CHAIRPERSON: But I am aware of the fact that we started late this morning, that's why we have not taken an adjournment at the normal time and I am also aware of the fact that certain people may have been here for some time awaiting our arrival and if they would desire us to have a short adjournment at this stage we'll take one. It seems that it's not necessary. Carry on.
MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you, I ask permission to lead the evidence of Mr Goosen, Mr Eric Goosen.
ERIC GOOSEN: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Are you still in the police force or not?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.
MR ALBERTS: So you are still a serving member of the South African Police Service?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.
MR ALBERTS: What is your rank?
MR GOOSEN: Superintendent.
MR ALBERTS: Where are you stationed at the moment?
MR GOOSEN: I'm stationed at the Johannesburg area, I'm the Deputy Head of Crime and Intelligence.
MR ALBERTS: Your application for amnesty is found in this whole bundle 2, is that correct?
MR GOOSEN: Yes.
MR ALBERTS: For the present purposes you are applying for amnesty regarding specific incidents which appear in this bundle from 451, is that correct?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.
MR ALBERTS: And then also relevant to this specific incident is the introduction to your whole application and this application appears on page 295 up to page 366, is that correct?
MR GOOSEN: Yes.
MR ALBERTS: And in that you describe the general background, amongst others you give the Committee an indication of what your career in the police to what it entailed up to this report. Do you confirm that these facts are correct?
MR GOOSEN: I confirm the correctness of these facts.
MR ALBERTS: This incident took place during 1987 according to your application?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.
MR ALBERTS: At that stage you were a member of the security police?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Where were you stationed?
MR GOOSEN: I was stationed at the security branch, Northern Transvaal in Unit A in that specific branch.
MR ALBERTS: The same unit which Mr Momberg gave evidence of. Who was the commanding officer of the security branch in Pretoria?
MR GOOSEN: Brigadier Jack Cronje.
MR ALBERTS: Just for the record this specific incident encompasses pages 451 to 459 and after that there are certain other incidents which are irrelevant now and then again from page 489 is your closing comments. This is up to page 492. Are you aware of the contents of those pages?
MR GOOSEN: I am aware of the contents.
MR ALBERTS: Do you confirm the correctness?
MR GOOSEN: I confirm the correctness.
MR ALBERTS: And then in your application other than Mr Momberg, all the annexures are also part of this bundle, this is from page 493 to 550 of this bundle?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: For the present interest your submission to the Committee was made by General van der Merwe and the relevant documents and those appear from page 534. Are you aware of the contents of that?
MR GOOSEN: I am aware of the contents.
MR ALBERTS: And do you agree with the contents?
MR GOOSEN: I agree with those contents.
MR ALBERTS: Against that background can we come back to page 451 of your application and the facts regarding the kidnapping of a security guard are given. From page 451 will you just give certain highlights of this incident?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, in July - December 1987 Captain van Jaarsveld, he was a member of Unit B, one afternoon he asked Momberg and myself who were members of Unit A, he approached us and asked us to assist him with the interrogation of a security guard who was in service of the United Building Society on the corners of Andries and Pretorius Streets in Pretoria.
MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you? This Lieutenant van Jaarsveld, he was not attached to your unit but he approached you with a request. How did you interpret that?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, he was a commanding officer or the acting commanding officer of Unit B and it was usual that I would receive instruction from the Colonel to assist Hechter with certain operations so the instruction which I received or the request from Van Jaarsveld was not unnatural.
MR ALBERTS: You regarded that as an instruction?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Because of the general nature of the previous instruction from Cronje?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes.
MR ALBERTS: This request of this instruction from Van Jaarsveld, what did that entail?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, as I understood that request or that instruction was that I should assist in the interrogation of that person, the planning of where it should happen and I and Momberg were not involved in the planning but our supporting role would be specifically to use our knowledge regarding the infiltration and the logistics of the infiltration of MK members.
