea.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I know it’s not right next to the sea but would you say that the road turned in the direction of the sea?

MR LOTZ: Yes, you could put it like that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why I’m asking this is because Captain Venter’s evidence - and there was a bit of confusion when he testified, is that you turned into a path that was near the sea or the side of the sea, the ocean side. I just want to know whether this would have been correct to describe it as such.

MR LOTZ: If one regards Port Elizabeth as such, one can say that it was on the ocean side of the town. If one goes to the other side one would have gone into town and if you turned left you would have gone in the direction of the ocean but it was quite a distance from the ocean.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What vehicle did you drive from the airport to where you turned off?

MR LOTZ: The Kombi, I was in the Kombi.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar will testify that he looked into the minibus at this specific place and his evidence will be that he saw three unknown Black men in the minibus and he says that as far as he can remember their faces were covered - this is his evidence as far as he can remember, now you were in the minibus, can you comment on this? Is he correct or is he wrong?

MR LOTZ: To tell you the truth I cannot even remember that I saw him there - their heads were not covered, I was with them in the minibus, I cannot say that he was there or not.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I’m asking you specifically about the fact that their heads were covered.

MR LOTZ: No, as far as I can remember they were not covered.

ADV DU PLESSIS: He says that as far as he can remember and you say that he is remembering these facts incorrectly.

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you agree that Mr Beeslaar didn’t play a big role in this operation?

MR LOTZ: He played a very small role.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Almost no role?

MR LOTZ: Yes, you can say almost no role. The ultimate purpose of the operation, one cannot say that he played a role in this.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you agree if I say that he just accompanied Captain Venter?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Why I’m saying this is that Mr Beeslaar’s evidence will be that in reality he was used in an administrative capacity at Vlakplaas and was only used very seldom for such operations.

MR LOTZ: I accept it as such.

ADV DU PLESSIS: As I understand, your evidence is that from that path you departed to Glenconnor, do you remember how many vehicles left for [intervention]

MR LOTZ: No, it was Post Chalmers.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Post Chalmers, I’m sorry. Can you remember who departed for Post Chalmers?

MR LOTZ: No, everybody left. I think Lieutenant Niewoudt and I remained behind after which we left, I drove his vehicle and he drove the vehicle of the deceased.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So, there was at least the vehicle of the deceased and Lieutenant Niewoudt and the minibus was there and the Nissan Safari was also there which Captain Venter drove.

MR LOTZ: Yes, it would have been there as well as Captain van Zyl’s vehicle.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So you do not know where the other vehicles went thereafter except the vehicle that you and Mr Niewoudt drove?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: When you and Mr Niewoudt arrived at Post Chalmers you said this was at about 11 o’clock that evening?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can you recall exactly who was there?

MR LOTZ: Captain van Zyl was there, there were three people there, the Askaris were there as well as Captain Venter, Warrant Officer Beeslaar.

ADV DU PLESSIS: What did you do when you arrived?

MR LOTZ: I’m speaking under correction, we took our things out of the vehicles but I cannot remember correctly, I’m not 100% sure.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I accept that it did not take very long before you went to bed?

MR LOTZ: A short while passed, Niewoudt spoke to the people at one stage and nothing strange happened further.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I suppose you were very tired at that stage?

MR LOTZ: It might be possible.

ADV DU PLESSIS: So, nothing was formally discussed or no meeting was held?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV DU PLESSIS: The next morning, can you recall exactly what happened then?

MR LOTZ: We arose - I know that the people were taken out of the garage, they could have possibly have been taken out already - I’m speaking under correction. They were probably brought into the house again to be interrogated.

ADV DE JAGER: You are telling us that it most probably happened, we would like to know what you can remember, not what you think happened or any reconstruction’s. If you do not know whether something happened, then you must tell us. The fact that they were brought out of the garage - if I had to testify I would say: "They were most probably brought out of the garage" but this actually means nothing, please try to give us facts on which we can depend to reach a decision.

MR LOTZ: I will.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I just refer you to your application. In the application you said

"I went to bed and the next morning Roelf Venter and the Askaris departed while Lieutenant Niewoudt, van Zyl and I remained behind"

and that is on page 7 Mr Chairman, I beg your pardon - paginated page 7 and page 7 of his application, the 3rd paragraph.

All I want to know from you is that in view of what you say in your application and your reply that you just gave when you said that you are not sure but it was most probably done etc., will you agree with me - and I refer to the question asked right at the beginning, that one’s memory can be a problem at this stage to remember the exact sequence of events of what happened on a day 12 years ago.

MR LOTZ: That is true

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you agree with me?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I do.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In other words you will also agree with me that if Captain Venter and Mr Beeslaar - and his evidence is going to be as such and Captain Venter has already given his evidence, that from that path onwards they did not go together to Post Chalmers but went back to Glenconnor. Will you agree with me that it’s possible that you aren’t correct in your evidence that they went to Post Chalmers together?

MR LOTZ: I hear what you say. I - or rather, as I can remember they were there - I can be making a mistake, I concede that I can but as far as I can recall they were there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But you do concede that in view of your memory it could be a problem? Would your reply remain the same with regard to the time that they departed from Post Chalmers? Your evidence was that they left the morning together with the Askaris, their evidence is that by dusk that evening that was when they departed. Would you be prepared to concede that you could also be making a mistake in that regard?

MR LOTZ: As I’ve said before, at one stage during the morning I did leave for Cradock where I went to buy food and we had a barbecue and as I recall it, they left after we had the barbecue and that was approximately 12 o’clock.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Can I just say that as they recall it was also after they had braaied but it was in the evening.

MR LOTZ: No, the barbecue was held in the morning - during the course of the morning.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Are you prepared to concede that you could possibly be wrong as to the time of their departure?

MR LOTZ: To say that they left at dusk, I find that too late - that was too late, they could have left early in the afternoon but after they had left I went to Cradock once again.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you concede that it could have been late afternoon?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: But they say that they left 9 o’clock that evening?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I know, I’m just trying to determine as to how far he concedes that it was later than the time that he said, he’s already said that it wasn’t in the evening.

ADV DE JAGER: But surely then you must say that they said that they left at 9 o’clock?

ADV DU PLESSIS: I have already said that they left in the evening.

ADV SANDI: I’m sorry, Advocate du Plessis, can I speak Advocate du Plessis? Speaking for myself from the panel, I’m just a little bit concerned about the way you are leading this witness. You keep on asking him if he’s prepared to concede this and that and in the end he ends up sort of changing his evidence.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But Mr Chairman, with all due respect, I have to put my client’s version to the witness and I have to try and determine in what way - where there are conflicts between my client’s version and the witness’s version, to what extent this witness is prepared to say that he will concede that he may be wrong in respect of his version and that my client’s version may be right.

ADV SANDI: I don’t know but I thought maybe the - perhaps the procedure would be for you to put the version of your client to the witness and not extract from him a concession that there is possibly a mistake with his version.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Well, I thought I did so Mr Chairman, right at the beginning when I started asking the questions. I did put to him that they left - their version is that they left later that evening, I did put to him the whole gist of my client’s evidence but I will do that again if it would please you.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand what your doing, is that you put your client’s version to the witness and then he disagrees and puts his own recollection and then you ask him whether he’s prepared - as a third stage, you ask him whether he’s prepared to concede whether he could be wrong.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes, Mr Chairman, whether he could be wrong and whether my client’s version may be right. It may be that I would want to argue at the end of the day that my client may be wrong in respect of the 9 o’clock question, that he may be wrong in respect of 10 o’clock in the morning and that it may have been in the afternoon or somewhere in-between and that is simply what I want to determine - how sure he is about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Go on, go on.

ADV DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you. To just put it clearly, I want to say that in his statement Mr Beeslaar says that

"About 9 o’clock that evening we went back to Glenconnor, I cannot remember if the Askaris went back with us but I think they did"

Do you remember whether the Askaris left with them?

MR LOTZ: Yes, they did.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But you say it happened at 9 o’clock at night is too late?

MR LOTZ: No, that’s out of the question.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You made the concession that it could possibly be later than the time that you gave of 10 o’clock.

MR LOTZ: At 10 o’clock the morning I left for Cradock, we braaied during the course of the morning and after we ate and they left.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Do you concede that it could have been in the afternoon?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is possible.

ADV DU PLESSIS: There’s also going to be evidence from Mr Beeslaar and Captain Venter also testified that they arrived there late that afternoon - we know now that you’re differing in this regard, and that they had a barbecue and had drinks. What is your comment in this regard?

MR LOTZ: No alcohol was used at all, Captain van Zyl would never have allowed it. It was one of his direct orders in the past where for example we travelled to other places and no alcohol was to be used.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But will you concede that Captain Venter and Mr Beeslaar at that stage - that is the next day the 9th, the day after the abduction, that on that day Captain Venter and Beeslaar were not really not necessary for the execution of any function?

MR LOTZ: No, they were not necessary, that is why I thought that they had left during the middle of the day.

ADV DU PLESSIS: If their evidence was as far as they can remember - Captain Venter has already said and Mr Beeslaar will, that their recollection is that they braaied and had drinks. Will you not say that it could possibly be correct?

MR LOTZ: If they were to have braaied on their own, then it could - perhaps they did this after their departure and they’d stopped along the road but I cannot remember that they braaied while they were there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: But if this is what they testify and they say specifically that this is what they can remember and that they braaied and drinks, will you not say that it’s possible that - specifically because they were not actually part of the operation anymore, would you not say that or be prepared to concede that they could possibly be correct in saying that they had a barbecue and that they had drinks although you did not do it?

MR LOTZ: I hear what you say but I cannot think that in view of what happened there, that this is what would have happened.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In view of the fact that this all happened 12 years ago and that one can surely not remember everything as you’ve already conceded and in view of the fact that there can be differences regarding certain aspects, I can see no reason why you would not want to concede that what they are saying that what they can remember, could possibly be correct.

MR LOTZ: I suppose it is possible, I cannot say that it is a fact but it is possible - I cannot say that this is a fact.

ADV DU PLESSIS: You would surely not have given much attention to them there, would you?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV DE JAGER: What was van Zyl’s attitude to alcohol in general?

MR LOTZ: I know that he would have a drink but under no circumstances while we were working.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you remember occasion where he specifically forbade people who wanted to drink?

MR LOTZ: I’m not sure, I think that on several occasions we went to Aliwal and such places where we went to interrogate people or liaise with people and that prior to this he always told me there is to be no drinking. If there is to be any drinking it will be when we’re back in Port Elizabeth but not during such operations.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you - I don’t think you would have noticed Captain Venter and Beeslaar there because according to you they had no function.

MR LOTZ: Not to see exactly what they were busy with, no.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Surely what you were involved in yourself you would remember more positively?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And would you not say the same is valid for Captain Venter and Mr Beeslaar, that that which they were involved in that they will remember that better than for example aspects whereby you were involved?

MR LOTZ: That’s true.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And if they then say that they can remember that they braaied late that afternoon and had drinks, would you not say that there is a possibility that they could be correct and that you’re memory is letting you down?

MR LOTZ: It is possible.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you must not end up listening to something which looks like evidence when it is not evidence at all. Are you saying that it is possible that they could have made up fire and made a braai without you noticing it?

MR LOTZ: No, Sir. I remember that we made a fire that morning and at one stage I went to Cradock - that was before we made the fire to have the barbecue ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I’m talking about Venter and Beeslaar? Are you conceding that it is possible that they could have come there and made their own fire and then had a braai without you noticing it?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I don’t think that was the gist of the question, I think the gist of the question was that - or the concession that I wanted to get and maybe we must just be clear about that, maybe I should just rephrase that because I understand your problem and I didn’t intend to put it as if they made a fire on their own and a braai on their own and drank on their own, that’s not - that wasn’t my intention.

Perhaps I should just put it differently.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is not the point you are doing, let me then put the question differently - you’ll tell me if I’m still outside the ambit or your question.

Are you saying that it is possible they made fire, you are not able to remember that?

MR LOTZ: I recall that we did make a fire that morning and that we braaied, it was between 10 and 12 that morning - that is what I can remember.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m talking about Venter and Beeslaar. Are you saying that it is possible they came, put up their own fire but that you are not able to remember that?

MR LOTZ: I don’t think that they would have come there on their own and made a fire.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you not have remembered if they had made up their own fire, are you saying it is possible you might have forgotten that as well?

MR LOTZ: No, I don’t think that they would have arrived there and made a fire on their own, I would have known.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, if I can just point out the point I want to make.

Let me read you a piece from the application of Mr Beeslaar, his evidence will be that it was late afternoon already - that’s on page 78, the second paragraph, I beg your pardon, page 78, the second paragraph:

"It was late that afternoon but the sun was still shining, Captain Venter and I spent a few hours at the place and among others had a barbecue and had a few drinks"

The point is, your evidence is that they had the barbecue the morning.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And everybody was present, Venter and Beeslaar?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Their evidence is that they - you braaied late the afternoon and everyone was present, now, the only question is - if we keep to the barbecue as such, let’s leave the drinks out of it, the only question then is are you prepared or will you make the concession that it is possible that the barbecue took place late that afternoon as they are saying?

