ADRIAN STEPHEN ROSLEE: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Thank you. Chairperson in relation to this applicant I have put before you no less than five documents to which I will very briefly refer in the course of his evidence. If we can perhaps just quickly identify them.
The first document would be, and I think it's already been identified as Exhibit A, a document called "General background to the amnesty application". If it hasn't been done I would request you that we can mark that Exhibit A please.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'll note it as Exhibit A.
MR WAGENER: Then Chairperson I have put before you an extract from a previous amnesty hearing part of the evidence of this same applicant. For identification purposes it was evidence given in Durban on the 9th of November last year, 1998, before a panel consisting of Judge Wilson, Mr Malan and Ms Sigodi. If I may, that we identify this document then as Exhibit B, please.
CHAIRPERSON: I am still trying to locate mine. I have identified mine now Mr Wagener, that will be Exhibit B.
MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson. Then I handed up three medical reports. The first one would be by a Clinical Psychologist called Mr Matthews. If we may, with your permission, identify that as Exhibit C.
Chairperson I apologise, I was under the impression that Mr Steenkamp handed the documents to you.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes there seems to be some grave confusion. I don't have copies.
MR STEENKAMP: Chairperson I am sorry it was my mistake, but those documents were actually put before you.
CHAIRPERSON: When was that Mr Steenkamp? This morning?
MR STEENKAMP: Yesterday.
CHAIRPERSON: Well I just have to rely on the ones that members of my panel have. I just want to be on the same page with you. Annexure C will then relate to the report by Russel E Matthews, is that correct Mr Wagener, Exhibit C?
MR WAGENER: That's correct Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And Exhibit D?
MR WAGENER: Exhibit D, with your permission Chairperson, would be the report by a psychiatrist Dr Potgieter, Anton Potgieter.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR WAGENER: And the last one would be another psychiatrist called Dr Jan Robertse. If that may be Exhibit E.
CHAIRPERSON: That will be E.
MR WAGENER: And I believe that copies have been handed to you now of all these documents.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee the first document that I would like to refer you to is a document that has been identified as Exhibit A, called "Algemene agtergrond tot amnestie aansoeke". Have you had insight into this document?
MR ROSLEE: I have read it.
MR WAGENER: Is it your wish that this document should be incorporated into your evidence in this matter and should also then be considered by the Panel in adjudicating on your application herein?
MR ROSLEE: I do.
MR WAGENER: If I may refer you, Mr Roslee, to Exhibit B, evidence given by you at a previous amnesty hearing where you were questioned regarding your general background. You've got it before you?
MR ROSLEE: Yes I do.
MR WAGENER: Is it correct, Mr Roslee, on the second page of that document, you will see it's typed page 164, a request was made for the formal amendment of your amnesty application in that paragraphs 7A and B of the prescribed form to be amended, instead of "not applicable" to be amended to 7A to read - "National Party", and B, "a supporter of the National Party", and that that amendment was made by Judge Wilson at the time?
MR ROSLEE: That is correct, Chair.
MR WAGENER: Chairperson I would accept then that the same amendment would be applicable in these proceedings. If not I will request you to grant the same amendment please.
CHAIRPERSON: I think unless you ask us to amend we will not amend simply because another Panel sitting in a different matter has granted you such an amendment. Are you making such an amendment, Mr Wagener?
MR WAGENER: Okay. Chairperson I will do so. Mr Roslee when you completed your initial amnesty application, which you will find in the bundle, you will see that at paragraph 7A and B, that is on page 281 Chairperson, you were asked at the time whether you were a member or supporter of a political organisation. You stated "not applicable". And 7B the capacity was requested, so you also stated "not applicable". Is the true position that at the time, during the 1980's you were in fact a supporter of the National Party?
MR ROSLEE: I was in fact a supporter.
MR WAGENER: And that you wish that your formal written application be amended accordingly?
MR ROSLEE: That is correct, Chair.
MR WAGENER: Chairperson may I then request you and the Panel, if you are satisfied, to amend the application to that extent.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we hereby grant you such an amendment.
MR WAGENER: Thank you. Mr Roslee I am not going to dwell long on the contents of Exhibit B, but there are one or two issues that I would like you to dwell on very briefly. Can you perhaps give us a very short description of what happened to you as a member of the Police after you joined in 1978, regarding border duty and duties in South West Africa, etc.
MR ROSLEE: After college ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Sorry for interrupting Mr Roslee. Mr Wagener you have given us these documents before, it has been read and we are satisfied - I am allowed to tell you that we don't need any evidence on this.
MR WAGENER: Thank you, thank you for the indication Mr Malan. May I then assume the same would apply for the psychological aspects and the evidence given to that respect as well?
MR MALAN: Yes that being an integral part of the transcription, the same applies to those documents.
MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson.
Is it then fair, Mr Roslee, to accept as was asked of you at the previous occasion, that due to your severe psychological problems, that you have over the last number of years tried your best to positively remove or expunge from your memory your very bad and sad experiences of the past?
MR ROSLEE: That is correct, Chair.
MR WAGENER: On the very same note Mr Roslee, how would you, as you sit here today, describe your memory regarding those years of your life in general?
MR ROSLEE: Not very well. I have memory lapse with regard to incidents and details etc, Chair.
MR WAGENER: And does that specifically relate to incidents connected with your service in the South African Police?
MR ROSLEE: That is correct, Chair.
MR WAGENER: Can you just confirm to this Committee, when did you leave the service of the Police?
MR ROSLEE: I left the SAP in 1987.
MR WAGENER: And Mr Roslee while we are on this, a question was asked by Mr Malan to a previous witness, can I ask you now - we know that at the time of this incident you were a member of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch.
MR ROSLEE: That is correct, Chair.
MR WAGENER: You were under the overall command of who?
MR ROSLEE: Of Captain Prinsloo.
MR WAGENER: And we've also seen that the incident in fact took place during March 1986, would you accept that?
MR ROSLEE: I accept that Chair.
MR WAGENER: So where you said in your written application that according to your memory the incident took place in 1984/85 that was wrong.
MR ROSLEE: I was obviously incorrect there.
MR WAGENER: Now when did you leave the Northern Transvaal Security Branch for Vlakplaas?
MR ROSLEE: I believe it was shortly after the incident in question.
MR WAGENER: Was it still the same year - 1986?
MR ROSLEE: Yes, as far as I remember it was 1986 that I went to Vlakplaas.
MR WAGENER: Can you tell us how it came about that you were transferred to Vlakplaas?
MR ROSLEE: I don't have vivid memories about it, but if I remember correctly I was approached by one or two members and I was introduced to Colonel de Kock and asked if I would like to work there, after which I put in an application which was granted.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it relevant Mr Wagener?
MR WAGENER: Chairperson I thought it relevant merely for the assistance of Mr Malan. He made an enquiry to a previous witness on that score.
CHAIRPERSON: I think you may proceed to another issue.
MR WAGENER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Which is pertinently relevant to the incident in question.
MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Roslee, if we may turn to the incident as such. At the time, that is March 1986, did you work in close relationship with Mr Prinsloo, the previous witness?
MR ROSLEE: I did. I was part of his team.
MR WAGENER: What was your rank at the time?
MR ROSLEE: I was a constable, I believe.
MR WAGENER: Is it correct to assume that you were one of the most junior members of his unit?
MR ROSLEE: Yes I would assume that, Chair.
MR WAGENER: Can you remember the person, the deceased in this matter, Patrick Mahlangu, can you remember when and how he came to the attention, in the first instance to the attention of your section?
MR ROSLEE: I cannot remember specifics except that at that stage we were doing, busy with lots of investigations with regards to terrorist activities, terrorist attacks that had taken place, and that he had come to our attention during those investigations.
MR WAGENER: Now you said in your written application, Chairperson, that is page 283 at the top, you said that the person you have just described, you and Mr Prinsloo decided to kidnap him for purposes of interrogation, do you see that?
MR ROSLEE: I do see that, Chair.
MR WAGENER: You have now listened to the evidence of previous witnesses in this regard and in the process has your memory been refreshed?
MR ROSLEE: It has Chair. In retrospect there is no ways I would have been part of a decision like that, or actively involved in a decision like that, and I am sure it was just under stress of last minute submission of my application that that was made.
MR WAGENER: So do you accept the evidence then that the instructions were that this person should be approached by the askaris but not apprehended and not arrested?
MR ROSLEE: Having listened to the other witnesses I can see that they are probably correct.
MR WAGENER: Can you remember when and where you saw Mr Mahlangu the first time?
MR ROSLEE: My only recollection is that I encountered him at the safe house or farm out near Soutpan after he had already been brought there.
MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee we have heard evidence that he was assaulted there on the farm. Do you know anything about this?
MR ROSLEE: Chair all my recollection is that I saw him and he had been assaulted.
MR WAGENER: You mentioned in your written application that you took part in his interrogation.