MR ALBERTS: And Lieutenant van Jaarsveld, did he give you any background regarding this interrogation? What was the purpose of that?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, during this discussion all I could gather was that a colleague of Van Jaarsveld, Mamasela, made contact with the security guard and he determined that this security guard had a brother who was a suspected MK member, had already infiltrated the country and our interrogation would be geared to gather further information regarding this brother.
MR ALBERTS: Will you go further then with page 452?
MR GOOSEN: He said and that is Lieutenant van Jaarsveld, that ...(intervention)
MR ALBERTS: I want to interrupt you, you've already mentioned that, go onto the next paragraph.
MR GOOSEN: Between 4 and 5 o'clock that specific afternoon Lieutenant Hechter, Van Jaarsveld, Momberg, Sergeant Mamasela and myself drove in a kombi to Andries Street where we stopped a little way from United Building Society's offices. While we were waiting in the bus Mamasela walked to the United to go and fetch the security guard, I still do not know what his name is. When this person came of service, Mamasela enticed him and persuaded him to get into the bus with us. Lieutenant Hechter then drove in the direction of Warmbaths where the security guard's family was living permanently. We went into a Black township in that vicinity, I don't know what the name of the township is and I've never been there before or never been there afterwards. It was a totally strange area to me.
We stopped in that township and Van Jaarsveld and Hechter confronted this specific person with an allegation that his brother was an MK cadre. He denied that.
MR ALBERTS: Can I interrupt you there? At what time did this confrontation take place?
MR GOOSEN: The precise time is not known to me but I would gather it was round about 7 o'clock that evening because it was dark already.
MR ALBERTS: Will you continue please?
CHAIRPERSON: Can I interrupt you here? I assume from what I can see from here that you have proper copies of page 453, 454 and 455?
MR ALBERTS: Indeed Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mine is - my colleagues has the overlapping printing of 453, 454, 455, 456 so if perhaps during the adjournment we could get copies made?
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: Mr Chairman, I'll be very happy to give you my copy now, it will help you immediately.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.
MR GOOSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mamasela hit him in the face and further interrogated him. During this interrogation ...(intervention)
JUDGE PILLAY: After how long was this, after the interrogation had started?
MR GOOSEN: I would assume about after 15 minutes he was hit in his face the first time after his first denials.
During this interrogation with certain intervals by Mamasela and Van Jaarsveld and Momberg he was assaulted by them and they hit with an open hand in his face and they hit with their fists on his upper body. With this situation, this continued for about an hour. Lieutenant van Jaarsveld became despondent and asked me and Momberg who were his juniors and he instructed us to kill the security guard. Lieutenant Momberg said that he would first want to discuss things with this person and asked us to leave him alone with the security guard.
The two of them stayed behind in the bus and the rest of us walked away. After about twenty minutes Lieutenant Momberg asked us to get into the Kombi again and told us that he had persuaded the security guard to work as an informer. Momberg also said that the next morning he had made an appointment with the security guard to make further arrangements regarding his involvement as an informer.
We left the person there and returned to Pretoria. I have never seen that person again afterwards and have no further information regarding him. As far as I know this person did not become part of our informer network, I don't know why. Based on my experience and according to my judgement, this assault was minimal. His face would have been swollen the next day and he would also have had bruises on his upper body. As already mentioned, the initial instruction I had received from Van Jaarsveld was only to assist him during an interrogation which was legitimate in the light of the information which Mamasela had obtained. I don't know if
Brigadier Cronje had information regarding this interrogation but I have no reason to suspect that that would be approved by him. I doubt however whether Brigadier Cronje would have been willing to under these circumstances allow that this person be killed. The purpose of the interrogation and the removal of the security guard was to obtain information from him in order to identify an MK operator and to get further information which could be relevant to obtain that information and that this activity including the assault had to have an intimidating effect on the person. This would serve as a deterrent to him and to any other person who came to hear about it. The message at that stage to be conveyed by the security police to the liberation fighters if you could get resistance.
MR ALBERTS: And on pages 457 to 459 you deal with certain other aspects of the application. Are you aware of that, do you confirm the correctness of the allegations on these pages?
