Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, you’re next witness.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call Mr Koole.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do that - Mr Brits, this statement around which there was some argument, we have not taken it as an exhibit.

ADV BRITS: That’s the statement of Mr Mogoai?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

ADV BRITS: Or the statement of Mr Koole? Koole was my ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I’m sorry, of Mr Mogoai yes, you are right.

ADV BRITS: It seems that yesterday there was still some dispute over the status of the document.

CHAIRPERSON: That is correct.

ADV BRITS: That’s why it wasn’t handed in and marked as an exhibit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we didn’t feel comfortable when told by a witness that at the office of the Attorney General he was given a statement which he read through and he refused to sign because it had mistakes which were corrected and he sent another one.

We feel uncomfortable to accept an unsigned one which may just by accident turn out to be the one he had refused to sign, so we haven’t taken it as an exhibit.

ADV BRITS: No, Mr Chairman. I’ve spoken to Mr Lamey this morning about the status of the document and he said that he couldn’t really get instructions from the representatives of the Attorney General’s office because they weren’t available but hopefully during the course of tomorrow - I don’t know, I see he’s shaking his head, whether he can maybe assist us in whatever is his instructions about the status of the document. We can’t go any further than that we received it from Mr Brink and try to take it further from there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, we have made contact with Superintendent Mark Whale who said that he’s got the docket with him but he’s in Stutterheim. I didn’t want to go through the document with Mr Mogoai because he was under cross-examination, and try to verify and see whether he’s prepared to - and he says that he’s in Stutterheim which is about 400 kilometres away - Mr Whale, and he couldn’t get here in time so that we can just look at the original and try to verify it.

I just want to say that - and I’ll lead evidence also on that also with regard to Mr Koole, the document which has provisionally handed up, has been discussed with Mr Koole and my instructions are that that is a statement which he has signed. I will lead further evidence with regard to that and I have also had the opportunity to go through that statement with him but I will as I say, lead evidence on that.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, I can’t quite understand, what are the problems about a signed statement - we know of the existence now of a signed statement by the previous witness, can you tell us if the Attorney General is prepared to give it to us, is he prepared to co-operate or what’s the trouble, why can’t we find this document and put it before the Commission?

ADV LAMEY: Which document Mr ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: The signed statement of the previous witness.

ADV LAMEY: Mr de Jager, Mr Mark Whale has got the docket with him, he’s in Stutterheim at the moment and I’ve asked him whether he could be here tomorrow and he said it’s not possible for him to be here tomorrow.

ADV DE JAGER: Can’t he fax it through?

ADV LAMEY: Let me just take an instruction. Mr Chairman, I must just add that we act here on behalf of Mr Mogoai and Koole and as such they are our clients, we don’t want to - the Attorney General is not our client, and I also want to make sure myself before - either have an opportunity with Mr Mogoai to go through that document if possible to hear from himself whether he’s prepared as in the manner in which I’ve done with Mr ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, I’m aware that your firm has been asked by the Attorney General to act on behalf ...[inaudible]

ADV LAMEY: Yes, that is so Sir, but we remain - they’ve just been referred to us, we’ve been asked and they’ve been channelled to us but my impression is that our primary client is the client himself.

CHAIRPERSON: Call Mr Koole then.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just ask one thing about this affidavit or the signed one. We know now for a fact there is a signed affidavit and we are of the opinion that it’s important for us to see that version of that affidavit and maybe put that also to Mr Mogoai, we don’t know what’s really in that affidavit and in that respect we’d like to call him back at a later state if necessary, as soon as we the signed affidavit.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, if the Committee would permit me that after we’ve finished perhaps with Mr Koole - I can even do it now, to have an opportunity with Mr Mogoai to go through that unsigned document then perhaps we could remove the problem but I don’t want to do that before I’ve made certain - that is my difficulty.

ADV BRITS: Mr Chairman, obviously the correct thing to do will be to get the signed document here, not a document that the man has now got to rely on memory to tell us. There’s a signed document, let’s get the signed document, it’s obviously available. That will be just another waste of time to go through this document, we are already pressed for time.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we appreciate all this argument but what we don’t want to find ourselves involved in - and I hope nobody’s asking us to do, is for us to order that the Attorney General must produce that document. We don’t want to get involved, if any one of you can talk with them and get the document, let it be used. It’s unlikely that we will - once that document is available, we will say that is shouldn’t be used - speaking for myself, it’s unlikely that we will say that it shouldn’t be used.

Probably we will say that it must be used just like this one of Mr Koole which is here and there’s no reason why - once it is here, there’s not reason why it shouldn’t be used. We don’t want to get ourselves entangled where - we shouldn’t be driven to a point where we must now make orders, ordering people to produce documents - please try to resolve that.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I will ask my colleague to perhaps phone Mr Mark Whales and to see whether that can be faxed through to the Attorney General’s office here so that we can collect it here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let’s proceed then with the next witness.

Mr Koole, how do you pronounce your surname?

JOHANNES KOOLE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, before I proceed, may I just refer to the last page of - page 268 of the bundle of papers, you will see that’s there’s an omission with regard to question 11(a) and (b) in Mr Koole’s application with regard to the Pebco incident.

That has been an omission on my part and I have drafted an addendum which I have already handed copies to the other legal representatives and I beg leave to hand up copies to the Committee, I have paginated it page 269 and I will give the original to the evidence leader.

CHAIRPERSON: Just give us your full names Mr Koole?

MR KOOLE: Johannes Koole.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just say that the witness will testify in his mother tongue which is Tswana, he’s second language is Afrikaans and if I be permitted I will lead in Afrikaans and translate it to him to Tswana.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

EXAMINATION BY ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole, can you just look at page 254, you also have a copy in front of you of the documents marked in the bundle, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: The document from page 254, 255, 256 and 257 and 258, 259 260, 261, 262 and 263, 264, 265, 266, 267 and 268 and also the addendum on page 269, do you confirm that that is your supplementary amnesty application and do you also confirm that the signatures which appear on this document are yours and that it has been properly sworn and attested?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: May I take you to page 254, you personal particulars appear on that page such as name, address, date of birth, identity number, place of birth, are all those particulars correct?

MR KOOLE: They are correct Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: Could you please turn the page to page 255? There you say in paragraph 8(a) that you were in the employ of the State and specifically in the South African Police Security Branch, Northern Transvaal, was that at the stage when you left the service?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: Paragraph 8(b), there’s a short synopsis of when you joined the South African Police and your career in the police. You were firstly in the uniform branch and from ‘79 to ‘84 you were at the security branch in Thabazimbi, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: From 1984 to 1990, you were at Vlakplaas in Pretoria?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: And after ‘91 from the time that you left the service, you were at the security branch Northern Transvaal?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: Your force number, is that correct.

MR KOOLE: It’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: On the next page 256, you - as far as questions 9, 10 and 11 are concerned, you refer to Annexure A to your amnesty application, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: Now, I’d like to take you to page 259 to 260, there we found your background, it’s been set out on those pages.

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: I would just like to focus on certain aspects. You say that in 1984 you were transferred to Vlakplaas and whilst you were attached to the security branch in Thabazimbi you worked with Warrant Officer Roelf Venter.

And at some point he was transferred to Vlakplaas but that before his transfer he was in Zeerust for a while where he attained the rank of Captain and he was transferred to Vlakplaas with the same rank of Captain. After arriving at Vlakplaas he contacted you at some point and told you about Vlakplaas and told you also specifically that people were needed to work with the Askaris and do security work, you reacted to this and you accepted a transfer to Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir, except the fact that I was Zeerust, it’s Captain Venter who was at Zeerust.

ADV LAMEY: Were you in Thabazimbi?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: And he was in Zeerust.

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: So you were a permanent force member or permanent member of the police from the time that you joined the police, you weren’t an Askari?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: And you also received police training and you also say that you did courses at the security branch and the main task of the security police was the application of the Internal Stability Act and that you were taught by instructors and that you also accepted it that the ANC and similar liberation movements such as the PAC were behind the organised acts of terror and violence which threatened the security of the people in this country as well as the Government, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can I just step in here. On the next page in 1.3 you are telling us that during the course of your work you were decorated and you received some medals, is that correct? - for the work you were doing, is that right? - the next page 1.3.

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir, medals not just one medal.

CHAIRPERSON: In 1.4 you told us that you did border duty alongside Botswana and also in Rhodesia, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And in 1.5 you tell us that you always did your work as best as you could in the work that you were doing and then your work was to stamp terrorism or to fight terrorism, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You can proceed on page 261 Mr Lamey.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

I refer to page 261, paragraph 9(a), you say there that as far as the Pebco 3 incident’s concerned you’re applying for amnesty for your involvement in the abduction or assistance in that, interrogation, and assault during interrogation of these three people and any other ...[indistinct] which flow from these acts, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: In the next paragraph, it’s 9(a) IV, paragraph one, you start off by saying that in May/June of 1985 you were working in the Western Transvaal and your group leader was Captain Roelf Venter and there were other members in the group namely Beeslaar, Mamasela and Piet Mogoai and others. You were requested from Vlakplaas to go to Port Elizabeth with two other groups and you then left for Port Elizabeth, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: May I ask you, what would have been the purpose to Port Elizabeth? You were asked to go there, what would have been the reason for that?

MR KOOLE: We were not given the reason for us to go to Port Elizabeth.

ADV LAMEY: Were you simply instructed to go there?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chair.

ADV LAMEY: Did you assume that you would be doing your normal security tasks and functions in Port Elizabeth which then included the detection and identification of specific terrorist and insurgents?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Chair.

ADV LAMEY: And you also say on page 262 that during your stay in Port Elizabeth you stayed at Glen Connor - at the railway station at Glen Connor, which is between Utenhage and Jansenville.

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: You also say that whilst you were working there you were asked not to go into the Black townships because there was a lot of unrest and violence at the time and they were afraid that you would be attacked and that you would return fire and that would cause grave problems and that you should only do patrols in the White areas, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: I’d like to now take you to the next point which is this, can you recall that on one particular day whilst you were doing your patrolling functions, you received a message form Captain Roelf Venter?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: What was this message?

MR KOOLE: The message was that all the people from Vlakplaas, all that were staying at Glen Connor must go back to Glen Connor and he will find us there after a few minutes to tell us what to do next.

ADV LAMEY: Did you do that?

MR KOOLE: Yes, Sir.

ADV LAMEY: When you were at Glen Connor, what happened further?

MR KOOLE: After a while Mr Venter and Mr Beeslaar appeared and they called me, Mr Mogoai and Mr Mamasela, they called us aside.

ADV LAMEY: Were any instructions given then?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir, we were told to pack clothes for three days and we should get into the Kombi - Mr Peggy Radebe’s Kombi.

ADV LAMEY: Did you also drive the bus? Were you also one of the drivers of the bus?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir, I was one of the drivers.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t think you should have asked him that question because you know it is in dispute unless I misunderstand the point from which the Kombi’s driven.

ADV LAMEY: No, Mr Chairman, I’m just referring in general not specifically whether he was one of the drivers of the minibuses that were there.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

ADV LAMEY: Was there a specific bus that Peggy Radebe - what do you mean you had to take Peggy Radebe’s minibus?

MR KOOLE: The Kombi that I was using was a Datsun E20, Mr Peggy Radebe was driving a Toyota with dark windows.

ADV LAMEY: What did you do thereafter? - after you had received the instructions from Captain Venter to pack in some clothes.

MR KOOLE: Sir, the three of us left as we were told, we went to the place where we were directed to - that is in Port Elizabeth.

ADV LAMEY: What place was that?

MR KOOLE: It’s here in Port Elizabeth next to the station and close to the offices of the security police here in Port Elizabeth.

ADV LAMEY: If you say: "We left", who was it that left?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it was myself, Mr Mamasela and Mr Mogoai - we were three.

ADV LAMEY: Who drove the minibus?

MR KOOLE: I was the driver.

ADV LAMEY: You heard evidence from Mr Lotz, one of the P.E. people, that he said that on this specific day he came to fetch you at Glen Connor and took you to Port Elizabeth, what do you say in this regard?

MR KOOLE: It is not true Sir.

ADV LAMEY: Can you perhaps recall what time of the day it was that you left Glen Connor?

MR KOOLE: It was about after 3 o’clock or just between 3 o’clock and 4 o’clock in the afternoon.

ADV LAMEY: What happened after that? Did you arrive in Port Elizabeth?

MR KOOLE: When we arrived in Port Elizabeth we went to the spot where we were told to wait.

ADV LAMEY: Was that the same point or what point was that exactly?

MR KOOLE: Close to the railway and close to the security police of Port Elizabeth.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember more or less at what time you arrived there?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, if I estimate, it was after 5 o’clock or rather between 5 o’clock and 6 o’clock in the afternoon.

ADV LAMEY: What happened further on?

MR KOOLE: We waited for a while and Mr Venter appeared thereafter.

ADV LAMEY: You’re referring to Captain Venter?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: When he arrived he said we should go and get something to eat and we should come back and assemble at the same spot and he will come to give us further instructions.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: Mr Venter arrived, Mr Niewoudt and Mr Beeslaar, there were two others that I did not know at that time and they came to where we were.

ADV LAMEY: You are referring to Mr Niewoudt, did you know him?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir, I was introduced to him when we arrived here in Port Elizabeth, we went to their security police offices.

ADV LAMEY: Please tell us, were you a group leader of the Askaris?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: Could you get into the offices of the security branch or did you - were you there during that time when you were in Port Elizabeth?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Sir, I had access to go to the offices of the security police.

ADV LAMEY: Can I just ask you - with reference to this point, how long did you stay in Port Elizabeth when you had this instruction from Captain Venter to meet you at this designated point on this specific day?

MR KOOLE: It was about a week Sir.

ADV LAMEY: After Captain Venter, Niewoudt and Warrant Officer Beeslaar - and you referred to two other Whites who appeared there, these other two, did you know them?

MR KOOLE: Sir, I did not know them.

ADV DE JAGER: Did you get to know them later?

ADV LAMEY: Sir, I saw them that day and I never saw them again where I could identify them.

ADV LAMEY: What happened after Venter and Niewoudt and these other people arrived at that point? Was anything further told to you?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir, Mr Venter gave a message that we should follow the car and we were going to the airport.

ADV LAMEY: Did you do that?

MR KOOLE: Yes, Sir.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: When we arrived at the airport we parked the car and the other car that we followed also parked.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember where you parked?

MR KOOLE: Sir, I will remember because before getting through the entrance to the airport we stopped and the car that we were following was parking at a dark place.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, but where did you park?

MR KOOLE: It was at a parking lot at the front of the airport.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened after that?

MR KOOLE: Mr Venter said we should wait there until he gives us another order.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: After a short while Mr Venter came to us with one of the White men I did not know and he gave me an instruction because I was the driver, he said I should go through the entrance just a little while and he pointed where I should park the car.

ADV LAMEY: You say you went through the entrance, what do you mean by this? What entrance are you referring to?

MR KOOLE: Sir, there was a door that had a light outside, it was an entrance to the airport and we went to the other side of the entrance not where we were parking.

ADV LAMEY: I’d just like to have some clarity ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Lamey, let me ask him.

What did Captain Venter say to you? You say he came to you with another White person you didn’t know, what did he say?

MR KOOLE: When he arrived he said we should move from where we were parking, we should drive a little bit further and he pointed where I should part the car. He said I should drive past the entrance of the airport and that is what I did.

CHAIRPERSON: How far way from the entrance did you park?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it was not that far, just a few paces from the entrance to the airport, I cannot specifically say how many paces.

ADV DE JAGER: I think that we can become a bit confused if we refer to the entrance to the airport. Do you know airport? There is a door that you go through, are you referring to that door or are you talking about the gate at the entrance to the airport itself?

MR KOOLE: Sir, there’s a parking lot next to the airport and on the left there’s a building and that building has a door and this door had a light and that light showed that this was an entrance into the building.

ADV LAMEY: What happened after this?

MR KOOLE: I did as I was told, myself, Mr Mamasela and Mr Mogoai stayed in the car that we were using.

