Amnesty Hearings

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call the applicant H.J. Prinsloo, Mr Chairman.

HENDRIK J. PRINSLOO: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: We commence at page 961 and the relevant incident appears on page 949 of Bundle 4 and commences up to page 951 and then as far as the political background motivation is concerned, that appears in the same Bundle as from page 955 Mr Chairman, up to page 961. In addition to that Mr Chairman, Exhibit A which was handed in yesterday at the commencement of the proceedings, it is a supplement to the incident itself. May I commence Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Prinsloo, you are an applicant in this matter, regarding the Pienaarsriver incident?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: During this incident, you were a member of the South African Police Service and you were a member of the Security Branch?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Committee, at that stage, how many years service you had with the Security Branch?

MR PRINSLOO: About ten years, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And what was your rank?

MR PRINSLOO: I was a Captain at that stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: Were you a Captain or a Lieutenant in 1986?

MR PRINSLOO: In 1986?

ADV PRINSLOO: This incident allegedly took place in 1986.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage I was a Lieutenant.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, your application is contained in Bundle 4 as I have already explained to the Committee, is that correct, and at a certain stage you have added alterations, after a request have been made by the Truth Commission. I just want to read one paragraph, it is dated the 25th of March 1999

"... murder of unidentified activist at Pienaarsriver, Pienaar, H.J., there is some confusion surrounding this incident and a possible second incident at the same location. I am unclear as to whether they are the same event, described slightly differently or two separate events. I would request your help in this regard. It appears as if Mentz, Coetzer and Van Jaarsveld may also be involved in this event. Please consider the various applications included in the Bundle and give me some feedback so that we can clarify the matter."

CHAIRPERSON: What are you reading from?

ADV PRINSLOO: I am reading from a letter from the Amnesty Committee from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Mr Chairman. I can hand in the letter itself. May it be referred to Mr Chairman, as Exhibit A1 as the statement is referred to as Exhibit A? In response to that, there was a letter submitted by my colleague, Louisa van der Walt, which I will also read into the record and it refers to this incident

"... Murder of unidentified activist at Pienaarsriver, applicant H.J. Prinsloo. As telephonically discussed with Adv Steenkamp, and I add this to Prinsloo's amnesty application, he informed me that I have to inform him in writing regarding his letter of the 25th of March, regarding this incident, incident number 4, the same incident as murder of unidentified activist at Pienaarsriver."

This was signed by Louisa van der Walt. It would be Exhibits A1 and A2 with your leave, Mr Chairman. I also have copies available Mr Chairman, may I just send them up.

CHAIRPERSON: I am returning the originals to you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I proceed Mr Chairman, thank you. Mr Prinsloo, is it correct that after this letter from the Truth Commission, you have made a further statement, which is now Exhibit A?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And do you confirm the correctness of that statement?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, during that time you were a Lieutenant in the Security Branch, you were involved in the Security Branch since 1976?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: As far as this specific incident, you have already listened to evidence that - is it correct that you were contacted by telephone by Brigadier Cronje and that you met him somewhere?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And that telephone call, was that during the day or in the evening?

MR PRINSLOO: It was in the evening.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where did you meet Brigadier Cronje then?

MR PRINSLOO: I met Brigadier Cronje at the Silverton police station, not on the premises, but next to the police station, there was a big tree and under the tree was a kombi and that is where I met Brigadier Cronje.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did Brigadier Cronje give you instructions there, what happened?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, Brigadier Cronje told me that there was an MK member in the vehicle, that he had certain information about where other MK members were hiding in Mamelodi as well as one or two safe houses in the Mamelodi vicinity and this MK member was willing to identify that.

ADV PRINSLOO: The other members there in this kombi, were they from your unit or not?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: To which unit were you attached?

MR PRINSLOO: I was attached to Unit C. Unit C at that stage had to trace MK and Apla terrorists and infiltrators, and to investigate terrorism like bomb explosions and assassinations and also gathering Intelligence regarding such infiltrators and activists and also their activities in the country.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, for which reason, why did Brigadier Cronje contact you?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage I thought it was because of my knowledge regarding ANC activities, especially in the Division Northern Transvaal and also my background regarding the operational methods of MK and also the suspects in the region Northern Transvaal, and there were also hangers on or sympathisers - were known as hangers on or sympathisers.

ADV PRINSLOO: Up to that stage, were you involved in various investigations and tracing of people known as terrorists and hangers on?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And did you use informers at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: As far as this specific incident, this person to whom we refer to as the deceased, did you know who he was or did you know about his arrest?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, only when I had arrived at Silverton police station with Cronje and the other members, it appeared to me that this person had been arrested. I was not aware that he was being detained as a terrorist because these detentions were also under my command according to legislation.

ADV PRINSLOO: According to what you could determine, by whom was this person arrested?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I saw Captain Van Jaarsveld there and also Tiny Coetzer, they were members of Unit B at the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal and from what Brigadier Cronje told me that Van Jaarsveld's unit picked up this MK person, this is a Police term, picked up, it means arrested. I inferred that Van Jaarsveld and his unit arrested this person based on Intelligence they have received.

ADV PRINSLOO: If this person had been arrested or picked up by another unit, would it have been conveyed to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: During the normal course of your activities, would it have been brought under your unit's attention if a person like this person, if he had been arrested, would it have been brought under your attention?

MR PRINSLOO: Depending on the circumstances Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: You have already testified that it was mentioned to you that this person had certain Intelligence or that this person was involved with other MK members. What happened afterwards?

MR MALAN: Can I just go back to the previous question, you have asked your client whether such an arrest would have been brought under his attention and he said under certain circumstances yes, and you have just left it there.

ADV PRINSLOO: What do you mean by certain circumstances Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, there were clandestine operations happening all the time, people were picked up or arrested and these people were not treated according to the specifications of security legislation. For example they were charged under the Criminal Procedures Act and they were perhaps transferred to other units where these people were wanted. It was purely an administrative action and I would not know about that, only later on, they would have informed me about such a person and the basis and the circumstances under which he was arrested and that will be based on the information obtained from this person.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, in this specific incident it was the first time, at the Silverton police station, that you heard about this person?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

JUDGE PILLAY: What did you come to know about this person there?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman what I have just said is that this person was an MK member, he had information where other MK members were in Mamelodi and he knew about where safe houses were in Mamelodi.

MR MALAN: Just before you continue Mr Prinsloo. Mr Prinsloo, did you listen to Mr Van Jaarsveld's evidence previously during the cross-examination?

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, we only came in right at the end.

MR MALAN: Then you can continue.

ADV PRINSLOO: Before we start with the incident itself, can you tell the Committee who were the members at that stage, the members of Unit B?

MR PRINSLOO: I can remember Tiny Coetzer, Sergeant Coetzer at that stage, Captain Van Jaarsveld, I can remember them specifically. This vehicle that was standing there, belonged to Unit B, it was a white kombi, a Hi-Ace kombi.

ADV PRINSLOO: And a person by the name of Slang, did you know him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I know him as Danny Hlehlali, he was a member of Unit B, he was a member of Captain Van Jaarsveld's unit.

ADV PRINSLOO: You said that this vehicle belonged to Unit B. Could it happen that other units made use of your vehicles or vice versa?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, mostly in two or three cases because we operated clandestine especially when we were involved in tracing terrorist deeds and for security reasons and also when you had to contact informers, you did not easily make your vehicles available for use to other people because you could place your own people in jeopardy, perhaps they could be killed in future and people could come to know them as people from the Security Branch.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Momberg and Mr Goosen, two other applicants, did you see them there that evening?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Momberg, to which unit was he attached?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can remember, he and Goosen, Momberg and Goosen, were attached to Unit A.