MR GOOSEN: I confirm that as correct.
JUDGE PILLAY: Was there any reason which you knew about that this person should be deterred or should be frightened?
MR GOOSEN: The initial planning to kidnap this person to bring him in for interrogation and the accompanying interrogation, I was not part of that planning. The fact of intimidation because of the assault and the kidnapping, I was aware of that, that was a necessary consequence of this action.
JUDGE PILLAY: But why? What did you know that forced you to intimidate him? Why was he not an ordinary person in the street?
MR GOOSEN: He was regarded as an ordinary man on the street but the information showed that his brother was an infiltrator and trained MK cadre, he was already in the country and it was very important for us to obtain that information and in the process ...(intervention)
JUDGE PILLAY: Which information?
MR GOOSEN: Information regarding where the brother was at that stage and with the details we could obtain then we could evaluate it with terrorist photo albums, with certain dockets at the security police and we could do certain evaluation and other actions could have been taken accordingly.
MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman.
I put it to you that Captain van Jaarsveld denies any involvement in this activity and he denies that he has any knowledge of this incident. What is your comment?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, as far as I can remember this incident, I personally together with Lieutenant Momberg received instruction from Van Jaarsveld in our office. Van Jaarsveld was present in the bus while we were waiting for Mamasela to lure this security guard to the bus. This whole operation and the interrogation in the Warmbad environment was under instruction of Van Jaarsveld and also he participated in the assault and he was during all relevant times present during this incident.
MR MALAN: Mr Goosen, you've also referred to everything like Mr Momberg, like you've never referred to the instruction to kill the security guard. Mr Momberg also did not do that.
MR GOOSEN: I don't understand the question.
MR MALAN: You said that at all times during the assault he was present in the bus but when you answered to Van Jaarsveld denying, you did not say again that you do remember that he gave instructions to kill the security guard.
MR GOOSEN: It's perhaps a fault on my side but I thought the Commission had already the information.
MR MALAN: But the other information is also available for the Committee, you're repeating everything like Momberg but you do not refer to the instruction to kill. Can you explain that?
MR GOOSEN: That is a mistake from my side not to include Van Jaarsveld's instruction in my answer.
MR MALAN: And you think Momberg also made a bona fide error in this regard?
MR GOOSEN: I can't speak on his behalf, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MR MEINTJIES: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEINTJIES
MR MALAN: Mr Meintjies, are you going to call your client to give evidence?
MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chair, I will hand in a sworn affidavit as discussed in Chambers.
MR MALAN: Should the Committee like to put questions to him would he be available?
MR MEINTJIES: That can be arranged yes that he can be available.
MR STEENKAMP: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Goosen did you have a suspicion that this person would deny that he had any knowledge about his brother being an MK member?
MR GOOSEN: During the interrogation you could foresee that he would be evasive that his brother was a trained MK terrorist.
JUDGE PILLAY: But before this whole operation started, kidnapping took place, did you think that you would deny in any case?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman, I'll answer in this way. With the initial report we obtained, the initial report from Mamasela to Van Jaarsveld regarding the circumstances, the brother who was an MK cadre, we were not involved in that planning to have been able to foresee those things at that stage. We were instructed to assist them after Mamasela had made this information available. We were just asked to assist during the interrogation.
JUDGE PILLAY: Did you never think of suggesting that the person should be arrested and then interrogated? Perhaps he would give acceptable answers within a minute?
MR GOOSEN: I don't know whether that option was not considered I can only speculate. Perhaps that would not have been the necessary effect to detain him legally to interrogate him violently, I can only speculate but I'm not aware why that decision was not taken and why it was decided to kidnap this person.
JUDGE PILLAY: Did you realise that kidnapping would take place and therefore illegal actions would be committed?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, yes. Interrogation from the point of view of the security branch also entailed violence so this was an option beforehand that we would handle this person violently so I reconciled myself with the fact that kidnapping would take place and then violence would follow to obtain the necessary information.
JUDGE PILLAY: Why do you think that Van Jaarsveld would instruct you to kill the person?