ADV LAMEY: What kind of vehicle was this?

MR KOOLE: It’s a Kombi that I was driving Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: Sir, Mr Venter came again and he said we should open the sliding door and the door should be left open because there are people that will have to get into the Kombi.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: We did as ordered, the sliding door was left open and we remained in the Kombi and he went back to the entrance at the airport.

ADV LAMEY: ...[inaudible]

INTERPRETER: The Interpreter didn’t hear the question.

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: What happened while the three of you remained in the bus, could you see anything?

MR KOOLE: Yes, Sir, while you were watching you could see what was happening.

ADV LAMEY: What happened?

MR KOOLE: Mr Venter was walking and he could be seen and the next moment he is not seen together with these men in his company and they were just rotating next to the entrance of the building. And it showed that there was something or someone they were waiting for.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: While still waiting - after a while, I saw three men going towards the entrance - that is towards the direction that Mr Venter and them were moving.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, and what happened further?

MR KOOLE: Sir, when these men approached the entrance into the building I saw Mr Venter and the other man approaching them before they could enter the building and Mr Venter said something to them - I do not know what he said, and he pointed to them where the Kombi was parked - our Kombi. And without any problem, these three men and Mr Venter and the other gentleman came towards the Kombi.

ADV LAMEY: You say that it was Venter, these three men and who else?

MR KOOLE: It was Mr Venter and the three gentlemen and other men and I can’t tell whether they were three or four, I could not count them. (end of tape - no follow on)

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember whether Mr Niewoudt was among one of the others?

MR KOOLE: Sir, I cannot remember well whether he was among the men who came to the Kombi, I really cannot remember whether he was there.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: Sir, when these men were already in the Kombi, one of the men - I’ve said earlier on that I did not know them, came to the passenger’s seat in the front and when he opened the door I shifted, I went through the two seats and then I went to the back seat. One opened the ...[intervention]

ADV LAMEY: Before these three men were brought to the bus and when you saw Captain Venter together with the other men whom you cannot specifically describe, did you see what type of clothes they were wearing?

MR KOOLE: Mr Venter and these White men were wearing lumber jackets.

ADV LAMEY: Was it a uniform or civilian clothes?

MR KOOLE: It was just usual clothing Sir.

ADV LAMEY: And can I just take you further, you say that after the three men got into the minibus you had to move out of the driver’s seat, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: One of these three - one of the men started driving the car, he drove for a short distance and he drove off from the tarred road into the gravel road into the bushes.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, let us stop you there. You were interrupted earlier on, after you told us that one of the people came onto the driver’s side and you shifted to the back seat and then you - in your language you said one of them came to the Kombi on the other side - on the other door, and you were interrupted there and I don’t think that interpretation has taken place.

MR KOOLE: Yes, Sir, two White men were then in the front seats and the other one was the driver, he took over from me at that stage.

ADV LAMEY: You said that you then went to a little path in the veld after you had left the tarred road, a short way from the airport.

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir, there were bushes, no lights were seen.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you just tell us who were all in the Kombi? You were in the Kombi - you told us, because you moved to the back seat, is that correct?

INTERPRETER: The interpreter couldn’t hear the question.

ADV LAMEY: Sir, it was myself, Mr Mogoai who was behind me and the three gentleman and Mr Mamasela.

ADV LAMEY: And who else?

MR KOOLE: Sir, I think I answered your question, I said two men in the front, myself and Mr Mamasela, Mr Mogoai and the three gentlemen who were put into our car.

ADV LAMEY: I’m sorry, perhaps I didn’t hear it like that. What happened after this - what you saw happened?

MR KOOLE: Sir, we stopped and a car came to stop in front of us and just after a few minutes another bakkie came and it also stopped.

ADV LAMEY: Yes.

MR KOOLE: Mr Mamasela was called, he went out of the car and Mr Venter talked to him outside. Sir, I saw Mr Niewoudt during that discussion. Mr Mamasela got into the bakkie that was parked, he stayed a few minutes in that bakkie and thereafter he drove off and there was another car following him.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: The driver of the other car came to speak to the driver of our Kombi, then we followed that car.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: Sir, we drove in an unknown situation - there were - sometimes I would see houses and lights, sometimes we’d be driving in the wilderness where there are no lights at all. Sometimes when driving you’d see a car in front of us and the next minute you would not see this car and you would not know, is it the same car that was driving in front us and there would be another car coming from behind.

ADV LAMEY: At that stage, who was driving the minibus?

MR KOOLE: It is that man who took over from me at the airport, he was still the driver.

ADV LAMEY: Can I just ask you this regarding these three people who were in the bus, up to this stage, can you remember if anything had been done to them?

MR KOOLE: Yes, Sir.

ADV LAMEY: What was that?

MR KOOLE: Sir, there’s a time when cloths were brought, they were blindfolded.

CHAIRPERSON: When was this when they were blindfolded or where - at which stage?

MR KOOLE: Sir, I cannot tell but it was just after we left where we were stopping, we were driving in this unknown area and they were blindfolded.

ADV LAMEY: Are you saying that at a stage you stopped after you had been driving around? When you saw lights and then darkness, did you stop at any stage?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: It is where we were waiting when these men were blindfolded and Mr Mamasela came to join us.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they blindfolded after Mr Mamasela joined you?

ADV LAMEY: That’s correct Sir.

ADV SANDI: Did they show any resistance to being blindfolded, was it easy to just blindfold them?

MR KOOLE: They were not against blindfolding.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they handcuffed at that stage or not?

MR KOOLE: They were not yet handcuffed Sir, later on they were handcuffed. The cars - we were travelling in four cars, they were told to sit on the floor in the Kombi and not on he seats anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV LAMEY: Was that when you left the point where you had stopped?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: Sir, we followed another car from there, we were still in this unknown area.

ADV DE JAGER: You just mentioned something about a number of cars, I think you mentioned four - I don’t know whether I heard you correctly.

MR KOOLE: Sir, it was our Kombi and a car that was driving in front and a car that was driving behind. Just after we stopped another car joined and it parked at the front of the one that was before us.

That is when these men were handcuffed and their legs were cuffed and the instruction was that they should not sit on the seats anymore, they should sit on the floor in the Kombi.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand you Mr Koole, that was not at the spot where they were blindfolded, it was later on.

MR KOOLE: They were first blindfolded and then they were handcuffed and the legs were also cuffed.

ADV LAMEY: Can I just ask you this, the blindfolding and the handcuffing of the hands, the shackling of the feet, did this take place on the same occasion or at which stage did this take place? Were there different stages when the blindfolding took place or the handcuffing?

MR KOOLE: Sir, they were first blindfolded and they were then cuffed.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words they were blindfolded and then you drove for some distance, then you stopped and then you saw these four vehicles and so on and so forth and that is the point at which they were handcuffed and their legs were also cuffed?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir, they were cuffed both the legs and the hands.

ADV LAMEY: Do you move further from there?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

MR KOOLE: As we were driving there was a car in front of us and there was a road block ahead and these policemen were camouflaged.

ADV LAMEY: Are you now referring to policemen at the roadblock?

MR KOOLE: Yes, Sir.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: The car that stopped at the roadblock was the one driving in front of us, we only reduced speed.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: Then we did not stop, we were just let through.

ADV LAMEY: And then, what happened then?

MR KOOLE: We drove in an area that I cannot even identify today, we were driving in the dark, driving in the light until we arrived at a place and we turned to the left. The driver of the car in front of us went off, got out of the car and he unlocked the gate that looked at the time as if it was locked.

ADV LAMEY: And then, what happened?

MR KOOLE: After opening the gate he left it open, he drove ahead of us and we turned to the left and then we took a turn to the east.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: The driver of the car in front indicated to the driver of the Kombi where to stop and he showed him exactly where to stop and he did just that.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: Sir, this house was dark and I can’t remember who took out the candles that were supposed to be lit in the house.

ADV LAMEY: Were candles lit?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: These three men were taken out of the Kombi, they were put on the stoep next to the house that we were close to.

ADV DE JAGER: You said that they were put down on the stoep, were they carried to there or were they just allowed to sit there?

MR KOOLE: They walked - it was not a long distance, even though they were cuffed both their legs and their hands, they could walk.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened after this?

MR KOOLE: I saw some of the White people, I do not know where they came from and someone was called by - it was said that someone must be taken to the cell but I can’t remember the name that was mentioned.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: Myself, Mr Mogoai and Mr Venter were shown the building that was next to us, there was an open door facing the opposite direction.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: The candles were already burning. One man from Port Elizabeth that I do not know said there were rings on the floor and I saw those rings and on the wall there were also rings, they were built in. Mr Hashe was fastened to the rings on the floor.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: Sir, Mr Venter and this man from Port Elizabeth left myself and Mr Mogoai behind and they went outside, they left us behind with Mr Hashe.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, and then what happened?

MR KOOLE: After a while two men from Port Elizabeth came with Mr Venter.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: One of these men I do not know asked Mr Hashe the whereabouts of the guns they use in the township to kill people with - the AK47’s.

ADV LAMEY: Could you just please repeat this part that you’ve just mentioned?

MR KOOLE: Mr Hashe was interrogated about the AK47 rifles.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened after this, how did Mr Hashe react to this?

MR KOOLE: He said he did not know anything about those guns, he said they were troubling him, he doesn’t know anything and it was better to kill him because he did not know anything about the guns.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you just tell us - you said, after a while two men came with along with Mr Venter, who were these two men?

MR KOOLE: I do not know them Sir, I cannot point them here in this house.

ADV DE JAGER: Who asked Mr Hashe about the AK47’s?

MR KOOLE: He was first asked by this man from Port Elizabeth, the man I cannot identify.

ADV SANDI: What language was this man using as he was talking to Mr Hashe?

MR KOOLE: He was speaking in English and at times in Xhosa.

ADV DE JAGER: But you could not identify him, you do not know him?

MR KOOLE: Sir, I do not know him and I cannot tell who it was.

ADV LAMEY: What happened after this, was there any further interrogation and what happened?

MR KOOLE: During the interrogation Mr Niewoudt came and he went on to ask about the guns and he asked him about their relations with ANC, he asked him about Pebco, he asked him about the relationship between themselves and the ANC - what was the arrangement between the two, those are the questions he was asking.

ADV LAMEY: Who dealt with the interrogation most of the time at this stage?

MR KOOLE: When the interrogation got turns, Mr Niewoudt was the person who was asking many questions.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened thereafter?

MR KOOLE: Sometimes they were speaking in English saying: "You don’t want to answer my questions" and tension built up and the assault started.

ADV LAMEY: Was this on Mr Hashe?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: Can you remember whether he still had the blindfold on at that stage?

MR KOOLE: I remember he was still blindfolded, his hands were cuffed, his legs were cuffed. I remember very well when we took him into that house he could not see properly and he needed assistance so that he could walk properly.

ADV LAMEY: Do you know whether the blindfold was removed at one stage during the interrogation?

MR KOOLE: There was a stage when the cloth was removed. The cloth was not removed because we wanted to, he requested, he said: "Please remove this cloth from my face" and the cloth was removed.

ADV LAMEY: In which way was he assaulted then?

MR KOOLE: Sir, he was beaten with fists and he was kicked. I can’t tell properly who did what but fists and kicks were used.

ADV LAMEY: Did you also participate in the assaults?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir, I took part.

ADV LAMEY: Did you use your fists and did you kick him?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: Were any objects used, such as a stick or a pipe to assault Mr Hashe?

MR KOOLE: No, Sir, nothing was used, only fists and kicks.

ADV DE JAGER: Were sticks or iron pipes used at a later stage or at any time?

MR KOOLE: I never saw anything that was used to assault these people in my presence.

ADV LAMEY: What happened after this, after the assaults?

MR KOOLE: Mr Hashe was left where he was fastened to - that is on the floor, we went outside and another man was brought to the stoep but I do not know his name.

ADV LAMEY: Can I just ask you, how - can you perhaps remember how long the interrogation together with the assaults on Mr Hashe - in that room with the rings, how long this took before he was left?

MR KOOLE: It did not take long, it was about 10 to 15 minutes in general. It didn’t take long, it was a sudden thing and it was stopped.

CHAIRPERSON: What you are telling us is what happened on the night of your arrival?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: Can you perhaps just tell us, at what time you arrived at that farmhouse?

MR KOOLE: Sir, it was midnight, it was really midnight - I think it was midnight, I don’t know really.

ADV LAMEY: I interrupted you when you were saying that one of the other people - you were now outside and that one of the other people were fetched or was brought, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct Sir, he was supported by two men on the sides, his hands were cuffed, his legs too. His face was still covered and he couldn’t walk properly, he was walking with difficulty and they were helping him find his way.

ADV LAMEY: What did this man do and what happened?

MR KOOLE: This man was screaming and he was struggling, he was saying they are troubling him and he said he was prepared to die anytime.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: He was assaulted before he could be asked questions, he was kicked and he was beaten with fists.

CHAIRPERSON: I think it’s a convenient point, we will take it further when we come back, we’ll adjourn until 11 o’clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Lamey?

Mr Koole, you are still under oath.

JOHANNES KOOLE: s.u.o.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole, upon the adjournment we were busy with the other one who was brought and then he struggled and an assault on him was immediately launched, he was kicked and beaten, could you please take it from there? What happened then?

MR KOOLE: That is so Mr Chairperson, he was struggling, then he was screaming and they began to assault him.

ADV DE JAGER: Let’s just find out what was happening here, do you know who this other man was - this other man who had been brought not?

MR KOOLE: I don’t know his name Mr Chairperson, it is one of those people we brought to that farmhouse.

ADV DE JAGER: So, up till this day you still don’t know what this man’s name is?

MR KOOLE: Even this day I don’t know who this person is.

ADV DE JAGER: No, I just wanted to know. If you refer to people - whether it’s a member of the police or whoever, and you know his name, will you please just mention his name so we know who you are referring to?

MR KOOLE: Mr Chairperson, I am not able to identify because three people’s names were mentioned but the only one I know among the three is Mr Hashe. I don’t know who is between Galela and Godolozi, I don’t know who was there. The only one I know is Mr Hashe, he was one of those people we brought to the farmhouse.

ADV LAMEY: Could you please proceed. After the assault on him started and he started kicking and screaming, what happened then?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, the cloth was removed from his face, then he was interrogated as to whether - "Because you don’t want to answer our questions and we want to talk with you and we’ve removed the cloth, are you now prepared to answer the questions"?

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

MR KOOLE: He did not say a thing.

ADV LAMEY: Was the blindfold in fact removed?

MR KOOLE: Yes, the cloth was removed from the face before he was asked as whether he was prepared to answer the questions, then when - he answered when the cloth was removed, that he’s not prepared to say a thing.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

MR KOOLE: He was removed, I don’t know where he was taken to but he was taken out of that place by those to men to a certain place.

ADV SANDI: Where is Mamasela at this stage?

MR KOOLE: I am not able to say whether Mr Mamasela was present when that person was brought and when the assault took place - as whether Mamasela was among the people who were there when the second person was assaulted.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, when that person was removed it was - the interrogation ended then and we were instructed that it was now night and we should got and rest. Mr Venter said to us, there is no place where we can be accommodated to sleep, we would be better off if we can go to the Kombi and sleep there.

ADV LAMEY: Is that the way it happened, that you slept in the Kombi?

MR KOOLE: Yes it’s true, we slept in the Kombi.

ADV LAMEY: When you say: "We", who are you referring to?

MR KOOLE: It is myself, Mr Mogoai and Mr Mamasela, the three of us slept in the Kombi.

ADV SANDI: Mr Koole, did you all go to the Kombi at the same time and slept there?

MR KOOLE: I’m not able to testify in that regard as to who went first but when I arrived at the Kombi all of us were in but I’m not able to say who went first, who went in the middle and who went last but all us went into the Kombi.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, what happened next?

MR KOOLE: We went to sleep in the Kombi up to the following day.

ADV LAMEY: And the next morning, what happened then?