ADV PRINSLOO: Brigadier Cronje was the Overall Commanding Officer?

MR PRINSLOO: He was the Divisional Commanding Officer of the Northern Transvaal Branch.

ADV PRINSLOO: To come back to this incident, the kombi was there and what happened then?

MR PRINSLOO: I got into the kombi and this MK member was sitting behind the back seat and the back door, sitting on the carpet. Whether he was sitting or whether he was laying down, I can't remember, but I told him to climb over to the back seat, and he was then sitting between me and Captain Momberg.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then did you drive to Mamelodi from there?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct yes. After I started interrogating this person, I tried to get some background information from him.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue. You mentioned this climbing over, this person was sitting or laying there, were his hands or feet tied?

MR PRINSLOO: Not as far as I can remember because he climbed over to the back seat all by himself, it was a small space between the back seat and the back door.

MR MALAN: So you can't remember that his was handcuffed or that his feet or hands were wound?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I can't remember that.

ADV PRINSLOO: This person was sitting between you and Momberg and you then drove to Mamelodi?

MR PRINSLOO: That is so.

ADV PRINSLOO: What happened then?

MR PRINSLOO: While I was interrogating this person, I gave him instructions that he had to identify these houses where the MK members were hiding. In such an instance, time is a very important factor, because it was very important to find those people as quickly as possible because that person was part of a unit of terrorists and their security measures boils down to the fact that they contacted one another on a regular basis. If that did not happen like that, they would move from their hiding places to other hiding places and then this MK member which was in detention, would not know about those places. We were driving around in Mamelodi, we went down one street, up another street. He could identify not one single house where MK members were hiding. He could not identify the so-called safe houses. In this process, I hit him with my open hand, I hit him with my fists and I also hit him with my elbow in his ribs. I can remember at a certain stage, I grabbed his throat. The purpose of this was to bring the seriousness of this matter, under his attention, that we seriously needed the information from him.

ADV PRINSLOO: At that stage Mr Prinsloo ...

MR MALAN: Just explain to me quickly, how do you bring the seriousness of the information regarding the identification under his attention? Are you not trying to tell us that I was just maltreating him and I was assaulting him to convince him to give us the information?

MR PRINSLOO: (No interpretation)

MR MALAN: But he was surely not aware of how important the information was?

MR PRINSLOO: I can perhaps explain as such. MK members are trained never if he is arrested, to divulge the information where the other members of the unit, are, where the explosives are. And therefore they had to make use of misleading actions, in other words to delay the Police so that their comrades would not be traced. This is a classical example and then you drive up and down before a certain house, so that the people in the house, can become aware that something is happening, there were white people in the kombi and those people in the houses were aware if something like that happened. Those were misleading actions to give the other members a chance to get away and to remove all evidence. What I was trying to say here, as you have said it, I have assaulted him to bring it under his attention that we are not playing now, we are serious about finding the information.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo was it necessary for you or not, that this person should identify those MK persons and safe houses?

MR PRINSLOO: It was absolutely very urgent for us that we should identify those. At that stage, many terrorist incidents had happened in the Pretoria environment, Policemen were killed during those incidents, there were assassinations, bombs were placed at certain places and these people had not been caught at that stage, the people who did that. It could have been this group of terrorists. So, it was absolutely of cardinal importance for me, that I should get this information from that member at all costs.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is it correct Mr Prinsloo, that in 1986 in September 1986, there was a group of ANC terrorists called the Messina Group, who were responsible for assassinations on Policemen and politicians and bomb explosions?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And those people were also prosecuted later on, is that correct? You can continue, you then hit the person and assaulted him, as you said, and then?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, we stopped in Mamelodi at an open spot and I got out. I spoke to Brigadier Cronje and I told him or I suggested that this person was busy with delaying tactics and he should be interrogated in a more robust way.

JUDGE PILLAY: What did he do that was so misleading?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

JUDGE PILLAY: What did he do which was so misleading? What did he say or what did he do?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have already referred to the fact that he didn't point out, didn't or couldn't point out anyone of the houses where MK members were hiding and which were used as safe houses at that stage. I then suggested to Brigadier Cronje that we should take the person to another place.

JUDGE PILLAY: I am sorry, I just want to clarify something. So it is not the case that he pointed out a certain house and that you found out it was the wrong house, it was a case of that he didn't or couldn't point out the house, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Perhaps I should just qualify my evidence, according to what Brigadier Cronje told me, I had no reasons for doubting Brigadier Cronje's statement to me, I believed that that was true and correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes, no Mr Prinsloo, we are not talking about that.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I just want to join up with that aspect, the specific purpose was to go to Mamelodi, which we did, to test this person's willingness to point out these houses, but he didn't point out any houses. During my interrogation, he was evasive. I asked him specifically whose houses they were and in most cases he didn't have any names for me, he said he didn't know who stayed there and that was information that they received via their other colleagues. It is on that basis that I said he was using delaying tactics.

JUDGE PILLAY: I still don't know, did he or did he not point out a house?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I said he couldn't point out any houses. And he didn't point out any place where any MK members allegedly were hiding or which were used as safe houses. May I continue?

CHAIRPERSON: Before you go on, I want to clarify something too, please. You went to Mamelodi. Who chose what streets you should go up and down?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I was busy with this person and it was as a result of his indication, that the driver took a certain course, he drove up certain streets and not others.

CHAIRPERSON: So he indicated the street which would indicate to you, when he didn't point anybody out, that he was wanting you to be seen driving up and down the road?

MR PRINSLOO: That was my impression yes, that was what I considered to be his misleading and delaying tactics.

MR MALAN: You say that he told the driver where to turn left and where to turn right?

MR PRINSLOO: He told me and I then conveyed it to the driver and I would then say turn left, whatever the case may be.

MR MALAN: You were sitting right at the back of the kombi and you spoke to the driver right at the front?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: And it is one of the 14/16 seater Hi-Act Toyota's?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it was a Hi-Act. I can't remember how many seats there were.

MR MALAN: And was it possible for the driver to hear you clearly right from the back?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. It was totally quiet in the kombi and he would hear me if I said left or right.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, you testified that you stopped in this open piece of land and you had a discussion with Brigadier Cronje, in Mamelodi. What did you tell him?

MR PRINSLOO: I suggested to Brigadier Cronje that we should move to another spot which wasn't quite as visible, because where we were, it was in the vicinity of Mamelodi, there were lots of people walking around, vehicles, and chances were quite good that some of this man's colleagues could walk by, so my suggestion was that we take him to some other spot where we could interrogate him in a more forcible way.

ADV PRINSLOO: If you say in a more forcible manner, did you have any equipment to do that with?

MR PRINSLOO: No, at that stage we had no devices or equipment or anything else, other than my hands.

ADV PRINSLOO: From Mamelodi, you went somewhere else, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, the driver then drove and I don't know who decided that spot to which we then drove. We drove along the old Warmbaths Road in the direction of Warmbaths and near the Pyramid railway station, we turned left and we then crossed the railway line to the left, in a westerly direction into what was then Bophuthatswana. We then proceeded along a gravel road. At some point, the driver stopped and in the meanwhile I had constantly been continuing with my interrogation and assault of the MK member to try and get information out of him.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did somebody then tell the driver to stop at that particular point where he did?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I have already said I don't know who gave the instruction to go to that particular place and who told him to stop there. I was still constantly busy questioning and interrogating this man in the kombi, so my attention wasn't really focused on what was happening elsewhere in the minibus. I just simply suggested that we go to a safe place.