MR GOOSEN: Mr Chairman I have to speculate. I can't testify about something which went on his head at that stage. Perhaps he panicked during this situation when the interrogation did not have positive results, we had already assaulted the person and he foresaw that it could have caused problems for us in future.
JUDGE PILLAY: At that house where you found this man were there no other people?
MR GOOSEN: At the office Mr Chairman?
JUDGE PILLAY: As I've understood your evidence you fetched him?
MR GOOSEN: We fetched him from his office between 4 and 5 that afternoon. We sent Mamasela to the Building Society. There were many people in the streets and that's why we came to the conclusion that the only way Mamasela could lure this person to the bus was to give the wrong impression.
JUDGE PILLAY: Was it never considered to go to his house? Perhaps you would find his mother or family members there to find out whether the brother was a terrorist?
MR GOOSEN: That decision was not made by me or Momberg. Van Jaarsveld from Unit B made that decision and he decided on that modus operandi.
JUDGE PILLAY: What then was your role in the interrogation?
MR GOOSEN: I was a co-handler of well placed infiltrators in this group, I had the necessary knowledge regarding the logistics of the infiltrated MK terrorists, the creation of safe houses and I had a very good knowledge of certain MK terrorists who would infiltrate and because of that knowledge I and Momberg were asked to be involved in the interrogation.
JUDGE PILLAY: All that knowledge, how did that assist you during the interrogation.
MR GOOSEN: I would assume that should he make certain admissions and should his brother be at a certain house we could be able to make an evaluation based on this information obtained.
JUDGE PILLAY: Can I deduct then that because he denied and that he gave no information that you played no part in the interrogation?
MR GOOSEN: It could be the case yes but in many instances during interrogation and the accompanying assault that these people who had information answered evasively and denied certain things so I can only think that it could be that this person really does not know anything or he is hiding some information.
JUDGE PILLAY: Can you tell us what you did during this incident?
MR GOOSEN: I was not involved in the assault. I played a secondary role during the interrogation, this interrogation was done initially by Hechter and Van Jaarsveld and then followed by Mamasela, Van Jaarsveld and Momberg.
JUDGE PILLAY: Thank you.
MR MALAN: Mr Goosen can you tell us what was the difference in activities of Unit A and B?
MR GOOSEN: Yes, Unit A was responsible for the monitoring of all White, Coloured and Indian matters with all related structures, church organisations, youth organisations, student movements and B on the other hand was known as the Black Power organisation which investigated all Black Power organisations like Azapo, Azayo etc.
MR MALAN: You say Unit A, White, Coloured and Indian structures, what about Black structures.
MR GOOSEN: That was under Unit B.
MR MALAN: But you said Unit B only Black Power units? Is the ANC a Black structure? Is AZAPO a Black structure?
MR GOOSEN: It concentrated on the internal structures of the ANC like the UDF and there was a separate unit called unit C was directly involved in terrorist investigations where MK, Apla and those were investigated.
MR MALAN: But that is what is strange to me. If all your responsibilities centred round information regarding White, Coloured, Indian affairs, why would you have information regarding Black infiltrating MK members?
MR GOOSEN: That is simple, we had an informer who was a Coloured person and we were recruiters of that specific informer and when you gather information the colour of a person is not important. The information channelled by the informer was geared to Black MK members.
MR MALAN: I'm not sure that I understand how those structures differed from A, B and C? Were they divided on a racial basis?
MR GOOSEN: What I'm trying to tell you is that our informer was a Coloured person and therefore his handling resorted under A but it led to various working activities regarding A and B activities from A, B and C. So he reported over the broad spectrum and therefore we had information regarding MK in it's broader aspects.
MR MALAN: Let me just make sure. You say you handled a Coloured man based on the fact that the Coloured was the informer therefore he fell under Unit A?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct in that aspect and secondly we handled the initial recruitment.
MR MALAN: So if a Coloured was an informer does he fall under Unit A, not under B or C?