MR KOOLE: The interrogation started. We first went to Mr Hashe, he was released form the shackles and brought outside with the help so that he would be able to walk. He was put on the stoep, then the interrogation started on him.

ADV LAMEY: You say - the interpretation I heard, is that he was on the stoep or on the veranda, where exactly was he put?

MR KOOLE: He was removed from the rings which were implanted on the floor and after he was released from those rings he was taken outside just near the house where he was put on the easterly side.

ADV LAMEY: Is there a stoep there?

MR KOOLE: Yes, there is a veranda next to that place.

ADV LAMEY: What happened there?

MR KOOLE: He was interrogated again. Those questions were related to the questions he was referred to last night, mainly about guns and terrorists - those were the main questions that were directed to Mr Hashe.

ADV LAMEY: Can you recall who was present during this interrogation?

MR KOOLE: I know that Mr Venter was present, Mr Mamasela was present, Mr Mogoai was present, Mr Beeslaar was present and another two men who were there during the interrogation.

ADV LAMEY: You are referring to two other men, are you referring to the P.E. people or to whom are you referring?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, those are the two men who belong to the Port Elizabeth security branch.

ADV DE JAGER: And you don’t know there names?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, I don’t know their names.

ADV DE JAGER: So, is it correct to say - I want to put it to you because it’s the second time I know asked you this, that Mr Niewoudt was not present because you do know Niewoudt?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, that is where Mr Niewoudt would come, then from there would as a question, then he would leave, then he would come in and out so I would not be able to specify where he was present and when he was not present.

He was moving around, so he would come to us and then again would go somewhere and then come back again, so I would not know where he went at that time when he was not present during the interrogation.

ADV DE JAGER: You see, you have not once in your testimony mentioned Niewoudt’s name in the context of being the main interrogator or that he was the person who interrogated. He said that he came in later after I asked whether somebody was speaking Xhosa and you told us that you knew him because you were introduced to him and that you knew his name on the afternoon before your departure, that’s what you told us.

MR KOOLE: I believe that I explained about the first interrogation which was done mainly by Mr Niewoudt, that’s what I explained that Mr Niewoudt was leading the interrogation on the first night - if I’m not mistaken I think I’ve put it that way.

ADV DE JAGER: You may proceed.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

MR KOOLE: During the interrogation and being assaulted, he was assaulted by fists and kicks. It came to a point where Mr Hashe said: "Please stop, I want to tell you what you want", then he said to us: "At my sister’s place there is an AK47 which is hidden in her place".

That’s when Mr Niewoudt - I saw him again, then he looked for a pen, then he wanted to write whilst Mr Hashe was saying to write the name and address. He said to us: "Let’s wait a little bit because I’m looking for a pen", then I saw him during that interrogation at that point.

ADV LAMEY: Can you recall when mention was made of the AK47?

MR KOOLE: The question is incomplete.

ADV LAMEY: What happened further after he spoke about the AK47 that was at his sister’s place? (transcriber’s own translation)

MR KOOLE: They left him after he spoke of an AK47 at his sister’s place - he was left there but he was still chained.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just repeat what he has just said.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole, could you please repeat what you just said?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, after he spoke of an AK47 he was left there and everybody went to different directions even if they didn’t go far, but he was left alone whilst he was still cuffed.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I remember that at that time Mr Hashe requested water, I don’t remember as whether it’s Mr Mogoai or Mr Mamasela who gave him water but I saw him drinking the water.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: Whilst we were still there, Mr Hashe who was quiet - I saw his face next to the - I don’t know as whether it’s the right eye or the left eye.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: That is where we were given time to rest and we left him there, he fell asleep where he was left.

ADV LAMEY: I’m sorry, I don’t know think the interpretation came through properly, it seemed to suggest that you noticed something in the vicinity of his eye. I don’t know whether you gave a complete answer, what exactly was it that you saw next to either his right or his left eye?

MR KOOLE: I saw some parts of his left or right eye being swollen.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you indicate to us where the swelling was?

MR KOOLE: It was above the ear, I don’t know whether it’s the left eye or the right eye. It was on the other side - on the above side, above the lid of either the left or the right eye.

ADV LAMEY: After he’d been give water, what happened then?

MR KOOLE: After he was given water he fell asleep where he was left - right in the sun.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, continue.

MR KOOLE: Whilst we were still there where we were resting - it was not far from him, I stood up and I came nearer to him, then he called. He was calling but I don’t know as whether he was calling me or whom, he called twice. For the first time he called in English saying: "Dad"?, for the third time when he said in English, he said: "Friend"?, then I looked at him and then he ...[indistinct] should come nearer friend"?, then I looked at him and then he ...[indistinct] should come nearer.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

MR KOOLE: He told me that he is now prepared to tell the truth. He said that on the previous interrogation he lied that he had a gun at his sister’s place. He was afraid that if the investigators would go there and find out the gun is not there he would be in danger. So, there’s nothing like that - like a gun, which is hidden at his sister’s place as he said earlier.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, what happened next?

MR KOOLE: Whilst I was trying to go to Mr Mogoai to tell him what I heard from Mr Hashe, the Port Elizabeth police - two men who were near, I thought they heard for themselves so they rushed to him with violence and they started kicking him and beating him whilst he was still laying on the ground.

ADV LAMEY: You previously heard that - it was put to you that if you can remember names like Mr Niewoudt’s name, you must say that he was there at a particular time or not, can you recall whether he was present at this stage of the proceedings?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, there Mr Niewoudt was not present, only two White men who were there rushed to him and started to kick him and assault him because they said he’s making them children, so they have no time to play games.

ADV LAMEY: How was he assaulted?

MR KOOLE: He was kicked - much of the assault - whilst he was laying on the ground he was kicked when one of them kicked him just underneath the chin with - that person hit the corner of the wall, then he started bleeding on the side of the mouth and on the nose.

ADV LAMEY: Can I ask you - just a moment, can you recall where Mr Mamasela was at that stage?

MR KOOLE: Mr Chairperson, I did not see him because the person whom I was intending to tell what Mr Hashe said, that it was not true about the AK47 - I didn’t see Mr Mamasela nearby. I wanted to tell Mr Mogoai what Mr Hashe was saying, that is why I say I did not see Mamasela nearby.

ADV LAMEY: So you didn’t see him in the immediate vicinity but he could have been somewhere there, is that what you’re saying - or some distance away?

MR KOOLE: That may be correct, he could have been somewhere near although not close where he was able to see or hear what I heard or what I saw but I did not see him just next to vicinity or next to Mr Hashe when he was assaulted.

ADV LAMEY: You’re saying that he was kicked and the assault caused blood to emerge from his nose and mouth, what happened next?

MR KOOLE: He fainted - he became numb, then we could see that he was now weak.

ADV LAMEY: Before he fainted and after he had been kicked, did you see the way in which he fell? How did he fall, did you see that?

MR KOOLE: He was assaulted whilst he was lying on the ground so he became numb and fainted whilst he was on the ground.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

MR KOOLE: Then they left him, then they came back again. The two gentlemen came and pulled next to the water tap, they poured water on his head, then that water flew up to the body, then they closed the tap and then they left him there.

ADV LAMEY: What happened to Mr Hashe then? Was he still unconscious after the water was poured over him or what happened?

MR KOOLE: He fainted for a while, then after that he regained consciousness, then he rubbed his face with his clothes.

ADV LAMEY: And then, what happened to him?

MR KOOLE: From there he was left there.

ADV DE JAGER: And that stage, was he still handcuffed?

MR KOOLE: That is correct and whilst he was assaulted he was till cuffed, both hands and legs.

ADV SANDI: How did they get him to the water tank if he was still cuffed?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I believe that in my evidence I said - when he was brought from the house he was released from the rings and he was able to walk although he was walking heavily. He was dragged whilst he was cuffed on the legs and on the hands but they were removed from the rings in the room where he was put but he was able to be moved from place to place, either by him or with the help of others but he was able to be moved from one place to the other.

CHAIRPERSON: I don’t understand this, he fainted and had to be taken to the tap. I assume when they took him to the tap he had not as yet recovered his consciousness because that happened only after the water was poured over him.

MR KOOLE: I explained that he was dragged to the tap which was near him, then water was poured on him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I thought that was the question which was asked, thank you.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then with Mr Hashe?

MR KOOLE: He was - after he regained consciousness, he was taken back to the room where he was tied.

ADV LAMEY: Did you see that with your own eyes?

MR KOOLE: Yes, that’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: I’d like to ask you the following - during this assault on Mr Hashe and when he told you that he hadn’t told the truth about the AK47 which had been concealed at the woman’s house and when he’d been assaulted by means of the kicking and the punching, did you take part in that assault at that stage?

MR KOOLE: After he said to me he was not telling the truth - when he was assaulted for the second time, I did not take part because it was immediately after he told me the truth that he was hurt so he didn’t want the assault to continue and that’s why he lied.

ADV LAMEY: After Mr Hashe was taken back to the room, what happened next?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, a certain person who was taken the previous day - who was interrogated the following day, who was ...[indistinct] the previous day, was taken again to the place where he was interrogated the first day.

ADV LAMEY: The interpretation came through as being a: "certain person", is it one of the three people who had been detained?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson, he was the second person who was interrogated the previous day after Mr Hashe - the previous day, so the second person who was interrogated the previous night, was the same person who was interrogated for a second time after Mr Hashe.

ADV LAMEY: Where was he taken to?

MR KOOLE: He was taken near the house, there is a veranda and then he was put there.

ADV LAMEY: What happened - how did this person - what did he do? What happened further?

MR KOOLE: When he was brought there - when he arrived there, he was struggling to - he was kicking, he was shouting, then he was saying that he does not know a thing and there is nothing he would say.

ADV SANDI: Who was bringing him to this place?

MR KOOLE: The people from Port Elizabeth who were engaged in the Hashe’s interrogation and assault.

ADV LAMEY: Can we just take you back as something was not heard, you said that the same man who was interrogated for the second time was brought to the side of the house - the stoep, and I asked you whether he did anything and what happened further, can you just please take it from there?

MR KOOLE: I said that when he was brought there he was shouting and saying that he does not know anything and they were just troubling him.

ADV LAMEY: What happened further?

MR KOOLE: They started to assault him. He was put a wet bag, it is called PPR and you put articles of the detainees like belts - the things which we do allow them to go to the prison cells with and then that bag was put on his head, then it was tightened underneath just under the chin.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: He was beaten, he was kicked - this bag was removed, then he was taken to the side of the garage which was near us there.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: After the bag was removed from his head he was asked as to whether he is prepared to talk, then he denied and he said there is nothing which he will say which he knows and it is better for them to kill him.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: He was put in the garage, then I went inside that garage and the bag was again put on his head, then it was made to be tight and he suffocated.

ADV LAMEY: And what did this person do while the bag was over his head?

MR KOOLE: He was struggling and he was shouting and from there he became weak and he was not able to shout or scream.

ADV LAMEY: While he was struggling and screaming and apart from the fact that the bag was over his head, was anything else done to him?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it was only the kicking and the beating.

ADV LAMEY: I want to ask you, during these events - after he was brought to the side of the house and the bag was pulled over his head and he was kicked and beaten until he was pulled back into the garage or dragged back, did you participate in these assaults at this stage?

MR KOOLE: No, Chairperson.

ADV LAMEY: Who was part of these assaults - that you can remember?

MR KOOLE: Those are the two men who were from P.E. who were interrogating Mr Hashe, those were the people who were assaulting this person.

ADV LAMEY: Was Mr Niewoudt among one of these people?

MR KOOLE: I didn’t see him taking part, he was coming in and going out - on the assault and the putting of the bag, I didn’t see him taking part.

ADV LAMEY: You say that you went to the garage yourself, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: After he was put in that garage - after the bag was put in, Mr Venter came.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: He was angry and reprimanded those two men to remove the bag because it will kill this person.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened next?

MR KOOLE: They left him there - those men who were interrogating him left him and went inside and all of us left him there but he was till cuffed, both hands and legs.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the sack then removed from his head after Captain Venter had suggested it?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Mr Chairperson, because he was reprimanding them, they removed that sack quickly or that bag quickly.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: Those people who were interrogating those people inside the house - a group of them went inside the house - I was standing outside and I don’t know whether Mr Mamasela and Mogoai were there, then after a while they came back from the house.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, and what happened then?

MR KOOLE: I don’t know what they were talking about or receiving instructions but when they went outside the house they were not sound - they very angry and they were insulting.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

ADV DE JAGER: A moment please, you said that when they came out of the house they were very insulting, who did they insult?

MR KOOLE: They were just insulting, the words they used is: "shit" and all those things: "we cannot stand for this", "it’s a waste or time, they are playing with us", so they went inside the garage.

ADV LAMEY: Do I understand your testimony correct, it was just swearing but not aimed specifically at anybody?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, those swearing words were not directed to a particular person, they were just generalising that: "We are not going to stand for this kind of games, it’s a waste of time".

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: They closed the garage door after they went inside to where this person was in - the Black members were standing outside, then we heard this person screaming inside the garage.

ADV LAMEY: The Black members you’re referring to, who are they?

MR KOOLE: It is myself, Mamasela and Mr Mogoai, we were standing outside.

CHAIRPERSON: Who went into the garage?

MR KOOLE: Two men who went outside the house, then they went inside the garage.

ADV SANDI: Were you told to stand outside or was it your own decision to stand outside?

MR KOOLE: It was my decision to stand outside because I was not prepared to take part in the interrogation.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: We were standing there - the three of us, Captain Venter came and then he went - proceeded to the house, Mr Beeslaar came to us where we were standing - that is myself, Mr Mamasela and Mogoai.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: Captain Venter entered the garage where these two men from Port Elizabeth were in - together with the person who was screaming and Mr Beeslaar came to me and Mr Mogoai where we were standing.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, and what happened next?

MR KOOLE: After Mr Beeslaar came to us he was criticising the way these people were handling this operation, that they are not doing the interrogation well and it is not the right way to interrogate the person in this way, then he continued by saying: "Anyway, that’s their problem".

ADV LAMEY: What was your impression of Beeslaar at that stage, how did he seem or appear to you?

MR KOOLE: He was hurt because after that he folded his hands and he looked in the other direction and he gave us his back.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: After some minutes those two people and Mr Venter came out of the garage but this person didn’t go out with them, he was left there and the door was not closed, it was left open.

ADV LAMEY: And then?

MR KOOLE: Mr Venter said to us we should go and rest for a while because it was in the afternoon.

ADV LAMEY: If you say that it was during the afternoon, what time was it?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I think it was late afternoon, I’m not able to verify that place because it was - we were for the first time being there but if I imagine, it was after 6 to 7 o’clock - it was between 6 o’clock and 7 o’clock but I’m not able to tell the exact time - it was the first time the sun set whilst I was there.

ADV LAMEY: I didn’t want an exact time, I just wanted to know more or less what time of the afternoon is was. What happened further?

MR KOOLE: Whites were about five, I’m not able to tell the exact number - so they put fire, they braaied meat.

ADV LAMEY: You say that there were five White, does this include Venter and Beeslaar?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You say fire was made, what happened then?

MR KOOLE: They made a braai.

ADV LAMEY: And then, what happened?

MR KOOLE: During that time when they were busy with the braai there were beer cans which were drank there and food was prepared. Mr Venter said we should eat first - we ate, then thereafter they ate.

ADV LAMEY: Do I understand you correctly if you say that alcohol was consumed during this braai? Were you present there?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, whilst they were busy with the braai I was not present there because only Whites were busy with the braai but there were beer cans - I was able to see them.

ADV LAMEY: Are you saying that you were not present during the braai but that at one stage you did eat?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, let me explain it this way - whilst they were busy braaing this meat I was not next to the fire - I’m not used to that when you make a braai we should be near there, I was not there busy with the braai, I was at a certain spot. I was part of the group which - for the braai but I was not busy with the braai itself, I was at a certain spot not far from the fire.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you, I understand that but did you get any food to eat?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, they said we should serve ourselves - that is myself, Mr Mogoai and Mr Mamasela. There was porridge which - I don’t know as whether it was cooked there but the porridge was there and it was warm, so I served myself.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry. Mr Koole, you speak of cans of beer and the impression I get is that when you saw these cans they were empty.