MR LOTZ: I’d rather say that, then it should have been earlier that afternoon because - rather earlier than later that afternoon, and the reason for saying this is that I left for Cradock to go and fetch the diesel and I would not have left if those people namely Venter and Beeslaar had still been there because they would have wanted to know what we were going to do with the diesel. That is why I say ...[intervention]

ADV DU PLESSIS: I accept your version and let us leave it at that. As far as the drinks are concerned, would you be prepared to concede that it’s possible that Venter and Beeslaar had drinks whilst you who were under Captain van Zyl’s command did not consume any drinks during that period?

MR LOTZ: Maybe they had a couple of drinks without us noticing it - I didn’t see it, I didn’t see them using any alcohol.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, before you move away from that point - Mr Lotz, you mention that in the afternoon you left to go and fetch some diesel or something like that.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You see on page 78, it seems to me that - whose affidavit is this?

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar’s affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Beeslaar says that - of course he’s not committing himself but he doesn’t remember you, he remembers that there were quite a few people there - members of the security branch, and then he says

"As far as I can recall Captain Sakkie van Zyl and Deon Niewoudt were present"

He doesn’t remember you, couldn’t it be that it is precisely because maybe when they came, that was when you had left to fetch the diesel?

MR LOTZ: As I understood it they were there that morning and they were there that evening, they slept there and they left the next morning - that’s how I understood it and can remember it. On two occasions I went through to Cradock, I can’t imagine that I would have gone there and whilst I was away that they’d arrived and left again - that we kept missing each other in other words, I can’t imagine that.

CHAIRPERSON: What I want to point out to you is that if indeed they came in the afternoon - all right if they came in the afternoon, it could be that in fact you were not there - if they did come in the afternoon, it could be at the time when you had gone to fetch the diesel?

MR LOTZ: But then surely they would still have been there upon my return, they would have been there when I returned.

CHAIRPERSON: Well possibly, but I’m just saying that they don’t mention your name here.

MR LOTZ: I understand.

ADV DE JAGER: When you arrived back with the diesel, were they there at that stage?

MR LOTZ: No, they weren’t.

ADV DE JAGER: When you returned, did you take the diesel out of the car yourself?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Would you have taken the diesel out of the car yourself if there were other people around who didn’t know anything in regard to the purpose for which the diesel was to be used, would you have in other words shown it to them or allowed them to see it?

MR LOTZ: No, I wouldn’t.

CHAIRPERSON: So, the mystery deepens.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, the only question is, how important this difference is.

Mr Lotz, it seems that there is a bit of a discrepancy and a question mark as to when Venter and Beeslaar arrived and departed but that has no bearing on the alleged assaults and it has no bearing on the elimination. I want to put it you - and that is also in line with what I will argue, is that it is not really material difference between your version and their versions and that these discrepancies are to be expected in view of the passage of time.

An important point however is that, was Captain Venter or Beeslaar or any of the Askaris present when the elimination took place?

MR LOTZ: No, they weren’t, it was only myself, Captain van Zyl and Lieutenant Niewoudt.

ADV DU PLESSIS: And the next important issue relating to your evidence which structures on the alleged assaults on the activists, your evidence was that you weren’t aware of any assaults which took place there.

MR LOTZ: No, there were no assaults.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In that respect - and that is a point which I will also argue as being an important one in this whole issue, Mr Beeslaar’s evidence is that when they arrived there they saw the three men there, the Black men were present there and his evidence will be that all three appeared to be physically normal and he will testify that as far as he could see they showed no signs of having been assaulted. And to that extent his evidence is in line with your evidence and Venter’s evidence is also in line with your evidence - on that point, and I would like to put that to you.

CHAIRPERSON: You are misleading the witness because you are giving the impression that Beeslaar’s evidence is that there was - these people were not assaulted at all and there was not indication of assault on their bodies, but you can’t have seen that if the assault was in their faces or on their head because their heads were covered.

ADV DU PLESSIS: I was coming to that point Mr Chairman, I was on the verge of saying ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you’ve got to qualify that because it’s misleading.

ADV DU PLESSIS: That was what I was going to do.

His evidence however will be that the heads of these three people were covered and as far as that is concerned, he couldn’t actually see whether they had been assaulted or not.

MR LOTZ: No, their heads were not covered, not whilst I was there.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Would you say that that could have been during the period or periods that you weren’t present there?

MR LOTZ: If it took place at a time when I wasn’t there it’s possible but at the time that I was there their heads were not covered.

ADV DU PLESSIS: In all fairness I would like to put it to you that Mr Beeslaar will testify that he kicked one of these people somewhere on his body in order to attract his attention - to speak to him.

MR LOTZ: I have no knowledge of that.

ADV DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, will you just bear with me? Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Lotz, you’ve now on several occasions during your testimony, used the words: "I’m not 100% sure, I stand to be corrected" when you testifying on certain facts and you seem to make concessions fairly readily as to certain probabilities as far as the versions of Beeslaar and

Captain Venter are concerned.

If my impression is that there are certain or several aspects regarding the whole course of events, right from where you became involved right up until the end on which your memory is a bit vague, would that impression be correct? I’m assuming that you’re memory is not vague as to the fact that you actually eliminated these people because that is a prominent fact emerging from all the evidence but I’m referring specifically to your factual evidence as to surrounding circumstances and aspects. Would you like to comment on that?

MR LOTZ: I obviously can’t remember everything exactly, there are certain things which I can recall. I still stand by my version, I say that that is how I can recall how it happened.

ADV LAMEY: When you signed your amnesty application and it was sworn to, can we rely on the facts set out in your application - on their being correct?

MR LOTZ: I believe so.

ADV LAMEY: Did you in that application declare only the facts that you can definitely recall or is it possible that there are certain aspects in your statement about which you don’t have a very clear recollection and which you perhaps didn’t state that your memory was a bit vague?

MR LOTZ: Perhaps there are things which I omitted and there are things about which I had some doubt but what I said here is what I can remember.

ADV LAMEY: In other words, you’re saying that what is contained in your amnesty application and your evidence here today - except for those occasions when you said you were not quite sure and stood to be corrected, for the rest those are facts which are very clear as far as you’re concerned?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: I’d like to know from you, when you use the phrase: "As far as I can recall", what would be the position if a different version was put to you? Would you be inclined to dispute or agree with the other version as a probable version of the true facts - would you be so inclined?

CHAIRPERSON: That’s a very hypothetical question Mr Lamey, you can’t put it like that. That’s a very hypothetical question Mr Lamey, you can’t put it like that.

ADV LAMEY: Could you tell us what happened after you and Lieutenant Niewoudt had burnt the vehicle?

MR LOTZ: We got into his vehicle and we drove to Cradock.

ADV LAMEY: Directly to Post Chalmers?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: On you own?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: Are you quite sure of that?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I am.

ADV LAMEY: 100% certain?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: I’d like to read to you what Lieutenant Niewoudt says in his statement and I’m referring to paragraph 16 on page 128 - page 128, paragraph 16 Mr Chairman, the last four lines. Mr Niewoudt is testifying about the burning of the vehicle and he says

"Sergeant Lotz and I did that, after which we travelled together and the other persons we found along the way to Cradock. These people were taken to the Post Chalmers police station outside Cradock"

I would just like to say to you that there is no evidence here that you didn’t go to - the impression is created here that you joined the other people along the way on their way to Cradock.

MR LOTZ: As I can recall, we went from there to Post Chalmers, we arrived there and I think van Zyl and the other people were already there.

ADV LAMEY: Are you saying that Mr Niewoudt is incorrect in this statement?

MR LOTZ: It’s possible, it’s also possible that I could be wrong. I’m saying that we drove from there, it took quite some time. The other people went directly so they made some time on us, they were ahead of us.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I must object at swearwords from the floor being directed at the witness. As far as I know there’s a section in the Act that provides that the proceedings should be conducted in the same way as court proceedings. It is not easy to testify about things like this, even more so if people are in a situation where they’ve got to testify about things and then where a man is trying to answer a question and that type of remark is made.

One does hear it notwithstanding the fact, I would accordingly - I do not want to ask for any drastic measures at this stage, but I would please request the Commission to ask the members of the public to keep their remarks in such a way that it’s not audible on the stage.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think we should behave ourselves in a way that will make the proceedings difficult, we know that this is a very difficult situation and we understand the people’s emotions quite understandably may sometimes take the better part of them but we expect that people should to their utmost best not to hamper the proceedings please.

Let it be not blamed on the behaviour of the public or anyone else for that matter at the end of the day. And we try to hold these kind of hearings in public as opposed to in camera, we try to look for venues which will be big enough to accommodate any number of people that would like to attend.

And the idea is we want to encourage people to attend and we welcome them if they want to attend and that is why we go out of our way to secure big halls like this one but at the same time please, we expect that you will co-operate with us, thank you very much.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, you were still putting questions to the witness.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Lotz, I want to return to the aspect of Lieutenant Niewoudt’s evidence, are you saying that you’re possibly mistaken on that point?

MR LOTZ: No, that’s not what I said. As I remember it, we left there and we found the people directly at Post Chalmers.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole also says that on the way to the police station or somewhere outside the city along the way - he didn’t know that they were on their way to this police station and afterwards it appeared that they actually were, he says that along the way a vehicle joined the convoy of vehicles. So it would seem to me as if this aspect of Mr Koole’s statement and Mr Niewoudt’s statement, it would seem to me as if these two are in line with each other, whilst your evidence differs from theirs.

MR LOTZ: That’s how I remember it.

ADV LAMEY: I’d like to take you to the arrival at Post Chalmers, what exactly took place there relating specifically to the detainees? What happened once you arrived there?

MR LOTZ: As I said earlier, I’m not 110% certain where they were but I seem to recall that they were inside the house.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, what happened then?

MR LOTZ: Lieutenant Niewoudt started talking to them ...[intervention]

ADV LAMEY: Can I stop you there, were you present?

MR LOTZ: At some point, yes.

ADV LAMEY: Did Lieutenant Niewoudt speak to them on his own?

MR LOTZ: Initially yes, I think he was alone with them.

ADV LAMEY: Were the Askaris present?

MR LOTZ: They were in the vicinity.

ADV LAMEY: No, I’m referring to the interrogation.

MR LOTZ: That’s what I’m trying to say, some of them were present from time to time. They came in and listened but they came and went, there wasn’t a specific person who was present all the time listening to Niewoudt’s interrogation - not as far as I can remember, I wasn’t present the entire time. I don’t know for how long they were interrogated because I went to bed at some point whilst they were still busy with the interrogation.

ADV LAMEY: So, your memory is a bit vague on that point?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I’m not 100% certain.

ADV LAMEY: Was Captain van Zyl present during the interrogation that night just after you arrived there?

MR LOTZ: He also came in and went in and out, I can’t say that he sat there for the entire interrogation - he came and went and I think he came in and spoke to Niewoudt and then left again - he wasn’t there permanently.

ADV LAMEY: Can you recall what time you arrived there that night?

MR LOTZ: Approximately 11 o’clock.

ADV LAMEY: How long did the interrogation last for?

MR LOTZ: That’s very difficult to answer, I’m not sure, I can’t remember. I wasn’t directly involved in the interrogation so I didn’t pay it much heed. As I said Lieutenant Niewoudt spoke to them in Xhosa and I didn’t really listen because I don’t understand the language.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember what time you went to bed?

MR LOTZ: No, I’m not certain.

ADV LAMEY: Was it before midnight or was it after midnight?

MR LOTZ: I’m not sure, it could have been 12 o’clock, I don’t know.

ADV LAMEY: Can you recall what you were doing whilst Lieutenant Niewoudt was busy doing the interrogation?

MR LOTZ: I think I might have spoken to some of the other people, I’m not sure - maybe I sat with the other people and chatted.

ADV LAMEY: Could you at least say whether all three people - all three of the deceased, were present during this interrogation - all three of these Pebco deceased?

MR LOTZ: I think they were interrogated one by one, I don’t think all three of them were present simultaneously. (transcriber’s own translation)

ADV LAMEY: Were they questioned one by one?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: You said that you weren’t certain whether the Askaris were present?

MR LOTZ: As I said, they could have been present - they came and went, they weren’t permanently present during the interrogation.

ADV LAMEY: I’d like to refer you to page 6 of your statement - before I ask my question relating to page 6 I would like to know, was the interrogation still under way when you went to bed or had it already been completed?

MR LOTZ: As I said earlier, I seem to recall that when I went to bed Lieutenant Niewoudt was still busy but I’m not sure, I think he might have already been finished with one of the three and not with the others but I’m not sure.

ADV LAMEY: So it’s possible that the interrogation was still under way?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: And is it possible that - whilst you were still awake, it was possible that at that stage they weren’t yet locked up in the garage?

MR LOTZ: I think they could have returned people that they’d finished with back to the garage.

ADV LAMEY: Why aren’t you certain? You see, we want to determine with some measure of accuracy what you know, we don’t want to know what you think or seem to think, we would like to know whether it’s possible - whether you know that they had already been locked up in the garage when you went to bed, or whether you can’t say.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, if you want to get to the facts then you mustn’t preface your question by saying: "Is it possible"? then preface it by saying: "Is it a fact"? You see anything is possible, it’s possible that the roof can suddenly be blown off, anything is possible but we want the facts.

ADV LAMEY: I will rephrase my question, I would like to know from you whether the interrogation was still continuing at that stage that you went to bed or were the people already locked up in the garage?

MR LOTZ: I seem to recall that some of the people were locked up in the garage but I think Niewoudt was still busy with some of them, I really don’t know for sure.