MR GOOSEN: No I don't think you can make the differentiation so definitely. If Unit B for instance recruited an informer who for example was an Indian they would still handle that informer.
MR MALAN: So it had to do with the organisations that are investigated? Unit A investigated UDF structures?
MR GOOSEN: No, not UDF, UDF fell under Unit B which handled Black Power activities.
MR MALAN: Yes but wait a minute, UDF cannot surely be called Black Power? It is a democratic organisation.
MR GOOSEN: For the purposes of the allocation of the investigation and the monitoring of the UDF that was the primary function of Unit B. For example we looked at the Transvaal Indian Congress, that type of organisation, if I can mention an example.
MR MALAN: Unit A looked at the Transvaal Indian Congress?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: Unit B looked at the UDF?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: What did Unit A also look at?
MR GOOSEN: Youth organisations, the End Conscription Campaign, Nusas at that stage, those sorts of structures.
MR MALAN: Unit B then looked at UDF, call it Black structures if you have to go according to the racial differentiation, that would be AZAPO and probably Cosas and so on?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: And Unit C worked specifically with MK?
MR GOOSEN: Terrorist investigations, whether MK or APLA yes.
MR MALAN: Why would Van Jaarsveld not have gone to Unit C if he wanted information about MK? Where does the special expertise come from, from MK and the End Conscription Campaign and those things are investigated?
MR GOOSEN: At that stage the informer was a deeply penetrated informer in the special operations group of MK. Previous evidence involved even that the commanding officer of Western Transvaal said that they struggled to get such an informer and we had a legion of valuable information in that way.
MR MALAN: Who had this information?
MR GOOSEN: Via the informer who reported to us and we were responsible for setting up safety reports which were in many cases distributed nationally.
MR MALAN: So the MK special operations, Unit C didn't handle that, you dealt with it?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, Unit A did all these things by means of the informer that we had.
MR MALAN: One informer was responsible for all the all the information surrounding MK?
MR GOOSEN: No Chairperson, I cannot say what the informer status of Unit C was at that stage, they must have had informers I wont deny that but I know in this specific case I and Lieutenant Momberg were specifically asked, involved by Lieutenant van Jaarsveld because of our knowledge.
MR MALAN: This security guard, I don't know if his race came into question, was it a Black man?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And your informer was he ever informed about this security guard or asked questions about his brother?
MR GOOSEN: No I doubt if we discussed it with the informer because at a previous incident we gave evidence that was an infiltration of an informer in Botswana in April 1987. He was identified as an informer and he was taken through to Quatro so it was never discussed with the informer.
MR MALAN: So from April 1987 you had no contact with this star informer of yours?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct but we still had the required information reports and relevant matters.
MR MALAN: And the meeting with this security guard and the incident took place a minimum of two months and probably even eight months later but you had up to date information to assist Unit B with investigation, is that what you are saying?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Nobody else had more recent information?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I can't respond to why Unit C's people weren't involved in the story by Lieutenant van Jaarsveld. I can merely speculate that I know there were personal differences amongst officers of Unit B and C if you can categorise in that way, they never sat around the same fire. That to me would be an induction of why we at Unit A were rather involved.
MR MALAN: What officers were those, was Van Jaarsveld one of the officers who had personality clashes or whatever with officers in C?
MR GOOSEN: I think the personality of people like Captain van Jaarsveld was in conflict with other personalities for example at Unit B's offices.
MR MALAN: But Van Jaarsveld was at Unit B.
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: Are you talking about conflict within B?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I said I can merely speculate why Van Jaarsveld decided not to use staff from Unit C and my speculation is based merely on the fact that perhaps there were personality conflicts between offices of Units B and C and therefore we were approached in Unit A. That is pure speculation that the actual motive of Lieutenant van Jaarsveld to approach me in Unit A, I cannot say why he didn't rather ask someone from Unit C.
MR MALAN: Mr Momberg, I heard you say that you can only speculate. I heard you in the beginning that you said you have knowledge of such tensions between offices in Units B and C?