MR KOOLE: They were having them in their hands - those people who were busy with the braai, they had those cans in the hands, so I believe they had contents inside.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, thank you. Yes Mr Lamey?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole, did you also have an opportunity to have something to drink?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, after I ate I had something to drink.

ADV LAMEY: If you refer to something to drink, are you referring to cooldrink or what was it?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, the cooldrink which was there was used to mix liquor. Firstly, Mr Venter gave me a glass, it had brandy inside ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: In the Afrikaans interpretation the blend of the drink doesn’t come out.

MR KOOLE: I took brandy.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened next?

MR KOOLE: We were drinking there. After Mr Venter gave me the first glass he said to me, if I want - I was arguing with him that he gave me much of that alcohol and even the mixture is too little, then he said to me: "It’s the first glass, take, drink, then thereafter you would mix for yourself".

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: We kept on drinking that way, except Mr Mamasela whom I didn’t see him having a drink - I did not see him in the vicinity having something to drink.

ADV DE JAGER: Which of you did have something to drink? Which people did you see having something to drink?

MR KOOLE: Whom I know is Mr Beeslaar, Mr Venter, Mr Niewoudt, other men whom are known to me, myself and Mr Mogoai.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: After those few drinks Mr Venter said to us we should go and sleep again in the Kombi in which we slept the previous night.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, and then?

MR KOOLE: The following day - I’m not able to tell the exact time but it would be around 8 o’clock to 9 o’clock.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: Mr Venter came to me and said: "Tell the two gentlemen - that is Mr Mamasela and Mr Mogoai, to prepare yourself to go back to where you’re staying at Glen Connor".

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: I informed the two gentlemen - then after that I drove the Kombi and whilst it was idling for the engine to be a little bit warm.

ADV LAMEY: What happened then?

MR KOOLE: Mr Venter came to me on the driver’s side, together with Mr Niewoudt, and said to me am I not going to get lost and will I be able to remember the direction which we used when we came.

ADV LAMEY: Who asked you this?

MR KOOLE: That is Mr Venter who said to me will I be able to see the direction to go back.

ADV LAMEY: And what happened then?

MR KOOLE: I said to him, when we turned to - when we came, we turned to the left, in other words which means if I could go back I would turn on the right hand side, I would not get lost.

ADV LAMEY: Who explained this to you?

MR KOOLE: I was replying to Mr Venter when he asked me as whether would I not get lost - I said to him, when we entered on that farm we turned on the left which means when I go back I’m going to turn on my right-hand side, therefore I’ll get the main road.

CHAIRPERSON: And what happened?

MR KOOLE: Whilst Niewoudt was next to - Mr Niewoudt said to me: "When you are on the main road don’t turn on the right-hand side, turn to the left-hand side and you’ll see the road signs on the road which will give you the direction up to Glen Connor.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: It was like that - we left and then on the main road I turned left, then we saw the directions up to Glen Connor.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: After we arrived at Glen Connor, we slept - when we went back all of us were tired so we slept and it was difficult to sleep in a Kombi during winter - so all of us were tired, we wanted to sleep early.

ADV LAMEY: What happened next?

MR KOOLE: In that evening - I don’t know who woke me up and said: "White men have come, they want to say something to us".

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: I woke up, then all of us were called and Mr Venter said to us we should pack our things on that night.

ADV LAMEY: Yes?

MR KOOLE: Because the following day - in the morning, we should drive back to Tlabani to do our normal work.

ADV LAMEY: Where is Tlabani?

MR KOOLE: Tlabani is in Rustenberg - then I will add by saying, as it was at night we didn’t have time to pack our things properly, we packed them in one Kombi - all of us said we’ll pack normally at home as we all leave the place. Then all those who were there were packed in one Kombi and the other Kombi had our clothes, then we went back to Tlabani.

ADV LAMEY: Did you leave immediately - after Venter told you this, you just packed and left?

MR KOOLE: That is not so Mr Chairperson. I believe that I’ve explained that - you’ll forgive me if I didn’t explain correctly, we packed our things in one Kombi with exception of the blankets but all our clothes we packed them there and we took only the few blankets.

The following morning we put them in the Kombi in which we put our clothes in, as Venter said to us tomorrow morning we would go back.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is actually, did you continue sleeping after you had packed your stuff? Did you go back to bed and did you continue sleeping, did you only get up the next morning or did you immediately - without sleeping anymore, drive away?

MR KOOLE: We took our suitcases - except the blankets we used. In the morning when we woke up we took only our blankets and put them in the Kombi, we slept and then we left the following morning.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I have now covered the particulars of the event, with your permission I will proceed with the political object and I will read it out and ask Mr Koole to confirm it.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole, on page 268 - could you please turn to that page, relating to the political objective, paragraph 10(a) and also 10(b) you say that

"In this case, I as a member of Vlakplaas received my instructions from Captain Venter"

Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You say

"We were not told before that there would be an abduction of these three people"

MR KOOLE: That is the truth Sir.

ADV LAMEY

"Later I inferred that the security branch of Port Elizabeth - who’d been involved mainly in the interrogation of these people, wanted to get certain information from them relating to certain weapons and specifically AK47 and also regarding the activities and movements of terrorists"

Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: This type of interrogation, was that in line with your normal activities in your normal work? - I mean the interrogation to try and extract the information regarding movements of terrorists and AK47’s and the like.

MR KOOLE: That is correct Sir.

ADV LAMEY: You also say that

"According to the questions put to them, I thought to myself that these three people were involved as leaders in the unrest in the Port Elizabeth vicinity"

Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: It came to my mind that way Sir.

ADV LAMEY: You also say that the riots and unrest at that stage was rampant in that area at the time?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You also say that

"They were also repeatedly asked as to who was supposed to meet them or who they were supposed to meet at the airport"

MR KOOLE: They were not questioned much, I think it was twice. They were asked by Mr Niewoudt whom they were expecting to meet at the airport.

ADV LAMEY: So, you say they were only asked twice?

MR KOOLE: Yes, I think they were asked twice.

ADV LAMEY: So it says here

"They were repeatedly asked"

It doesn’t mean continuously?

MR KOOLE: As I’ve explained that they were asked twice - if I remember well, but I don’t remember further than that.

ADV DE JAGER: Who was asked, Mr Hashe or the other man or both of them?

MR KOOLE: This question was directed to Mr Hashe - to my mind it came as if he was elderly to all those two people and many questions were directed to him.

ADV LAMEY: You say further that you were of the opinion or you thought that Niewoudt was at that stage the Branch Commanding Officer of the security branch in Port Elizabeth and that you assumed that he had further information as to the reasons for the detention and interrogation of these people, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, I thought he’s the person who was a commanding officer in the security branch because he was the one who was leading the interrogation.

ADV LAMEY: Is that what you thought?

MR KOOLE: That’s what I thought.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, and then on page 269, question 11(a) regarding whether there was an order, instruction or approval, you said

"Yes. The order or approval came from Captain Venter as well as from the security branch in Port Elizabeth - Lieutenant Niewoudt was the only officer from the security branch whom I knew at that stage"

Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: And 11(b), you there refer specifically to the question in 11(a), is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That’s correct.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Mogoai, I ...[intervention]

MR KOOLE: I’m Mr Koole, Sir.

ADV LAMEY: My apologies Mr Koole. I briefly would like to make a couple of statements to you which comes from a statement made by Mr Mamasela - he made this on a previous occasion to the Investigating Team of the Truth Commission, and more specifically I’d like to refer you to the crux of his statement.

In his statement - which you don’t have in front of you, he refers amongst other things to - now you have it in front of you, page 13 - well, I’m going to put it to you, you don’t have to read it. He says that Hashe at some point, was hit by Lieutenant Niewoudt on the head with an iron bar or pipe, what is your comment on that? - this was now during an interrogation.

MR KOOLE: I did not see Mr Niewoudt hitting Mr Hashe with an iron bar or an iron pipe.

ADV LAMEY: He also mentions the fact that Hashe spoke after regaining consciousness - he was brought to by pouring water over him, and he apparently said - this is Hashe, that he was in possession of 17 AK47 guns and that these guns were at his sister’s house, what is your comment on that?

MR KOOLE: I never hear anything about 17 AK47’s.

ADV LAMEY: He also says that you Warrant Office Koole, that you at some point put a question to the old man and it was regarded and described by the old man as a stupid question, and he then says that

"Warrant Officer Koole kicked him hard in the face and I remember that foam came out of his mouth and his eyes rolled"

What is your comment on this?

MR KOOLE: That is not correct, since Hashe regained consciousness, I was the one who was pitying him in the condition he was so I never continued assaulting him.

ADV LAMEY: He also says that

"Warrant Officer Koole’s shoes and clothes were covered in blood"

What is your comment?

MR KOOLE: That is not true, there is nowhere where I saw Mr ...[indistinct] clothes or shoes covered with blood.

ADV DE JAGER: No, it’s not his clothes that we full of blood, it was your own clothes and your own shoes that were covered with blood, that’s the point. He says that your clothes and your shoes were full of blood.

MR KOOLE: Mamasela says my clothes were full of blood and my shoes were full of blood, I’m saying it is not true.

ADV LAMEY: He then also refers to the fact that

"Whilst Hashe was being interrogated and assaulted, he mentions a watch, something about a watch and Warrant officer Beeslaar"

Do you know anything about that?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I only know one thing about the watch, then I would explain that.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, please do.

MR KOOLE: When Mr Hashe was removed from where he fainted I saw Mr Mamasela taking a watch from Mr Hashe, then he took it from him. To add, that watch was shining and even the handle was shining - the chain was shining.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, do you know anything else about this watch?

MR KOOLE: During that evening I saw Mamasela talking to Mr Beeslaar about the watch and they were discussing the price of the watch.

ADV LAMEY: Mamasela says here that he picked it up and gave it to Warrant Officer Beeslaar - here it sounds as if he just picked it up and there and then gave it to Warrant Officer Beeslaar but you say that you heard them discussing the watch later that evening, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Sir, that he picked it up from the floor is not true, he took it out of my Hashe’s hand - that is where he was lying on the ground, I saw him with my own eyes and I’m able to say that the watch was a chain and the chain was quite shiny. Even when they had an argument at a later stage with Beeslaar, the argument was about the fact that Mamasela wanted R50-00 for the watch and Beeslaar said the watch was too expensive.

ADV LAMEY: On that second day - the evening after you arrived, was Hashe ever taken to the garage?

MR KOOLE: I want to understand the question, are you referring to the first day when we got to that house?

ADV LAMEY: No, I’m referring to the day after the evening when you arrived at Post Chalmers at the disused farmhouse, this is now the next day or even that first evening, do you know whether Hashe was taken to the garage that first night or perhaps the next day?

MR KOOLE: No, Sir, Mr Hashe was never taken to the garage but he was tied to the rings that were on the floor of the room but he wasn’t taken to the garage.

ADV LAMEY: Because Mr Mamasela says in his statement that he recalls that

"Warrant Officer Koole"

It seems as if it should read:

"who at that stage was dead according to me - how he’d thrown him onto a heap of horse fodder on the floor"

What do you say about that statement?

MR KOOLE: It is not true.

ADV LAMEY: He also says that

"Mr Galela had died approximately or somewhere between 5 and 6 in the afternoon"

and that he was put back into the garage.

"We put him back into the garage where Sipho Hashe was already lying dead and Godolozi was huddled in a pathetic little heap. And the braai continued and they drank and talked"

What do you say about that evidence?

MR KOOLE: That is not true - from Mamasela, there is nothing like that that happened - that is a blatant lie.

ADV LAMEY: He also says that you were told to guard - to stand guard until the next morning, and it first had to be ascertained whether Godolozi was co-operative, did you actually stand guard?

MR KOOLE: We were never ever told to guard anyone. If got a belief that where Mr Hashe was sleeping, he wasn’t going to be able to run away because his hands as well as his feet were tied and he wasn’t going to be able to run away and I saw no need for him to be guarded in that condition.

ADV LAMEY: Did you see any cells in that place?

MR KOOLE: I saw then on the day that we left because we went past them when we left but I didn’t notice as to whether there were any cells in particular but I saw the building. But on the day that we were leaving, I realised that these were cells when I saw the iron bars that were protruding.

I can further say that on the second day when they were untied, there is another member of the Port Elizabeth squad who called me to say that we should go to the direction of that house and when I followed him Venter called me back and said I shouldn’t proceed there and thereafter I went back without knowing what was happening there.

ADV LAMEY: In your evidence you mentioned Hashe who’d been interrogated and assaulted and you mentioned the second who’d also been questioned on the first night and who’d also been questioned after Hashe the next morning, now the third person, were you aware of his presence anywhere in the area? Where was he, did you hear him, did you see him?

MR KOOLE: Let me explain it this way, I did not see him but I do have a belief that he could have been the person who was screaming when he was in that room where he was tied and this second who was interrogating him.

I could say the one who was screaming and screaming in a very loud voice in the direction of this particular house that I’m talking about, therefore I cannot say that he was there but I could hear him screaming.

ADV LAMEY: You heard him shouting from somewhere, is that correct? At what stage was it that you heard him screaming?

MR KOOLE: I’ll put it this way, this man - when we got in there during that night and Mr Hashe was put in there, this man was screaming. There was also some screaming during that night. We went to sleep and the following day we heard the same screams from the same direction where the person was screaming and keeping quiet, screaming and keeping quiet throughout the time.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Mamasela also says that the next morning he was told to fetch Godolozi from the garage and there he saw that Sipho and Galela’s bodies had already become rigid and he refers to somebody who arrived there and somebody who was dealt with news and there was some discussion after which the person left again. And it says that

"Godolozi was interrogated in the same way as the other two"

And then he says also that:

"He was beaten and kicked and during the beating, the iron pipe was used and everybody took part in this - Warrant Officer Beeslaar used a stick as well and after about five to six hours he was lifeless. We placed his body in the garage and we had to clean up the area after that"

What is your comment on that evidence?

MR KOOLE: Mr Chairman, I am very ashamed to hear such blatant lies, there’s nothing like that that happened, this is just a lie. And when I got in there, I never got to see a man who was being questioned or a third man being questioned.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment, we would like to encourage people standing there at the back - if they could consider taking seats upstairs, it makes things easier for us that way.

Yes, Mr Lamey?

ADV LAMEY: He also says that

"We cleared up the ground and clean the ground where there was blood. A Toyota Kombi arrived whilst we were busy doing this and the three deceased were loaded into this vehicle. Warrant Officer Koole and I and Mogoai thereafter received instructions to return to our bases"

Mr Koole, what I would like to put to you is that the effect of his testimony is that you and Mr Mogoai and him were still there when these people were killed and that they were actually beaten to death.

And that you helped in the cleaning and clearing up afterwards and that you were also still present when a vehicle arrived there to pick up the bodies of the three deceased, what is your comment on that?

MR KOOLE: That kind of talk or explanation from Mamasela is not true.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole, I’d like to turn to one other aspect. Yesterday during these hearings a document was handed in - Chairperson, I’m referring to Exhibit O. At the outset I would like to say that I am not going to lead Mr Koole’s evidence in examination in chief, I’m going to leave it to cross-examination.

But I just want to say at the outset that my instructions from Mr Koole are that there are certain aspects in the statement - the statement which was recently shown to him and which he read, which he finds significant and some with which he does not agree. He said some things are actually incorrect in this statement and I would just like to place that on record.

Mr Koole, would you please look at the document which I’m showing to you now. Do you see the document?

MR KOOLE: I said, can you please give me a chance to have a look at the document.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want us to adjourn for a few minutes.

MR KOOLE: I’ll be pleased.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, without prescribing to you as to how you should deal with your matter, is it not better to leave it to the other people - if they so wish, to cross-examine your client in relation to or in connection with this affidavit and then if the need be, you will re-examine of course?

ADV LAMEY: As it please you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I just want to inform the Committee that we have supplied with photocopies which have been faxed by Mr Whale of the investigating team of the Attorney General, which is that copy of the signed statement of Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole. It has also been handed to the other legal representatives.

Mr Koole, I just want to ask you, do you want to use this opportunity to say something to the family of the persons who were detained at Post Chalmers?

MR KOOLE: Yes, I would like to say something.

ADV DE JAGER: Please proceed.

ADV LAMEY: You may go ahead Mr Koole.

MR KOOLE: Your Worship the Chairperson, as well as everybody who is here, I’m very ashamed that today I’m here to come and ask for forgiveness to the families of the deceased, to the community as well as everybody else who is involved.

I’m asking for forgiveness for having been involved in such a shameful deed and I ask the families, the relatives as well as anybody who’s close, to please forgive me because I also wasn’t aware as to what was going to happen to those people. I heard at a later stage that these people had been killed in such a brutal manner and I would like the families to forgive me.

I do believe that this secret should come out and be known to the people at large and I think this is going to encourage a lot of other people to come forward with whatever information they have with regard to anything that has been done in the past.

I want the people of Port Elizabeth to know that they have lost their heroes - it was the first time that I heard a person saying he would rather die than reveal important or essential information and I thank the people of Port Elizabeth for their co-operation, thank you.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole, are you also prepared - just as Mr Mogoai did, when there is a suitable occasion or when that occasion arises, to meet the family privately if they want to meet you?

MR KOOLE: I would appreciate that opportunity anytime.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, that is the end of my questioning.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

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

Mr Koole, have you ever suffered or are you suffering at present from any mental or stress related disease that effects your thinking processes?

MR KOOLE: That question is not clear, I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Could you clarify yourself?

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, let’s try and make it simple, have you ever received psychiatric treatment?

MR KOOLE: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Have you ever been treated for stress?

MR KOOLE: The only thing that I suffered from was high blood pressure.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, as far as I know that doesn’t affect one’s brain.

MR KOOLE: I do not know what you are talking about but I’m telling you I suffered from high blood pressure.

ADV BOOYENS: Relax Mr Koole, you’ll find out. You have been a policeman.

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And has been - before going to the security branch, had been in the police for a period of 13 years.

MR KOOLE: It’s possible.

ADV BOOYENS: Well ‘66 to ‘79, I make about 13 years. You have obtained the rank of Warrant Officer.

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: During this period you must have done certain basic law courses and must have a fair understanding of the criminal law, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Yes, that is so.

ADV BOOYENS: You are aware of crimes such as kidnapping, murder, assault and perjury, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Yes, I do know.

ADV BOOYENS: Have you ever been threatened by any person to make any statements with this incident?

MR KOOLE: There isn’t a person who threatened me.

ADV BOOYENS: Has any person ever offered you any money, inducement or made any promises to you in connection with any information you supplied in connection with this incident?

MR KOOLE: There isn’t such a person.

ADV BOOYENS: I understood you to say - your attorney to say, that you are Tswana speaking and your other language is Afrikaans, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Yes, that is so.

ADV BOOYENS: In fact, it seems to me that your Afrikaans is even good enough to make a statement in Afrikaans.

MR KOOLE: I’m not an Afrikaans speaking person but at least I’ve learnt some Afrikaans at school.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, and you’ve spoken a lot of Afrikaans to policemen because you were stationed in the Northern Transvaal - there English is regarded as foreign language as far as I know.

MR KOOLE: It’s not a hard and fast rule that we speak Afrikaans but I taught myself to speak Afrikaans.

ADV BOOYENS: And when you were at Vlakplaas, your main language would have been Afrikaans?

MR KOOLE: It wasn’t Afrikaans, it was Tswana because I was working with Tswana speaking people.

ADV BOOYENS: And when you were speaking to the likes of Cronje and de Kock and Venter and people like, you would speak Afrikaans to them because I don’t think they could speak Tswana.

MR KOOLE: It is so but let’s come to this point, if a person is not an Afrikaner - he cannot speak pure Afrikaans, you just speak conversing Afrikaans - conversational Afrikaans and written Afrikaans are not the same.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I see. You can read Afrikaans?

MR KOOLE: Yes, I am able to read it but there are certain things that I don’t understand when I read it.

ADV BOOYENS: In your career as a policeman - especially as a uniformed policeman, you must have carried many dockets and written many statements in Afrikaans?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, I used Afrikaans - just ordinary Afrikaans, easy Afrikaans or ordinary Afrikaans so to speak.

ADV BOOYENS: Exhibit O - get that in front of you please, is it correct that your signature appears at the bottom of the first five pages and in the middle of the sixth page?

MR KOOLE: It is so.

ADV BOOYENS: And there’s a statement contained here by one, Cornelius Petrus de Lange, in which he states that he’s a member of the Special Investigation Team of the Transvaal Attorney General and that this statement was made under oath, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is not so.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you deny that you have taken the oath in this statement?

MR KOOLE: That is so - I don’t agree with that, I never took any oath.

ADV BOOYENS: So you never took any oath, so it seems that that is the first bit of bad behaviour or the part of Mr de Lange but I think we will get him here and then he can come and explain to us why he states that you have taken a statement under oath. Will you be challenging the fact Mr de Lange - this Major in the police force, are you saying that he lied when he says that you took the oath here?

MR KOOLE: I’ll try and explain very briefly - this statement was brought to me by certain Black people - to my place, and they gave it to me to sign but when I read it I realised that there were certain allegations contained in them which were not true. And they told me that - they said I should sign it and whatever mistake there was would be rectified at a later stage and there were two Black men who came to bring a written statement to me for me to sign.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, these two Black men were obviously not just nobody, they must have been policemen?

MR KOOLE: That is so. I saw them, they are policemen yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Give us their names.

MR KOOLE: I don’t know their names.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you know their names then?

MR KOOLE: I said I do not know their names. There is another one who was called Slang, I don’t know whether it’s his real name or his ...[indistinct] name or a nickname but he was called Slang.

ADV BOOYENS: Slang like in snake, is that what you’re saying?

MR KOOLE: That is how they called his name.

ADV BOOYENS: So you read the statement and you pointed out to them that there was certain things wrong in it, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is so.

ADV BOOYENS: And ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, let me - before we go further. I see on page six, you signed this statement at Letlabile, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is true, I signed it Letlabile - that is my house.

CHAIRPERSON: And it is an African township?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as I know it is in the district of Brits.

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How far is this place from Pretoria?

MR KOOLE: If I’m not mistaken, it could plus minus 50 kilometres.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn’t sign this statement at Saambou Building in Church Square in Pretoria?

MR KOOLE: No, that is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Go on Mr Booyens.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

So you in fact signed it at Letlabile?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Was there - and do you know de Lange?

MR KOOLE: Yes, I do.

ADV BOOYENS: From where?

MR KOOLE: The first time I got to know him was when he came to my place, that’s how I got to know him and from there I went to his office in church square.

ADV BOOYENS: For what purpose?

MR KOOLE: He called me into his office to come and submit a statement or sign a statement - he came to me and told me that the following day I should come.

ADV BOOYENS: And did you go? Did you make a statement?

MR KOOLE: That is so.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you sign a statement?

MR KOOLE: It is so but at the time that I was giving him the statement he was writing and he said to me I should wait until the statement was signed then I would be able to - typed, so that I would be able to sign it at a later stage. And that is how it happened, the statement was typed and I signed the statement at his office.

ADV BOOYENS: So, there’s another statement that you made that you signed at his office? Do I understand you correctly?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Was that statement made before or after this statement of the 26th of April 1996?

MR KOOLE: I do believe that it was signed before the one in front of me.

ADV BOOYENS: Was that statement also a typed statement?

MR KOOLE: As I’ve already explained, he was writing the statement down and he said that the statement was going to be typed and I should wait until such time that the statement was completely typed, then thereafter I would sign because he didn’t want me to come back again.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, - unless I misunderstood the interpretation, I understood you to say you did go back and sign a statement at his office?

Mr Chairperson, that seems to be my recollection of what I heard.

Isn’t that what you said?

MR KOOLE: The explanation that I gave, was that when I gave him the statement, he said I should wait and that the statement was going to be typed - after being typed I was going to sign it so that I wouldn’t make the effort of having to come back to his office to sign it.

ADV BOOYENS: And you waited?

MR KOOLE: Yes, I did.

ADV BOOYENS: And they then came to you with the statement?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And you read the statement?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And you read paragraph 25 of the statement? Read it out for the record please.

MR KOOLE: This is not the statement that I signed.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s what I also thought, I don’t comprehend why you - the witness has said: "This is not the statement which was signed at the office".

ADV BOOYENS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m surprised you say to him: "Read paragraph 25 of that statement".

ADV BOOYENS: No, Sir. Mr Chairperson, the witnesses has succeeded in confusing me thoroughly - he went back there, then they wrote the statement down and said he must wait for them to sign the statement but I think when he talks about signing the statement he talks about making the statement. And then I asked him - you might recall - "Did they then come back to you to sign it"? and he said: "Yes". Unless there’s another statement - but my impression is now that a statement or notes were made and you would recall he said : "That I don’t have to wait" ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: We know there are two statements.

ADV BOOYENS: I’m not so sure that there were two.

CHAIRPERSON: That’s what he said.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, let me clear that up ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He said - you actually asked him whether it was signed before or after this one.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I know.

CHAIRPERSON: You actually asked him and he said: "It was signed before this one".

ADV BOOYENS: I know that Mr Chairperson, but I think there’s confusion here, may I just clear that up?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I really am not confused - I don’t know, you can ask him.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you sign two typed statements?

MR KOOLE: That question is not complete - I don’t know whether you’re referring to de Lange’s office or the statement that I signed - because on the first day that I went to his office, he said that I should wait in one of the offices whilst the statement was being typed, then after finishing he would give it to me - I hadn’t gone out of the building, I remained in the offices waiting for the statement to be typed and I thereafter signed it.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, very well, then I am wrong and you are right. And then they arrived with this statement, what do you know about this statement - Exhibit O?

MR KOOLE: This statement is the statement that I made to Mr de Lange after we had come to Port Elizabeth and Glen Connor as well as Cradock. He called me and said to me I should come to his office to make another statement and that is the statement that stands in front of me.

ADV BOOYENS: And this statement was then obviously also typed at a some later stage and you were approached at Letlabile - or whatever this place is called, I can’t pronounce it, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Yes, it is typed and they came to me at Letlabile with that statement typed.

ADV BOOYENS: Right, now take this statement in front of you and read paragraph 25. Read it on the record please.

MR KOOLE

"I am fully aware of the contents of this statement and I realise what it’s about and I have no objection to the prescribed oath. I regard the prescribed oath as binding on my conscience"

ADV BOOYENS: That was there before you put your signature under this statement?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: So, you knew full well that any of those policemen could at that stage - immediately after you had signed it, affirm this?

MR KOOLE: Yes, there were problems with regard to the signing of this statement - they didn’t show me this statement and as a result I was not able to sign it because I realised that whatever was contained in there wasn’t what I said.

They even had to phone Mr de Lange at his office and speak to him and they said he said I should sign the statement and whatever mistake was in there would be rectified after I had signed it.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, because - do you agree with me that what is contained in this statement does not even remotely approach the story you’ve told us now, it’s completely different in many respects.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I think this is a highly argumentative question - if my learned friend could perhaps rephrase this.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I’m trying to save time but if my learned friend insists, I will - like he did, go through every sentence.

CHAIRPERSON: You surely can identify the areas of conflict without necessarily going through every sentence.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. Well, I can identify the conflict but perhaps the witness should tell us what is wrong with it.

You have the opportunity to read this statement, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: I read the statement and from the start when I saw the mistakes from the beginning of this statement, I did not agree with whatever was contained therein and I’m not making a mistake, there were mistakes within the statement itself.

ADV BOOYENS: Right, identify - let’s start at the first page, what is wrong on the first page?

MR KOOLE: On the first page - that is on the 1st paragraph, my police number is not complete as it stands.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay, that’s not complete.

MR KOOLE: It starts with an S and ...[intervention]

ADV BOOYENS: Just tell us the mistakes.

MR KOOLE: And ends with a 9.

ADV BOOYENS: Right, carry on.

MR KOOLE: On paragraph 2, I see September to October - at that time ...[intervention] On paragraph 3, that’s where they refer to September.

ADV DE JAGER: Could you please tell us - paragraph 2, when did you go on pension?

MR KOOLE: On the 31st of December 1993.

ADV DE JAGER: And what is the mistake in paragraph 2?

MR KOOLE: Paragraph 3 - when I read it, they said from September up to October I was transferred to Vlakplaas - I don’t know which year that was, that’s one of the mistakes that I referred to because this statement was taken at short notice.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, in context this means that September/October 1980 you were transferred to Vlakplaas and you’re saying you didn’t know the year.

MR KOOLE: During that time I was promoted - September to October I was taken to Vlakplaas but there’s no reference that’s being made to the year.

ADV BOOYENS: Was it September/October 1980 that you were transferred to Vlakplaas?

MR KOOLE: That is not so.

ADV BOOYENS: Which year were you transferred to Vlakplaas?

MR KOOLE: That was in 1984 when I went to Vlakplaas and that has not been referred to in here.

ADV BOOYENS: Anything wrong in paragraph 4?

MR KOOLE: Here they say Roelf Venter was a Warrant Officer, I’ve got full proof that this statement - when this statement was written, it was Captain.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay.

MR KOOLE: Excuse me, may I please repeat that. In paragraph 4 they refer to Roelf Venter as the Warrant Officer from Lieutenant but I do not agree with that because I’ve got proof that he was a Captain.

ADV BOOYENS: Okay that’s wrong, second page? Go to paragraph 5, anything wrong there?

MR KOOLE: On paragraph 4, the names of the people that I referred to are not complete and I would like to refer to my application so that I can remind myself of their names.

ADV BOOYENS: Let’s forget that, you say the names are not complete and that’s good enough for me. Paragraph five - I see you did rectify one mistake because you signed opposite the correction of Ian Tudie, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is not so, I’m not the one who rectified that mistake - when they phoned Mr de Lange, they said that on this particular page I should also sign on top of the word that was being rectified - or the sentence.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well, anything wrong in paragraph six?

CHAIRPERSON: I’m going to suggest that we deal with this in such a way that he himself - he will move himself from paragraph from paragraph to paragraph and in that way we will be sure that he would have satisfied himself that he had not left anything hat he queries on the paragraph.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, you are going to look - for example, look at paragraph five, you look it through and you will be the one who is going to tell us that you are now moving to the next paragraph, do you understand?

MR KOOLE: Yes, I do.

CHAIRPERSON: To avoid the danger of moving you by accident from one paragraph to the other before you have satisfied yourself that you have picked up all the queries that you wanted to pick up. Now, we are on paragraph five, you’ll tell us as to when we can move to the next paragraph and so on and so forth.

MR KOOLE: As the Commission pleases, I shall do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey and Mr Booyens, Advocate de Jager was suggesting that maybe during lunch time - if possible, the witness could go through this statement and make a list of the queries at paragraphs and then maybe that could save time and we could proceed with the other things. In fact, I would also have thought that you consulted with him over this statement Mr Lamey, and I assume he must have indicated to you whatever queries he has, so it shouldn’t be such a difficult thing to do during lunch time.

ADV LAMEY: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be all right with you Mr Booyens and we can proceed with other aspects?

ADV BOOYENS: I think that would be a most practical solution Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, all right.

ADV BOOYENS: Then we know at least which paragraphs we have got to look at and not to look at. May I also suggest - seeing that there is a dispute, that perhaps the Commission consider - I don’t know but this de Lange is apparently a policeman in Pretoria, maybe we should get him here to explain to us why things like this - as alleged, happened - while we are dealing with this whole statement, I think he can possibly be here tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: What should we ask him?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I think this de Lange policeman - the one who took the statement, we know he’s in Pretoria and it’s been said that he signed some - he affirmed that this was an affidavit when it never was, maybe we should consider him down that the Commission can question him about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Or maybe we can ask him whether this was signed in front of him because it purports to have signed at Letlabile’s home - whether he did go there and administer the oath there ...[intervention]

ADV BOOYENS: Exactly, let’s get clarity ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: If he says no, then I suppose that’s where the matter rests.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I would suggest that perhaps we can take steps - I’m sure some representative of the Attorney General’s Special Investigating staff must be available somewhere, let us get hold him and ask him to come down tomorrow - I think that would be a most practical suggestion.

CHAIRPERSON: All right we will consider that but in the meantime let’s proceed with other aspects of the matter.

ADV BOOYENS: Sorry, are you going to adjourn Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: No.

ADV BOOYENS: Oh!

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we’ll adjourn until 2 o’clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, you are still under oath.

JOHANNES KOOLE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Koole, I’m sorry that you seem to have lost your lunch but have you now gone through this statement and have you dealt with those passages which you say are not correct in the statement - all of them?

Sorry, Mr Chairman, it seems to me that the questions hasn’t been translated.

INTERPRETER: We’re waiting for the booth upstairs - we’re trying to negotiate where the key is, so can you give us two minutes please?

CHAIRPERSON: ...[inaudible]

ADV BOOYENS: I think so Mr Chairman, but I believe they’re waiting for someone to open the booth.

INTERPRETER: If it’s not a problem with Xhosa interpretation we can go on - depending on Mr Chairperson’s permission.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn’t hear but I’m told that - Mr Koole, let me talk to you directly - I’m told that there are some problems and they want to know whether you would follow Xhosa?

MR KOOLE: No.

INTERPRETER: The problem is, we don’t have the key for the Xhosa interpretation - the Xhosa booth interpretation, so the Tswana booth is okay but we’re worried about the victims and the audience - if they are not going to hear.

ADV BOOYENS: Can we try Afrikaans?

INTERPRETER: The families are not going to hear the Xhosa interpretation.

CHAIRPERSON: It seems to me that ...[intervention]

ADV BOOYENS: There’s somebody upstairs now Mr Chairman. Have we got Tswana interpretation?

INTERPRETER: Yes, we do.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Koole, thank you for being prepared to give up your lunch to go through this statement. Have you now dealt with all those aspects of Exhibit O that you say are incorrect?

MR KOOLE: Yes, I have and I have seen some mistakes that I have tried to rectify.

ADV BOOYENS: Could you perhaps then start wherever you want to start rectifying mistakes and go through it slowly so that we can follow it and tell us where are mistakes and let us rectify that?

MR KOOLE: As the Commission pleases, I will start from the first page.

My work number is not correct, that’s the first mistake that I’ve seen.

On the 3rd paragraph, September up to October is referred to but no year is being quoted here when I went to Vlakplaas, therefore I do not know which year is being referred to here.

On the 4th paragraph, I have proof that Mr Venter was a Captain at that time.

The very same paragraph but a bit further down, there are names that are listed there - these people appear in my statement but they do not appear in this particular one that I’m having before me.

On the 6th paragraph, where there’s 1996 - I ...[indistinct] Captain de ...[indistinct] at Glen Connor and I also want to link that to page 3, paragraph 9 which says (no translation)

INTERPRETER: The Afrikaans was not interpreted so we want him to repeat.

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat what you’ve said about paragraph ...[intervention]

ADV BOOYENS: 6 and 9.

ADV DE JAGER: Which date is the correct date, was it March or April - is that the mistake? The one refers to the 22nd of March and the other one to the 23rd of April, what should the date be?

MR KOOLE: I do not know the right date but this date differs, that is why I showed the mistake with regard to the months as well as the dates.

CHAIRPERSON: You made some so-called pointing out with - only once.

MR KOOLE: That is correct, I only came to this place only once to those pointing outs and the dates on which I did the pointing outs are different.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, go on.

MR KOOLE

On the 6th paragraph where I said: "Mr Niewoudt said we should not get in there, that is the Black residential areas", it’s Mr Venter who uttered these words and not Mr Niewoudt.

CHAIRPERSON: That is actually paragraph seven?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Sorry, Mr Chairman, just to clarify something - the context in which Niewoudt is quoted is that he said he didn’t want them to get involved in any shooting incident, is that the Niewoudt - because it’s not said that Niewoudt didn’t say they should go in there, is that the Niewoudt that must be replaced by Venter - just for the sake of clarity?

CHAIRPERSON: It must be.

MR KOOLE: The explanation is that Mr Niewoudt is not the one who told us not to get into the Black residential areas, it was Mr Venter.

CHAIRPERSON: But this sentence doesn’t talk about you entering Black areas, it talks about being involved in some shooting.

MR KOOLE: That is so, that is how it is linked to the sentence that says

"We should not got to the Black residential areas because you might find yourselves being involved in shootings, that is what Venter said."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR KOOLE

On the second page, the 8th paragraph - it is said here that Venter and Beeslaar came to Glen Connor where they gave Mr Mamasela, Mogoai as well as myself a message to go to the police but it wasn’t like that, we were given a message to go to Port Elizabeth. That’s where we got a message - a full instruction, to go to Port Elizabeth when we got to Glen Connor.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, can we just clarify this - can we just repeat this question because I don’t know whether this has been translated correctly because our instructions also now - during the adjournment when this was gone through ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Wait a minute, don’t tell us what you discussed with them.

ADV LAMEY: As it please you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Just ask him to repeat that, you must remember that he’s under cross-examination.

Just repeat what you said Mr Koole.

MR KOOLE: They said after a few days Venter and Beeslaar came to Glen Connor - I don’t know which days are being referred to because we were with them on this particular day but the message that we should go to Port Elizabeth, we got that message whilst we were Glen Connor and they said we should go to a certain sport where we met but in this particular paragraph it is stated that - that fact is not clear to me, it’s not the way I said it.

CHAIRPERSON: But aren’t they referring here to the day when you came to be told to go to the airport?

MR KOOLE: What surprises me is the allegation - that is after a few days, we were with them throughout the time so it cannot be referred to as: "after a few days".

CHAIRPERSON: A few days after you had arrived in Port Elizabeth from Pretoria?

ADV DE JAGER: I think I understand - you say, they travelled with you from Pretoria so they stayed with you at Glen Connor - Venter and Beeslaar, but I think what’s being referred to here is - after you’ve been here in Port Elizabeth for a few days, Venter and Beeslaar came out to Glen Connor and told you to come in for this operation.

MR KOOLE: I could accept it if it’s like that but within the same breath, it was not said that we should go to the police station but they said we should go to a certain point that was referred to or mentioned. That very same place was towards the end - they said there was a message that was received from Venter, Niewoudt and Beeslaar but it is not like that, we were given a message by Venter but Niewoudt and Beeslaar did not tell us anything - they never even told us as to what time we should get to the airport.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I’ve lost this completely now.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he’s saying - at the bottom the last sentence, that it was told to go the airport only by - I think, Venter.

ADV BOOYENS: I’m indebted to you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: The only person who told you to go to the airport was Mr Venter?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: Was Mr Niewoudt and Beeslaar present when you were told to go to the airport?

MR KOOLE: Yes, they were present but they did not utter any words.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR KOOLE: Mr Venter - when he said I should take the Toyota, he did not say that it was because it had dark windows. Furthermore, Mr Niewoudt is not the one who said that we should go to the airport - he did not tell us as to where to park once we reach the airport.

On the third page the eight paragraph, there is an allegation that as soon as we got to the airport I saw three men standing quite a distance from us.

It is not like that, these men came whilst we were already there.

CHAIRPERSON: That is paragraph 9?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You never said that, you never said to whoever you were making the statement, that

"As soon as we arrived or just after we arrived, three men arrived at the airport"

MR KOOLE: In this statement it says

When we got in there, I personally saw three men who were standing a distance from us.

But it is not like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Just read that sentence that you are querying.

MR KOOLE

"Soon after our arrival at the airport, I saw three men standing around at the airport"

CHAIRPERSON: You never said that?

MR KOOLE: That is not so.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR KOOLE

On the tenth paragraph there is an allegation that Mr Niewoudt, as well as three other men brought these men.

I never said Mr Niewoudt was amongst these men.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR KOOLE

The very same paragraph further down, it is alleged that Piet Mogoai said that four men at the back seat were lying on the floor but it’s not like that.

Proceeding to paragraph 11 on the third page, there’s an allegation that I said Mr Niewoudt showed us the way to the airport - the way from the airport towards the bushes or the forest where we got Mr Mamasela in a certain car - an unknown car, that is not correct.

ADV DE JAGER: How should it read?

MR KOOLE

"Just outside the airport complex and we drove to a clump of trees where we met Joe Mamasela with a strange car"

ADV DE JAGER: Is that wrong?

CHAIRPERSON: Actually the question is: "What is the correct version"?

MR KOOLE: I do not have any evidence to the effect that Mr Niewoudt took us there and that Mr Mamasela came in an unidentified car.

CHAIRPERSON: That did not happen as far you remember?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The next sentence ...[intervention} Yes?

MR KOOLE

When I go even further - when Mamasela came to sit next to me - just before we got into the roadblock, these men were already blindfolded as well as handcuffed but this has not been written in this statement. I also that the driver of the Kombi in which we were spoke to a certain man who was at the roadblock and that man allowed us to go through - that is not correct.

On the fourth page paragraph 14, there’s an allegation that those cloths were taken out when we got there but that is not true.

And it’s further said that there was an electric light but there wasn’t - that is not correct.

On the 15th paragraph, there’s an allegation that all of us - Niewoudt, Beeslaar, Venter, Mamasela, Piet Mogoai as well as three other men - White men, we started to assault these guys but that is not the truth.

On the 16th paragraph on the very same page, there’s an allegation that I thereafter said that the three men were taken into a cell and locked inside there - that is an untruth, even the date that is written in there is not the correct date because it doesn’t correspond with the dates on the previous pages.

Furthermore, on the very same day there was a braai as well as drinks - that is not correct.

Paragraph 17 on the fourth page - it’s alleged that at dawn these men were taken out of the cells and they were assaulted with fists, kicked and all that but it is not true.

Where the paragraph ends - I do not know what that stands for this Afrikaans word, therefore I could not have said it.

Further down ...(intervention)

ADV BOOYENS: Sorry to interrupt Mr Chairman, there’s some word that he doesn’t understand but he didn’t tell us which word.

Which word is it?

CHAIRPERSON

"Gelawe"

ADV SANDI: Mr Koole, you say you do not understand what this word means and therefore you could never have said it?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, I do not know the meaning of the name therefore I could not have used that name.

ADV SANDI: What language were you speaking when you were making this statement?

MR KOOLE: I was speaking Afrikaans, just conversational Afrikaans but I wasn’t using this term or this particular term.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you possibly indicate which word you used to show that these person were not conscious anymore or had been brought to?

MR KOOLE: I was using just ordinary language, I could have said: "Water was poured over his head" as I’m saying in Afrikaans that’s easy conversational Afrikaans but not this word that is used in this statement.

Further down there’s an allegation that before he fell down I saw Mr Mamasela taking the watch out of his wrists but it is not true, Mamasela took the watch whilst the guy was lying down.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, when Mamasela removed the watch he was still unconscious, is that what you’re saying or rather already unconscious?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Sir. As I’ve already explained that he was already lying down at the time that Mamasela took out the watch.

CHAIRPERSON: I think there’s a difference - we should clarify this, because he might have been lying down but not unconscious. Was he already unconscious or was he just lying down but not yet unconscious?

MR KOOLE: I’ll explain that he was snoring and I think he had lost consciousness, that’s when the watch was taken.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, go on.

MR KOOLE

At paragraph 18 there’s an allegation that I said: "These men were brought one after the other into the room where they were tied to the wall" - and in this position - there is only one man that was brought into the room and that is Mr Hashe but there was no difference between the times at which they were brought.

Within the same paragraph it is stated that: "These people" - that is not so.

It is further said that this interrogation took the whole day but that is not correct.

On the 19th paragraph there’s an allegation that: "During the day I heard Mr Hashe saying, these other men are lucky because they were arrested at the airport" - that is not correct, that came after - I think it’s on the fourth page on the fifth paragraph where there was an allegation that Mr Hashe said that - it was not on the following day but on the very same night.

On the 20th Paragraph: "These men were locked in a cell" - that is not correct, I do not agree with that allegation.

On the 21st paragraph it is said that: "At dawn I saw two White men who came in a car and were taken to the cells by Mr Niewoudt" - that is not correct, there is no-one who notified the other as to who the other was but on the following day there is a certain man who came in. There was a man who came to bring us food - that is bread - just breakfast - I don’t remember what that breakfast was but I remember that he brought bread and he went away thereafter.

On the 22nd paragraph - we had not yet eaten when we went to Glen Connor and I’m not the one who said that we should go - and we were not told to go to Port Elizabeth but Mr Venter said we should go back to Glen Connor.

And I’ve never said - excuse me please - Mr Niewoudt is not the one who said we should go back but he showed us the way and gave us directions, that’s all he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I’m going to take you back to paragraph 22 because I think there’s a misunderstand there between yourself and the interpreters, what did you say about it?

"The three of us then ate and so forth"

MR KOOLE: I explained that we did not eat that morning when we left - and again it’s not Mr Niewoudt who said we should go back to Port Elizabeth, it is Mr Venter who said: "Go back to Glen Connor to your bases".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, go on.

MR KOOLE

On the 23rd paragraph - I said: " I did not see this man being given food" - even during my chief examination, I think I said that Mr Hashe was given water - it is not like that.

It was further said that they were assaulted from there and it is said that there is another one who had a wound and he was swollen on the forehead.

On the 7th page - 6th page ...[intervention]

ADV DE JAGER: Well, how should it read? If this is wrong, how should it read and what exactly is wrong in paragraph 23?

MR KOOLE

"They were also continuously assaulted and I cannot recall which one it was but one of them had an open wound on the forehead". I’ve never said that they were assaulted continuously but what I said is that one of them was swollen on the forehead - if I speak with reference to the face, I said the other one was swollen but the statement says that I said: "There was an open wound on the forehead". I did not talk about an open wound but it was swollen.

ADV SANDI: The first part of that sentence which says

"They were continuously beaten"

Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: I do not follow you, could you please repeat the question?

ADV SANDI: On paragraph 23, the first part of the sentence that says

"They were continuously beaten"

Did you say that is also incorrect?

MR KOOLE: Yes, it is incorrect. I don’t know when they said

"They were beaten continuously"

what do they mean, so that is wrong.

24th paragraph - it is alleged that we stayed for two days at Glen Connor before Mr Venter came to tell us - me and Mr Mogoai, we should go back to Vlakplaas - I believe that is myself and Joe Mamasela because it is alleged that myself, Joe Mamasela and Mogoai should go back to Vlakplaas after two days - that is not correct.

On the day when we returned from the old farm, we were given that instruction that the following day we should go back, then all of us left with all our luggage and no-one was left behind - that is myself Mamasela and Mogoai only who should go back to Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr Koole, it seems to me that there are two types of problems in this statement - some of them are just what one can call mistakes, such as your service number and the date that had been swung around and so and those are not serious, is that correct? - that’s the one type.

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don’t know what important things you want from this statement - you would not say it is not important or important - I’m not able to make a decision what is important and what is not important.

ADV BOOYENS: Just listen to the question then you will understand - but then it seems there are things here which cannot be mistakes but which was deliberately put in by de Lange - allegations about continuous assaults, allegations that people were - all three were assaulted by everybody on your arrival and so those are things that - according to you, de Lange sucked out of his thumb because you never said it, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: As I’ve explained that there are other things which I do not agree with in the document before, I disagree with them - I agree with them initially and I do even now.

ADV BOOYENS: Just listen to the question please Mr Koole. Let us for example take the allegation at paragraph 14 and 15 - if you read the two together.

MR KOOLE: I see them.

ADV BOOYENS: That allegation about all these people assaulting all three the deceased is something which is totally untrue, it’s something that de Lange sucked out of his thumb - this man from the Attorney General’s office.