ADV PRINSLOO: Then the kombi came to a halt, did you then interrogate the person further?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. At some point, we sat inside the kombi and I still spoke to him for a bit, then I removed him from the kombi by the side door, and took him to the back of the kombi. The hatch of the kombi was open, it was facing the top and during my interrogation of him, I realised that this man would not be forced to talk by means of the force used on him until that stage. Then I grabbed him by his throat and I started throttling him to such an extent that I forced him backwards into that part of the kombi, between the back seat and the hatch. He handed up on the floor there. I can't recall for how long that was, it wasn't a very long period. I started feeling that he was getting limp. I then let go of him, and then he slid down onto the ground and he remained laying down on the ground. At that point, I thought that he was simply unconscious, but I did foresee that I could possibly kill him in this process of throttling him.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, some of the other applicants, Momberg and Goosen said that their impression was that he was dead at that stage, could you dispute that or would you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't dispute that, no.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you ever throttle him while he was on the ground?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: After the person slid out of the bakkie or kombi and landed up on the ground, and lay there dead or unconscious, the body was then disposed of, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you know who took the body away?

MR PRINSLOO: It was Momberg and Goosen, they removed the body to the front of the kombi and started moving along the road with him.

ADV PRINSLOO: We have already heard evidence that the body was blown up?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Were you aware of this fact beforehand that explosives or any explosive devices were in that vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

ADV PRINSLOO: When did you become aware of that for the first time?

MR PRINSLOO: It was only when I saw Momberg walking along the road in the lights of the kombi, and I thought I saw him carrying what looked like a landmine.

ADV PRINSLOO: Now after the person had been blown up, you then left the scene?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, Mr Chairperson, we first drove some distance away until we heard the explosion and then we again drove passed that spot where the man had been blown up. I then observed in the lights of the kombi, I observed that there was a certain disturbance of the surface, there was a slight indentation in the road, which would be reconcilable with the explosion of a landmine in that area or some explosive device.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, according to the evidence of Brigadier Cronje, which has been placed at our disposal in Exhibit B, Brigadier Cronje testified that a person by the name of Du Plessis, was in the back of the kombi with you, and not Momberg.

MR PRINSLOO: No, Momberg was sitting in the back of the vehicle with me and the MK member was between the two of us. I didn't notice Du Plessis at all, he might have been there though but my attention was focused on the MK person and the pointing out actions that he was supposed to have done.

ADV PRINSLOO: At that stage, was Mr Du Plessis known to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he was the Unit Commander of Unit A at the Security Branch Northern Transvaal if I remember correctly. I don't know whether as Mr Momberg testified, whether Captain Blaauw was the Head and Du Plessis was second in charge, but he was definitely attached to Unit A.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, as far as your original application is concerned, which we find in Bundle 4 on page 949, in which you describe this fourth case, you have made certain amendments in terms of your additional statement?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: You specifically refer in your statement to paragraph 2 of the statement. Is it correct that the last sentence of paragraph 2 in the original application, on 949 where it ends "the driver did not", that there should be a fullstop and then the word "but" should be deleted and then we went with the old Warmbaths Road from Pretoria in the direction in Warmbaths, and that should be inserted in paragraph 4 between paragraphs 4 and 5?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Should it read

"... from Mamelodi we continued with the old Warmbaths Road from Pretoria in the direction of Warmbaths",

and that paragraph 5 in Exhibit A should be inserted in paragraph 5, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: The third sentence, where the third sentence starts "after", just before that, that should be inserted.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then paragraph 5 should also be amended as follows

"... the black man was a terrorist or not and the members present ..."

and then the words -

"... I don't know who they were ..."

should be inserted there, Momberg and Goosen. The word from the kombi, Momberg and Goosen should be inserted there?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you then further confirm the correctness of your statement on page 949 to 951, and also then Exhibit A in conjunction with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I do.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then the political motivation of your application, we don't need to go through that, that we find in Annexure B, 955 of this Bundle.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And it goes as far as page 961?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you confirm the contents and the correctness of this?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Reference is made to certain submissions and presentations made by Gen Van der Merwe?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Are you also familiar with certain portions which were given as general background to amnesty applications by certain applicants which were attached to their applications?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, your conduct on that particular evening, did you do that for your own personal benefit or what is the situation?

MR PRINSLOO: No. What was at stake for me was to obtain or to achieve a certain political objective, to prop up and maintain a political regime of the day and to ensure the stability and security of the Republic of South Africa.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you at any stage doubt or have any doubt as to the fact that the deceased was not a supporter of a liberation movement?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I always believed, firmly believed what Brigadier Cronje had told me.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you believe, bona fide believe that your actions were in connection with your duties as a Policeman and that you were therefore authorised to act as you did?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Are you requesting the Honourable Committee then to give you amnesty on the charge of murder and the charges connected with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would like to do that. I also request that I be given amnesty for my participation in this event, on the basis of considerations, such as for instance set out in the general background and I would also like to emphasise that my action took place in the context of the struggle of the past, and it was aimed at the supporters of a liberation movement, which at that stage was illegal and it was done to protect the previous political regime. I request that you grant me amnesty in this particular case. As it pleases you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, at this stage, I don't have any particular questions, I don't want to waste time. If necessary, would you afford me an opportunity after everyone else has cross-examined, but there are small differences which in my opinion, are not material at this stage, as you please.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Prinsloo, I see that you made an amendment in your amnesty application. could you please tell us, the evidence which you have given today, was that based entirely on your memory and recollection or was it as a result of what was said by previous amnesty applicants before this Committee and after listening to the evidence here yesterday, what is the case?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chair, perhaps I might just qualify here that during the time that I lodged my original application, and my

legal representative would be able to confirm this, it was close to the cut off time for the lodging of applications, and things were a bit hectic, because my legal representatives were dealing with quite a few applications. When I was approached by Mr Prinsloo, my legal representative, in respect of the query from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, I had obtained those details or I then received that information and I would have amended it here and have elaborated on it further here, but as a result of that query, I then immediately put down this further explanation in an addendum to my application.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, I will accept that you were under pressure when you were compiling your application, but what I am asking you is this, did you, when you were drafting your application, were you simply making a mistake or could you not remember certain things at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: As a result of the pressure and the fact that things were hectic, I think I couldn't recall everything immediately because there were many incidents in which one was involved, whether as part of a legitimate operation, or a clandestine operation.

MR ROSSOUW: And is it possible that you could be confusing people and incidents with this particular incident?

MR PRINSLOO: No. I could also qualify that as follows, it is very seldom, I think this was one of one or two cases in which I was summoned to a particular place in this way. I just want to refer to something that was said earlier when Mr Van Jaarsveld testified earlier this morning, that the relationship between myself and I want to put it very clearly, Unit B, it was not satisfactory. I did not really want to share my area of work with them, and I had very good reasons for that. And therefore I say my testimony and the addendum to my application is based on the best of my recollection, as to what happened.

MR ROSSOUW: I will accept that, but we are looking at the time when you were actually drafting your application, you have already conceded that it would be possible to forget certain incidents as a result of pressure on you at the time, and also because there were so many incidents involved. But do I understand you correctly when you say that the people mentioned in the amnesty application, you have no uncertainty as to that?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct yes. I may just mention that in respect of the name of Coetzer which I mentioned, I think a day or two after this incident, I was busy chatting to him and we were talking about this incident in particular and the place where we had been. Coetzer then mentioned to me that he knew that area very well, because he had gone there in the past to hunt illegally. It was on that basis that I drew the inference that he was possibly the person who had been giving, or making the suggestion to Brigadier Cronje that we should go to that remote place, because I didn't know that place at all. It was the first time that I had been there on that occasion.

MR ROSSOUW: In other words, you drew an inference in this case, it is not as if you are saying that Mr Coetzer was definitely in the kombi, I can actually remember that he was there and he played that role. You had a conversation with him a couple of days after the incident, and from that conversation, you made an inference that he knew the area well?

MR PRINSLOO: No, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that I saw Coetzer at Silverton, the first time we got together there and I can't recall what the conversation was about a few days later, it might be that I was making certain enquiries as to whether anything had happened, whether they were hearing anything from the Bophuthatswana Police, had they been aware of the explosion, etc, and that is how the matter arose and in the context of which he mentioned that he knew the area very well, because he had gone on illegal hunting expeditions in the past. That is how I came to the conclusion that the man knew the area very well and also because I personally had seen him in the kombi, for all these reasons, I came to the conclusion that he was the man who suggested that we go to that area.

MR ROSSOUW: Where in the kombi was he sitting?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't recall that. I can't even remember, apart from the people that I mentioned, who else was in the kombi.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you tell us what his role was in the whole incident, when you were driving around in Mamelodi?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I can't. I really don't know what his function was. What I could perhaps say and this - well it was a 14 or 16 seater and there were quite a few people in the bus, because if action at a particular house pointed out by the MK person, was necessary, then you had enough people to actually carry out that action. But I can't say exactly who was present, because they weren't members of my unit.

MR ROSSOUW: When you arrived at this open piece of land in Mamelodi, Mr Coetzer, did he get out or did he stay seated?

MR PRINSLOO: Once again, I can't remember that. I was specifically talking to Brigadier Cronje as I have testified.

MR ROSSOUW: When you drove away from that spot, I am asking you to recollect what the position was inside the kombi, you were driving away to a safer place, you testified, you say that you can't remember who suggested that you go to this more isolated spot, but is it possible that Mr Coetzer said that? Or you say that Mr Coetzer said that, can you recall where he sat, can you recall him chatting to the driver, talking to the driver at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: I have already testified that I was busy with the man's further interrogation and therefore I was not paying attention to what was happening elsewhere in the minibus, that was not my task at that point. Obviously we left Mamelodi, we were driving away from Mamelodi and I accepted that Cronje would give the instruction that we go to a safer place. What further happened, is purely speculation. All that I said is that a couple of days after the incident, I had a discussion with Coetzer from which it appeared clearly that he knew the area, and that is what I based my inference on. That is why I said it was possibly Coetzer who said that we should go to that area, not because he said that he hunted there illegally, but because I saw him in the kombi.

MR ROSSOUW: When you arrived at Pienaarsriver

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going on to another issue now Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, no I am not. Can I perhaps just have five minutes to deal with this.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, when you get to a convenient stage, we will take the adjournment. Carry on.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, it won't be long Mr Chairman. When you arrived at Pienaarsriver, and you had taken the MK member out of the side of the kombi, did you notice Mr Coetzer, what was he doing?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, after I got out of the kombi, I noticed that some of the members who had been inside the minibus, you must remember it was dark, were standing along the side of the bakkie where the sliding door was, I was busy with the MK member at the back of the minibus, where I was busy with my further interrogation and assault on him so once again, my attention was not focused on who was standing where and what they were doing.

MR ROSSOUW: So, apart from the fact that you said you saw him in the bus at Silverton, you can't place him in the bus in the course of this subsequent operation and you cannot say what role he played?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, we were all in the minibus, nobody left the group, so he was constantly present as far as I am concerned.

MR ROSSOUW: I am just asking whether you can place him in any way as far as the further operation is concerned. My instructions are that Mr Coetzer was not in any way involved in this incident. You also yesterday heard the testimony of Mr Momberg where he initially mentioned Mr Coetzer in his statement and then on further reflection, realised that he had made a mistake. What is your comment on this?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I stand by what I testified and that is to the best of my recollection.

MR ROSSOUW: Would you then concede that maybe your memory is at fault?

MR PRINSLOO: On what aspect in particular?

MR ROSSOUW: In respect of the entire operation, that there might perhaps be certain aspects about which you are making a mistake or there are certain aspects which you couldn't really recall while you were drafting your application for amnesty. I am asking you do you concede that there is a possibility that you could have made a mistake, but I hear that you say that you stand by your view?

MR PRINSLOO: There is always a possibility that your memory could be failing you on smaller points, but not on these specific points which I have testified about now.

MR ROSSOUW: You see Mr Prinsloo, it is not just a smaller issue here on which you could possibly be making a mistake. In your original application, you did not include any details about throttling the person until he went limp and that is not a small matter. So on that aspect, when you were filling in your application form, you made quite a big mistake as far as your recollection is concerned. Would you not concede in the light of that, that you could be making a similarly big mistake about the identification of a person in the dark, during an operation?

MR PRINSLOO: No. No, I stand by what I said and for the reasons which I have already given, I have an additional explanation. If that was not the case, I would have corrected the matter today.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, maybe just one last aspect. Mr Prinsloo, I accept that you would have corrected the matter today, but I am talking about your recollection and your memory at the stage when you were still drafting your application. At that stage you neglected to mention a material point in your application, so in the light of that, at that point, would you concede the possibility that you made a mistake as far as the identification of Mr Coetzer?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, no, I stand by what I said.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I will leave that for argument and that will be a convenient time to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we are adjourned until two o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

AT RESUMPTION

HENDRIK J. PRINSLOO: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Prinsloo, just a few smaller aspects. During this time when you stopped on that open field near Mamelodi, you said you got out of the vehicle, you had a discussion with Cronje, did you take the activist from the vehicle and assault him there?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you threaten him at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I have already said that I continuously assaulted him at that stage. When we stopped, I got out and had a conversation with Cronje, when I made the proposal to him. He was never taken out of the vehicle, it would have been senseless, because it was near houses.

MR ROSSOUW: My clients said that he was also assaulted there on the open field, and that he was seriously threatened for example that they were going to shoot off his foot if he doesn't cooperate. Can you react to that?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know about that, I can't remember such threats. Perhaps somebody else I don't know about.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, it was specifically Brigadier Cronje.

MR PRINSLOO: No, I don't know about that.

MR ROSSOUW: And then at Pienaarsriver, after you stopped there on the road, I don't know whether I have understood you correctly, when this explosive device was placed there and this limp body was placed on this explosive device, where did that happen? Did you drive a little way away and did you come back and pass this scene again?

MR PRINSLOO: I have never said that I saw that this body was placed on the landmine, I only saw when Momberg took out the landmine from the bus and walked away with that, in the light of the vehicle. Then I saw how they carried the body from there. If I can remember correctly, we turned back and we drove back in the direction from which we had come. After the explosion, we drove passed that place again to see whether it had detonated properly and whether the body had been completely destroyed?

MR ROSSOUW: In other words, from the point where you had stopped, you turned back, you drove back in the direction from where you had come, after the explosion you turned around?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes and came back to the place where the explosion had taken place. And if I can remember correctly, we took a different road back to Pretoria.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Prinsloo, do you agree that Mr Wouter Mentz or Hechter were not involved in this incident?

MR PRINSLOO: Not as far as I know.

MR DU PLESSIS: And as I understand your evidence, it coincides with Cronje's evidence that the death of this person was an accident, and you did not purposefully kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: I have already said that I did foresee that possibility. For me it was important to obtain this information from this person at all costs.

MR DU PLESSIS: My only question is, you did not on purpose decide or had the intent to kill him, but you foresaw that in this process, he could be killed?

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Prinsloo, how did it happen, you strangled him in order to force him to give information and you still expected him to be alive to give the necessary information? How is it then that you foresaw that he could die, that he could have been killed, while you expected from him to give you answers?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, under these circumstances and because of the purpose I wanted to achieve and in the light of the previous assaults which had taken place after we got into the kombi, it was my purpose to obtain the information from him, at all costs. It is so, it had happened before that you can use more force than you actually intended to. That is why I said that I reconciled myself with the fact that this person could possibly be killed. And then I want to go further and say that because this was approved and because I wanted to obtain the information from him, and that is information regarding the informer and psychologically I geared myself to the fact that I know that he was not going to be released again because he was not giving the necessary information. I had to use brut force and under those circumstances you could use more force than usual.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did it happen in that way or not? Did it happen that this person will not be released?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, to a certain extent.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you purposefully kill him, or with the intent?

MR DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Prinsloo, let me explain to you why I am asking this question, this is a question whether it appears from you and the other people's evidence, whether you were only negligent and whether you had intent, that is dolus eventualis to kill this person. To have had dolus eventualis and I want to ask you then, if I give you an indication of what dolus eventualis is, of whether that describes your situation. If your evidence is that you thought that there was a possibility that this person could be killed, that you did not take the necessary steps to prevent him from being killed, and that you told yourself, well, if he died, it is just one of those things, and it happens. Does that describe what your activities were that day?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: If I understand you correctly, you said if he did not die during this process of interrogation and strangulation, then it was your idea that in any case, he would have been killed after that and would not have been released?

MR PRINSLOO: It depends on whether he had given us the information.

MR MALAN: I am sorry for interrupting you, because you have just testified that at that stage, when he did not want to give the information, that your orientation was that he was not going to be allowed to go free, that he was going to be killed in any case?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, depending on the circumstances. If he had given us the required information, then we could have taken a decision afterwards.

MR MALAN: But at that stage, you did not suspect that he would give the information because he was purposefully withholding information?

CHAIRPERSON: And if he did not give information, he would be killed, is that what you thought?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I want to qualify what I have said. Depending on the circumstances, did he cooperate, did he identify the people, we would have made a decision whether he would have been killed, or whether he would have been charged.

CHAIRPERSON: But if he did not cooperate was my question, had you decided that if he didn't cooperate, he was going to be killed anyway, so you might as well use all the force you can, to get him to cooperate? Was that your attitude?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Prinsloo, certain amendments in your evidence were indicated by Mr Rossouw. I am not going to go into that again, because those are on record. Can you just please answer a few questions regarding Mr Van Jaarsveld. Do I understand you correctly when you say that Brigadier Cronje told you that Mr Van Jaarsveld had arrested that person?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, I have said if I can remember correctly, I have said that Brigadier Cronje told me that Captain Van Jaarsveld's unit was involved in picking up or arresting this person because he was an MK member and what followed afterwards.

MR MEINTJIES: So in other words it was not told to you that Captain Van Jaarsveld personally was involved in this regard?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MEINTJIES: If we look at the evidence of Brigadier Cronje, in his amnesty application regarding this matter, and I refer you to page 11, it forms part of the specific Exhibit B, it says Brigadier J. Cronje, "Evidence Pienaarsriver Incident".

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, what we've got here is cross-examination of Brigadier Cronje, which commences on page 11 of the typed transcript.

MR MEINTJIES: That is the correct document.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is that correct?

MR MEINTJIES: That is correct, yes. I refer you then to the last quotation referring to the words of Brigadier Cronje on that page where he mentions that Captain Du Plessis had brought in a male activist.

MR PRINSLOO: I can see that.

MR MEINTJIES: Does that agree with what you have said here?

MR PRINSLOO: I am only referring to Silverton here, there I got the impression that it was Van Jaarsveld and his unit who picked up this person.

MR MEINTJIES: Did Brigadier Cronje inform you in this respect?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MEINTJIES: Now the question is, if Brigadier Cronje said that Captain Du Plessis had brought in this person personally, was Captain Du Plessis then part of Unit B?

MR PRINSLOO: No, at that stage he was attached to Unit A, he worked with white matters.

MR MEINTJIES: Was Captain Du Plessis at that stage then involved in your Branch at the Security Police?

MR PRINSLOO: If I can remember correctly, yes. I don't know exactly when he started there.

MR MEINTJIES: Would you say that Brigadier Cronje had made a mistake in his evidence here?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't say that, because I don't know what had happened before that stage. I only know what happened from Silverton and afterwards.

MR MEINTJIES: In terms of your testimony regarding what Cronje had told you, can we say that Brigadier Cronje had made a mistake in his evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: He might have made just as much a mistake in saying it was Van Jaarsveld?

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. Well the evidence of Brigadier Cronje differs from he told you at Silverton?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, there he told me it was an MK member and if I look at the records of Cronje's cross-examination, he talks about an activist. There is a big difference between an activist and an MK member. Those are two different concepts according to me.

MR MEINTJIES: Thank you. Where did you or were you supposed to have seen Mr Van Jaarsveld for the first time in respect of this incident?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, as I have said beforehand, at Silverton, when I joined this group in the kombi, then I saw Van Jaarsveld when Cronje got out of the kombi and gave me the instructions and told me what this was all about.

MR MEINTJIES: Where would you say was Van Jaarsveld in this kombi?

MR PRINSLOO: When you open the sliding door, there is directly opposite the sliding door, there is a row of seats, that is where he was sitting. That was the first time that I noticed that he was in the kombi.

MR MEINTJIES: And then you drove to that open field near Mamelodi?

MR PRINSLOO: First we drove around in Mamelodi and then to this open field where we stopped and I had this conversation with Brigadier Cronje and made the proposal.

MR MEINTJIES: What was Mr Van Jaarsveld doing at that stage while you were driving around in Mamelodi until you came to the open field?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't say what he was doing, all my attention was being paid to this person next to me, I was devoting all my attention to the interrogation. I was also telling the driver right here, left here, so that this person could identify the specific houses. I did not notice what the other people were doing.

MR MEINTJIES: After you drove from Mamelodi to Pienaarsriver, is there anything specific you can remember what Van Jaarsveld were doing at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, I was busy with the interrogation of this person in the back seat of the kombi. I did not pay any attention to the other people. I can't remember that he was doing anything specifically.

MR MEINTJIES: Did Mr Van Jaarsveld at any stage get out of the kombi, according to what you can recollect?

MR PRINSLOO: Not that I can recall. I can only speculate to say that there where we stopped at Pienaarsriver, all the people got out of the kombi. I was sitting in the kombi, interrogating the MK member and then I got out and walked to the back of the kombi.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Van Jaarsveld was sitting on the middle bench of the kombi, and he was sitting there until you arrived at Pienaarsriver?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't say that. I have just said where I noticed him for the first time, that was your question. I remember what I saw at Silverton. I can't remember where he was sitting afterwards and what he was doing.

MR MEINTJIES: In other words, was there a possibility that he could have moved around in the bus? Is there is possibility that he could have been in the driver's seat?

MR PRINSLOO: That could have been possible, I did not notice that. It was dark, it was at night, there were many people in the bus, I was sitting right at the back.

MR MEINTJIES: In other words, Captain Van Jaarsveld according to you, did not play any role in this whole incident?

MR PRINSLOO: All that I can go on is what Brigadier Cronje had told me, and there is no reason to doubt that what he had told me, was wrong. I executed my task to the best of my ability, I had to interrogate this person to obtain the information from him, and after he had not been able to identify the places in Mamelodi.

MR MEINTJIES: What I notice from your official statement and from the amendment and the amended statement is that initially you did not place Goosen as being on the scene and you only did that later on. When did you realise then that Mr Goosen had been there?

MR PRINSLOO: It was shortly after I had handed in my first application. I was under a lot of pressure to get these applications to the Truth Commission on time.

MR MEINTJIES: And did you just thought about that all by yourself that Mr Goosen was there?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I just naturally remembered that Goosen was with Momberg. It was all about who was going to put this person on the landmine.

MR MEINTJIES: Mr Prinsloo, all that remains to put to you is that my instruction is that Captain Van Jaarsveld was not involved in this incident and he has no knowledge of this whole incident?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I stay with what I have said.

MR MEINTJIES: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MEINTJIES

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

ADV PRINSLOO: No re-examination thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Prinsloo, you signed your application?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Were you aware of the contents of your application, were you satisfied with the contents?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: I am talking about your first application, especially the typed part?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: You testified today that you foresaw that you could possibly kill this person when you strangled him. At what stage did you realise that you were going to kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: Are you referring to that specific incident at Pienaarsriver, next to the kombi?

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: During the interrogation process it dawned on me, but the adrenaline is pumping and you are all worked up to get this information from this person, it is almost as if you get out of control, and you continue in that vein, you want to obtain that information from this person, and only after his body become limp, you realise that.

JUDGE PILLAY: You said that while you were strangling him, you realised that you could possibly kill him in the process, why then did you not stop because you want to keep him alive, because you want him to answer your questions?

MR PRINSLOO: It was during this process when he suddenly became limp, I realised that I could have killed him.

JUDGE PILLAY: Before his body went limp, did you not think about that you will be able to kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: But only when his body became limp, I realised that I could have killed him.

JUDGE PILLAY: Why did you not stop that moment when you realised that you could possibly kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I had a task to do.

JUDGE PILLAY: When you kill a person, you wouldn't be able to do your task or fulfil your task that is why I am asking this question. Are you still saying that it was accidentally that you had killed this person?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would say that it was by accident. I foresaw the possibility, I did go too far.

JUDGE PILLAY: There is one important question, his death, what political purpose did that serve?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I think you should see this whole matter in the broad context. I have described the surrounding circumstances in my main evidence, I referred to the circumstances in the country, all the terrorist activities in Pretoria in which I was involved, the investigations and tracing all these activists and if you look at those scenes, you look at the people who were killed, who were maimed, they were usually innocent people, then you realise once more that you have to make a special effort to avoid at all costs, this onslaught and this was my mental state when I did all these things and this was also as I have submitted in the annexures. It was about the government of the day, keeping them in power and to prevent further terrorist acts, that was what it was all about.

JUDGE PILLAY: That answer I can understand in the context of the assault on him, but his eventual death, that aspect, what political purpose did that serve?

MR PRINSLOO: It was in the process I have just described, I see everything in that context.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did he give any information while you were interrogating him?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can remember, he revealed a few minor details to me, and I realised that there was a strong possibility that he did have other information. The rest of the names he referred to and the houses he described, which he could not identify, were not known to me, I could not place that within the information I had in my possession.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you know his name?

MR PRINSLOO: His name was mentioned to me, he mentioned his name to me, but I can't remember that. You must remember that they operated under different names. His real name was not known to us, they used various names. He did not provide his name to me at that stage. He mentioned name, but I can't remember what that was.

JUDGE PILLAY: And before he was killed, whether was strangled or blown up, that is not relevant here, were you still convinced that as you call it, he was a terrorist?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

JUDGE PILLAY: In your initial application on page 950 it says after the group came to that gravel road, after you had stopped there, the group was talking and discussing whether this person really was a terrorist and it is not stated here what you had decided regarding him.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, can I just have a look at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you might like to look at a little bit earlier on the same page, where you say that you told Brigadier Cronje that you couldn't as a result of the questioning, decide whether the man was a terrorist or not?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, that is why I put my request to Brigadier Cronje and asked him, can't we move to a different place where I could interrogate him in a rougher way. I was convinced that that person was a terrorist, what he had said, because terrorists used certain ways of saying things, I don't know where they get that from, in training perhaps or where, and he used those ways of saying things.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you say you couldn't decide if he was a terrorist or not when you are now telling us that you were convinced he was a terrorist because of the way he spoke, so you had decided on information?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you didn't say that in your original application, you made no mention of strangling him and killing him, did you?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You said rather you strangled him, but didn't seriously hurt him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is right.

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you make a full disclosure in your affidavit, in your original application?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I have already under cross-examination stated what my reason was, I can't expand on that any further.

MR MALAN: Can you just give me your reason again, I am not sure whether I heard that.

MR PRINSLOO: A question was posed to me why you did not mention that you had strangled this person, that you had killed him, and my answer was yes, I realise that and in my initial application, I did not mention that. Afterwards I realised which incident it was, after enquiries were made by the Truth Commission and I have put it straight afterwards and I explained fully what had happened then. There are no excuses why that was not in the first application.

MR MALAN: Are you telling me you only realised what incident it was after the Truth Commission had made enquiries?

MR PRINSLOO: No, what I am saying, after I handed in my application, a day or two before the deadline, afterwards I realised which incident was being referred to, then I had the necessary information, I remembered these things and when this enquiry was made, I gave the information in the additional application.

MR MALAN: Based on what, did you provide the initial information, you said you did not know what the incident was and you do give a lot of information?

MR PRINSLOO: Brigadier Cronje had contacted me.

MR MALAN: Did he provide you with the information?

MR PRINSLOO: He contacted me and said he was going to apply for amnesty for that specific incident. I did not have further discussions with him.

MR MALAN: You did not ask what specific incident that was?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, there were two incidents in the Pienaarsriver environment, vicinity, in which I was involved. This one I only recalled after the applications had been handed in.

MR MALAN: I don't understand that, was the other one precisely the same incident?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it was completely different.

MR MALAN: If it was completely different, Brigadier Cronje knew about that and as I have already said, he didn't only know about it, he was there. I am talking about the other incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you applied for amnesty for the other incident?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: At Pienaarsriver?

MR PRINSLOO: At Pienaarsriver, in that environment.

MR MALAN: I want to come back to this thing, I don't understand your answer, please help me or we must leave it there. You are saying that this is one incident, the other one is a separate one. You are applying for amnesty, you remember the detail who was in the bus, the nature of looking for safe houses, of stopping at certain places, of certain places where you went like Pyramid Road. I think Pyramid is not near Pienaarsriver, so the road you are telling us about is a different road than the road that Mr Momberg and Mr Goosen told us about, and I am confused to give you these facts, and you said Coetzer knew the world so well, and he knew, told you everything, but you refer to a completely different road than the other applicants are referring to.

Secondly, do you expect from us to accept that you have made a full disclosure, that you have told us everything you knew, when you made your application, but that is not acceptable. How would you say that two people walked away with this activist from the kombi and he just walked with them, and you heard an explosion. On which basis would you provide such information if that was not calculated misleading? It could not be poor memory, not if you had killed somebody, you have strangled him, went too far, realised it afterwards and then saw how a landmine was planed? Try to explain that to me, I find it terribly difficult to understand?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, to come back to the statement you have just made, I am referring to a different road, I am talking about the same road as the two previous people mentioned. It is the old Warmbaths road in the direction of Pyramid station. I turned to the left and crossed the railway line.

MR MALAN: The other people said they went through Pienaarsriver and then turned off, and you say that you turned off at Pyramid station?

MR PRINSLOO: According to my knowledge, Pyramid station is on the other side of Pienaarsriver.

MR MALAN: This is not how I remember this road. But let's not make an issue of this. As far as I know, those are two different roads, but we have to pay attention to that, and I am repeating this point, this makes your evidence regarding the involvement of Coetzer not acceptable, if those were two different roads, or the other people's evidence, it makes it less acceptable, if these are two different roads. Please explain to me how I can understand it that the core of what really happened, the shock of a person being strangled while being interrogated or perhaps he was unconscious and then being blown up and you see the people leaving with the body, you see him being blown up and you can't remember that, you can't remember him being strangled to death and you said he walked away with two people?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I didn't say I couldn't remember that, I remember that.

MR MALAN: But at that stage, when you applied, you did not remember that, that is what you are telling us now?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't say I provided all the detail at that stage.

MR MALAN: That is exactly my question, why did you not make a full disclosure?

MR PRINSLOO: I can't explain, except what I have already given under cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you forgot that you strangled this man, just one of the things?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then why didn't you say so?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I completed this application, I did not put all the detail in this application, that is why I have made an additional statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, in this application, you tell us how Brigadier Cronje phoned you at home one night and told you to meet him at Silverton and how you met him at the police station and you parked your car there, you give a wealth of detail, but you leave out the one important factor that you killed the man? How could you come to do that unless you were seeking to conceal the fact?

MR MALAN: Can I just follow up this previous point, did you work that day, were you at your office?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: The evidence of the applicants was that they received instructions at the office, that they had to report at a certain place and do this. Why did Brigadier Cronje not give you the instruction at the office?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know.

MR MALAN: Didn't you consider that?

MR PRINSLOO: No. In many cases it happened that at any stage of the day or night, people were picked up.

MR MALAN: You said that you were absolutely sure that the individual was not assaulted in Mamelodi on the open field? Was it an open field where you stopped?

MR PRINSLOO: You can regard it as an open field. If I can remember correctly, Mamelodi is along one of the main roads in Mamelodi.

MR MALAN: I assume that you drove to Mamelodi with this person so that he can make certain identifications? You were sitting next to him on the back seat, you can't remember whether he was handcuffed or what, he climbed over, he was sitting between you and Mr Momberg, you started interrogating him. Why - didn't he have to make identification of houses?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, based on what Brigadier Cronje told me, I had to obtain information from him, I had some background information, could he provide names which made sense. At that stage, I was trying to trace quite a few terrorists being involved in terrorist activities in Pretoria. That is why I interrogated him. I wanted to ask who those people were, where were they living, which weapons were they using.

MR MALAN: You haven't been here all the time, but the evidence is that this person was brought in, it doesn't matter by whom at this stage, but from there, he was taken to pick up you and Brigadier Cronje, in other words he was near the offices while you were in your office, you did not know that he had been arrested before you received the telephone call?

MR PRINSLOO: I received the telephone call that evening at my home, I was working usual office hours.

MR MALAN: If it was determined that he was an MK terrorist and it was conveyed to you that he was an MK terrorist, wouldn't they have handed him over to Unit C?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is what I have said, that's why I became involved in this group of persons.

MR MALAN: And then the identification of the places, would that have been your action or the other unit's?

MR PRINSLOO: It would have been my unit's action. These people in the bus were enough if you had to take immediate action, they were all people from the Security Branch.

MR MALAN: Didn't you wonder whether your unit whose responsibility it was, was not involved here? Here are a lot of operatives who were taken with, not one of them was from your unit and only at a late stage you received a telephone call to cooperate and then your instruction was to obtain information.

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know when this man was picked up.

MR MALAN: I just want to make sure whether these are the facts from your side.

MR PRINSLOO: I just want to expand on this, should an operation take place and that MK people were arrested, which could lead to their interrogation, I would have immediately summoned some of the people from my unit to take this thing further. Few of the people in the bus did have the necessary expertise to execute this interrogation and processing.

MR MALAN: But the evidence, for example also Brigadier Cronje, was that these people were taken with so that should identification be done, action could immediately be taken.

MR PRINSLOO: That was impression, I have said that.

MR MALAN: But I am asking you again, this would actually resort under your unit and you were the last one to learn about this action? You never asked Brigadier Cronje why he did something like that to you?

MR PRINSLOO: I did not have any reason, it was an instruction I followed. Many strange things happened.

MR MALAN: Yes, we have realised that and you said you had to get certain information from him. What information did you have to get from him?

MR PRINSLOO: As I have already said Mr Chairman, I wanted background information, who were the people who co-operated with him because they don't usually move one by one, they move in a unit, existing out of various members. I wanted to know who the members in that unit were. Were those names well known, he had to identify the houses, who were the people in those houses.

MR MALAN: Did he provide you with names?

MR PRINSLOO: He gave some names, but not any names that I knew.

JUDGE PILLAY: What was wrong with that? You are asking him, he is answering you?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the Security Branch had a lot of information and especially my unit in which I was involved, who concentrated on various terrorists per se. We had a lot of names available to us, we knew where they were trained, where he was coming from, where he was going to. So in other words, one of those names, one of those MK names, could have made sense, and it could have coincided with information I already had to my disposal. I wanted to determine whether that was not perhaps the same group I was looking for.

MR MALAN: Did he at any stage admit that he was an MK member or a terrorist?

MR PRINSLOO: On the way to Pienaarsriver, I asked him, if I remember correctly, where he had been trained and he told me that. He gave me details.

JUDGE PILLAY: Then I really don't understand Mr Prinsloo, because there was a despite amongst you about whether this man was indeed a terrorist or not. After you had stopped near the Pyramid railway station, it says so right here in your statement, paragraph 5 on page 950 and I also asked you did he make any concessions to you and you said no.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you mean concessions, in what respect?

JUDGE PILLAY: What did you understand by that when I asked you the question?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, what I answered.

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes, well that is the point. I asked you whether he made any concessions to you, he gave you any information and you said no. The question was asked of me whether I was convinced if he was a terrorist and I said yes, on the basis of certain information which he gave me on the way there. In Mamelodi I suggested that this man was busy with misleading action and had to be robustly and forcefully interrogated. On the way to Pienaarsriver I questioned him on an ongoing basis. On the way to Pienaarsriver area he gave me the name of a training camp and that camp wasn't generally know amongst the man on the street, wherever they have been trained.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, don't you want to look at page 950 of your original application, look at paragraph 4. You say during the interrogation he was very arrogant and I gave him a couple of smacks, grabbed him by the throat and I throttled him, but did not injure him seriously. Brigadier Cronje was present the whole time during the interrogation and I quote

"... I told him that I could not determine from the interrogation alone, whether this man was a terrorist or not".

Is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Now that was just before the vehicle, as you have it, crossed the railway station at the Pyramid railway station?

MR PRINSLOO: No, that was before, that was where I made the suggestion to him that maybe we should go to Pienaarsriver or to another place where I could interrogate him more forcefully.

CHAIRPERSON: You make no mention of that in your original application, nor do you say that you stopped in Mamelodi? You say in paragraph 2 that you went on the old Warmbaths Road to the direction of Warmbaths, no question of stopping.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, where is paragraph 2.

CHAIRPERSON: Page 949.

MR PRINSLOO: Paragraph 2, the last section, and then paragraph 3, that is what I meant in my application in respect of the Mamelodi part. I didn't think it necessary to say where all the places were where we had been.

MR MALAN: I would like to take it a little bit further along this line, look at paragraph 5, page 950.

"... after we as a group had stood and disputed amongst ourselves whether the black man was a terrorist or not ..."

I am assuming that you were part of that discussion or debate?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Was that to obtain greater clarity in your own mind or certainty?

MR PRINSLOO: If I remember correctly, that was after the man, after I had throttled him and he fell to the ground and he lay there.

MR MALAN: Were you then still discussing whether he was really a terrorist or not?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, then the discussion arose as to what the information ...

CHAIRPERSON: Please read on Mr Prinsloo and stop telling us fairy stories.

MR MALAN: Read the whole sentence right to the very end. Let me read it to you. You say

"... some of the members present, I don't know who they were, took the black man from the kombi and walked down the road with him."

You have amended your application, but you haven't yet amended this. This still stands as part of the statement if I understand it correctly, or have you deleted that from your application?

MR PRINSLOO: It was amended.

MR MALAN: Was this part deleted?

ADV PRINSLOO: This part was amended.

MR MALAN: You inserted a certain part?

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes, I specifically said where it says "I don't know who they were", that was replaced with "Momberg and Goosen", the word "from" ...

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, no, I am talking about - that is how you amended it, by for instance mentioning the names of the members but the fact that they took him and walked down the road with him, that still stands?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, they walked in the direction of the front of the kombi.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was after, according to your application, that was after you had discussed whether he was a terrorist or not?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, after he was dead.

CHAIRPERSON: Then they took him out of the kombi, the evidence is after you strangled him, that he fell on the ground at the back, he wasn't taken out of the kombi when he was dead, he died outside?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Which version you have given us - a moment ago you said yes, it is correct that they took him out when he was dead, now you agree that they didn't take him out? Please Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, this application was amended that it was from ...

CHAIRPERSON: I am asking you why you made this false application in that case, why you made an application where you didn't mention that you throttled the man, you did not mention that you killed him? My main difficulty is why you did not, when you are applying for amnesty, make an honest application and you have said because you were confused with another matter. I have not been able to discover what other matter you were confused with, which you made application for amnesty for. Can you refer me to the matter, you said you made application in connection with the other matter, that must have been where you strangled someone. Where is that application?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I didn't say the other case was a case where I also throttled a man, I said it was a totally different case to which I referred.

CHAIRPERSON: You said you didn't put details in this one, because you applied in another one?

MR PRINSLOO: No. No, it was a mistake on my part that I didn't give all the particulars in my original application.

MR MALAN: Who drafted this statement for you?

MR PRINSLOO: My legal representatives.

MR MALAN: Which one?

MR PRINSLOO: This I drafted myself, the core of the application I drafted myself.

MR MALAN: This typed document, was this typed by your Attorneys?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. I gave it to them and they typed it.

MR MALAN: Did they have a consultation with you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did they read through the statement when you spoke to them?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. I drafted this statement myself and I gave it to them to process.

MR MALAN: In other words they drafted it in its final form? Now, if you were in your Attorney's shoes and he has this statement in front of him, is there any indication to him that you had anything to do with the killing of the black man, or would he have been led to believe that Momberg and Goosen took the black man from the kombi, you couldn't get the information out of him and that they then walked down the road with him, not carrying his corpse, they were walking with the man down the road? What would your Attorney have thought, did he ask you whether you killed the man?

MR PRINSLOO: No, there wasn't enough time.

MR MALAN: So there was no discussion as to whether you killed him? You didn't tell your Attorney that you killed him?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

JUDGE PILLAY: Adv Prinsloo, I think yesterday you put it to one of the other witnesses that the deceased was throttled inside the van and not outside, is that correct?

ADV PRINSLOO: No, that is not correct. I made it clear that the person had been throttled inside the minibus in Mamelodi, but the killing of the person, the throttling which led to the killing took place outside the minibus, as it also says here in the application.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Prinsloo, I have one or two further questions. This entire operation, was it an investigative operation or was it a Section 29 type operation, Section 29 of the Internal Act?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage when I joined Brigadier Cronje's group, he told me what information they had. At that stage my focus was on the tracking down and arrest of terrorists, to try to prevent any further acts of terror and to try and find out whether they were in fact involved in acts of terror, there were many such cases. So Section 29 was not relevant at all, because I don't even know who originally arrested this man, I didn't know that. I simply acted on what Brigadier Cronje told me.

JUDGE PILLAY: One last aspect, this discussion amongst yourselves as to whether the man was a terrorist or not, did it take place?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I remember such a thing.

JUDGE PILLAY: Immediately afterwards he died?

MR PRINSLOO: No, as I have said, before that. He died before that. I said he died before that.

JUDGE PILLAY: But according to your statement

"... after we as a group had stood in a little group and discussed as to whether the black man was a terrorist or not, some of the members present, I don't know who they were, took the black man from the kombi and walked down the road with him".

That is what it says there.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, and that is what has been amended because it is not correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: My question is then the following, if that point was in issue amongst your group, how could it be that you decided whilst you were still interrogating him, that this man was not to be released?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I am going back to what was told to me and what the information at our disposal was, the man was arrested, he was picked up and I had to bear in mind that there was an informer or informers involved who had given information about this man. He had seen members of the Security Police whom he could possibly identify subsequently and then certain assassination attempts could result from that, so I had to bear in mind all those aspects.

JUDGE PILLAY: Yes, but that does not align with the fact that you spoke to the other people and you had this debate as to whether he was a terrorist or not.

MR PRINSLOO: What I meant was that after the man had died or was unconscious, there was this issue that I could not say with any certainty whether this man was part of a group or not, because he hadn't yet really pointed out houses and given sufficient information. I bona fide had the belief, believed what Cronje had told me that he was a terrorist.

JUDGE PILLAY: But later on, you doubted that?

MR PRINSLOO: After the man had died, yes. I said that I believed or I initially believed the man was a terrorist and he was hiding certain things.

JUDGE PILLAY: You entertained this doubt before you got to the Pyramid railway station and turned left there, because you mentioned that to Cronje who sat next to you?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I said we should interrogate the man in a more forceful way, because part of their training was also to waste as must time, to play for time, and I interrogated hundreds of them and they all used this tactic to protect other comrades, and give them a chance to get away.

CHAIRPERSON: On this question of time, as I understand you, while you were driving around Mamelodi, you decided time was very important because otherwise MK people kept in touch with one another and if one of them disappeared, the others would also move? So time was of the essence as I understood your evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you then elect to drive 55 kilometres away?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that wasn't my decision, I simply conveyed my request to Brigadier Cronje and I couldn't countermand him saying where we should go or not. I suggested simply that we should go somewhere else where we could interrogate him further.

CHAIRPERSON: But surely Brigadier Cronje, the Officer in charge of these units, would also be aware of the importance of time?

MR PRINSLOO: Oh yes, I believe so.

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Alright.

WITNESS EXCUSED