MR GOOSEN: If I said I had knowledge of that then it was a bona fide fault. I can say I can speculate that there may have been personality conflicts between individuals.
MR MALAN: But you don't have knowledge of conflict?
MR GOOSEN: Not as far as my knowledge goes. As I said I have to speculate why we were approached in Unit A and why staff of Unit B weren't approached. I think Lieutenant van Jaarsveld can perhaps give us the answers why he approached us and not staff of the terrorist unit.
MR MALAN: I have one question in follow up, Judge Pillay put to you and that is it seems to me that the custom of acquiring information with violence, it was asked why couldn't you just approach the person at his work or at his house and ask him the question but it seems to me it would have been more or less practice if you had information for arguments sake that my brother was an MK terrorist and you want information from me, you wouldn't have come to me and ask me you would have taken it from me with violence?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, in most cases that would have been the method of work.
MR MALAN: So you wouldn't have given me a chance without doing violence to me to make information available to you, you wouldn't have tried that?
MR GOOSEN: No Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Was that part of an order or was it your practice?
MR GOOSEN: I think it was practice within the security branch that interrogation is accompanied by violence.
MR MALAN: But then my question is you see because there are many - or let me rather not preface it with my own statement but if you say everything was accompanied by violence and it seems to me that violence wasn't necessary but it was part of the loosening of adrenaline or whatever, it was custom, it was nice to use violence, it wasn't necessary. You didn't ever consider that?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I can't give you a concrete answer to that, that it was just policy or under what circumstances it would have been different but in this instance the decision was taken beforehand the person would be kidnapped and interrogated and I in my personal capacity who became involved in this was aware before the time that the interrogation would be accompanied by violence because how else would the information be acquired because we would not acquire it in a voluntary basis.
MR MALAN: What did Mamasela tell the guard to get him into the mini-bus?
MR GOOSEN: I do not know.
MR MALAN: And he willingly got into the bus?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: Together with a number of White members of the security forces?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: He wasn't forced into the bus?
MR GOOSEN: No violence was used to get him inside the mini-bus.
MR MALAN: And you do not know his name?
MR GOOSEN: No because he was a subject of discussion between Sergeant Mamasela and Lieutenant van Jaarsveld. All that we were told was that it was a security guard and then the subject was his brother who was an infiltrated MK member. His details were never disclosed to us.
MR MALAN: Van Jaarsveld never asked you, Mr Goosen, with all the knowledge that you have about MK and knowledge of who they are and where they infiltrated and so on, I think that was more or less the evidence of Mr Momberg, he never asked you, Mr Goosen, or Mr Momberg "do you know such a person with such a name, do you have information that such a person has infiltrated and that he is an MK terrorist?"
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, that was not the case at the time of our initial discussion with Lieutenant van Jaarsveld that that question was put to us.
MR MALAN: You never asked him "look man, from who do you want to know something, perhaps you have his name on record somewhere because we have a lot of information, we have a top informant, he's a Coloured who has gone off to Durban, but we have all the information, we have a specialist, give me a name and I can tell you what I know about him."
MR GOOSEN: That was never done Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Why not Mr Goosen?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot say why it wasn't done, it was simply not done and they waited for the meeting that afternoon as Mamasela said it was an arranged thing that he would get the man after work when he came off duty. So the whole operation and planning was aimed at when the person was in the vehicle and the interrogation would be done from there.
MR MALAN: Can you remember if the security guard's name was mentioned at any time to you?
MR GOOSEN: Not in my presence.
MR MALAN: But you did question him, you did interrogate him about his brother?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I didn't directly interrogate him, I stipulated that in my initial evidence.
MR MALAN: I saw you weren't involved in the assault.
MR GOOSEN: I also put no questions to the man. The initial interrogation was done by Lieutenant Hechter.
MR MALAN: You said mainly that's I wondered you did not partake in anything, you were merely going along?
MR GOOSEN: I was merely present, yes, while the person was interrogated.
MR MALAN: Right, you can't remember if his name or the brother's name or surname was ever mentioned in your presence?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it may have been the case but I really cannot remember that.
MR MALAN: Isn't such information not central, the code name or so on if you want to find out about people? Don't you ask what's his code name or what's his real name, where does he come from?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the debate would still be whether the brother who was interrogated would acknowledge that his brother was an MK member.
MR MALAN: No, that I understand but if you had information that his brother is an MK then surely you also have information on who his brother is?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, there Lieutenant van Jaarsveld and Sergeant Mamasela can perhaps throw clearer light on the subject because the initial information was based on feedback that Sergeant Mamasela gave to Van Jaarsveld and based on that we were involved in the interrogation of this person.
MR MALAN: Mr Goosen, it doesn't seem as if Sergeant van Jaarsveld is going to give us any other information. From his side he says that he doesn't have any knowledge of it, he wasn't involved, he wasn't there, he had no part of it. Sergeant Mamasela is not here. All that I'm asking and it's a serious question, would one not expect that the security guard's surname and his brother's surname and possibly his code name would have come into question if you wanted information of such an individual?
MR GOOSEN: One would expect it Chairperson but in this situation I cannot remember that it was in fact done or that we were told.
MR MALAN: Right, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: It seems clear or at least does to me that Mamasela must have known the names of these people?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct because he came with an initial report round the allegation that this man's brother was an infiltrated MK member.
CHAIRPERSON: But no follow up was done?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, the details were not taken up with us for any verification by Lieutenant van Jaarsveld.
CHAIRPERSON: How long before this questioning did he come and see you and say he wanted you to help?
MR GOOSEN: I can merely speculate Chairperson, I don't know if it was that same day or two or three days before the time and the report was made by Sergeant Mamasela. I can just remember that it was an afternoon that Van Jaarsveld asked us into the office. Whether the report of Sergeant Mamasela was submitted the same day or just before that. I cannot comment on that.
CHAIRPERSON: Because I have the same problem as my colleague does that you were getting extremely important information coming in from Botswana about uMkhonto infiltrators, that if you knew you were going to be involved in interrogation about one you would have wanted to check your records, see if you had any information available as to when he'd come in, when he'd left the country, things of that nature?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson and the only way - what we could do was an existing photo album which we called the Terrorist Photo Album which only had photos and then there was a separate index album in which the names were cross-referenced to the photographs so that would have been the method to carry out the verification.
CHAIRPERSON: But there was nothing done, you tell us?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson. At that stage he denied that his brother was an MK infiltrator and obviously he would not have been in the album.
JUDGE PILLAY: Why wasn't that pointed out to him before he was assaulted, that's the point?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, I cannot comment on that.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you have the album there?
MR GOOSEN: I cannot remember that. I cannot remember if the photo album was in the bus.
MR MALAN: No what knowledge would you have that you could add value to the interrogation of the security guard?
MR GOOSEN: The mere fact that if the brother perhaps found himself in Mamelodi in particular premises the necessary identification could have been done if he could identify the premises to us then one could make deductions about the infiltration from discussions with the brother. He would have spoken to his brother, heard when he returned, for what period he was out, then you could ascertain did he receive training or intensive training three months, six months, twelve months or longer overseas, whether he was out of the country, so there were a lot of factors that one could take into account with background information that could be acquired.
MR MALAN: Yes, but the information that you're mentioning now, the examples, that is evaluation information or evaluation yardsticks. That would not help with interrogation of an individual. That information, whether he told that to you or Van Jaarsveld, that is information that you'd have to check up afterwards, it's not going to help to make him talk or not talk?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson, put Lieutenant van Jaarsveld's specific request was why he wanted our presence there was owing to our knowledge of this infiltration.
MR MALAN: And can you also tell us when did Van Jaarsveld tell you that he expected you to with, that he wanted you to go with and help them?
MR GOOSEN: I would estimate it was in the afternoon, I would estimate 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon and 4 o'clock, 5 o'clock we had already moved to the point so it was a short period.
MR MALAN: And in that period did you refer at any time to your records to refresh your memory?
MR GOOSEN: No Chairperson.
MR MALAN: You can't remember that you looked at names, you spoke about the cross-reference where there were names of the photographs, did you go and check that?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, it's highly improbable because the name of the security guard was never told to us so I would never have done that exercise if I didn't have the name to go and look for it in the index to link it possibly to a photograph.
MR MALAN: If you'd said "man, we are looking for information" - I'm deducing this is what he said, "we are looking for your assistance, Mr Goosen and Momberg, with interrogation of a person who is a security guard whose brother is a trained MK terrorist of whom we have information that he recently infiltrated the country and that we would like to determine his whereabouts, we want to know where he is or to trace him, we want to get hold of him, probably with aim of eliminating him" I understand that is the evidence that is more or less coming from your side? He gives you all this information but it is never said who is the terrorist, the MK member and you never ask?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, from my own personal circumstances I can answer I was a sergeant and it was a Lieutenant who made this request. I wasn't in a position to question it or to make any suggestions to him on how he should carry out his operations and evaluate his information, I don't think that would have been appropriate for my rank to do that and therefore I didn't do it.
MR MALAN: And did you and Mr Momberg work in the same office?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: You shared one office?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Just the two of you or were there other people also in the office?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, other people also shared the office with us but at the time of Lieutenant van Jaarsveld's request only he and I were present in the office.
MR MALAN: Right, thank you Mr Goosen.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: As the Committee pleases.
The information that was available to you either by way of photo albums or by way of the index indices and so on, was this merely information that was available to you or was it generally available for any member of the security police at that stage?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, each unit at the security branch had a photo index with an index. Unit A had it's own photo album system, B and C, each component had it's own photo album system and it was quite readily available for each member of such a unit to be able to study such albums.
MR ALBERTS: So that preparation work that must have preceded your interrogation or that you would expect would precede the interrogation, that was also available to members of Unit B, Sergeant Mamasela, Lieutenant van Jaarsveld and the other members who were involved?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Had they got access to your? You said each unit had it's own records?
MR GOOSEN: It's the same album, it's the duplication of an original set of albums.
CHAIRPERSON: And the other indexes that you had, that you had got from your informant?
MR GOOSEN: It's a general filing system at the security branch, it was on the second floor and each member had access to the file and the card system where suspects details appeared.
MR MALAN: And what is your knowledge, your expertise that the others did not have access to?
MR GOOSEN: Merely the fact that we knew about the methods that were followed with infiltration, the creation of safe houses and how they operated from safe houses and of course the establishment of weapons, gathering points, which we characterised as DLB's and the method that we follow when a courier comes in, how you deal with the arms, the methods that they use to bury it, the maps that are drawn up which was sent, who is sent out for the next infiltration group to come and fetch the weapons.
MR MALAN: Unit C did not have that expertise and knowledge?
MR GOOSEN: Chairperson, they could have had that expertise. I was aware of an informer that they had who acted as a courier so they weren't quite in the dark with regard to this type of work methods.
MR MALAN: Unit B, they would also have had it?
MR GOOSEN: Unit B I know and we did assist with the training of a specific informer of theirs with a view to the fact that when he was still in the process of infiltrating overseas.
MR ALBERTS: As I understand it, the knowledge that you had at that stage, would it have been justified to describe it that it was really at the tips of your fingers?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Because you were constantly involved with it owing to your involvement with your own informer?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: And therefore is it correct or not to say that it may have been a short cut that Lieutenant van Jaarsveld chose by asking you immediately he could have saved himself a lot of homework by making use of you and Momberg?
MR GOOSEN: The possibility exists, Chairperson.
MR ALBERTS: But whatever the case may be, as I understand you, you were simply tasked by your senior and you were instructed to become involved in this incident, is that correct?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: And you had a direct instruction from Lieutenant van Jaarsveld?
MR GOOSEN: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you Chairperson, I don't have further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: I think this would be a convenient stage to take the adjournment. Would 2 o'clock be convenient gentlemen? We'll now adjourn till 2 o'clock.
WITNESS EXCUSED
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