ADV LAMEY: So if you say: "Some of the people were in the garage", then it means that you are not certain about that?

MR LOTZ: No, I’m not.

ADV LAMEY: I’d like to refer you to page 6 of your affidavit, it’s the last paragraph I’d like to refer to from the 3rd sentence and it continues on to page 7 where you say the following

"Upon our arrival at Post Chalmers, these people were interrogated and the interrogation was done by Lieutenant Niewoudt and Captain van Zyl as well as the Askaris. The interrogation as far as I can recall didn’t last very long and afterwards the Pebco 3 were locked up in the garage"

Are these things facts which you deposed to with certainty?

MR LOTZ: As I said before, that is what I can recall. I’m not 100% sure, it happened 12 years ago and I tried to write down things here which I could remember as far as I could recall.

ADV LAMEY: So your statement comprises lots of uncertainties, things which you seem to recall but about which you are not certain but in your statement it seems to be a certainty but however you cannot recall it with 100% certainty?

MR LOTZ: Well, these things were less important facts, I didn’t actually worry about them because for me that was not the point of the whole operation.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it is obvious that what you wrote here is what you remembered, otherwise you have would not have had it written here.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the real question is the certainty with which you recall this, therefore one must ask you whether you are certain that you’re recollection is correct - what stands here at the bottom of page 6.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct, as I wrote it there on pages 6 and 7, that is what I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: With certainty?

MR LOTZ: No, not with certainty, that’s what I tried to convey just now.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why did you state under oath things which you are not certain of as the truth?

MR LOTZ: Because to me those were minor facts, they were unimportant and that’s more or less what happened. The people were interrogated, I didn’t for instance specifically state that it was person A, B or C, I just referred to them as a group.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m only referring to one sentence

"The interrogation was conducted by Lieutenant Niewoudt and van Zyl as well as the Askaris"

MR LOTZ: If I could have summarised what happened that evening, I would have done so but Lieutenant Niewoudt possibly spoke to the one person and then the person whom he was interrogating was substituted by somebody else, so what it amounted to is that the three people were interrogated by these people, that’s how I can put it.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not sure about certain details as to the order in which they were interrogated and so on but you are certain that they were interviewed by Lieutenant Niewoudt, Captain van Zyl and the Askaris.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: The two applicants that I’m representing will say that they were present during the interrogation and the Captain Venter as well as Beeslaar were also present from the moment after they arrived.

MR LOTZ: That is possible.

ADV LAMEY: So in your application you do not mention Captain Venter and Beeslaar.

MR LOTZ: I was present myself but I did not mention my own name either.

ADV LAMEY: You testified that on the 8th day of May you received the instruction from Captain van Zyl and you were informed as to your involvement in the operation, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Can you recall at what stage of the day it was?

MR LOTZ: It must have been by about 12 o’clock/1 o’clock or in that vicinity.

ADV LAMEY: Are you sure of that?

MR LOTZ: More or less, the reason I say that is because thereafter I went to Glenconnor where I went to pick up the Askaris and then we left for Walmer from there.

ADV LAMEY: Where was Captain Venter, where was he and Beeslaar at that stage when you received your orders?

MR LOTZ: I think that they were at the office. At one stage I saw Captain Venter, I can’t remember exactly when but they were there.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember whether you were shown photos of these three persons?

MR LOTZ: No, I was not shown.

ADV LAMEY: Was Captain Venter shown photos?

MR LOTZ: Not in my presence.

ADV LAMEY: After you received the instruction from Captain van Zyl, did you depart for Glenconnor directly afterwards?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: To fetch the Askaris?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: With your arrival there, what did you tell them?

MR LOTZ: I don’t know whether they were in radio contact, I just had to pick up those persons and bring them with to Walmer.

ADV LAMEY: Were there specific persons that you had to pick up?

MR LOTZ: I think that he gave me a list but I’m not sure which four it was, I cannot remember.

ADV LAMEY: You are talking about four people now, can you remember many?

MR LOTZ: Three or four and a policeman was also involved.

ADV LAMEY: You say three or four? Three or four, is that the ...[indistinct] that you are referring to - that you had to pick up?

MR LOTZ: Two or three Askaris and I think a policeman was also involved - I think a policemen was involved.

ADV LAMEY: Two or three Askaris plus a policeman?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: At that stage, had you had anything to do with any of them? Or were the people that you had to pick up strangers to you?

MR LOTZ: Yes, they were - no they weren’t strangers sorry, I did not know the people there.

ADV LAMEY: What did you tell them when you arrived?

MR LOTZ: All I had to do was to fetch them, I don’t know whether Captain Venter spoke to them before the time or what the case was - I’m not sure. (transcriber’s own translation)

ADV LAMEY: Do you think that Captain van Zyl - before he gave you the instruction, do you think that he spoke to Captain Venter prior to this?

MR LOTZ: I believe that to be true otherwise he would not have told me to fetch the people.

ADV LAMEY: And the you went - from where did you go directly to Glenconnor? Sorry, the question is: "Where did you got to from Glenconnor"?

MR LOTZ: We went to Walmer.

ADV LAMEY: What were you to have done there?

MR LOTZ: We had to pick up the people there or we had to take the people there, we were contacted by radio to do so and Lieutenant Niewoudt was there and Captain Venter was also there.

ADV LAMEY: At the point where you had to get them?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: What happened there when you met Venter and Niewoudt?

MR LOTZ: We had to wait there until we were to be informed by radio that we had to move towards the airport.

ADV LAMEY: Is that point close to the airport?

MR LOTZ: Yes, approximately 1 kilometre to 1.5 kilometres but I stand corrected.

ADV LAMEY: The point where you had to meet them, is that close to the security branch?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV LAMEY: Is it not close by?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV LAMEY: Is it near a station - a railway station?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV LAMEY: Is the security branch- as it close to a railway station at that time or not far from there?

MR LOTZ: The old Sanlam building where the old security branch was, was opposite the railway station.

ADV LAMEY: Do you say that from there you then drove to the airport?

MR LOTZ: From the point where we were at Walmer?

ADV LAMEY: Yes.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: How would the Askaris identify the Pebco 3 at the airport?

MR LOTZ: I heard this morning and I can just make a deduction.

ADV LAMEY: No, I want to hear from you yourself.

MR LOTZ: Can I just finish my sentence please? I heard that the photos were given to Captain Venter and I believe that at that stage when we were under the trees, that he could have discussed it with them then and that he would have given them the photos.

ADV LAMEY: What time was that?

MR LOTZ: About 4 or 5 o’clock that afternoon.

ADV LAMEY: Is that what you believe or did you see it?

MR LOTZ: No, I can’t recall seeing that - I think so, I think that is what happened.

ADV LAMEY: If the Askaris were to testify that at no stage were any photos shown to them of these three persons, will you doubt that testimony?

MR LOTZ: In view of the operation as I understood from Captain van Zyl, the whole idea was to make use of those people to intercept the people at the airport.

ADV LAMEY: Are you certain about the course of events from Glenconnor to this point where you stopped, are you sure of your facts?

MR LOTZ: I could be a bit wrong with the times.

ADV LAMEY: I’m talking about the fact when you fetched them at Glenconnor to the specific point where you waited in Walmer before - according to your testimony, you got this sign, are you sure about this or is your memory a bit vague regarding these aspects?

MR LOTZ: No, I accept that this - I’m reasonably sure about this.

ADV LAMEY: Because I want to put it to you that these are also aspects which lie on the periphery and you have already conceded in your testimony that as far as such aspects are concerned, your memory could possibly fail you.

MR LOTZ: I know that I drove to Glenconnor and Walmer and from there I went to the airport.

ADV LAMEY: Why was it necessary for you to go and fetch them at Glenconnor?

MR LOTZ: I was given the instruction to do this and that’s what I did.

ADV LAMEY: But what was the necessity of this?

MR LOTZ: How would the people have arrived at Port Elizabeth, had I not fetched them?

ADV LAMEY: On their own with their minibus by driving it themselves, the worked in the area, they moved around in the area and their base was at Glenconnor.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: When they worked in the area they most probably moved from Glenconnor to P.E. on a daily basis?

MR LOTZ: I do not know how long they had been there or how long they had been in the Eastern Cape at that stage.

ADV LAMEY: But the testimony of Captain van Zyl was that they had been there for at least a week and they were involved in the tracing of terrorists and surely they did this on their own.

MR LOTZ: In the Black townships perhaps but I don’t think in the other townships or residential areas which are much bigger.

ADV LAMEY: But in the Black townships of Port Elizabeth?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: I just want to say that my instructions on that point were that were not given the instruction to go into the Black townships very often.

MR LOTZ: I cannot dispute this, I do not know what the instructions were.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole and Mogoai will say that Captain Venter arrived at Glenconnor and that he told them that they had to pack things for three days I’m sorry, let me just correct myself. They received the instruction - I’m not saying that Captain Venter arrived there, they received the instruction from Captain Venter that they had to pack things for three days and that they were to use Peggy Radebi’s minibus who was one of the other Askaris and they had to use this to come to Port Elizabeth.

They drove the minibus from Glenconnor to a point close to the old security branch or an old railway - the railway station, where Captain Venter told them that they had to wait.

MR LOTZ: No, there we differ. I drove to Glenconner, I went to fetch them and I think that I drove to Glenconnor with their bus to go and fetch them and then we went to Walmer where we waited. The same bus was used to drive into the airport itself when the persons were intercepted and from there to the bush path.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole says that this point where Captain Venter said they must wait was at that time a regular point where they used to meet each other. He says the reasons was that the Askaris - he could get to the security branch as a permanent member but the Askaris were not allowed to go into the security branch’s building and that was why it was decided on that specific point that he would get Captain Venter together there together with Mr Mogoai and Mr Mamasela. (transcriber’s own translation)

MR LOTZ: I have a different version, I drove to Glenconnor and back to Walmer which was close - to the point which was close to the airport.

ADV LAMEY: Just a moment please Mr Chairman. In his testimony Mr Beeslaar said that - on page 76, the 3rd paragraph from the top, that the Black members Koole, Radebi, Mogoai and Mamasela followed them in a minibus from Glenconnor.

MR LOTZ: Where about is this? (transcriber’s own translation)

ADV LAMEY: This is on the 3rd paragraph on page 76. Do you see this?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Now, this is what Mr Beeslaar says and his testimony Mr Mogoai says that Captain Venter and Beeslaar arrived there when they were at Glenconnor and he and Mamasela and Koole were called to one side and told to pack clothes for three days and to take Radebi’s bus to Port Elizabeth where they would meet at the security branch offices later. What I want to put to you is that, here one has two versions of people who are testifying about their own movements and it is not possible that they could be more accurate about this than you are?

MR LOTZ: All that I can remember is that I drove through to Glenconnor, I picked them up there, we went straight from there to Walmer.

ADV DE JAGER: We have three people who are testifying about their own movements, he is doing the same but then there is the fourth one who has a version and that is Joe Mamasela.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, Mr Chairman, I do not want to say anything about Mr Mamasela’s version at this stage but I represent the two applicants and I want to put his version and see whether he’s possibly making a mistake, that is the line of my questioning.

Is it possible that you could be wrong, you’ve repeatedly in your testimony made concessions and say that: "I speak under correction, I’m not 100% sure", why are you so sure about this?

MR LOTZ: About certain things where I was not involved I can say that perhaps I can concede I could have made a mistake or things where I did not have an interest but here I physically drove from P.E. to Glenconnor and back and that is why I say that I can definitely remember this, this is something that I did.

ADV SANDI: Mr Lotz, if you are being asked a question about things which you were not involved in, would it not be appropriate for you to simply say: "I have no personal knowledge of that"?

MR LOTZ: I can say that.

ADV SANDI: You would not have to speculate and keep on saying: "It is possible, I’m not sure, I think so, I stand to be corrected" and so on, you’d simply have to say: "I have no personal knowledge of that", not so?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: At one stage you said that arrived at the airport in the minibus, where did you park with the minibus at the airport? Did you drive the minibus?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: Where did you stop?

MR LOTZ: In the parking area at the departures hall. There’s an arrival and departure hall which are next to one another, I stopped at the departures hall.

ADV LAMEY: How far from the entrance to the airport building?

MR LOTZ: More or less opposite the entrance, a question of 20 to 30 metres.

ADV LAMEY: And Captain Venter, do you know where he was at that stage?

MR LOTZ: No, I’m not sure where he parked.

ADV LAMEY: But did he drive there with his own vehicle or did he go there with a different vehicle?

MR LOTZ: He went with a different vehicle, I do not know whether he went with the Safari.

ADV LAMEY: I’m not asking you what type, I asked did he go with another vehicle? Do you know whether he did?

MR LOTZ: I have no knowledge of that, I cannot say that he went there or sat there. I went in with the vehicle, we stopped to one side and that’s how the story continued.

ADV LAMEY: Was Lieutenant Niewoudt there in his own vehicle?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: And Captain van Zyl?

MR LOTZ: With his own vehicle.

ADV LAMEY: But you know nothing about Venter?

MR LOTZ: He was there with his vehicle but where precisely he parked at the airport ...[intervention]

ADV LAMEY: I did not ask where he parked, I’m just asking whether he was there with his own vehicle.

MR LOTZ: Yes, he was.

ADV LAMEY: Would you say that Lieutenant Niewoudt - due to the position where he was, that he would have know what was going on around him with regard to the events at the airport and who was with whom from the position where they would have been?

MR LOTZ: No sound.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll adjourn for a few minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

GERHARDUS JOHANNES LOTZ: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Lotz, Lieutenant Niewoudt says in his statement - paragraph 16, page 128 third line that:

"Captain Venter and the Askaris were in a different vehicle"

Do you see that?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I can see it.

ADV LAMEY: And what is your comment?

MR LOTZ: I was with them.

ADV LAMEY: So, are you saying that Lieutenant is making a mistake in his sworn statement?

MR LOTZ: According to me yes, he’s making a mistake.

ADV LAMEY: I want to ask you, how did you know that one of the people that you were transporting was a permanent member?

MR LOTZ: I think he was an officer as well, that’s why I though he was a policeman and not an Askari.

ADV LAMEY: How do you know that he was an officer?

MR LOTZ: I suppose that I heard it from one of the other people.

ADV LAMEY: You say you probably heard it from somebody? Who do you mean?

MR LOTZ: From the Askaris because I drove with them from Glenconnor.

ADV LAMEY: So, at that stage you must have been certain that there were at least three people?

MR LOTZ: Askaris and the policeman, yes.

ADV LAMEY: I would like to refer you to your own statement - I just want to find the place, page 5 top paragraph. You say there

"At this stage I can’t remember exactly how many Askaris were involved but I’m of the opinion that it must have been two or three. I didn’t know any of these Askaris personally"

Now you mention two or three people here.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: And in your evidence today, you mentioned three or four people.

MR LOTZ: With the policeman.

ADV LAMEY: But in the statement you don’t refer to the policeman at all?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: You only refer to the Askaris?

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: Why didn’t you mention it in your statement?

MR LOTZ: I just perhaps omitted it.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember exactly how the Pebco 3 were intercepted by the Askaris at the airport?

MR LOTZ: As I remember it, we drove from the point in Walmer where we all met ...[intervention]

ADV LAMEY: No, I’m talking about the stage where you had already arrived at the airport and stopped the car there.

MR LOTZ: The vehicle in which the three people were being transported, it arrived there.

ADV LAMEY: Did you see that?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Where did it stop - this car?

MR LOTZ: It drove past us.

ADV LAMEY: How far past you did they drive?

MR LOTZ: About 10 to 15 metres and stopped in a parking bay.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

MR LOTZ: We were in radio contact with the other people and we got a description of the other vehicle, the Askaris got out of the vehicle and I think they took two first and then the third one, they took them to the minibus, got into the minibus ...[intervention]

ADV LAMEY: You say you think they took two first?

MR LOTZ: Correct, I think two arrived or came and then the third one.

ADV LAMEY: But can you recall exactly how it happened?

MR LOTZ: That is how I remember it.

ADV LAMEY: But are you exactly sure?

MR LOTZ: That is what I remember.

ADV LAMEY: Because in your evidence in chief you said that the Askaris found the three people at their car and accompanied them, initially in your testimony you didn’t divide it up into a two and one scenario.

MR LOTZ: In my evidence in chief I said that they found the three people at the car, now I’m saying they first took two and directly afterwards the third one, so it actually amounts to the same thing - that the three people were apprehended there.

ADV LAMEY: How did it take place physically, did they grab them?

MR LOTZ: No, I wasn’t present physically but they arrived there with them and they got into the vehicle.

ADV LAMEY: I beg your indulgence, my learned friend wishes to communicate with me. My apologies, my attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr du Plessis as well as my colleague on my right - that these two gentlemen have drawn to my attention that the witness has in fact in his evidence in chief referred to first the two and then the one person being apprehended and brought to the car, I had no intention to mislead the Committee.

I want to put it to you that you said in your evidence that the reason for the Askaris’ involvement in this abduction was that - you said in your evidence that the reason for the Askaris’ involvement in this abduction was because the other Port Elizabeth members were too well-known as far as the Pebco 3 were concerned.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: I want to put it to you that I find it extremely strange and improbable that if that was the case, you would be the person who drove the minibus and that a situation was allowed to develop where these people drove past the minibus of which you were the driver in these circumstances where there was the danger that they could notice you and become suspicious.

Furthermore, I find it improbable that it happened the way you testified that first two and then the third person was apprehended and accompanied to the minibus and that that could take place without the third person becoming suspicious and that he could still be intercepted with so much ease.

MR LOTZ: The minibus had tinted windows, it was late at night, it was dark and the vehicle was parked with the front end of the vehicle parked away from the building, so the people wouldn’t have been able to actually see into the vehicle to actually identify the occupants.

ADV LAMEY: I want to put it to you that my client’s versions - Mr Koole and Mogoai, was that they were alone in the bus at that stage, they had no radio in their possession and that the interception did not take place as testified to by yourself.

MR LOTZ: No, that is how I - that is how it happened whilst I was there, I have nothing to add.

ADV LAMEY: What radio did you have in your possession?

MR LOTZ: I can’t recall the name but it was a hand held radio.

ADV LAMEY: So, it wasn’t as if the minibus had been equipped with a radio?

MR LOTZ: No, this was a portable walkie talkie radio.

CHAIRPERSON: I think let’s put to you Mamasela’s version as to what happened there - page 12 of the small bundle

"Two people got out of the vehicle, it was a tall person and a shorter person and I ascertained that it was Godolozi and Champion Galela. Roelf Venter and I jumped out of the minibus and we waited for them to cross the road to the entrance of the airport. At the entrance we showed our certificates of appointment to the two people and we introduced ourselves. We grabbed them and pulled them into the minibus and the bus was nearby"

No, that’s not what happened, not whilst I was there.

CHAIRPERSON: From the point where you were, you were able clearly to see what happened?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You were clearly able to see the when the - as you put it, Askaris confronted them.

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened.

MR LOTZ: What I saw was that they walked up to these people where they were getting out of the bakkie and first - the first two people came with them and then the third person came with the third Askari, they got into the minibus and that was that - that’s how it happened.

CHAIRPERSON: They were not manhandled?

MR LOTZ: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

ADV LAMEY: Did they offer no resistance?

MR LOTZ: No, not that I saw.

ADV LAMEY: But these people must have been surprised about the fact that unknown persons - and three of them to boot, had grabbed them and taken them away to a minibus whilst they - according to the evidence which we’ve heard, that is the evidence of your colleagues, was that they had actually been lured to the airport under false pretences in order to meet somebody.

MR LOTZ: I believe that they were surprised, I wasn’t physically present and I don’t know what they actually thought.

ADV LAMEY: In your evidence you describe actually quite a normal procedure as to how they were conveyed to the minibus.

MR LOTZ: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: You said that the Askaris just went to the three people in the vehicle, two were taken to the minibus first and then later the third one?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

ADV LAMEY: This third person was also intercepted or taken from the bakkie and then conveyed to the minibus?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

ADV LAMEY: What was the third one doing?

MR LOTZ: He was still busy at the vehicle, I don’t know what they spoke to him about and a couple of seconds later he arrived there with the third Askari.

ADV LAMEY: Now, the two who were taken first, did they get into the minibus first and thereafter only the third one?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: You must of been able to see the first two who got into the bus?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

ADV LAMEY: And yet the third one also got into the bus?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

ADV LAMEY: Captain van Zyl said that these people were grabbed and literally bundled into the minibus very fast and you say that it didn’t happen that way?

MR LOTZ: I wouldn’t say that they were actually bundled into this minibus, they simply got into the minibus. They were told or that is my inference, that the Askaris told them to get into the bus and that is what they did - nothing further, there was no struggle or anything of the kind, they were not forced in.

ADV LAMEY: And you are 100% certain about these facts? These are not issues as to which you have any uncertainty?

MR LOTZ: No, I’m not, I have no uncertainty about them.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole will testify that they were waiting in the minibus and that they saw how Captain Venter and the other White men - there were about four or five in total, how they were moving around before the people arrived there and that they were taken in an apparently normal way to the minibus by these White men.

MR LOTZ: No, that’s not what happened.

ADV LAMEY: Their evidence will further be that it was only afterwards that one of the White men then got into the minibus - according to Mr Koole, and they then drove to a little forest path just a short distance away from the airport. He said that it was only from that point onwards that - from the forest path, from that point, where one or two perhaps - there’s a little bit of a dispute about that, White men entered onto the scene in as much as the driving of the minibus was taken over by one of the other P.E. branch members, they can’t remember exactly who.

MR LOTZ: It was myself, I actually drove that vehicle.

ADV LAMEY: No, but the point is they say that that only happened after the Pebco 3 were already in this minibus, in other words what I’m trying to get across to you is - what I’m trying to determine is this, they didn’t know who the person was who took over the driver’s seat but in view of the fact that you said that you were the driver of this van or the bus, I’m trying to find out whether you’re not actually confusing the sequence of events, in other words that you did at some point drive the minibus but that it wasn’t necessarily on the way to the airport that you drove it and that you weren’t in the minibus when it was waiting at the airport.

MR LOTZ: No, I was in the vehicle.

ADV LAMEY: Are you sure you’re not confusing the sequence here?

MR LOTZ: No, from the point that I went to Glenconnor and afterwards to Walmer and from there onwards to the airport to the forest path, I was the driver of the minibus or the vehicle.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember whether one of the Askaris was called to one side at any point - this was after you’d reached the forest path? Was one of the Askaris called out to do something?

CHAIRPERSON: I hope you have got a point to make about telling us whether he remembers an Askaris being called aside, otherwise we must get to the important aspects of the matter Mr Lamey.

ADV LAMEY: As it pleases you Chairperson. I want to take you back to Post Chalmers, your evidence leads me to ask you the question of when the next day it happened - the day after the night that you arrived there, when did it actually happen that the Askaris left?

MR LOTZ: As I said earlier, it was after we’d had this barbecue - that’s how I recall it, it was the morning.

ADV LAMEY: What time was that?

MR LOTZ: Between 11 and 12 I think.

ADV LAMEY: Are you sure that the barbecue took place round about that time?

MR LOTZ: Yes. (transcriber’s own translation)

ADV LAMEY: 12 o’clock?

MR LOTZ: No, that’s when they left at.

ADV LAMEY: What time did the barbecue start?

MR LOTZ: After they ate - after the barbecue they left.

ADV LAMEY: So what time did the barbecue start?

MR LOTZ: Approximately 10 o’clock.

ADV LAMEY: And they left 12 o’clock at the latest?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

ADV LAMEY: And you are quite certain that the braai took place beforehand?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: I’d like to take you back to your statement in your amnesty application.

CHAIRPERSON: What page are you Mr Lamey?

ADV LAMEY: I’m at page 7, it is the 2nd and 3rd paragraph I will refer to.

When you say or let me first make sure, did Venter and the Askaris leave together?

MR LOTZ: Yes, they departed together.

ADV LAMEY: In paragraph 2 of your statement, on page 7 the following appears

"I went to bed and the next morning Captain Roelf Venter and the Askaris left back to their place of work whilst myself, Captain van Zyl and Lieutenant Niewoudt stayed behind"

That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: Now here you refer to the morning whilst 12 noon is actually already afternoon.

MR LOTZ: Well I said it was 11/12ish, it was - and perhaps one can also say that 5 to 12 is still morning.

ADV LAMEY: Did you eat together there?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: And the three people?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Now before this you must have actually gone to buy the food?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Where did you buy it?

MR LOTZ: In Cradock.

ADV LAMEY: What did you buy?

MR LOTZ: Meat, bread, coffee and things like that.

ADV LAMEY: The third paragraph of your statement you say

"In the course of the day I purchased food and I prepared it and I also chopped wood"

MR LOTZ: Correct.

ADV LAMEY

"Later that afternoon - later the afternoon or that afternoon, we and that includes the Pebco 3 ate the food which I had prepared"

MR LOTZ: It could be wrong, it was the morning.

ADV LAMEY: So you’re saying that that portion of your statement is wrong?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: If the Askaris were to say that - Mr Koole says that it was late afternoon, round about dusk when there was a braai and drinks, then he’s wrong?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that would be wrong.

ADV LAMEY: What made you decide to change your evidence after you actually deposed to this statement?

MR LOTZ: That’s how I can recall it, that’s how I think that things happened.

ADV LAMEY: But in you statement surely the same applied, you were stating what you could recall?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: So how come your evidence has changed on this aspect?

MR LOTZ: That’s how I can imagine how things happened, that’s how I can recall it.

ADV LAMEY: As you testified here today and not as it’s said in your statement?

MR LOTZ: Correct, yes.

ADV LAMEY: You said on the previous night you went to bed at some point and you couldn’t remember or you can’t remember whether it was during the interrogation or after the interrogation, you can’t recall at what point they were actually locked up in the garage?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

ADV LAMEY: Then on what basis are you testifying to the fact that the Askaris were standing guard as far as the three deceased were concerned, by actually putting the minibus in front of the garage, how do you know that? You went to bed, how do you know that they stood guard and slept in the minibus with their vehicle parked in front of the garage?

MR LOTZ: As I said before, some of these people had already been locked up in the garage, I didn’t see that all three of them were present at all stages whilst Niewoudt was interrogating them.

ADV LAMEY: Chairperson, I see it’s 4 o’clock, perhaps this is a convenient time to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: I honestly think it is, we’ll adjourn until half past 9 tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

WITNESS EXCUSED