MR ROSLEE: Chair the only reason I can think for putting in that, because I don't have a vivid recollection of actually interrogating the man, or being part of his interrogation, is that when I made the application I assumed because I'd worked with Colonel Prinsloo on other interrogations that I had been involved there.
MR WAGENER: Mr Roslee we have heard evidence that a decision was taken that Mr Mahlangu should be eliminated. Were you part of that decision?
MR ROSLEE: Not to my knowledge, Chair.
MR WAGENER: What do you then mean when you say in your application - "we then decided that he should be eliminated"?
MR ROSLEE: That it was decided. I suppose that "we" could be construed as the "Royal we", but that a decision was made that he be eliminated.
MR WAGENER: Do you know why this decision was taken?
MR ROSLEE: My recollection is that an informer or informers had been compromised or were about to be compromised and that there was a fear of the deceased also again recognising some of the askaris etc.
MR WAGENER: Do you know personally whether the divisional commander at the time gave any instructions in this regard?
MR ROSLEE: I have no knowledge of that whatsoever Chair.
MR WAGENER: That would be Brigadier Jack Cronje?
MR ROSLEE: That is correct.
MR WAGENER: You were not part of any discussions where he was involved?
MR ROSLEE: Not that I know of.
MR WAGENER: Can you tell the Committee, Mr Roslee, first perhaps when you became aware of this instruction to eliminate Mr Mahlangu, did you agree with that?
MR ROSLEE: Chair when I became aware of it, yes I agreed with it.
MR WAGENER: Did you associate yourself with it?
MR ROSLEE: Well I could understand and I supported the idea that he should be eliminated for the reasons we have given.
MR WAGENER: Now we heard evidence that on a specific evening, which we must take as the 25th of March, you and Prinsloo went to this farm and from there further can you tell the Committee what happened that evening?
MR ROSLEE: I have no recollection of us meeting Simon Radebe and then transferring him from Simon's car/vehicle, to the bus. My recollection is that he was in the back of the minibus and we drove out towards the north-western Transvaal. While we were driving, it must have been after quite a while, Martiens Ras got over the back seat and started throttling the deceased ...(intervention)
MR WAGENER: Sorry to interrupt you Mr Roslee, but where were you in the bus?
MR ROSLEE: I am not sure where I was sitting in the bus. For some reason earlier I thought I had been sitting in the front, but after hearing evidence from other witnesses it's obvious that I must have been sitting in the back.
MR WAGENER: So did you witness this throttling as you have described by Mr Ras?
MR ROSLEE: I did.
MR WAGENER: Sorry to interrupt you. And what happened then?
MR ROSLEE: This throttling or strangling of the deceased took place quite near to where we eventually stopped. We got out of the vehicle. I don't remember who took him out of the vehicle. I recall him lying on the ground. He was still making noises and moving. I then stepped on his throat to silence him, in order to kill him, because if he was alive we would have had a battle getting him through or over the barbed wire fence. He was then carried ...(intervention)
MR WAGENER: Sorry to interrupt you once again Mr Roslee. You heard the evidence of Mr Ras saying that he was under the impression that he had killed the man. Is it correct that you say that what you are saying is that in the final instance you killed him?
MR ROSLEE: Well as far as I am concerned he was still gurgling and moving when we stopped there, and he had been taken or fallen out of the vehicle and I stepped on his throat and I presume that's what killed him.
MR WAGENER: Did anyone instruct you to step on the man as you have described?
MR ROSLEE: No-one gave me any instructions Chair.
MR WAGENER: Why did you do it?
MR ROSLEE: Well as I recall Mr Vermeulen was busy with the explosives and Ras and myself would have to carry the man to the railway line and between us there was a barbed wire fence, as is customary, and if he was still conscious and started putting up a struggle, number one he would be exposing us or we would be exposed for longer next to the road if another vehicle came past and he would just make our task that much more difficult getting him through or over the fence. And obviously for positioning him when we placed the explosives on him it would be a lot more difficult if he was still alive or conscious.
MR WAGENER: And what happened at the railway line?
MR ROSLEE: He was placed in a seated position, as I recall, and his hands and face or head were placed on top of the explosives. We moved away for, I don't know how far it was and took cover. The explosives were detonated and we then moved back to the road where Captain Prinsloo came and picked us up.
MR WAGENER: From there where did you go?
MR ROSLEE: I remember us driving through Warmbaths at one stage but I cannot say that we went back to the farm or - I presume we went back to the farm because we would have had to drop Ras and Vermeulen.
MR WAGENER: And you did that?
MR ROSLEE: I imagine so. I have no recollection of going back to the farm.
MR WAGENER: Mr Vermeulen testified that in the process of the explosion he got a shock himself, can you remember anything about that?
MR ROSLEE: I don't remember at all. I heard, I think yesterday for the first time, about it.
MR WAGENER: Apart from the extent to which you amended your written application in your oral evidence this afternoon, do you confirm the balance of your written amnesty application?
MR ROSLEE: To the best of my knowledge, yes Chair.
MR WAGENER: Specifically in respect of your political motive at the time?
MR ROSLEE: I do Chair.
MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wagener. Mr Hattingh?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Jansen?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Roslee you say that you are suffering from certain memory losses as a result of your condition, but my impression is there are certain aspects, not the detail, certain aspects that have stuck in your mind, is that correct?
MR LAMEY: I should imagine there'd be certain aspects that stuck in your mind, is that correct?
MR ROSLEE: I should imagine there would be certain aspects that stuck in my mind Chair.
MR LAMEY: Am I correct in saying that when you made your statement, your amnesty statement, you deposed to as to what you recalled at that stage?
MR ROSLEE: Sorry I don't understand.
MR LAMEY: When you deposed to your amnesty affidavit, your written application, regarding this incident, at the time in 1996, you deposed to as what your recollection was at that stage.
MR ROSLEE: I should imagine so because I was there alone and that was my recollection at that stage.
MR LAMEY: Now about the first paragraph on page 283 of your written submission, you have said that other evidence here has refreshed your memory.
MR ROSLEE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And whose evidence would that be?
MR ROSLEE: In fact I didn't, if I remember correctly, I didn't say that other evidence refreshed my memory. I think that what I said was that it wasn't myself and Prinsloo that decided to do the kidnapping, I wouldn't have been involved in that decision. I was too low down the food chain.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey may I just correct your statement because it's not entirely correct what you are putting to him. The reason he gave for that error was that he was under the stress of the preparation for the application and that's how he came to write what he did and that which appears on page 283, that's the first after the second line, on top of that page. He was under the stress of last minute preparation of his application. That's what my note says.
ADV MOTATA:: And further that because he was under the command of Prinsloo, he says if there was an interrogation he should have been there because he was working with Prinsloo.
MR LAMEY: Yes. What you do refer to Mr Roslee, and it's just what I want to ask you about, you say there was a decision to kidnap, that is what you recall?
MR ROSLEE: That is what I recalled, yes. That is what my presumption was at the time.
MR LAMEY: Is that what you recalled at the time?
MR ROSLEE: Chair I have enough problem trying to remember what happened in 1986 never mind 1996. When I made this submission, the night before the amnesties closed that was the best of my recollection, that he had been kidnapped.
MR LAMEY: But a decision to kidnap prior beforehand was there mention of that, that you ...(intervention)
MR ROSLEE: Chair I have no idea. I wasn't in any of the meetings, discussions taking place with regard to the infiltration or anything like that. At that stage we were busy running around looking for a bunch of terrorists and I wasn't involved in the nitty-gritty, in the planning of the operation.
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey can this point not remain for argument. I don't think it can be taken much further with this witness.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Chairperson. All I want to - just to round this off, you see Mr Mathebula has a recollection that there was a discussion of a plan to kidnap a person by the name of Connie Mahlangu, and of all the other applicants this paragraph and your testimony comes the closest to that. And that's why I ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: How Mr Lamey, because he's talking about Mr Mahlangu and Mr Mathebula refers to Miss Mahlangu, Constance Mahlangu?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson with respect, Mr Roslee doesn't refer to any particular person, he refers to an individual.
CHAIRPERSON: No he refers to a "him", not a "her". There's a gender associated with the person he is alleging to have arranged to kidnap with Mr Prinsloo.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson no, I understand what you are getting at, but the point is that although there's a difference between Mathebula and he's talking about a lady, a "her", and he's talking about a male person, the gist of it is, that's what I put to him, your testimony in this regard comes the closest - I don't say it's exactly the same. I am just saying there is some corresponding aspect here about this ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you to say there seems to be some congruence insofar as a decision to kidnap having been made?
MR LAMEY: Or a discussion at least.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But definitely it can't be the same, I mean a discussion or an arrangement being made to abduct Mr Mahlangu and the one to abduct Miss Mahlangu, that cannot be the same. To me they are completely different. These are individuals with different political backgrounds from the evidence that we have before us. These are two different people. And if one has regard to the evidence so tendered we have the first infiltration, the so-called first infiltration, and then the second infiltration.
But you may proceed bearing in mind that we don't really think that there is any congruence between what he is saying and to what Mr Mathebula is saying with regard to the kidnapping in general whether it be for Miss or Mr Mahlangu.
MR LAMEY: Ja, Chairperson no I understand that. The only - let me just explain myself from my vantage point here, is given the fact that Mr Roslee has got memory problems, but he appears to have had at the time a recollection of a decision to kidnap a person, and I accept that details of that he can't really recall. On the other hand we have here Mr Mathebula, being heard of a plan to kidnap Connie Mahlangu, you know I am just trying to explore this as to whether perhaps you know we heard that and of a plan or a decision to kidnap. Just to kidnap for the moment. But I will leave it there Chairperson. I won't explore this further given the problems that he has with his memory. As it pleases you.
I have got then no further - just then one aspect. Can you recall at all a blue vehicle among any of the members?
MR ROSLEE: Not that I can recall Chair.
MR LAMEY: Thank you. I have got no further questions thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: I think before I bounce him back to you Mr Wagener to do your re-examination maybe the Panel would like to have one or two questions on issues of clarity put to Mr Roslee.
MR MALAN: I have no questions thank you Chair.
ADV MOTATA: I have got none, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Roslee I just wanted to explore one issue with you. You stated that you became aware of a decision to kill Mr Mahlangu at a later stage, when did you exactly become aware of that decision? How soon after he had been abducted?
MR ROSLEE: Chair I cannot say when I arrived at the safe farm whatever, when I saw him there. It might have been the night we went to get rid of him or get rid of his body. But it was obvious to me that when we were alone in the vehicle with him there was no-ways that he was going to be released. And I can't tell you when that happened, or a specific time or place.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought you were already being brought up to speed by someone that a decision had already been taken to kill him.
MR ROSLEE: Chair I have no recollection of someone saying to me we are going to kill Mr Mahlangu whatever.
CHAIRPERSON: Don't you recall having been informed by Mr Prinsloo?
MR ROSLEE: I don't have a memory of that.
CHAIRPERSON: You don't know how you came to be party to the incident?
MR ROSLEE: Well as I hear here I was driving the vehicle or at that stage the vehicle was in my possession and that's why I was involved, and because I had been serving in the unit.
CHAIRPERSON: Otherwise you have no personal recollection?
MR ROSLEE: I cannot recall anybody saying to me, we are now going to take out Mr Mahlangu, whatever. The only recollection, if you like, that I have is when the four of us were in the vehicle and Mr Mahlangu was in the back I knew well that's it, there's no ways Mr Mahlangu is going to be released.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You also mentioned that you trampled over Mr Mahlangu's throat, how many times did you trample over his throat?
MR ROSLEE: As I remember he was lying on the ground and I put my foot on his throat and I just kept my weight on it for, I don't know, half a minute, something like that, till he went quiet.
CHAIRPERSON: Why did you decide on that method of finally killing him?
MR ROSLEE: Chair I can't tell you why I decided on that method, or why it was decided that he was going to be strangled except that we obviously didn't want bullet wounds or anything like that after an explosion. I don't know if I had things in my hands or whatever it was. I just stepped on his throat at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you party to any decision on how the execution of his elimination was to be carried out?
MR ROSLEE: Tell me are we talking about the actual strangling of Mr Mahlangu?
CHAIRPERSON: The method of killing him.
MR ROSLEE: Not that I recall Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you not have any discussion with Mr Ras?
MR ROSLEE: Not to my recollection.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware that Mr Ras was the operational commander on respect of that incident?
MR ROSLEE: I was aware that he was head of the Vlakplaas unit that we were working with, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But in relation to the incident, were you aware that he was the guy who was commanding the operation?
MR ROSLEE: I reported to Captain Prinsloo and he was my boss so that was my line of command.
CHAIRPERSON: So you never had discussions with Mr Ras on any issue in relation to this incident?
MR ROSLEE: None whatsoever.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wagener you may proceed with your re-examination if you do have any.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER
MR WAGENER: Chair may I then request that this applicant be excused, also from further attendance if it is acceptable to you. He is available in Pretoria on short call.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR WAGENER: If he may be excused from tomorrow's hearings.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR WAGENER: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: You are excused Mr Roslee.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Who is the next applicant to be heard in relation to this matter?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson the next applicant will be Mr Mathebula, just to ask you again an indulgence so that I can move back.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