MR KOOLE: Your question is not straightforward, so I don’t know how you want me to respond to that question.

ADV BOOYENS: Paragraph 15 is a lie and it was a lie that de Lange deliberately put in here.

MR KOOLE: That is not true, I did not say it is a lie - all of this which appears there is a lie, I only pointed out about other things which were not correct but there are other statements with which I agree on this document.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Koole, I’m referring to paragraph 15 - the essence of the allegation in paragraph 15 is that virtually immediately upon arrival you, Niewoudt, Beeslaar, Venter, Mamasela, Mogoai and three unknown Whites started assaulting the three deceased, do you see that?

MR KOOLE: May you tell me as whether it’s de Lange’s statement or on my amnesty application?

ADV BOOYENS: I’m talking about de Lange’s statement all the time - paragraph 15 of de Lange’s statement.

MR KOOLE: I see that statement Sir, I see that paragraph Sir.

ADV BOOYENS: So you are telling us that is something that de Lange sucked out of his thumb - you never said it.

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, those are the words which he has added because we cannot just - on our arrival, without asking anything and then assaulting that person - you’ll be showing your foolishness.

ADV BOOYENS: And then something else that seems to be a consistent pattern throughout this statement is that on a number of occasions it is stated that you said it was Niewoudt who did something whereas it wasn’t and that is also that de Lange must have done deliberately.

MR KOOLE: That is not so because what Niewoudt has said - and I tried to explain the way I know it.

ADV BOOYENS: Look, just try and listen to the question. You’ve pointed out in a number of instances where - in de Lange’s statement the name Niewoudt is used, where you said it is wrong, it wasn’t Niewoudt.

MR KOOLE: That is correct, that is here and there where I’ve corrected.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, so what I’m saying to you - that is another instance where de Lange must have deliberately put in Niewoudt’s name when you didn’t mention it.

MR KOOLE: In other instances, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, I am not going to prefer to put it to the witness that somebody deliberately lied, I’m going to prefer to ask this witness: "Why would Mr de Lange have written this if you didn’t say it to him"?

MR KOOLE: I don’t why de Lange used Niewoudt’s name where I did not mention him - it might be mistakes which were made.

CHAIRPERSON: But it’s not what you told him?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, some of them I didn’t tell him.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, as far as Exhibit O is concerned, I think it will be a complete waste of time - at this stage, to continue cross-examination on this document because there are so many things that are - so with your permission, I would like to reserve all my further cross-examination on Exhibit O until we’ve got clarity about this and up to the time where we can decide whether we can rely upon it or not - once Mr de Lange has put in an appearance before this Commission, I do not want to waste time unnecessary as far as this one is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are right Mr Booyens, there are so many things which are being queried here and which could really amount to denuding the statement almost completely.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I would suggest that - what I do at this stage as far as this - and perhaps what all of us should do - as far as this statement is concerned, is to reserve our cross-examination on the statement because it’s obviously going to be a waste of time depending on what de Lange says.

I would suggest that we perhaps leave it at this stage and once we’ve had a decision on that ...[indistinct] so I will reserve further cross-examination as far as that is concerned and I would then just deal with the witnesses evidence that he’s given on the merits.

Mr Koole, you can now forget about de Lange’s statement. While you people were in P.E., did you go into the Black townships at all?

MR KOOLE: Sir, we did go - it was in the evening, we were driving with one Kombi.

ADV BOOYENS: What was the purpose of that?

MR KOOLE: Some of the Black policemen who were working at the security branch in Port Elizabeth said to us: "You see things whilst passing - we see many cars and smokes and - let me take you there where these things are happening", then he said to us: "We’ll use the outside road, then we’ll go inside" - yes, we did go.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, you also mentioned that you visited Mr Niewoudt in his office, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: How long had you people been here approximately, before this incident at Cradock occurred? About a week, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: It might be a week.

ADV BOOYENS: Not more than a week?

MR KOOLE: I don’t think it would over a week but I think it would be a week.

ADV BOOYENS: So, accepting that the Cradock incident occurred on the 9th, you people would have arrived here at the beginning of May - about the 1st or 2nd of May?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I’m not sure on which date we arrived, that is why I didn’t put a date in my statement and in my oral evidence.

ADV BOOYENS: No, but about a week before the 9th would be about the 1st or 2nd of May, that’s what I’m putting to you.

MR KOOLE: I would not say that is not correct or it’s correct because I’m not sure.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you visit - in your capacity as one of the liaison officers for the Askaris, did you visit Niewoudt everyday at his office or if not, how many times?

MR KOOLE: It would be three days to four days.

ADV BOOYENS: Three to four occasions in other words - on different days?

MR KOOLE: It would be three instances, I’m not sure but I think it might be three occasions.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I accept that but that would have been on three different days that you visited him - whether it was three or four it doesn’t matter but there would have been - it would have been not on the same day, it would have been on three or four different days.

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well. Where was Niewoudt’s office?

MR KOOLE: I’d not go to his office, we would meet them at Sanlam building - when I entered at the door, I would ask people where Niewoudt is and then they would take him there and in many instances when I meet him, Venter would come out so I’m not really sure - tell what was his office or where was his office.

ADV BOOYENS: If we talk about the Sanlam building, we talk about the building near the beach front or near the beach - near the railway station?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Do you know where Louis le Grange Police Station is here in Port Elizabeth?

MR KOOLE: I would not be able to identify that place, I don’t know where it is.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, Louis le Grange Police Station is approximately six - roughly about six kilometres from Sanlam building and the security branch in P.E. had moved - on the 27th of March, they have moved from Sanlam building to Louis le Grange Police Station - they were not at Sanlam building anymore in May of 1985, what do you say about that? April - they moved in April, so by May you wouldn’t have been able to get hold of Niewoudt at Sanlam building.

MR KOOLE: I want to find out whether that’s a question or just a comment?

ADV BOOYENS: Well, it’s obviously a statement I make to you and I would like you to comment on it.

MR KOOLE: Because it was for the first time here in Port Elizabeth, I did not know when they left where I saw them if you tell me that is not so but I only know that I saw them at Sanlam building near the beach where they were. I did not know the information as to when they moved from that building to Louis le Grange, I only saw them at Sanlam building.

ADV BOOYENS: What I’m putting to is - they wouldn’t have been at Sanlam building anymore, they would have been at Louis le Grange and if you had visited him you would have had to visit him at Louis le Grange. You didn’t visit Niewoudt, you might have visited somebody else but certainly not Niewoudt.

MR KOOLE: I would say I was not met at one stage, that is why I would never say I saw him at Sanlam building whereas he was at Louis le Grange building. I know that I met him at Sanlam building - I don’t know even that place called Louis le Grange Police Station.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, there was so much noise from the floor I’m sorry, could I ask the witness to repeat his answer please.

I’m sorry Mr Koole, it’s not your mistake, would you mind repeating your answer please as I couldn’t hear - I obviously couldn’t hear everything the interpreter was saying.

MR KOOLE: I would answer shortly by saying - how do I know that those people were staying at Union building - if I came here for the first time, how did I smell that they were transferred from Sanlam building to Louis le Grange? I never any other person other than Sanlam building where I met Mr Niewoudt.

ADV BOOYENS: Very well.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Booyens, was the whole police contingency transferred from Sanlam to Louis le Grange or was it only certain sections that went?

ADV BOOYENS: May I just take instructions on that one, I just want to make sure about murder and robbery Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, my instructions are that the security branch moved out from Sanlam building on the date mentioned in April, murder and robbery and the gold and diamond branch stayed there and moved out during the course of May - the 12th of May is the date mentioned but obviously one can’t be certain about that.

ADV SANDI: Can I come in for a moment here. I think the witness said - he didn’t say Mr Niewoudt had an office at the Sanlam building, he says he would go there and he would tell the people there that he’s looking for Mr Niewoudt and Mr Niewoudt would come - he didn’t say Mr Niewoudt had an office at the Sanlam building here.

Isn’t that what you said Mr Koole?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Mr Chairperson, those are my words.

ADV BOOYENS: Perhaps we don’t understand each other but ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Let’s clear that up Mr Booyens.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When you went to Sanlam building to look for Mr Niewoudt, was it because you were told that the offices of the security branch were at Sanlam?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I was not informed, I was taken - I was taken to be introduced to the security branch so that - they did that because whilst we were working, we didn’t have any relationship - if there’s anything which happened in the field or to arrest a person or someone is injured, we should know of Niewoudt - where Niewoudt’s offices were, so that we should be able to contact him.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, when exactly did the security branch - according to your instructions, leave this building?

ADV BOOYENS: 27 April Mr Chairman, in fact Niewoudt gave that evidence as well - 27 April and Niewoudt gave that evidence as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, is it not possibly so that you might have arrived here in P.E. in April?

MR KOOLE: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that you went to those offices before they left Sanlam.

MR KOOLE: That is not so Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

Yes, Mr Booyens?

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Now let us deal with the incident at the airport - you never knew what exactly you were going to do at the airport except that you had to park there - you were not briefed about what to do, is that what you say?

MR KOOLE: That is correct - as usual, that is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And even when you were told to park the Kombi at a certain spot and keep the door open, you didn’t expect anything illegal to happen, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: I didn’t expect anything illegal to happen.

ADV BOOYENS: When was - during this whole exercise, when was the first time that you thought something illegal was happening?

MR KOOLE: It came to my mind when these people were cuffed on their legs and feet, therefore I expected that something illegal would happen - something evil and illegal would happen.

ADV BOOYENS: Would happen - but isn’t it - you and your experience at Vlakplaas where you people had been chasing so-called terrorists - if you captured them, didn’t you cuff them as well?

MR KOOLE: May you please repeat your question Sir?

ADV BOOYENS: You people at Vlakplaas - I understand your chief job was to chase and catch terrorists as you used to call them - when you caught these people, didn’t you handcuff them and cuff their feet?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: You didn’t know who the three men were who were captured?

MR KOOLE: I didn’t know them, it was the first I saw them.

ADV BOOYENS: And you didn’t know what they were supposed to have done?

MR KOOLE: No, it didn’t come to my mind or tried to find out because I was working under instructions.

ADV BOOYENS: And if I understand you correctly, what appeared to you was as if they were arrested by the other policemen and brought to the Kombi?

MR KOOLE: As I explain that it happened - when they were cuffed on their hands and legs, that they were arrested but when they came into the Kombi and that they should sit at the back, it did not come to me that they were arrested.

I would add that even the way they came at the Kombi, it didn’t show that they - it showed that it came on their own - so they came and climbed themselves inside the Kombi, so at that time I didn’t expect anything illegal to happen.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, did you think - for one moment, really thing that these three gentlemen were walking to that Kombi voluntarily or did you think the other policemen were telling them to come to the Kombi, in other words the other policemen have effect an arrest?

MR KOOLE: There is a difference - if you don’t understand the language, if you are there you would say: "Go and enter into that house", then once you are there - I ask you to go there, you’ll never know what we are talking about, that is why I did not know how and why - whilst they were not cuffed at that time, why should they just come and enter into the Kombi.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Koole please, you were told: "Park the Kombi here" - other policemen including your Vlakplaas colleague Venter are standing around at the airport entrance, they speak to these people and these people come with them to the Kombi, didn’t you think that these people had been arrested?

MR KOOLE: It didn’t come to my mind at that moment because to go to the airport - there may be members of the security branch, they could have been informers or it might be people who would be interrogated, so that is why I didn’t understand as whether they were arrested or not.

ADV BOOYENS: So, if any of these people had said to you: "Stop, I want to get off" or: "I’ve forgotten something in the airport building", you would have let him do so?

MR KOOLE: I would do so because I didn’t know why he was in the Kombi and why he was going with me and at the same time I was not the one who was driving. If maybe he said: "Please stop the Kombi, let me go out" and the driver stops, I would open the door and let him go.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, are you seriously suggesting that your colleagues didn’t even tell you that you were - am I correct, you were the senior member present, you were the police member and the other two were Askaris, is that right?

ADV DE JAGER: I don’t think according to his evidence - I’m not sure whether they were three in the car or only two or other people with him at that stage.

ADV BOOYENS: Perhaps I should just clear that up.

When you - directly after you drove away from the airport, who were the people in your vehicle?

MR KOOLE: The question could have been: "With whom were you in the car", that could have been the question. If the question was - I was not the one who was driving at that time, I was one of the passengers.

ADV BOOYENS: Just answer the question, you know exactly what I’m asking you.

MR KOOLE: I don’t know how to answer that question because at that time there was one who was driving and I was a passenger, there was Mr Mogoai, there were these three people - I don’t know as whether the one who was driving, were we all in that Kombi.

ADV BOOYENS: Who was driving?

MR KOOLE: That’s a certain man from Port Elizabeth and I didn’t know him.

ADV BOOYENS: Directly - from the time when you pulled away at the airport?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Directly ...[intervention]

MR KOOLE: Immediately after these people were put in the Kombi, he came at the drivers seat, then he opened the door, then I went to the back seat, then he continued driving the car.

ADV BOOYENS: And at not stage were you given instructions such as: "Watch these people, see that they don’t run away" - anything of that nature?

MR KOOLE: Not at all.

ADV BOOYENS: And the first time that you noticed that these people were being physically restrained, is after some time when they stopped and they were handcuffed?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, that is when I saw them being cuffed on their legs and hands and then they were blindfolded - it’s then that I started to realise that they are now arrested or something is happening.

ADV BOOYENS: Were you - at any stage, given any background about these people?

MR KOOLE: No, Mr Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: The question was: "At any stage", that will in other words mean, from the time that you picked them up at the airport until the time that you leave that police station outside Cradock, were you ever told the what and the why about them?

MR KOOLE: The questions which were asked during the interrogation - particularly to Mr Hashe, I was able to detect that they were asked about the violence and the unrest in their area and again they were interrogated about guns and arms, about ANC activities and Pebco - those are some of the questions we asked - that is we arrest somebody, we would look for any information which would make a follow up after that or through that information.

ADV BOOYENS: But you yourself were never given information to enable you to assist with the interrogation?

MR KOOLE: No, Sir.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you yourself ask any questions?

MR KOOLE: You mean asking the deceased or meaning the members of the security branch in Port Elizabeth?

ADV BOOYENS: Deceased.

MR KOOLE: I would not be able to verify as to whether I did or I did not - that even if I didn’t understand Xhosa but I would throw a question of saying: "Answer the question" if I hear that he was reluctant to answer the question, so that is when I would just throw a sentence of saying or an instruction of saying: "Please answer the question because you’ve been asked a question".

ADV BOOYENS: That is provided - did you say you don’t understand Xhosa?

MR KOOLE: I’m not saying I don’t understand Xhosa - I worked with different people of various languages, I’m saying that even if I said in Afrikaans - when we speak the deep Xhosa or any language which is not my own, I would not be able to tell as whether I know it or I don’t, I just hear there and there.

ADV BOOYENS: The question is simply - I understand that you may occasionally say: "Answer the question" or something like that, but you didn’t ask questions - you know the difference between a question and urging somebody to answer a question asked by somebody else, did you ask any questions of your own?

MR KOOLE: No, Sir, I didn’t know what kind of questions I would ask because I didn’t know the background or those people.

ADV BOOYENS: Exactly. And did you hear any of your other colleagues asking any questions - I’m talking specifically about your Vlakplaas colleagues?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I would never say: "This person has asked a question or did not" but they were doing this in shifts so I would not be able to tell as whether who questioned and directed to whom. You’ll never be able to say: "This person has asked this particular question to this particular person and what is the answer", so I’ll not be able to explain that.

ADV DE JAGER: Did Mr Mogoai ask any questions?

MR KOOLE: That is where he was together with Mr Hashe, I don’t know as to whether he asked him questions or what they were talking about - I was not party to that kind of a conversation.

ADV DE JAGER: Were you present?

MR KOOLE: I was present but I was not near them, that is why I was able to see that they were talking.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry.

ADV BOOYENS: Let’s first deal with that first evening when you Mogoai were present with Mr Hashe. You already told me you didn’t and questions, did Mogoai ask any questions that evening in that room at the back?

MR KOOLE: I said I don’t know because they left me together with Mr Mogoai - I don’t understand as to whether he did ask a certain person a question - any particular question, and what was the answer - I said I don’t know, I’m not able to tell as whether he did ask a question.

ADV BOOYENS: You took no interest in what was going on here, is that correct? - I’m now talking about that night, you really took no interest.

MR KOOLE: Even if I had interest - at times I would interfere in the interrogation of these people, then I would confuse their objective because I would ask a question which was not needed or necessary and that is why in many instances I withdraw during the interrogation.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, but we know that on this instance you did not withdraw from the interrogation because you stayed there - you told us so, is that right?

MR KOOLE: I don’t understand when you say I was present during the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Booyens, he means he refrained from interrogating, he doesn’t say he withdrew and thereby meaning that he left the room or the place.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, sorry, I got: "Withdrew" here, that’s where I got the word from.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I heard that.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you, I’m indebted to you Mr Chairman.

You refrained from taking part in the interrogation, you had no interest in this case but you assaulted the man, is that right?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: Why?

MR KOOLE: That is where he was asked a question, then he kept quite - then it would be surprising that whilst you people who are assaulted and being a Black person and there were other Black people who were taking part in the assault, then I refrained from taking part in that assault, then they would say I’m support or in sympathy with the person who was assaulted - there’s nothing which I could have done, other than to take part.

ADV BOOYENS: So, on this occasion you took part to stay in the good books of the Whites? Is that basically what you’re saying?

MR KOOLE: That is not correct. I didn’t want to buy - I didn’t do that to buy White faces, I did that because of an obligation.

ADV BOOYENS: The nature of the obligation - I understand, is if you don’t assault they might say you sympathise with the other people, isn’t that the position?

MR KOOLE: If a person is assaulted by your colleagues, then you stand aside alone - you must have an intention why you did not take part in that assault, that is why I took part - I would be alone, standing aside and other people assaulting. I did not know what I would I say as whether who am I that I failed to take part in that assault.

ADV BOOYENS: And on what other occasions did you assault any of the three deceased, apart from that evening - Mr Hashe?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: The questions is - you took part in this assault on Mr Hashe, on what occasion - if any, did you assault any of the other deceased during the course of that period?

MR KOOLE: It was in the evening when they stopped the interrogation for Mr Hashe, they brought somebody who was screaming, then he was kicking, he was shouting who was brought there, then they said: "He’s shouting", that is where I took part in the assault.

ADV BOOYENS: That was the second assault you took part in?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And was Mogoai there as well?

MR KOOLE: Which assault - when you say: "Was Mr Mogoai there" or do you mean all assaults?

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Koole, we are talking about the second person that was assaulted, please - that night. Was Mogoai there and did he take part in the assault?

MR KOOLE: I’m not able to verify as to whether he took part or not.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you take part in any other assaults?

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Booyens, you asked two questions actually. In the first place, was Mr Mogoai present there with the assault of the second person?

MR KOOLE: Yes, he was present.

ADV DE JAGER: Did he take part in the assault?

MR KOOLE: I would not be able to say he took part but he was present when this person was assaulted but I’m not able to certify or to verify as to whether he took part and what part he played in the assault - whether he kicked or he hit with a fist, I’m not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, if you can’t remember, you should just say: "I don’t remember, don’t give a long and convoluted answer which at the end of the day simply means: "I don’t remember" - just say: "I don’t remember".

MR KOOLE: Thank you Chairperson. I don’t remember as whether he took part in the assault of the second person.

ADV BOOYENS: How did you assault Mr Hashe?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, as took part - as I remember, I beat him with fists and I kicked.

ADV BOOYENS: How did you assault the second person?

MR KOOLE: With my fists and whilst he was on the ground I was kicking him.

ADV BOOYENS: Right, did you take part in any further assaults?

MR KOOLE: I did not take part further - part in these assaults because after the assaults of the second person we went to sleep on the first day, then on the second day - that’s when Mr Hashe was interrogated and he fainted, I did not take part.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, I thought that there was a sort of a code that if your colleagues start assaulting you join them, why didn’t you take part in that assault?

MR KOOLE: I would answer in this way - so that I’ve already took part, so I believed that those who saw me taking part, they were satisfied that I did take part in the assault.

ADV BOOYENS: So, you were really a very reluctant assaulter of persons - you didn’t really want to assault them, it was just the system?

MR KOOLE: That is not so, that is where I would take part in the assault where it is necessary - understanding the reasons why that person should be assaulted, then you have evidence that I saw this person doing this, then that is where I would take part fully with the assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens is referring to this particular incident, he’s not speaking in general in your career as a policeman - he’s asking you whether - at Post Chalmers, you assaulted these people reluctantly.

MR KOOLE: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: And were there many other occasions in your career where you assaulted people reluctantly?

MR KOOLE: Do you mean other than these incidents?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR KOOLE: Yes.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, why didn’t you - is that the type of thing that happened to you when you were stationed at Vlakplaas?

MR KOOLE: Even before that, even before I went to Vlakplaas.

ADV BOOYENS: In the security branch?

MR KOOLE: In the security branch - whilst I was there, I didn’t take part in many assaults but before that I was an investigator and then the assault would be part of the investigating process.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, seeing that you were so reluctant to assault these people - nobody put any pressure on you and on what you described to us it seems to me as it these White policemen were dealing quite capably and so was your colleague - with assaulting these people, why take part at all seeing that you were so reluctant to do it?

MR KOOLE: I didn’t say I was reluctant, I said from the start I was wholehearted in my participation to the assault but for me to stop - I found that the questions which were asked - the first one, it’s the same question and they would ask the same question in a cycle - they would repeat those questions, then that person would see that he’s now weak and then he would say: "You rather kill me" because he was asked one thing and it was repeated many times.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, I think the record might show that you gave a different answer as to whether you were reluctant with the first assault but let’s leave that there. Now, the next morning you took part in or you witnessed a rather vicious assault on Mr Hashe, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And your impression was that a further vicious assault took place in that garage

MR KOOLE: That is not correct, whom do you mean was assaulted in the garage?

ADV BOOYENS: It was the other man, the man that you didn’t ...[inaudible] that’s the man that you - that man that was pulled into the garage ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: He said the garage door was closed - he said people went into the garage and that the garage door was closed and he couldn’t see what was happening but he heard the screaming.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

What but assaults did you expect was going on in that garage when you saw these people going in to the man - into the garage where the man - closed the door and he started screaming, surely that could have only been an assault not so?

MR KOOLE: I’m not able to anticipate what was happening in that garage because I was not able to see what was happening there because somebody was just shouting - maybe it was their intention just to scream loud, I don’t know.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Koole, ....[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute.

You said that - just before that particular assault, did you not say that White members of the security branch went into the house and when they came out they were very angry and they used swear words?

MR KOOLE: I said so Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And then, while they were so angry and swearing they went into the garage together with Captain Venter?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The door was closed and then you heard some screaming thereafter.

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now tell us what you think happened in the garage or tell us what you think was happening in the garage after you saw people come out, angry, swearing - went into the garage and the next thing you hear somebody screaming. Do you think that person was screaming just on his own?

MR KOOLE: I’ll put my question in this way - I don’t have reason, he might have screamed because like that person who was screaming all the time not knowing what was happening - it didn’t come to me that if somebody was shouting, was it because of the assault or was it screaming because of what - I would not tell whether he was assaulted or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you will not be able to tell us but I want to know what you thought, what did you think was happening to him? What did you think caused him to scream?

MR KOOLE: I would say Chairperson, there would be no other reason other than being assaulted - that’s what I thought, I would not say he was assaulted but I would say I thought he was assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did I have to struggle so much to get that kind of an opinion from you? I would have thought in fact, that would have been the first thing to have come into your mind - that: "Oh, I saw angry people getting in there and now he’s screaming", wouldn’t that be the very first thought to come into your mind - that he’s being assaulted?

MR KOOLE: I’m answering that question by saying: "I was generalising just by saying he could have been assaulted" but I was just thinking but I didn’t see that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Booyens.

ADV BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

And did you feel sorry for that man that you thought was being assaulted?

MR KOOLE: I did not feel sorry for him because I didn’t know he was being assaulted.

ADV BOOYENS: Please, just now you told the Chairperson that you thought the man was being assaulted and that I suggest to you would have been the only reasonable thought in the circumstances. You did think the man was being assaulted, assaulted badly enough that he was screaming, did you feel sorry for him, yes or no?

MR KOOLE: As I said I did not know as whether he was assaulted, I just thought he could have been assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: So, you didn’t feel sorry for him?

MR KOOLE: No, I didn’t feel sorry for him.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you feel ...[inaudible]

MR KOOLE: I did not.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you feel sorry for anybody that had been assaulted on this occasion?

MR KOOLE: Yes, Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: For who and when?

MR KOOLE: That’s Mr Hashe, when he was beaten severely and kicked severely and then he fainted.

ADV BOOYENS: Let us just deal with your thoughts furthermore. After these unknown people went into the garage and closed the door, you heard the screams, they came out and I seem to recall you said: "The garage door was not locked when they came out", did I hear you correctly?

MR KOOLE: I did not say it was locked, I said it was closed.

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry, didn’t you say it was left open?

MR KOOLE: After they entered the garage they closed the door.

ADV DE JAGER: And when they came out?

MR KOOLE: When they went out of the garage they left the door open.

ADV BOOYENS: I’m indebted to you Sir.

ADV DE JAGER: They left the door open - I just want to make sure, open in the sense that you could look into the garage or open in the sense that it wasn’t locked? Was it locked or was it standing open so that you could peep into it or see into it?

MR KOOLE: After they left the garage I peeped through, then I saw him leaning against the wall.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he standing or seated?

MR KOOLE: He was seated and leaning against the wall.

ADV BOOYENS: And to you knowledge, was this the last assault that happened that day?

MR KOOLE: Do you mean for assault on the person who was in the garage - so that I should give you a correct answer?

ADV BOOYENS: Yes.

MR KOOLE: That is correct, after they went out of the garage there was no other assaults, then they started making fire.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes. And your colleague testified that in fact it was suggested that - after the braaivleis, that the three people be fed and three plates were taken and he in fact went so far to say that he went to Mr Hashe and noticed that left most of his food uneaten, is that your recollection as well?

MR KOOLE: I don’t remember that.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, this Mamasela, what - everybody is kicking people and beating them up and questioning them, what did Mamasela do all the time? - he had a very low profile as far as I could see.

MR KOOLE: I’m not able to say what he was doing whilst the whole thing was going on because one person was interrogated the other side and the other one was brought this way - I’m not able to say where Mamasela was, I’m not able to remember.

ADV BOOYENS: Did you ever ask Mamasela what he did?

MR KOOLE: No, Chairperson.

ADV BOOYENS: Why not?

MR KOOLE: I don’t have that right to ask a person what he did, it didn’t affect me.

ADV BOOYENS: Here you - three of you from Vlakplaas are drawn in by the P.E. police, you get involved in assaults, you notice assaults, you actually feel sorry for people, you don’t know what Mamasela was involved in and you are seriously suggesting you never asked him what he did.

MR KOOLE: Yes, that is correct, I didn’t question him. Then I don’t believe that even if we were together from Vlakplaas - it happened that when we arrived at Glen Connor, we did ask each other what did we do and what did you do - it didn’t come to our mind to ask each other about out roles in the whole operation.

ADV BOOYENS: You see, I’m going to suggest to you that your roles in this whole operation was not even as remotely as innocent as you want this Commission to believe - that the whole and only reason why Vlakplaas was used, is because people at the local security branch - like Niewoudt and the others, could hardly have abducted somebody from the airport because there was a risk that they would be recognised because they were so well known - that is why you were involved, you did the abduction, not so?

MR KOOLE: That is not correct, they were not abducted and I didn’t even abduct a person at the airport.

ADV BOOYENS: But I don’t understand what you people had to do there - I can’t make it out, why were you necessary?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I’m not able to answer that question because if I was given a chance, I would ask that same question that why was I involved in this confusion which brings me problems that even today I’m before this Commission and face people whose relatives have been killed - I did not know really, what was my role.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Koole, so you were confused about your apparently illogical involvement in this right from the word go, is that what you’re saying?

MR KOOLE: That is not correct, I’m saying - if during the interrogation of these people it happened that there was something which was important, I would say we succeeded in the whole process but we didn’t reap any fruits in the interrogation -again even I didn’t know anything about the murder of those people.

ADV BOOYENS: You were not an interrogation specialist, were you? Why were you - the question is not whether anything was success or failure of the operation but your whole involvement as to why you were drawn into this irregular operation - you must have wondered about it and wanted to know: "But why were we drawn into it" and you never asked questions about it, why not?

MR KOOLE: If you are hired or employed and then, the hand which gives you food - you’ll not be against the hand which feeds you, you would not question the instructions - those were instructions we were supposed to fulfil.

ADV BOOYENS: What were your instructions that you were supposed to fulfil, go to the airport and wait there? - no logical reason for you being involved.

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And at no stage was it explained to you why you people were necessary and you couldn’t see why you were necessary either, is that right?

MR KOOLE: We didn’t ask, it was not necessary to ask. We would go with the wind where it goes because we were instruments like shovels in the whole operation.

ADV BOOYENS: Yes, shovels that didn’t hesitate to take part in assaults Mr Koole, as far as I can remember. And even after you returned, did you ever discuss this with your three colleagues and say: "I wonder why we were drawn into this thing"?

MR KOOLE: We didn’t ask anybody.

ADV BOOYENS: You didn’t ask Venter, you didn’t ask Beeslaar, you didn’t discuss it with your colleagues - not at all, is that what you’re saying?

MR KOOLE: Not at all.

ADV BOOYENS: Well, I suggest to you that the only logical explanation for that is that you people had a far greater role to play than you would want us to know and that is because you were involved with the kidnapping of these people, involved in the sense that you did the actual kidnapping. Not so?

MR KOOLE: That is not so, there’s nothing which I can say but as you say that -because you have the right to do so, but that is not what happened.

ADV DE JAGER: Was Mr Mamasela involved in the kidnapping?

MR KOOLE: No-one among us three took part in the abductions.

ADV DE JAGER: You never left the Kombi, you were sitting in the Kombi during the whole kidnap process?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, we waited where we stood, then we were given instructions that we should open the door - we didn’t leave the Kombi, even when these people were made to enter the Kombi, I never went outside the Kombi - that is only when I changed from the driver’s seat to the other seat, I never went out of the Kombi on that day - never ever put my foot on the ground at the airport.

ADV BOOYENS: I don’t know if it was put to you but in fact Mamasela’s evidence was - at the Section 29 enquiry, that you people got out, you showed the three deceased your appointment certificates, in other words appointment certificates as police and that you Vlakplaas people actually got them into the Kombi.

MR DU PLESSIS: If my learned friend could just indicate where that is said.

ADV BOOYENS: Perhaps I should correct that.

You say Mamasela was in the Kombi with you all the time as well, but Mamasela said that he and Venter actually accosted these people and grabbed them and pulled them in the minibus - page 12, round about 10/12 lines from the top. You say that didn’t happen?

MR KOOLE: That is not correct.

ADV BOOYENS: And he also says that the first two were loaded into the Kombi and he and Venter went to the vehicle on foot and the other person was also shown Venter’s appointment certificate and loaded into the minibus, you say it didn’t happen that way?

MR KOOLE: It didn’t happen.

ADV BOOYENS: Now, I just want you to ...[intervention]

Mr Chairman, I think we’ve got a few - it’s 10 past, I still want to deal with the aspect of certain similarities which I would like explained by the witness, of his statement and the statement of the previous witness and also with reference to the statement that we’ve now been handed, I don’t know whether this would be an appropriate time - I see it’s already well past 4 and I apologise for not having pointed that out to you earlier.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think everybody is tired now, maybe we should adjourn until 9 o’clock tomorrow. We’ll adjourn until 9 o’clock tomorrow.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS