CHAIRPERSON: Before we commence this morning, gentlemen, there are one or two matters that I would like to deal with and I would like to make it clear, we haven't pre-judged the issues in any way, but have you applied your minds to the question of the real relevance, as to whether somebody who is not applying for amnesty, and is not alleged to have given any orders, was present at the scene of any of these matters or not? In this regard, I think we must bear in mind that we are talking now about matters that happened 12 or 13 years ago. They were not isolated matters, I am sure that all the applicants were busy in the end, working on a daily basis and speaking for myself, if I had to tell you what happened 12 years ago on some appeal, I would try to think what Judges were probably sitting and would eventually convince myself that those were the people who had been there. It seems to me that one must approach the evidence as to persons present, on that sort of basis. If it is alleged that the person committed a certain act or ordered others and they relied on orders given by him, that is a different matter, but otherwise it seems to me and I have discussed it with my brethren, that we must in assessing the evidence, bear in mind the long delay that there was before they were even asked to think about it, that was about 10 years before they made their applications. I also bear in mind, and I think we all do, the evidence, I forget whom we had heard it from yesterday, that they were suddenly told come on, you must fill in this application, it's got to be filed by tomorrow. In those circumstances, it would be grossly unfair I think to say you said that name there, it must be right. It was something that at that time, you though you - as was explained to us yesterday that on reconstruction he realised no, I was wrong, and from that point of view, we think in this and in other matters that we will be hearing next week, that it really is not necessary where it is just a question of a difference of an opinion, as to who was there and who was not, to devote a great deal of time to that, unless it does affect the direct evidence of any of the applicants as to the acts they performed and why they performed them, then of course the position is completely different. If it is merely background information, it doesn't seem to us to be of great importance.
MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, I think I speak for everyone if I convey my gratitude to the panel for raising this matter. Speaking for myself, I did consider this at some length last night, and I must admit that I came to the same conclusion. The view I take of this is that on the evidence available before the Committee, the credible evidence, which no doubt is acceptable, the matter can be decided. One doesn't have to divert to side issues which this really is, in order to decide one way or the other, whether amnesty is to be granted or not. Having come to that realisation, I came here this morning, with a view unless other insights were raised, with a view that on that basis, the first incident, which is the one which is directly concerned here, should be closed. I think we should at this stage proceed merely to argument, concerning that matter. I don't think, I agree with you, I see no point in pursuing something which is not necessary for purposes of reaching a conclusion in my submission. As you please Mr Chairman.
ADV PRINSLOO: I am only concerned in the second matter Mr Chairman, but I agree with what Your Lordship have suggested to us, that is a very good point, thank you Mr Chairman.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. I fully agree with the views expressed by the Committee. As far as the identification of persons involved, are concerned, my feeling is also that consideration must be given to the time since the incident took place. As far as the evidence before the Committee is concerned, I am of the view that as far as the identification of certain persons are concerned, that objectively viewed, it cannot be said that the applicants are not making a full disclosure as far as the people who are involved, due to the common cause there is on the incident and what happened there. That is my view Mr Chairman.
MR MEINTJIES: I fully agree, Mr Chairman.
ADV STEENKAMP: Not that it concerns, Mr Chairman, but obviously it will save some time and effort if that can be decided as a common basis for understanding how to deal with the matters. Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: What are we going to do now, have we got any further evidence that we wish to lead?
ADV PRINSLOO: The present witness, Oosthuizen, in the second matter, if we are proceeding with the second matter, I think I've got to commence cross-examination of Mr Oosthuizen.
ANDRE OOSTHUIZEN: (still under oath)
MR MALAN: Please be seated.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Oosthuizen, yesterday you testified that you received an instruction, briefing, in the Compol building, that is at the Northern Transvaal Security Headquarters the afternoon of that incident?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
ADV PRINSLOO: Who gave you that instruction?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: As I have already said in my main evidence, I am not one hundred percent sure and in my application I said it was Jacques Hechter - it was not, based on the assumption that he had shared an office with me. But afterwards I said it was either Captain Prinsloo or Brigadier Cronje who gave me that instruction. Listening to the evidence before this Committee, I can say with reasonable certainty that it was Jack Cronje who gave me this instruction to report for service that evening.
ADV PRINSLOO: So you would accept as we have led the evidence, that Brigadier Cronje, contacted Mr Prinsloo by telephone and met him at the Silverton police station?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't dispute that statement, but I do not personally know about that.
ADV PRINSLOO: Can you dispute that, that they met him at the Silverton police station and received his instruction there?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't dispute that, I testified in that regard. I testified ...
CHAIRPERSON: He told at great length didn't he that he was picked up at the Headquarters, that he knows nothing about the Silverton police station or anybody having picked up or the vehicle having gone there?
ADV PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, it is just the point that I am taking is that to ensure that it is not argued at a later stage that Prinsloo was aware of this particular briefing at Compol, that he first heard about it when he was picked up at Silverton police station.
CHAIRPERSON: The evidence as I understand it of this witness, is the suggestion that the picking up was done before he joined the vehicle. He doesn't know if it happened or didn't.
ADV PRINSLOO: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: He does not suggest he was at any meeting.
ADV PRINSLOO: I take your point Mr Chairman. Mr Oosthuizen, in your statement that you have made on page 922 of Bundle 4, you say in that paragraph in your statement
"... at an open field near Mamelodi, this person was interrogated and if I can remember correctly, no valuable information was obtained. Is that correct?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
ADV PRINSLOO: You don't mention who interrogated him and you don't mention that he was assaulted there by anybody?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: He was assaulted there and I still maintain that we could not, no information could be obtained from him.
ADV PRINSLOO: In your statement in paragraph 2, nowhere you mention any assault on this open piece of field and you did not testify that Prinsloo assaulted him?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is in my statement.
ADV PRINSLOO: Tell me, do you want the witness to say that he was not assaulted?
ADV PRINSLOO: The point I am making is that in his statement nothing of an assault on this open field, is mentioned.
JUDGE PILLAY: What is your conclusion, do you want him to say because he did not mention an assault, it did not happen?
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect, what I am asking of this witness, my client says that on this open piece of field he did not assault this person, outside the vehicle. There he had a discussion with Brigadier Cronje and then afterwards they left to Pienaarsriver. That is the point I am trying to make. I will leave that there, I have just made this point.
ADV PRINSLOO: If you look at your statement, paragraph 4 the same page, you say there ...
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, page 922?
ADV PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman. Do you have the relevant paragraph?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
ADV PRINSLOO: May I proceed Mr Chairman, thank you. It reads
"... we stopped in the road, Prinsloo and other people got from the bus. I remained seated on the back seat while Prinsloo strangled this person with his bare hands, first at the back of the bus and then on the ground."
Do you have that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
ADV PRINSLOO: From this you are referring to two incidents, he first strangled him in the bus and then he took him outside, and strangled him laying on the ground?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: What I am saying is he got out and he started strangling this person. As I have explained to the Committee, this person was just half in the bus. He was at the back, on the floor of the bus, just next to the back door.
ADV PRINSLOO: So you are saying this person was outside this bus, he was strangled and then he was bent backwards and then he slid down and fell on the ground, do you agree with that, so he was not laying on the ground, do you agree with that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
ADV PRINSLOO: So he was not laying on the ground? In other words on the ground, on the road?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I couldn't see there.
ADV PRINSLOO: But the impression that you create is that he was strangled twice, first in the bus and then on the ground?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I can't infer that from my statement, I can't say that either.
ADV PRINSLOO: In your statement, in paragraph 8 you say that it seemed to you that in Mamelodi, that mention was made that he would be blown up?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I did not say that it seemed to me, there was only the assumption on my side.
ADV PRINSLOO: During interrogation at Mamelodi I realised that this person was going to be blown up after interrogation?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That aspect I have already explained to the Committee, why I have made that inference and why I thought that that would be a possibility.
ADV PRINSLOO: But the impression that you create in your statement is that there was already an idea that he would be blown up at Mamelodi?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I have already explained why that was contained in my statement. This blowing up I mentioned because in hindsight, thinking about this whole incident, I have put it clearly that no mention was made that this person was going to be blown up.
ADV PRINSLOO: With reference to your statement, you refer to no assault at Mamelodi, do you confirm that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I confirm that that is not contained in my statement.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Gouws, your co-applicant, when this strangulation at Pienaarsriver took place, where was he?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: If I remember correctly, he was also in the vehicle.
ADV PRINSLOO: Where in the vehicle?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't remember with certainty on which seat he was sitting.
ADV PRINSLOO: If I understand your evidence correctly, you testified that you were sitting behind the driver's seat and not in your statement, on the back seat.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: If I refer in my statement to the back seat, it means I was sitting at the back of the vehicle, I was not in the passenger seat or the driver's seat.
ADV PRINSLOO: Could you see what was happening while you were sitting there?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I could not see what was happening on the ground, but I could see that this person was being strangled in the back of the bus.
ADV PRINSLOO: Was Gouws in the vehicle while this strangulation was taking place or was he outside?
MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, he said if he could remember correctly, he was also in the vehicle.
ADV PRINSLOO: On the basis of what are you saying that Mr Oosthuizen?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: On the basis of what am I saying what?
ADV PRINSLOO: That he was in the vehicle?
CHAIRPERSON: His recollection Mr Prinsloo.
ADV PRINSLOO: I will leave it at that Mr Chairman. You testified and I just want to put it to you that Mr Van Jaarsveld, according to Mr Prinsloo, was there.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't agree with that.
ADV PRINSLOO: When for the first time, was this issue regarding Mr Van Jaarsveld mentioned, that you had to remember whether he was there or not?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Obviously the day when I handed in my application.
ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any reason why you had to mention it when you made your application?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: There was no reason because I can't place him on that scene.
ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any reason why you had to give any consideration to Van Jaarsveld at all?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, not at all.
ADV PRINSLOO: And the same applies to Coetzer?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Precisely, yes.
MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, did you not agree that this is not material to this application? Do you want to tell us why you are following this line of questioning, we all decided that we will leave that.
ADV PRINSLOO: I agree with that, that is why I want to say I just want to put it shortly to him.
MR MALAN: But if you agree, let's leave it there.
ADV PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO
MR MEINTJIES: Mr Chairman, I have no questions for Mr Oosthuizen.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MEINTJIES
JUDGE PILLAY: I just want to find out something. Mr Oosthuizen, the deceased, while he was being assaulted and strangled, was he handcuffed?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I don't think he was handcuffed or tied up in any way. He did not resist at all.
JUDGE PILLAY: Did he allow Mr Prinsloo to strangle him without doing anything? I would think almost as a reflex action, he would have done something? I would have done something if I was strangled?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, he didn't put up a fight. I can't remember that he was handcuffed and at that stage, at Pienaarsriver, he was already despondent and weak because he wasn't speaking any more, if I can remember correctly.
JUDGE PILLAY: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Was this while he was still in the vehicle, at Pienaarsriver, before he was taken out, he was already despondent and weak and not speaking any more?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Mr Chairman, I realised that this person was saying less and less as the interrogation went ahead. At Pienaarsriver, I can't remember that he was taken out of this vehicle, but the interrogation and the strangulation did take place. There is a narrow space right at the back of this bus, and if your feet are hanging from this bus, you are almost standing on the ground. There wasn't much reaction from his part.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, may I just follow up a question in pursuance to the question asked by His Lordship, Mr Justice Pillay and the question followed up by yourself, Mr Chairman. Mr Oosthuizen, if you say that there wasn't much reaction from this person, what do you mean, wasn't he speaking or what are you actually saying?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I think there is a two fold reason why I am saying that. This person was definitely not strong in his reactions, he didn't have strong reactions, he was talking, yes, but very little. I think at that stage, he was already feeling week physically and mentally.
ADV PRINSLOO: What do you mean, what did you observe, why are you saying that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Only on the way he was looking.
ADV PRINSLOO: What was he looking like? How did he appear?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Sir, if for two hours you are being assaulted and pressure exerted on you, this must have an effect on you, this person really seemed tired.
ADV PRINSLOO: At which stage did you realise that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I realised that at Pienaarsriver.
ADV PRINSLOO: In the bus or outside the bus?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: There where he was sitting and where we had stopped, I noticed that this person did not have any power left in him.
ADV PRINSLOO: How did you see that he was feeling weak? MR OOSTHUIZEN: He looked like somebody looking very tired.
ADV PRINSLOO: What does that look like while he is sitting, while he was standing, what did that look like?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: He was half sitting, half laying in the bus, and I could see that this person was not the same man. ADV PRINSLOO: There were two people sitting on both sides of him?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is what you are saying, that is not what I am saying.
ADV PRINSLOO: Who was sitting next to him, do you differ in that that he was sitting at the back of the bus, between Prinsloo and Momberg?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: As I can recollect that, he was laying between the door and the back seat.
ADV PRINSLOO: While driving to Pienaarsriver, was he sitting between Momberg and Prinsloo?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't remember that.
ADV PRINSLOO: If you can't remember, how do you know what was happening.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Don't put words into my mouth, I said expressly that this person was laying on the floor, right at the back of the bus. That I can remember. I can't remember that he was sitting between Prinsloo and Momberg on the back seat.
ADV PRINSLOO: Do you dispute the fact that he was sitting between Momberg and Prinsloo, driving from Mamelodi?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I have just answered that question.
ADV PRINSLOO: Answer the question.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I have just done that. I said I can't recall the fact that he was sitting between Prinsloo and Momberg. I can remember that he was laying on the floor of the bus.
MR MALAN: The question is where was he when you were driving around in Mamelodi?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: During that time, yes, he was sitting on the back seat.
MR MALAN: Can you remember when he was removed to the floor behind the back seat?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I think when we left Mamelodi.
ADV PRINSLOO: What do you mean you think, is it a fact or can't you remember?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: This is what I recall.
ADV PRINSLOO: Are you saying then that when you left Mamelodi and drove to Pienaarsriver, this person was not sitting between Prinsloo and Momberg?
MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, that is exactly what he had said.
ADV PRINSLOO: At which state was he sitting on the back seat?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: When we left from Mamelodi.
ADV PRINSLOO: You said the way in which he was laying on the seat, you saw that he was not himself any more.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I did not see that while he was on the seat, that he was not himself, I said that he was laying on the ground.
ADV PRINSLOO: You could see that in the dark, where he was not seated but he was laying on the ground, could you see that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, I could see him there.
ADV PRINSLOO: In the dark?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't say how dark it was, but I could see that this person was weak.
ADV PRINSLOO: How did he get out of that bus?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: At which stage?
ADV PRINSLOO: At Pienaarsriver?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: He never got from the bus.
ADV PRINSLOO: So how did they get hold of him to strangle him?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I don't know how you are listening, but let me explain to you again. This person, if you open the door right at the back, the floor comes up to about the belt of an adult person and if your feet are hanging down, it is almost on the ground, and if somebody bends over him and strangles him, it is not necessary for this person to get out of the bus, everything is in the near vicinity. This person was there in the bus, while he was laying on the ground, he was interrogated, he was strangled and then from there, he slid to the ground.
ADV PRINSLOO: You have heard what the evidence is and that is how I understood the evidence of all the applicants. This person got from the bus and then he was strangled outside and then he was bent over backwards in the bus?
MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, I don't know where you are going, but with the greatest of respect, is this not the evidence of if not everybody, then almost everybody, that this person whether he was pulled from the seat or whether he was laying on the ground, and that he was strangled while he was laying on the ground at the back of the bus?
ADV PRINSLOO: With respect no. As I understand the evidence, he was outside the bus, he was bent backwards by Prinsloo, strangled and then he became limp and then slid to the ground, and with respect I want to say to the Committee that that evidence was never disputed by the legal representative of Oosthuizen.
MR MALAN: I don't know whether I have this picture clear in my head, but we can look at this. I don't know what the extreme importance is, whether he was standing there or pushed backwards, but everybody's evidence is the same, nobody said he was taken from the bus, led to the back and then strangled at the back of the bus.
ADV PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, Mr Prinsloo's evidence was clear and the same with Momberg and also Goosen, with respect, I don't want to waste your time, but the impression created by this witness is that that person was assaulted to such a degree that he was not interrogated.
JUDGE PILLAY: What does it matter whether he was taken round the vehicle or whether he was pulled from the back seat or whether he was carried or dragged, eventually at the boot of this vehicle, he was strangled, is that not the most important point? So why are we then struggling through this?
ADV PRINSLOO: Then I want the Committee to determine what was this person's position before he was eventually strangled at Pienaarsriver, because my client's evidence is that - it was also Goosen and Momberg's evidence - and this is not the impression created by this applicant.
MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, this is what this person is saying, he became weaker and weaker, was strangled more and more. What do you expect of a person being in the hands of the Security Police for two hours, what did you expect, that he would still seem happy and alive?
ADV PRINSLOO: I won't take this any further. I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO
MR MEINTJIES: With your leave, Mr Chairman, I would like to know whether it will be necessary for Mr Van Jaarsveld to be here as eleven as was arranged yesterday afternoon, in view of the fact that the first matter has now been closed?
MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, just for record purposes, I have already intimated that I will not continue with any further cross-examination and by the same token, I will not call the witness that I envisaged calling yesterday. I trust that that answers my learned friend's question.
MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman, it does in fact. My question will then be, may I be ...
CHAIRPERSON: You want a short adjournment?
MR MEINTJIES: That is correct yes, I just want to phone my client and say that it is not necessary to come over, or be excused.
CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Du Plessis at all interested in the matter that we have just concluded or we are about to be conclude, because I understood he was coming here later today on the understanding that we would be proceeding with the evidence and then the further cross-examination of Mr Van Jaarsveld?
MR MEINTJIES: Mr Du Plessis intimated to me that as far as his clients are concerned, he has no interest in the matter as such. I don't know ...
CHAIRPERSON: Have you any idea what time he intends to be here?
MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, Mr Du Plessis said to me yesterday afternoon that he was aiming to be here between ten and by the very latest, eleven o'clock. His only interest in the present matter is that he is protecting the interest of Brigadier Cronje and Mr Hechter, who were not involved. He is involved however, in the first incident because there Hechter is an applicant together with Goosen and Momberg. He is involved furthermore with Van Vuuren who he represented on previous occasions, who would have been the witness I would have called, and that is his only involvement, other than the fact that he is representing Hechter.
CHAIRPERSON: I ask this merely because I do not think that we should formally close a hearing, until he is here, in case he wants to say anything, but we can proceed onwards. But we still have to hear Mr Gouws, don't we?
MR ALBERTS: Yes, we have another witness to deal with in the present matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so let's proceed with this.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, may I then take it that Mr Oosthuizen will not be excused, he will just stand down perhaps if Mr Du Plessis wants to cross-examine him, and then we proceed with Mr Gouws?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have no questions in re-examination, for the record.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW
