Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Yesterday we adjourned these proceedings to enable Mr Prinsloo, who is representing Mr Prinsloo the applicant, to be here in order to proceed with Mr Prinsloo, the applicant's, evidence. Before we proceed to do that, it has been brought to my attention that Mr Alberts who as of yesterday was going to appear for both Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg, will now only appear for Mr Goosen and that we have another legal representative who will be appearing for Mr Momberg and that Mr Lamey, who as of yesterday was appearing on behalf of Mr Mathebula, would like to withdraw and we will have a new legal representative appearing for Mr Mathebula. Can we get Mr Alberts to confirm and get the new legal representative to place his name on record.

MR ALBERTS: As it pleases you Madam Chair, I will only be appearing for Goosen henceforth in these proceedings, and my colleague, Mr Botha, will step into the bridge for Momberg.

MR BOTHA: Madam Chair, I confirm. My name is G.B. Botha and I will be appearing for Mr Momberg.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, yes, I withdraw as legal representative for Mr Mathebula. Adv Joubert of the Pretoria Bar instructed by Mr le Roux will represent Mr Mathebula further regarding this incident as well as other incidents that are forthcoming, as well as they will also represent Mr More in forthcoming incidents. Mr Machene's legal representative is Mr Jansen, also in this incident and also in the forthcoming incidents.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you Madam Chair, I confirm it is indeed so, we have received instructions and will be acting henceforth on behalf of Mr Mathebula and then Mr More at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Without wasting further time, can we proceed with Mr Prinsloo's viva voce evidence? Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I am indebted to your indulgence granted yesterday and for the time you have given us to attend the application in Durban, thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, if I may be so - if you can indulge me one second, honourable Chair, I have received a sworn statement from the Attorneys, Mr Meintjies, it is a statement of Mr Jakob Jan Hendrik van Jaarsveld. A copy of the statement, sworn statement was forwarded to all the legal representatives as well as to the Committee. He asked or he suggests or he submits that he is not going to represent this applicant himself here, but he is only going to hand in this statement and he requested me to hand in this statement. I would request that this statement be handed in and I think this will be marked Exhibit A, if you wish honourable Chair. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the statement by, the affidavit by Mr van Jaarsveld will be received as Exhibit A. Any objections by members of the legal representatives? Thank you. Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I call the applicant, H.J. Prinsloo, thank you.

H J PRINSLOO: (sworn states)

MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.

EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: May I proceed Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, during 1987 you were a member of the South African Police Services, connected to the Security Branch as it was called then and stationed at Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And what rank did you occupy at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage I was a Captain.

ADV PRINSLOO: Were you in command of a unit there at Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, today you are applying for an incident which emanated while you were serving there in that capacity. This has to do with an incident which took place in the Pretoria/Rustenburg environment and the matter is contained in Bundle 1, from page 324, where the official application has been contained, and the specific matter which we are discussing appears on page 338 to 341, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then furthermore you have placed an annexure which is page 345 to 348 which contains your political motivation?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you confirm the correctness of the application which is embodied in Bundle 1?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, the unit that you were connected to, what was the activities of that unit at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: It was the recruitment and handling of informers, as well as investigations and actions against ANC, APLA and PAC terrorists.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is it correct that the Overall Commander at that stage was Brig Cronje?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon before you proceed, what was the nature of the action which was expected of your unit, the action that you were supposed to take against the terrorists that you testified about?

MR PRINSLOO: I have a few problems with this microphone, Chairperson, it keeps cutting off. It was proactive action as well as reactive action which involved investigations. Proactively it was preventative or precautionary action.

MR MALAN: I don't know whether you understood me or not, was this with the eye on prosecution?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, as well as the prevention of terrorism, to take timeous action against proposed or intentional terrorism, committed by terrorists who had entered the country with that objective.

MR MALAN: The formal framework of your work, was to arrest and charge persons in a court oriented manner, that is my question?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MR MALAN: It was not operational in any other fashion than what it was court oriented?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the handling and recruitment of informers must also be seen as a component of that so that one could receive timeous information in order to institute precautionary measures.

MR MALAN: Yes, I refer to the second aspect, because you said it was dual in nature, the first was the recruitment and handling of informers, the other was action, court oriented action?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, during 1986 here in Pretoria and in the surrounding vicinity there were various incidents of terrorism, there was an explosion at Silverton, in the Checkers store there. A person by the name of Sinqi Vuma who was shot dead in Mamelodi with an AK47, a former Minister of Garankua, Mr Lukhele and his sister who were shot dead in his house as well as his wife who was seriously injured, there was also an explosion in Soshanguve where a landmine exploded. Did you investigate those matters?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And is it correct that subsequent to investigation, there was a group of persons from the ANC who had entered the country as an assassin team that you had identified and which was convicted and became known later as the S v Obet Msina & Others? ... (transcriber's interpretation)

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And these persons were all found guilty and were given the death penalty?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: For those very same incidents that I have already pointed out to you?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well. This specific person that is discussed here, Justice Mbizana, also known as Mandla, was he involved with this group in any way, can you give the Committee any background about that?

MR PRINSLOO: During the interrogation of the Msina group and information which was given by informers, which was at that stage in my possession, at that stage this person was only known as Mandla, later identified as Justice Mbizana, it was found that he was a member of the so-called Assassination Squad of MK who operated in the Pretoria environment. During the arrest of Msina and the others, he was not with them. And they could also not provide any information of his possible whereabouts, due to the logical facts that if an arrest were to take place, and there were remaining members of such a group, they would make a hasty retreat and seek other refuge.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, is it correct that this very same person was also connected with members of the Msina group to a murder which took place in Botswana during that same period?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And was that matter also investigated with regard to him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Could you inform the honourable Committee on how you traced Mbizana and removed him from his home, would you begin there please?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as far as I can recall it was approximately during 1987, I stated in my application that it was 1986/1987, but upon reconsideration it must have been during 1987, an informer gave me information indicating that the person known as Mandla was hiding in a house in Eersterus, Pretoria. Furthermore the informer also told me that Mandla was busy with reconnaissance of the homes of members of the SAP in the Mamelodi environment and that Mandla had told him that the exclusive purpose behind this Intelligence collection campaign was to attack and eliminate these members at a later stage. This would have been an act of revenge due to the arrest of Msina and the other members of the group.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you then arrest this person, Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And were you assisted by certain other members of the Force as you have summarised it in your application?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And after that, did you take him to the Compol building, after his arrest?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. That would be after I picked him up in Eersterus and arrested him, it was then that I took him to my office in the Compol building in Pretoria.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you interrogate him there?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did anybody else interrogate him or did you yourself interrogate him?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I alone interrogated him.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was it practice with you to interrogate a person yourself, first?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, consistently that was my modus operandi to undertake the initial interrogation with such a member until I was satisfied with the interrogation.

ADV PRINSLOO: And from the interrogation that you conducted there in the Compol building, did you obtain any information from this person known as Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was that valuable information or not?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it was.

ADV PRINSLOO: During interrogation ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, may we interpose?

ADV PRINSLOO: Am I going too fast, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, maybe need you to give us details with regard to the invaluable information he obtained from Mandla before we proceed further.

ADV PRINSLOO: I will do so, Madam, Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, the information which was provided to you which was valuable, what was that about, can you still recall?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as far as I can recall all the deeds in which the Msina group had been involved, the group of which Mandla was a member, the deeds that they had been involved in in Pretoria and Bophuthatswana and surrounding environments, was thoroughly described to me by him. Furthermore he informed me that for approximately three months, if I recall correctly, after Msina and the others had been arrested, it was only then that I traced him and he informed me that during this period of time, he had undertaken reconnaissance of members of the SAP in Mamelodi as well as persons who had been suspected of possibly being informers with the objective to launch attacks on such persons as I have already stated.

ADV PRINSLOO: Would these attacks be launched by the ANC, would the information then have been sent through to the ANC by Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: According to what he told me as far as I can recall, he collected the information, drew up sketch plans of the addresses where these members and possibly informers resided in Mamelodi. It was his plan to channel this information through to the ANC in Swaziland.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon once again, he set up sketch plans about their residences?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MR MALAN: How would one do this? Or may I ask whether you saw the sketch plans, did he show them to you?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, I will get to that later.

MR MALAN: Very well.

ADV PRINSLOO: Please proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: This information would be sent through to the ANC or MK Commander in Swaziland with the simultaneous request to send more trained members to the Pretoria environment who would then launch attacks on these identified targets. At that stage he did not want to disclose to me where the information was concealed or with whom.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well, proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: During my interrogation of Mandla who had then been identified as Justice Mbizana, he told me that he was prepared to offer his full co-operation. From the perspective, or I approached him from the perspective of becoming a potential askari, however I did not put this to him.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you not put it to him if there was such an approach? What do you mean when you say you approached him with a perspective of him becoming an askari if that was never put to him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson at that stage, I had not yet informed him of my possibly plans with him as a person because I relied solely upon his offer of exclusive co-operation. He had given all the information except the information that he still had at his disposal, such as the sketch plans and so forth. I don't know whether he was testing me at that stage to determine whether or not I would accept this. I did not put it to him, but as I said my evaluation of him was that he could be a potential askari. But I did not put this to him pertinently. Not at that stage.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is this something that you had in mind, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well, proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: I kept him at the Security Branch offices for the rest of the night and the following day.

ADV PRINSLOO: Just before you proceed ...

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo, did I hear you correctly that you confirm the correctness of the content of your application in the beginning?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: You have testified to us now that you kept him in the office that night and the following day, but in your application you state that you traced him in Eersterus and then took him to the farm at Hammanskraal?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, this was just to summarise in my application. I am sketching the full circumstances to you. I will get to the Hammanskraal issue, momentarily.

MR MALAN: No, that is not the question, nowhere in your statement do you state that you took him to the Compol building. You stated that you took him from Eersterus to Hammanskraal, that is my question.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MALAN: What is correct?

MR PRINSLOO: As you have put it to me now according to what appears in my application.

MR MALAN: So you didn't take him to Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: I did.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, you must clear this up for us please.

ADV PRINSLOO: I can clarify this. Mr Prinsloo - Chairperson, we are having problems with the microphones, they are not working correctly. The one goes off and the other goes on.

CHAIRPERSON: Peter, will you please attend to the problems please.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, Mr Malan one of the Committee members has just asked you why you did not state in your affidavit that you first took him to the Compol building and after that to the farm? According to your application you took him from Eersterus directly to Hammanskraal, would you clarify this for the Committee please?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson, as I have just explained, I compiled my application in a summarised fashion. The correct version is that I took him to Compol after I had arrested him in Eersterus.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, while the person was interrogated in Compol by you, was he ever assaulted by you or any other person while in your presence?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not at all.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is it correct that after the interrogation the person was removed from Compol and taken in a trunk to the outside, from which point he was taken to the farm at Hammanskraal?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Why was he taken in a trunk?

MR PRINSLOO: The set up at the Compol building was of such a nature that there were security guards who were on duty 24 hours a day and there were also other members of other units who were entering and exiting the building regularly during the day and night. As I have already stated, I saw potential in this person to become an askari and with his agreement, the only way that I could remove him from the building without anybody noticing was to place him inside a police trunk and to carry him out of the building to the place where our vehicles were parked.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, may I interpose?

ADV PRINSLOO: Certainly Ma'am.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, I want to understand you clearly on this point. You say the reason why you removed him from Compol is because you didn't want the security officers in Compol to see Mr Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson. We were also aware of the fact that the officers of the Security Branch were under observation by sympathisers and collaborators of the ANC and the PAC respectively, so he had to be removed from the offices secretively so that we could take him to the farm in the Hammanskraal vicinity where there were existing camping facilities for further dealings with him.

CHAIRPERSON: By which time you now had recognised his potential of being turned into an askari? Am I correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Based on the information that you had extracted which you have termed as having been invaluable by that stage? Am I correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You may proceed Mr Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: And after that, he was taken to a farm at Hammanskraal which had facilities for interrogation of persons and was also suitable for investigations to be launched from there?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And this specific farm, were there any members who were instructed to guard Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Who was it if you recall?

MR PRINSLOO: There were various members. Once again I would just like to explain that this place had tents on the farm from which members operated in the Hammanskraal environment as well as in Bophuthatswana. They were collecting information surrounding the detection of further groups of terrorists. Some of the members had to guard the tents at the camping site where Mbizana was held, so that he was guarded on a 24 hour basis.

MR MALAN: Just for the sake of completion, to whom did the farm belong?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I would imagine - I could identify the farm, I think it was Bosplaas or Boplaas, that was the name of the farm. I cannot immediately recall the name of the owner.

CHAIRPERSON: If a name was to be provided, would you be able to remember whether that was indeed the person who owned the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Possibly, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think some of the applicants have been able to identify the owner. I cannot just remember who it is, but some of the applicants have been able to so identify. Maybe at an appropriate stage, that name can be put to you and you can confirm whether to your recollection, it is that person's name or not.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I were to hear the name, perhaps I will remember it. It has just escaped me, I know where the farm is.

MR MALAN: Was it owned by a private person?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did you put up tents with his permission?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did you pay him any rent for this?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: Upon what basis did he extend such permission, what did you tell the owner?

MR PRINSLOO: By nature of the circumstances, one would put this to the owners, state who we were and where we were from. This was the area in which you operated, in other words your province in which you operated, you would know some of these people, you would introduce yourself and say what the purpose was and state that you were involved in security work. If you trusted the person sufficiently enough, you would inform such a farmer or such an owner of such a place that you simply required a basis from where your persons could operate in the tracing and detection of terrorists.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, was your Commander, Mr Cronje, informed regarding the arrest of this person, Mbizana and the information that he had provided, or can you not recall?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I cannot recall, but I believe that I would have conveyed this to him, I would have conveyed the news of the arrest to him.

ADV PRINSLOO: And in as far as the use of this farm was concerned, was your Commander, Mr Cronje, aware that this place was applied for the purposes that you used it for?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I believe that the possibility exists, but I cannot recall specifically. My logical thought tells me that I would have informed him that we were camping at a place and operating from that place.

MR MALAN: But you don't have any such clear recollection?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: Let us not discuss the logics of the matter?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall specifically that I informed him about the place.

ADV PRINSLOO: Now this person Mandla, was on the farm. Did you interrogate him there on the farm as well?

MR PRINSLOO: From time to time I visited the farm because I was also occupied with other operations and investigations. He and I continuously maintained a high level of communication, we understood each other. Then in a covert way I began to put it to him so that I could test his sentiments of being willing to become an askari or not.

ADV PRINSLOO: Very well, proceed.

MR PRINSLOO: He asked me that I give him some time so that he could reconsider everything, before making a final decision. At that stage, he was also not yet prepared to disclose the locality of the information that he had gathered since the Msina group's arrest.

ADV PRINSLOO: Would you have regarded this person as a well trained and intelligent person or what was your perception of him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, he was well trained, he was absolutely committed to the task that he was given by the ANC, to execute here.

ADV PRINSLOO: Would you describe him as being so well trained that the Assassination Squad which had entered the country, that he was just as well trained as this squad?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, by nature of his interrogation it appeared that he was one of the attackers of Brig Malope who had been murdered in Bophuthatswana where he had also been apprehended or ambushed rather, at the home of a girlfriend that he was visiting.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was there any talk of what this person's plan was to murder people if we refer to page 340 of your application, that Mandla stated it unequivocally that ...

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, at a certain stage I arrived at the farm with him again, he was completely unharmed, he had no injuries. I then realised that his attitude had changed radically towards me.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting Mr Prinsloo that during his interrogation at Compol at no stage did you apply any method that would have prompted him to disclose the valuable information that he was able to give you, without any assault of whatever kind?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. Due to the fact that I had already interrogated Msina and the others, that I had all the information regarding the incidents which they had been charged for. It was about more than this for me, I had the upper hand over him, I began to confront him regarding certain aspects of information which I had received from other members of the group as well as evidence upon which he realised so to speak, that he couldn't run around any more, that he couldn't send me from point A to point Z and try to evade me. It was not necessary for me at all to exert any pressure on him or to assault him in any way, not at that particular point in time, so that I could obtain information from him.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you the only person who interrogated him whilst he was held at Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Mathebula or Mr Machene not present at any stage during his interrogation, whilst he was held at Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, not as far as I know. I will reiterate what I said earlier, my modus operandi with interrogation was firstly to break down the defence and create a situation of trust towards the subject who was being interrogated so that you could get through to that person in order to obtain further information. From experience I learned that if every Joe Soap had to interrogate a person, valuable information would be lost and that one would have to re-initiate the process every time in order to break down the subject's resistance to interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Go ahead.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo, this valuable information that you refer to, am I correct in summarising it as confirmation firstly of all the information that you had with regard to the Msina group and the attacks and secondly the fact that he had undertaken observation or detective work in drawing up a chart of where policemen were living in Mamelodi, policemen and informers?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I would just like to amend with regard to the confirmation of the Msina incident, where this group was involved in plus additional information. At that stage, as far as I can recall, I was still looking for an AK47 rifle which was used during the murder of Sinqi Vuma in Pretoria which I did not find with the group, which was not found. He supplied information with regard to that as well.

MR MALAN: Did you trace the weapon through his information?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, approximately a year later.

MR MALAN: A year later?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, when another person was arrested, flowing out of the information which he initially supplied to me.

MR MALAN: There was no other information, it was the information that a year later led to the finding of the AK47 and then his story about what he was busy with three months after the arrest of the other members of the group?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson. I would just like to tell you about further information.

MR MALAN: But Mr Prinsloo, tell it.

MR PRINSLOO: By means of example, I have explained to you the additional information, it is just not a confirmation of the attacks. It was about who were the collaborators, where they worked, facts which was not disclosed by Msina and the others to us at that stage, and this was information which had to be followed up in future to see to the persons who were the other collaborators, that attention be paid to them and make sure that other terrorists do no join up with them.

MR MALAN: You are making it very difficult for me if you are saying it is valuable, but you are not giving us the opportunity of testing it when we ask you. When we asked you what information was it, you came with the confirmation, now that I am pressing you, you are saying in general yes, furthermore collaborators, sympathisers, let us leave it at that.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, may I just say I think my words amongst others were the AK47.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, to place this information in perspective, what was collected by Mandla with the objective of supplying information to the ANC as to where other policemen and informers were living for the purpose of murdering them, was this important information to combat terror, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Is that the information that you referred to that he had available?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That is the information which you already possessed with regard to the Msina group?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, Mr Prinsloo here has referred to the other information surrounding identified targets which I have referred to where I said that the information that he withheld as to where he was hiding it, that he wanted to send through to MK in Swaziland for the purposes of finding another MK unit to assist him to launch further operations.

CHAIRPERSON: I am talking about the identified targets, that would be the police that the Msina group intended to assassinate?

MR PRINSLOO: Not the Msina group, but Mbizana. After the Msina group's arrest, he continued with reconnoitring and he collected information to identify further policemen and persons whom he suspected of being informers of the Security Police, to eliminate them.

CHAIRPERSON: In trying to avenge for the arrest of the Msina group?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what he told me, yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, to clear up any confusion, there were already the acts of the murder of Lukhele and Vuma and the murder of other police officers by the Msina group and the further information was about other planned acts, for the purpose of killing other police officers, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: It is that information which did not exist yet, which you received from his exclusively?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo, just between us, this is very important, this is what I put to Mr Prinsloo, the confirmation of the Msina group, I am not sure what the group's name was and secondly the fact that there was information collected with regard to the homes of other police officers and I added informers, that is what you are putting to him, I want to ensure - he says there was other information and he mentioned the AK47.

ADV PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, I am trying to clear up this confusion. It would seem that the information which this man refers to was already existing information.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, you have to listen to what I put to him, I do not want to argue with you any further, you must decide what is important for your client and we will consider it.

ADV PRINSLOO: I am just trying to ensure that we all understand each other Chairperson. Mr Prinsloo, the information which you have already sketched with regard to the police officers, the collection of information and informers, was there any other information which this person had that you extracted from this person, or that you wanted from him?

MR PRINSLOO: Not at that stage Chairperson, as I have already said. I saw him as a potential askari and one, the role that he had played and the information which he could generate by contact with MK, one could use that further in future.

ADV PRINSLOO: This person, Mandla, the component that he was within the ANC, did you regard him as a very important link in the ANC?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I did Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: During that time and afterwards, were many acts of terror perpetuated by other groups?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Which operated from Krugersdorp and Mamelodi, or Atteridgeville rather?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where police officers were also killed amongst others and other explosions and acts of terror?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: During that time, was there a great onslaught on the country by the ANC?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, during 1986/1987 it was an absolute onslaught. If one look at the number of acts of terror, not only in the Northern Transvaal but also in other provinces, I am referring to the Eastern Transvaal province, incidents of landmine explosions, yes, it was quite a severe onslaught.

ADV PRINSLOO: And was your function also to combat terrorism by collecting information in this war that was reigning?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, that is why I referred to the proactive steps which I could have taken to combat acts of terror.

ADV PRINSLOO: In your opinion, would the recruitment of the person or collection of information or co-operation of this man, Mandla, be of import to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Undoubtedly, yes, Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: After you saw that this person was no longer willing to cooperate, you came to a stage and saw that the man had indeed been ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you are leading him, we haven't had any evidence about him being at any stage not willing to cooperate. Don't lead him on that aspect.

ADV PRINSLOO: I thought that is what he said, I misunderstood him there, Madam Chair. I will retract that.

CHAIRPERSON: There has been no such evidence led before us.

ADV PRINSLOO: My mistake, I apologise Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, did you at any stage arrive there and did it seem that he did not want to cooperate any more?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson. As I have already said, I tried to surmise from him what his sudden turnabout in his attitude was to me.

MR MALAN: Can you describe how did you observe this turnabout, we do not know where you read this in?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, let me start from the beginning. I said at a stage I arrived one day at the farm for the purposes of continuing discussions about certain aspects of information with him, where he before that since his arrest up to that moment, I would say a period of approximately six or seven days, he spontaneously gave his co-operation, I immediately saw that he was one-sided when I asked him certain questions, and then he indicated to me that he did not want to answer those questions.

MR MALAN: Can you recall what the questions were about?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was about if I recall correctly, amongst others the MK Commander in Swaziland who gave them their command. I wanted more information with regard to this specific person. I think he was under the MK name Kibusa.

CHAIRPERSON: What further information did you want with regard to the Commander in Swaziland?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was about information about the

Operational MK Commander who gave instructions to units under his command in order to find out more about this person. It was a very important link in the network of MK because they do not just come into the country and operate where they wanted to. There were machineries in place, one would find a Northern Transvaal Machinery where all terrorists who for example were in the Northern Transvaal province, under the command of the Operational Commander, for example Swaziland, because he has to arrange for the infiltration of the persons and set them up with contact persons and then give feedback back to MK and find out whether they needed any other manpower. This person was a very important link and if one could neutralise that person, a large network would be of no use for MK any more.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think I am completely on the same page with you with regard to precisely what you wanted Mandla to know about this Operational Commander?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I wanted to know what his knowledge was, what can he tell me more about this Operational MK Commander who was in Swaziland and co-ordinating their operations, to know more of this person in Swaziland - who assisted him, how did they operate and what does he know about this person - and then he refused, he simply refused and said that he would not say anything further.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he say he wouldn't say anything further or did he say he didn't know anything about this Operational Commander?

MR PRINSLOO: No, he said he would not say anything further. And then I tried to find out what had changed his attitude. From his arrest to that stage, there were no problems with him. He provided me with the information regarding which I approached him, about certain dates and names, up to that stage and then he said well, I am not going to give any more information any more ... (transcriber's own interpretation).

CHAIRPERSON: After how long he had been in the farm, did you note this sudden change of his attitude in not being willing to cooperate with you?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I said approximately six to seven days, five to seven days.

CHAIRPERSON: Five to seven days?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, more or less Chairperson, as far as I can recall. It could have been a few days more, I am not entirely certain.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, for how long was he held at the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: I would say six or seven days, as far as I can recall. I may be incorrect, but that is as far as I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed Mr Prinsloo.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Chairperson, before you continue. You detained him for six or seven days before you asked about the absolute central person in the onslaught with regard to the infiltration from Swaziland, is that what you are telling us?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: You are saying that it is very important that you immediately act, that you have the information and act proactively and combat the onslaught from Swaziland which is where they got their instructions from, and he was six days on the farm, before you asked him about Kibusa?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, that is not what I am submitting to the Commission. It was information with regard to other MK members, collaborators of theirs, that was important at that stage, to immediately react on that information. As I have said amongst others, there was an AK47 rifle missing and I don't know whether there was any explosives at that stage, and I suspect it was of the Msina group. One wanted to collect all those things and take them out of circulation and whether any cache points still existed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you are confusing us. I asked you how long, after how long Mr Mbizana had been in the farm, did you put to him this information about the Operational Commander, the identity of the Operational Commander which you wanted him to discuss with you and you said after he had been five to six days in the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Chairperson, if you can recall that I said that I regularly visited him where I discussed further information and collected further information from him and cleared up some confusion, at that stage, I arrived there on that day to discuss the name, MK Kibusa, with him about whom I wanted more information. Kibusa was known to us, there was information existing about him, I wanted to know what this person Mandla could tell me, with which we could make a better evaluation of Kibusa in Swaziland, and how his network worked in Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and my question was when did you ask him to give you information with regards to the Operational Commander and you said after he had been in the farm for about five to seven days?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so you only put that question to him after he had been there for five days?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't some information which you obviously immediately wanted to have him disclose to you, it took you five days before you could come with a question with regard to issues of Mr Kibusa?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Chairperson, as I have already said, in the days before that, it was about activities within the Republic of South Africa. At that stage, I drove out to the farm and spoke to him specifically about this person Kibusa. The whole time it was not about Kibusa himself.

CHAIRPERSON: I am aware of that.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was the stage when I asked him when I saw what is this man's attitude and he said he would not give his co-operation any longer.

CHAIRPERSON: I am merely putting that question in response to questions emanating from a member of the panel, and I just wanted to get that clarity because I thought I heard you loud and clear when you said the information which he decided to withhold with regard to Kibusa or the Operational Commander in Swaziland as you have previously alluded to him as such, was only so obtained, at least your attitude that he was now turning around, he no longer wanted to offer his co-operation, you only surmised that after he had been there for about five to seven days?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct Chairperson, that is what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Mr Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, you are saying that in the days beforehand, you questioned him with regard to activities within the RSA and it was only at a later stage when you asked him with regard to the MK Commander, Kibusa, who was in command from Swaziland?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: So it was not something that he told you at the farm, he was continually asked about Intelligence on the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: And that was not the only information that you wanted with regard to this Kibusa in Swaziland?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it was not the only information.

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I notice it is past eleven, will this be a convenient stage to adjourn or do you propose to sit longer?

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any objection with us proceeding with Mr Prinsloo's evidence? Are you still going to be long, Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: Well, I will still take him through his evidence, yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Would you like to have a short adjournment from your side, because from our side, we would like to proceed with Mr Prinsloo's evidence, at least until we conclude his evidence-in-chief?

ADV PRINSLOO: I don't mind to proceed with the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless obviously Mr Prinsloo would like to have a short adjournment?

ADV PRINSLOO: I have just noticed some of the members indicated to me that it may be appropriate for a tea adjournment, that is why I proposed it to the Chair, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay fine.

ADV PRINSLOO: So it wasn't from my side. I wasn't even aware it was eleven o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: We will take a ten minute adjournment.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, I think it will be appropriate if the gentlemen were to take off their jackets if they so felt. It is quite hot. Thank you Mr Prinsloo, you may proceed.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: (continued) Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, you gave evidence that this person was no longer prepared to provide information or co-operation, did you then do something about it in regard to that and his refusal to provide further information?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing further that I could obtain from Mbizana and that I could also no longer trust him. Then I returned to Pretoria where I discussed his case with Brig Cronje and then also proposed that due to the information that this man possessed, which could possibly fall into the hands of ANC or MK, and the possible consequences, I suggested to Brig Cronje that Mbizana be eliminated.

ADV PRINSLOO: Yes, and what did Brigadier have to say about that?

MR PRINSLOO: We thoroughly discussed the case, and Brig Cronje then said that this was the only way out, that Mbizana had to be eliminated. He then told me that he would make arrangements and that he would contact me again, or inform me again.

ADV PRINSLOO: And did he inform you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, if I recall correctly it was the day after that Brig Cronje told me that Lt Momberg and Sgt Goosen would assist me in getting rid of Mbizana.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Prinsloo, just for clarity's sake, sorry for interrupting again, you have stated that Cronje said that he would make arrangements for the elimination and that he would contact and inform you. By way of inference, he said that he would make arrangements, in other words he did not expect of you to kill him, he said that he would make the arrangements?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, because I suggested that he be eliminated.

MR MALAN: No, that is all I wanted to clear up, thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: The day after that, I had a discussion with Goosen and Momberg, they were also members of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, although they were attached to other units. I know that both of them were trained demolitions experts. I then told them that we had to get rid of an MK member very briefly, and I made arrangements with them for when and where we would meet one another.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where would the rendezvous point be Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, perhaps I should just describe for the sake of clarity, if one - let me just get to this first - Momberg suggested that we go to the Rustenburg area. According to him he knew of a place where it would be relatively safe to get rid of Mbizana.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say, Mr Prinsloo, you used the words get rid of Mr Mbizana, you mean to kill Mr Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson. Chairperson, I may mention things here, we had a way of speaking or a form of language in the Security Branch which made it necessary not to elaborate any further, the member would know what this was about. We then agreed that if one took the road over the Hartebeespoort dam, one would get to the Cosmos crossing as they referred to it, and if one then proceeded straight in a westerly direction from the dam wall, one would be following the old Brits road and then approximately three to four kilometres from that crossing, one would turn in a northerly direction and connect with the new Hartebeest/Pretoria/Brits road. After that junction with the road, I would meet them on that section of the road.

MR MALAN: Is the junction, the Pretoria/Brits road or the Brits/Rustenburg road?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, one could go to both places. On the other side of Brits, there was a road which turned off to Rustenburg again, but if one proceeded straight onwards, one would get to Brits.

MR MALAN: If I understand you correctly, I beg your pardon, I just want to have the precise locality, you say that from the dam wall, you would drive until you reach the Cosmos junction, which was a four way stop street, go straight over and then drive a further three to four kilometres, turn right and then join a newly built road, which went from Brits to Rustenburg, with a turn-off to Sun City?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: Which road are you referring to?

MR PRINSLOO: The same road, but I think the road that you are referring to, is further on.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, after you had made these arrangements with Momberg and Goosen for the rendezvous point, what did you do then?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the following day, the rendezvous would take place the following even, early in the evening and the day after that, in the early afternoon, I went out to the farm where Mbizana was and the other members who were under my command.

ADV PRINSLOO: The day when you returned to Mbizana, did you see the farmer there before you reached Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was my custom to visit the farmer, just to see if anything was wrong, if everything was still in order and whether he was still satisfied with our presence, just from a social perspective, to maintain contact. On that particular day, I visited the farm first, because one would find the farm homestead first and then there would be some distance after which one would turn into the camping site where we had set up camp. The farmer then asked me what had taken place there the previous evening at the camp site, where the camps had been set up. Upon my enquiry he told me that shots had been fired. I was not aware of that, because I had not been on the farm. He then felt quite uneasy about the shooting that had taken place on his farm, and I then went to the camp site. Capt Crafford was in command there on the farm at that stage. There were other members, as far as I can recall, Warrant Officer Strydom, Warrant Officer Kruger and I suspect as far as I can recall, Machene and Mathebula were also on the farm.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you make enquiries with anyone in connection with the shooting?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I then asked Capt Crafford, I told him what the farmer had told me and asked him what he knew about the shooting. Upon which he then told me that he and other members and he mentioned the names of van Jaarsveld, Capt van Jaarsveld, and Warrant Officer Strydom, that they had wanted to interrogate Mbizana the previous evening apparently and that he, Crafford, had fired shots near Mbizana's head, to intimidate him or to scare him, to see whether or not he would be willing to provide further information. He also informed me that in the process, Mbizana had been assaulted with a burning log. He had been struck with it. I was very unsatisfied with the course of events and put it to him as such. I then went to the tent where Mbizana was being detained, or where he was at that stage and all that I could observe if I recall correctly, was that somewhere on his forehead, there appeared to be a mark which looked like a burn mark. At that stage, I did not investigate this any further and the members who were present there as I mentioned were given the order that they could withdraw and return to their residences. I then remained behind alone with Mbizana at this place.

ADV PRINSLOO: Before you continue, Capt van Jaarsveld, was he in any way involved in this investigation?

MR PRINSLOO: Not at all. He was a Commander of another unit which had nothing to do with my unit.

ADV PRINSLOO: And the other members who were there, did they act from there as information came in?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson. As I stated initially, it was a base from which we could operate in order to obtain information and simultaneously there had to be a member or members who would remain there to guard Mbizana if the other members were to move out.

ADV PRINSLOO: Was Mr Kruger only there to guard the person?

MR PRINSLOO: It is possible that at some or other time they performed guard duties. I assumed when I arrived at the camp that afternoon, that Kruger and the other members who were there, were tasked to perform camp duty or to see to Mbizana among others.

ADV PRINSLOO: You have already given evidence that the other persons withdrew from the camp site and that you remained there alone with Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: What happened then?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I then held further general discussions with him. I also asked him about the assault on him. He then told me that he had been burnt with a burning log which also explained the mark that I had observed on his forehead. If I recall correctly, he also stated that he had been burn on his anus with the burning log. I did not delve any deeper into this assault on him, I also apologised for it and then I gave him a Coca-Cola to drink which I had previously spiked with finely ground sleeping tablets. The purpose behind this ...

MR MALAN: Just tell us where you obtained this?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I myself was using sleeping tablets at that stage. One would from time to time obtain sleeping tablets from certain places.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, I do not arrive at places from time to time and obtain sleeping tablets.

MR PRINSLOO: No, I was referring to myself.

MR MALAN: That is why I said, please explain.

MR PRINSLOO: The persons that I had obtained sleeping tablets from, among others were other persons whom I knew, were using sleeping tablets. I would then tell them that I was suffering from insomnia and they gave me these sleeping tablets, it was over a period of time.

MR MALAN: Or else they were your own personal sleeping tablets, your personal property that you received without prescription from other persons, among others?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct. He then consumed the drink and we sat there chatting about general things, until later on, he fell over and fell asleep. If I recall correctly, it was dark by that stage, or it was advanced dusk.

MR MALAN: Can you recall how many finely ground sleeping tablets you gave him?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: Can you recall when you ground the tablets?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, before I went out to the farm.

MR MALAN: In other words, it was on the farm that you decided to give him sleeping tablets?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it was before that.

MR MALAN: Before you went to the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Where were you then?

MR PRINSLOO: In Pretoria.

MR MALAN: In your office?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: And you kept the sleeping tablets in your office, or did you bring it with you to the office previously with the knowledge that you were going to use them for that purpose?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I did not keep them in my office, I kept them at my home.

MR MALAN: Was it at your home that you decided to use the sleeping tablets?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, to put the man out.

MR MALAN: Where did you grind the tablets, was it at your office?

MR PRINSLOO: No, at home.

MR MALAN: How many did you grind?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot recall as I have already said. I think the normal dosage if I recall, was only one tablet per adult, per night, that was the dosage, and I used much more than that.

MR MALAN: What is much more, are we referring to five, ten, twenty?

MR PRINSLOO: I would say between five and ten.

MR MALAN: But that is speculative?

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: Certainly.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these prescribed sleeping tablets, sir?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, yes, as far as I know, all sleeping medication would be prescribed, I can no longer recall the name of the tablet, but it was per prescription, especially for persons suffering from insomnia who would among others take nervous medication with sleeping medication. It was very strong, it could only be obtained by prescription and taken in conjunction, at least that was the case with the medication that I had in my possession.

CHAIRPERSON: Had they been prescribed by your General Practitioner?

MR PRINSLOO: Not only mine, as I have stated, I also obtained tablets from other people. If I would use the term, I stole these tablets from other people and I knew that they were using these tablets.

CHAIRPERSON: How would you steal tablets from other people, and which other people are you referring to?

MR PRINSLOO: I said that these were people that were known to me.

CHAIRPERSON: How would you steal tablets, sleeping tablets from other people?

MR PRINSLOO: I took it. I was aware of the condition of these persons and what medication they were using.

CHAIRPERSON: Under what circumstances would you have taken these sleeping tablets, that were not your personal possessions, from other people? Would you go to their homes, steal the tablets from their homes?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, there is a previous case about which I have testified before the Committee, where I also mentioned something about sleeping medication that I had used, if I recall correctly. It was over a period of time that I collected these items, I did not go at once and collect all the medication. I myself, was suffering from insomnia and the medication which was prescribed to me, did not help me at all.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, I am merely trying to establish the circumstances under which you stole these tablets from other persons.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, at first I said that I obtained them and then I said that I stole them without the knowledge of these persons. It was during visits to these persons that I took some of the tablets. I had a number of sleeping tablets in my possession. That is why I used it, because I realised that there was no other way for me to eliminate the person. At that stage when Cronje informed me about Momberg and Goosen, I realised in the light of a previous incident, that one would have to immobilise that person, if one wanted to blow him up with explosives, and that is why I took the sleeping tablets, ground them fine, so that the person would ingest the medication and be rendered in a state of semi-unconsciousness.

CHAIRPERSON: If I recall your evidence and correct me if I am not recalling it correctly, Mr Cronje, Brig Cronje advised you that he will arrange for Mr Mbizana's elimination, that was your evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I said that he would make arrangements, upon which ...

CHAIRPERSON: For his elimination?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Upon which he told me that I was to establish contact with Goosen and Momberg and I then discussed the matter with them.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you, before you proceed, did you try and ascertain from firstly Brig Cronje, how he was going to arrange for Mbizana's elimination?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no. When he gave me the names of Goosen and Momberg, I accepted that explosives would be used because as I have already stated, I knew that they were trained demolitions experts who were not members of my unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR PRINSLOO: I accepted that explosives would be used to blow him up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And when you further met with Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg, did you ascertain how Mr Mbizana was going to be eliminated?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. It was said that explosives would be used.

CHAIRPERSON: Were they aware that Mr Mbizana was alive at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: I believe so. I don't know whether I informed them, but I would accept that I informed them that the person was still alive.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not discuss how he would be killed before explosives would be used?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not, were you not in command operationally?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, at that stage, I had already formulated the idea to give Mbizana sleeping medication, and by the time we reached the place where he would be blown up, he would then be unconscious.

CHAIRPERSON: But Brig Cronje's arrangement was that he would make arrangements for Mbizana to be eliminated, which you understood that by elimination he meant to kill him. How did you know whether further instructions had not been given to Mr Momberg and Mr Goosen, how he was going to be killed before, further being blown by the use of detonators?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, at that stage it was not discussed at all. It was when I had the discussion with Goosen and Momberg that they informed me that explosives would be used to blow up the body. Then I realised in the light of a previous case, that I would have to render the person immobile so that he would not be able to move when the explosives were placed below him, in order to blow him up. Then I formulated the idea that the sleeping medication that I had in my possession, would offer a possible solution in rendering him unconscious. That is when I ground the tablets fine and fed the tablets to him. It was never said that something would be done to him before he would be blown up, not at that stage of the discussion. But I realised that something would have to be done in order to immobilise this man. CHAIRPERSON: So you did not explore any possibilities with Mr Momberg or Mr Goosen as to how he was going to be killed before being further bombed by using the explosives?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't explore any of those possibilities with them?

MR PRINSLOO: No. Chairperson, my conviction at that stage was that I had to render the man immobile. I did not think in terms of killing him before he would be placed upon the explosives. My assumption was that he should be in an unconscious condition, so that one could drape him over the explosives and that then he would ultimately be killed by the explosion. That was my conviction at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: And your evidence is that you cannot recall the name of the sleeping tablet you used on Mr Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: There were various sorts, I cannot recall, this is quite a number of years ago, I can no longer recall.

CHAIRPERSON: But you can recall that there were approximately five tables you used?

MR PRINSLOO: Five to ten.

CHAIRPERSON: Five to ten? Thank you Mr Prinsloo.

MR MALAN: May I just ask this, it still fascinates me. How did you know that the persons from which you obtained sleeping tablets, actually had sleeping tablets? Not from whom necessarily, but from whose home or residence? Did you enter the bedrooms of many of these persons where you would find the sleeping tablets?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, many people kept their medication in different places than the bedroom, that is what I recall. For example I would obtain the sleeping tablets in the kitchens of some people, where they kept this medication.

MR MALAN: From whom, can you tell us?

MR PRINSLOO: I am not prepared to say at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: These are people close to me.

CHAIRPERSON: But you stole these tablets without their knowledge?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. They were not aware.

MR MALAN: That is correct, why don't you want to tell us.

CHAIRPERSON: Why don't you want to disclosure their names?

MR PRINSLOO: I am not prepared to disclose those names, I cannot.

CHAIRPERSON: On what basis are you not prepared to disclose the names?

MR PRINSLOO: I am afraid of revenge from those persons. Incorrect perceptions could be formed here.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should they take such perceptions about a conduct you did many years ago?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I am not speaking of the persons themselves, I am saying that other persons who may be able to harm those persons.

ADV MOTATA: But you stole the tablets, they were not involved in this?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, as I have stated, perceptions may be created, that those persons gave me the tablets and I fear for revenge on such persons.

ADV MOTATA: But you stated that you stole the tablets, which perceptions could be formed. You have told us here that you took the tablets without their knowledge?

MR PRINSLOO: The perception that they provided these tablets to me, that they could be accomplices.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would there be such perceptions formed, Mr Prinsloo, when you have just unequivocally stated that you stole these tablets without these persons knowing that you were stealing from them?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, one of the persons was my ex-wife, my former spouse.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon?

MR PRINSLOO: One of these persons was my former wife, she was one of the persons from whom I obtained this medication.

MR MALAN: Were you separated from each other at that stage, was she living elsewhere?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not at that stage.

MR MALAN: So it was taken from your own home, not from the home of somebody else that you entered and removed these tablets from? That doesn't help us.

MR PRINSLOO: That is one case. Another case was of a friend of mine, Mr Liebenberg.

MR MALAN: Where were his pills?

MR PRINSLOO: His pills were kept in the kitchen cupboard.

MR MALAN: Now how did you get into your friend's kitchen? You see, let me just explain this to you because your credibility is at stake here, not the safety of your friends, and you tell us that you obtained tablets and you tell us that what was prescribed to you, did not work. You didn't go to your physician and tell him this and obtained tablets that would help you, you simply stole tablets from your friends, without their knowledge, for your own use, that is what you told us, for your own use?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: But you did not use this for yourself, you used these tablets to immobilise or murder people, whatever the case may be, are you not certain?

MR PRINSLOO: I tried some of those tablets Chairperson, to see whether they would have a better affect on me. They didn't work, and I kept them in my cupboard. My wife was not aware of this.

CHAIRPERSON: Over what period did you steal these sleeping tablets from your wife and from your friend?

MR PRINSLOO: It was over a period, I cannot recall how long this period was.

CHAIRPERSON: And the reason why you stole was because your pills were not being effective enough to render you ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Those which I had obtained at that stage, were ineffective on me.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did not think it appropriate to go back to your doctor to advise him of that?

MR PRINSLOO: At a later stage, I returned to my physician upon which he gave me another prescription and that was when I used the other tablets.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you say you stole the pills over a period of a few weeks or a few months or over some many years?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I think it was a question of weeks, I would say. I cannot take it any further than that.

MR MALAN: Would weeks then indicate that it was not months?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So less than two months at the very worst?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. There were two occasions upon which I had access, upon which I was aware and had access to these tablets along with these tablets which I later obtained and never used.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's take your wife's pills Mr Prinsloo, how many would you say you stole, how many pills, are you able to remember? Are we talking of a few pills, less than five, more than ten?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was less than ten tablets at a time, they were very small tablets, they were not large tablets.

CHAIRPERSON: And in each case, you also tried the pills yourself?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, not all of them.

CHAIRPERSON: How many pills did you take?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, one or two, the rest remained in the cupboard.

CHAIRPERSON: You took one or two pills from the ones stolen from your wife and Mr Liebenberg?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Prinsloo.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, we were last at the point where you gave Mr Mbizana the drink, if I recall correctly?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: And you say that that drink was spiked with sleeping tablets?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: You were chatting, what happened next?

MR PRINSLOO: He drank the cold drink and then I continued chatting with him, we were also smoking as I recall, and then he fell asleep. It was quite a length of time, I would say that about an hour or an hour and a half passed and then he fell asleep, he was completely asleep, he had fallen into a deep sleep.

ADV PRINSLOO: And once he was in this deep sleep, what did you do with him?

MR PRINSLOO: I loaded him into the boot of my car.

ADV PRINSLOO: Where did you take him?

MR PRINSLOO: I then drove to the place where I had agreed to rendezvous with Goosen and Momberg. I then found them there on the side of the road, and stopped there at them. They climbed out and if I recall correctly, we stood between the two cars and spoke. I then opened the boot of my vehicle, to check whether Mbizana was still under the influence of the sleeping tablets. I then saw that he had awoken and I told him to climb out and stand with us between the two vehicles. I then took out some more of the spiked Coke and once again gave Mbizana some of it to drink. I had other Coca-Cola's of which I gave to Goosen and Momberg to drink. Mbizana then climbed back into the boot upon my order, I then closed the boot.

MR MALAN: Sorry before you continue, how did you transport this can of spiked Coke?

MR PRINSLOO: In a cooler bag which I had.

MR MALAN: So it had been opened?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, on top of the can of Coke, there is a small aluminium core, a soft aluminium core and before the time, I had ground the sleeping tablet and mixed it with water and funnelled it through this little hole and then closed it up again with wax, so that the gas would not escape from the can.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Mr Prinsloo?

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair. Then he climbed back into the boot space of the car, what did you do then, you, Momberg and Goosen?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, we drove. They drove ahead and I drove behind them.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue, were all the Coke's in the cooler bag?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: How did you know which one would be Mbizana's?

MR PRINSLOO: I said that I had sealed the hole with wax.

MR MALAN: Yes, but it was a small hole if you had injected it, I am assuming that you injected the mixture into the Coke?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: So you would have to check very carefully which can it was?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I knew which can it was. We then drove away and as far as I can recall, in Rustenburg the vehicle of Goosen and Momberg, was left there, from where we proceeded in my vehicle. Momberg told me that on the other side of Rustenburg, at the Phokeng Road, I was to turn off onto that road and in the vicinity of Phokeng, we turned off onto a gravel road and drove into the veld until we were near a railway track, which I could observe in the vicinity. It was a desolated space in the veld.

ADV PRINSLOO: What happened there?

MR PRINSLOO: At this point Goosen and Momberg, if I recall correctly, they climbed out of the vehicle. There were some bushes there which were waist length, if I recall correctly, they walked in the direction of the bushes, with things in their hands, I assumed those things to be explosives. One of them, I cannot recall which one, assisted me with Mbizana, who was asleep again, assisted me in removing Mbizana from the boot and carrying him to this point near the bushes. The impression which was to be created there as far as I can infer, was that mini-limpet mines would be used. I cannot recall how many, five or six if I recall correctly, and the impression was to place the limpet mines in his lap and then to place his hands upon the limpet mines, as well as his head and then to detonate the explosives. While the three of us were busy placing the explosives on his lap and draping him over the explosives, he once again showed signs of coming to and it was not possible for his hands to be placed on the explosives in the desired position. I then walked to my vehicle and fetched a spade from the boot. I returned and then hit Mbizana at the back of his head, with the spade. He was then completely unconscious, completely quiet. As far as I can recall, I think he lay on his one side, I cannot recall which side, and the explosives were then placed upon him. I then returned to my vehicle and shortly thereafter I was followed by Momberg and Goosen who I assumed would set the detonation of the explosives. From that point onwards, we drove some distance. One would be aware of when the explosion took place, and we heard the sound of the explosion as the explosives were detonated, we then returned via Rustenburg to our respective residences in Pretoria. The following day I reported to Brig Cronje.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, according to what I received this morning, which appears to be the application of Brig Cronje, on page 11 the typed page 11, Chairperson, it would appear from paragraph 2 where the following is said

"I know that one of my staff members, Prinsloo, had approached me and told me that an effective MK member had been killed by him during interrogation."

Did you ever tell him that you had killed an MK member and that you would have requested him upon which way the body could be disposed of, did you ask him anything like that?

MR PRINSLOO: If he refers to this Mbizana case, the person was still alive. At no stage did I mention anything to Brig Cronje about a body that I had to get rid of.

ADV PRINSLOO: And then furthermore according to the applications of Momberg and Goosen, they state that you met them at the Compol building with Mbizana in the boot space of your car, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not as far as I recall. It would have been extremely risky of me to go through to Compol in order to pick up the two persons there, because then we would be linked to one another, and something may have gone wrong in the future.

ADV PRINSLOO: As far as the farm near Hammanskraal where Mbizana found himself and the place where you say that you met Momberg and Goosen, was this closer than the distance between Hammanskraal and Pretoria?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it was further.

ADV PRINSLOO: What do you mean by further?

MR PRINSLOO: The place where I met them, was further away from Hammanskraal.

ADV PRINSLOO: Were Momberg and Goosen aware of what this person's involvement was, did you inform them?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, I briefly informed them that he was involved in murders on policemen as well as the other deeds which have been described here and that we had to get rid of him, that is all.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you accept that Brig Cronje would have informed them regarding the reason why they were to act in conjunction with you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I assumed so.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, at the stage when you had killed this person, Mbizana, along with Momberg and Goosen under collective order by the Commander, Brig Cronje, did you do this out of any sense of malice or for any financial gain or any such motivation?

MR PRINSLOO: No. This was about the protection of the political and social dispensation in the country, which was the conviction at that time, and to protect persons whose lives were in danger as a result of the execution of our various duties within the police, and as informers, to prevent such incidents of death, and I regarded this as a matter of national significance.

ADV PRINSLOO: Did you feel that you were acting within your express or implied authorisation within the South African Police?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And at that stage, did you act on behalf of the South African Police as you have stated, to protect the country?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, and the government of the day at that stage, for the maintenance of the government.

ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Prinsloo, you have given evidence previously and studied Exhibit A which has been submitted at previous hearings. You have confirmed this document which is a general document regarding the struggle of the past, do you associate yourself with this document?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: And do you request humbly under the circumstances, that the Committee grant you amnesty for all the criminal deeds emanating from this incident and the evidence that you have given, among others murder, illegal detention of a person, which could include abduction and then also the fact that use was made of explosives as well as the fact that you did not report his death and thus defeated the ends of justice with regard to the criminal aspect?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Do you also request that the honourable Committee grant you amnesty with regard to any delict or unlawful act which may emanate from this evidence with regard to civil claims?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Just one more aspect which I have omitted, you also testified that no assault was committed against Mbizana in your presence, while he was detained in Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: None, whatsoever.

ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, did you not testify that no assault happened on the farm as well, not only at Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, the times when I was at the farm.

MR MALAN: And the only assault that you are aware of, is the wooden log incident?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And on this point, you apologised to Mbizana for the assault, you testified?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Did you say you would do something about it?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I just told him that I was sorry for what happened and that the persons acted against my orders.

MR MALAN: And you say you were furious when you heard about it, did you do anything about it?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, Crafford and I crossed swords because I told him it was a senseless act and at that stage I did not see the necessity of it, although he was not aware of what I wanted to do with regard to Mbizana.

MR MALAN: Did you ask him who did it, who used the burning log? Did Crafford use it?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

MR MALAN: Did Crafford burn him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly. He only told me that shots were fired next to his head and that he had been assaulted with a burning log. I did not ask exactly what had happened or who had done what.

MR MALAN: Did you try to find out who burnt him with the log, because it could have been only one person who held the log at that time?

MR PRINSLOO: I assumed that it was Crafford when I spoke to Mbizana, when he and I was alone, when he referred to someone, if I recall correctly, possibly Warrant Officer Strydom.

MR MALAN: And you never personally spoke to Strydom about it?

MR PRINSLOO: I only took it up with Crafford and I did not address Strydom about it, because Crafford was the senior in command there.

MR MALAN: Just something else for my clarity, you twice gave Mbizana sleeping tablets in the Coke. In paragraph 7 of the incident, on page 340 you put it to us as if you took the sleeping tablets, it is difficult to read here whether you were on the farm, it seems as if you were on the farm when you took the sleeping tablets, ground it and gave it along with a cold drink and this was immediately after he told you, in this chronological order, that you have to meet Cronje and Momberg on the Rustenburg Road?

MR PRINSLOO: Once again Chairperson, we have to see this in context. If I understand the question correctly with respect, I told Cronje and then I met with Goosen and Momberg. We discussed the thing and we said that we would use explosives. That day, I ground the sleeping tablets at my house and the following morning, before I departed for work, I injected the stuff and then I sealed it and then I went to the farm the afternoon, the day after I had contacted Goosen and Momberg and I think I had two or three cans which I doctored in this manner, the Coca-Cola cans. When I arrived at the farm, it was already mixed and spiked. What I meant there, I agree that if one looks at it, it does not make sense, but you have to read it along with what I have now described in detail to you.

MR MALAN: After Brigadier Cronje contacted you, you met person to person with Momberg and Goosen. Where did this meeting take place?

MR PRINSLOO: In my office in the Compol building.

MR MALAN: And you discuss what you would do, how you would do it.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, because by nature of the situation, Brig Cronje had knowledge of it and I assumed that he informed them, I just briefly repeated that this man was so and so and what he was involved with and that he had to be taken out. I did not enter into a long discussion with them.

MR MALAN: Do you know that in their statements they say that they were very surprised to find out that it was not a corpse?

MR PRINSLOO: I saw that Chairperson. It may be along the road, that Brig Cronje might have erred, I never spoke of a corpse.

MR MALAN: Did they express their surprise to you? They were surprised, they did not say that this man was still alive, they were surprised, but they were quite satisfied?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know what their information was at that stage Chairperson.

MR MALAN: But they definitely did not show their surprise to you?

MR PRINSLOO: No, but I was not focused on it Chairperson. We went there to do the thing and that was that.

MR MALAN: Very well, and you are saying that you deduced that you had to render him immobile, there was no instruction to render him unconscious?

MR PRINSLOO: That was my own assumption, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Can you recall that you told Cronje that the man was still alive or did you just tell him that you needed assistance in order to get rid of a corpse?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the person, Mbizana, and the circumstances which surrounded him, I discussed it with Brig Cronje. I am convinced that there was no doubt that the man was still alive, because I think that it came out on the farm that I had a safe place.

MR MALAN: If Brig Cronje would tell us, which is in line with his application, that he was under the impression that the man had already been dead and that you had to get rid of the corpse, it would be a lie?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I would not say that he was lying, but that is untrue.

MR MALAN: Did he, according to you, did he know that the man was still alive? He could not have misjudged it?

MR PRINSLOO: I said I believed that I think he misjudged it.

MR MALAN: Now or then?

MR PRINSLOO: I do not recall what his recollection is of the incident, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: In other words you are saying now that he might not recall it correctly now, but then he was aware that Mbizana was still alive, you have no doubt about that?

MR PRINSLOO: In my mind, yes Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, on behalf of Mr Goosen, do you have any questions to put to Mr Prinsloo?

MR ALBERTS: I do have questions Madam Chair, might I just at this stage raise the order in which the further examination on behalf of other applicants is going to take place. Might I suggest that it is most probably, it will most probably make more sense if this is done in a chronological order. As you are aware, my attitude with regard to this application is that it is actually two, it stands on two legs, I am involved in the second leg, which is the latter part of the chronology.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it make any difference if you had any questions to put to him, notwithstanding, I am aware of the two legs that ...

MR ALBERTS: It might very well, if it - it is quite plain from a credibility point of view, that there is most probably, well, that much is obvious, and that issue might be affected.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Depending on what his answers would be on the events which took place prior to my client becoming involved.

CHAIRPERSON: In that case, can we start with Mr du Plessis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, I have now carefully listened to your evidence, and I would just like to summarise your evidence. I am sorry Madam Chair, I have had a bug for about two weeks, just to summarise your evidence for you and ask you if you agree with me that that is what you are telling us. As I understand, you are telling us that you were not involved in any assault on Mandla, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You took him to the farm where he was at Compol before the time, not for the purpose of him being assaulted during interrogation, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Your evidence goes further and your evidence is that you were dissatisfied with the assault?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you have no guilt in any part of any assault of Mandla, during this whole period?

MR PRINSLOO: I personally did not participate in it Chairperson, but I accept collective ...

MR DU PLESSIS: No, but your evidence is that you did not do it?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: We can also accept that the other persons who were involved in this whole operation, this includes Capt Crafford, this includes Warrant Officer Strydom, I think Mathebula and Machene, was involved in the assaults, is that correct during interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: With reference to the farm?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, with reference to the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is the information I had.

MR DU PLESSIS: So, and Dos Santos as well, he is not an applicant here though? So do you agree with me that some of the people who undertook the interrogation on the farm, according to your evidence, you are the only person who did not assault him? Is that what you are telling us?

MR PRINSLOO: No, that is not what I am saying. All that I am saying is that Crafford informed me what had happened there.

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Prinsloo ...

MR PRINSLOO: That is the only inference I can draw.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Prinsloo, I just asked you ...

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect Madam Chairperson, that is not what the applicant said. It is clear that Mr du Plessis questions him about hearsay evidence, he did not say that he was the only person. In fairness he has to put the question on a factual basis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Let us start from the beginning. Did you read Capt Crafford's application?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, he was involved in the assault of Mandla, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you read Mr Strydom's application?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: He was involved in the assault of Mandla and with the interrogation, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you read that Dos Santos was involved, or participated in the interrogation where assaults took place?

MR PRINSLOO: I think I saw that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, did you read that Mathebula was present when he was assaulted during interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: If I recall correctly Chairperson, Mathebula alleged that the assault had started at Compol, which I in totality deny.

MR DU PLESSIS: He was also involved in the assaults and he said it started, it commenced at Compol buildings, am I correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what he says Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And with regard to Machene, he testifies that he was present and that he had knowledge that Strydom and Crafford and he says van Jaarsveld, burnt him with logs and he did not want to see it and he left. Do you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, I think also Machene said that there were no assaults at Compol.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, we will arrive at that. I am just trying to hear if you agree with it and it seems as if you had a problem with it, that you were the only person who did not assault Mandla, who was responsible for his interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: Some of the names that were mentioned Chairperson, there were other members also.

MR DU PLESSIS: Who else was there?

MR PRINSLOO: Kruger, Warrant Officer Kruger.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was he involved in the interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: Not that I am aware of.

MR DU PLESSIS: He was just there to guard the detainee?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Roodt, Lt Roodt? He was also just there to guard, is that not so?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, it may be so because he was part of the unit.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, they were not involved in the interrogation, do you agree?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Who else was involved in the interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: The interrogation? Chairperson, I have already said that I undertook the questioning.

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Prinsloo, we have identified whom we are speaking of and of all whom we have mentioned before this Committee, you are the only person who did not assault him. May I ask you as follows, is there anybody you can recall who was not mentioned yet, who was involved in the interrogation, who assaulted him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the only assault that I am aware of, is what Capt Crafford told me what had happened on the farm and what I said who the persons were that I can recall, that at that stage were on the farm.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Prinsloo, please ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, may I interpose. May I interpose Mr Prinsloo, because maybe this will clear the air. Was Capt Crafford involved in the interrogation of Mandla, was he part of the Interrogating Unit?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, was he involved in Mr Mbizana's interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson. I will tell you why I say so, I handled the person solely.

CHAIRPERSON: So what business did Capt Crafford have to do with Mr Mbizana's arrest at the farm in Hammanskraal or near Hammanskraal?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that I do not know. Only Capt Crafford will be able to tell us, unfortunately he is not here to answer the question. What he told me and what I asked him "why did you further interrogate this man" he said that he wanted to see if this man did not have any other information. Capt Crafford was not entirely briefed as to what Mbizana had told me up to that stage, so he could not have undertaken a meaningful interrogation. There was no reason for it, because I told them not to interrogate them.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did he have to be there, why did he have to be where Mbizana was being held?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Why did Capt Crafford have to be where Mbizana was held at the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: He was part of the unit. We operated from the farm, from the camping place, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He was part of the Interrogating Unit?

MR PRINSLOO: No, of the unit, my unit that used the farm as a base. He was not part of another unit, it was only van Jaarsveld's name that came about later during the other incident, who was from another unit.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was not supposed to have anything to do with Mbizana whilst Mbizana was being held on the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And why was Strydom there?

MR PRINSLOO: He is also a member of the unit Chairperson. In the same context.

CHAIRPERSON: So his presence on the farm had nothing to do with the arrest and detention of Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: No, at that stage it was a safe place where Mbizana was detained, where he was held under supervision Chairperson. I myself, undertook the periodic interrogation of Mbizana.

CHAIRPERSON: So they had no authority to speak to Mbizana, meaning Crafford, Strydom, Mathebula, Machene, they had no authority to speak to Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: No, they could speak to him Chairperson, it was about the questioning. Because as I have already said, I said that they should not question him because they did not have the complete background with regard to this man's position, and what he had already disclosed to me.

CHAIRPERSON: What could they speak to him about?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: What could they have spoken to Mbizana about?

MR PRINSLOO: They could discuss anything with him, according to me, Chairperson. They could have held any discussion with him, but no questioning.

ADV MOTATA: Madam Chair, may I just clarify this.

MR PRINSLOO: I don't know what the motivation was of Capt Crafford, why he continued to interrogate the man. As I said, what he told me was that he wanted to find out whether the man did not have any further information, which was meaningless in my opinion, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, before affording an opportunity to a member of my panel, Mr Motata wants to ask you questions on clarity, what you are saying to us is that you made it quite clear to all your members who were on the farm, that they were not to interrogate or question Mr Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That was made quite clear to all the members who were on the farm, they were not to speak to Mr Mbizana on any issue which would then impinge on his interrogation or questioning?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Within the context of the interrogation and information Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Yes.

ADV MOTATA: In other words no one was authorised except for yourself, to question Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. By nature of the situation from what I have said, my identification of him as a possible potential askari.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: I am not certain if I understood you correctly, you said you could discuss anything with him, they could just not question him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: I mean by discuss with him in general. They could discuss his activities, about men he knew, how he experienced it in the liberation struggle?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Who his pals were there, who were his friends there?

MR PRINSLOO: But not questioning per se.

MR MALAN: Do you not use questioning synonymous with assault, because it would seem to me as if they could ask him anything, but not hit him?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, what I mean with that is that the man was there, he was not a leper, because he had to talk with some of the members who looked after him, who provided his food for him and all the other amenities. If he needed anything within limits of course, with regard to his detention there.

MR MALAN: Very well. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. Very well, Mr Prinsloo, what I find strange as to what you have explained to the Committee now is that you do not give the entire picture to the Committee, why do you not tell the Committee that Capt Crafford was your senior in the unit? Explain that to us please?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, Capt Crafford was because of his seniority, he was in name the Commander. With regard to the Security Branch and the activities of the Security Branch, he was an absolute junior.

MR DU PLESSIS: No Mr Prinsloo, Capt Crafford was the senior of the unit, that is the point, do you agree?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what I am saying.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you agree with me?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you also agree with me that that gave Capt Crafford the fullest right to interrogate the man if he wanted to in his capacity as Commander of this unit?

MR PRINSLOO: He could have done so, as I have said, but I asked him why was it necessary? My instructions were that the man had to be left alone and no questions were to be put to him.

MR DU PLESSIS: And now you are saying that your instructions were applicable to Capt Crafford also?

MR PRINSLOO: Of course.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that so. I can tell you that in as far as you testified that, Brig Cronje's evidence will be to the contrary. I would just like to put that to you.

MR PRINSLOO: In which regard? I don't understand?

MR DU PLESSIS: Brig Cronje will testify that Capt Crafford was, could question Mandla at any point in time in his capacity as Commander of the unit.

MR PRINSLOO: That is what I said Chairperson, I said that my instruction was that the man was not to be questioned.

CHAIRPERSON: Instructions obtained from who, Mr Prinsloo, instructions obtained from Brig Cronje?

MR PRINSLOO: That I myself delegated, Chairperson. I will repeat, Crafford ...

CHAIRPERSON: You know you are giving evidence and you know what is the difference between something that comes from within and something that you term an instruction?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you are saying your instructions, your instructions as given by somebody senior to you, your instructions were that this man was not to be interrogated by any other person other than yourself? What I want to know is, those instructions emanated from who? They must have come from your senior?

MR PRINSLOO: No. Chairperson, may I just place it in the correct context. I will repeat what I have said beforehand. Crafford was the most junior member with regard to Security and background, and in seniority, yes, he was my majority, but with regard to Security incidents, specifically this aspect, he did not know anything, he did not have a background of it at that stage, and that is why I said the man was not to be questioned. Because there would be, it would be meaningless for him to question the man and not know what the broader picture was. What would he question him about?

CHAIRPERSON: So you specifically advised Capt Crafford, who was your senior, not to interrogate Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: He was aware of it.

CHAIRPERSON: And he agreed, he agreed with your advice?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He went along?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: He gave you an undertaking that he would not interrogate Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he give that undertaking?

MR PRINSLOO: He didn't give me the undertaking, but definitely, he was aware of it.

CHAIRPERSON: He did not oppose your advice?

MR PRINSLOO: No, he did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. In other words what Mr Strydom says that he and Sakkie Crafford were deployed into one team to do the questioning and that the questioning was done in shifts, that is untrue, is that what you are saying?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Are you saying the questioning was not done in shifts?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: And that Capt Crafford was not authorised to do the questioning and thereby you are saying that the evidence or the testimony of Mr Mathebula with regard to this, is also not true?

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the assaults?

MR DU PLESSIS: No with regard to the questioning in shifts?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because Mr Mathebula on page 137 refers to two specific incidents where Capt Crafford did the questioning? Indeed, in paragraph 7 on page 137 he refers to a matter, an incident where you and Capt Crafford undertook questioning yourself, page 137, paragraph 7 of Mathebula's statement. He says

"Capt Sakkie Crafford, Capt van Jaarsveld, Warrant Officer Strydom and Chris Potter arrived there and questioned the man."

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I read this thing, I think that it could be that some of the members were present, while I was questioning him on the farm, and I asked him about certain aspects, it is logical that some of them would have been present. But that is not to say that they participated in the questioning.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but you see Mathebula continues further and in paragraph 8 on page 137 he refers to the instance where Mandla was burnt, you were not present there and you are saying that all the persons who were present there is Warrant Officer Strydom, Capt Crafford, Machene and according to Mathebula, Motjale was there and himself, and De Pino, they all unlawfully acted against your instructions to undertake questioning where you were not present, am I correct?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I did not say that Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then I do not understand you at all, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I could answer, I said what the farmer told me and I asked Crafford what happened there and Crafford told me that he and I imagine he mentioned the name of Strydom, questioned Mandla the previous evening and he was burnt with a burning log. That is what Crafford told me. I don't know which members, if the other members were present there, whether they participated in the questioning, and in the assault. I cannot talk about that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you ask Crafford why did he question the man, did you take him on about that, did you tell him "but my instruction to you, who is my senior, is clear that you, Crafford, who is my senior, may not question this man", did you tell him?

MR PRINSLOO: I testified to that Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: You know Mr Prinsloo, what I find very strange about this, is that not one, not a single person and we will find this out from their testimony, not any one of these persons, including Capt Crafford says something about it that only you were in control of the questioning, and only you could put questions to him and the time when he was burnt, it was not on your instructions, it was outside your instruction, and therefore they unlawfully participated in a questioning, not one of them mentions it. Are they all incorrect, are they all under the wrong impression?

MR PRINSLOO: You have mentioned a lot of facts now, with regard to the questions put to the man or not, is that what you are asking?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, you have to listen very carefully, because it would seem as if there are times that you understand and there are times that you do not understand. Please listen carefully. I am saying that what is strange is that not one of the persons in their applications, the applicants in their applications, mention here of what you have testified now, namely that you instructed them not to question the person, that you were in control, that you were the only person who could formally question this person and that you had crossed swords with them with regard to the matter when they questioned him. Are they all incorrect or are they all forgetting that?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that was my modus operandi, as investigative official and handler of informers, that when I arrest a person or take over and take further his questioning, that only I deal with further questioning, and I am saying that without any fear, or anything to the contrary, that that was my modus operandi for all the years. There are several MK terrorists as well as APLA terrorists who would be able to come and confirm that fact. In this instance, this was one of those cases.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you have already been referred to what Mr Mathebula has stated in his affidavit, on page 137. He puts himself right in the midst of the interrogation and the assault on Mr Mbizana, on page 135, pertinently paragraph 2 and 3 thereof. He says he participated in Mbizana's interrogation and he mentions the other people who also participated, which includes yourself? Would he be incorrect?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson. It is logical that the persons would be present, but they would not participate in the questioning, that I undertook myself, personally.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he says he participated in his questioning?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: And he further goes on to state not only did he question, he also participated in his assault?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no, that is not correct. I had English, Mandla was conversant in English and I spoke English to him, we understood each other very clearly, so that he could say that he participated in a questioning which led to an assault at Compol, that is untrue. That he was present, yes. As far as I can recall, he was present.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I would be able to understand if his informer was involved, but there was not even an informer involved, who gave the information when the man was identified. In other words that I do not ask questions to the person being questioned, by which the informer's identity could be disclosed.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Mbizana would therefore be incorrect if he states that, Mr Mathebula, when he states that he participated in Mbizana's interrogation and also participated in his assault in your presence, and he goes on to mention how he was assaulted?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, yes, I deny. That is not true, he was never assaulted there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, I made the point that it would seem to me according to your evidence, as if you were the only person who was never involved, or participated in any assault. Let us take it a step further, it would also seem as if you are saying that your involvement in the eventual elimination emanated directly from the instruction which Brig Cronje gave you, Brig Cronje said "kill him, get rid of him" and that is when you went out?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, my proposal to Brig Cronje after we discussed the whole matter, I made a proposal to him that the man, the only way which we could arrive at this "cut-off point", was that this man must be eliminated and he agreed and told me, that is correct, the man has to be eliminated.

MR DU PLESSIS: And he, according to you, made the arrangements and the arrangements were that Goosen and Momberg, who were explosives experts, he arranged with them?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And they were the persons responsible for blowing up Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was there with them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but they were directly responsible according to your version?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Why I sketch this version on this manner for you and we will argue that and we will just have a look at the probabilities of your version point by point, I will argue that it would seem to me as if your version is actually that you in reality was the most innocent person there, you did not participate in the assault, you did not participate in the elimination, when you questioned him, you were the most innocent man around there, you did not assault him, everybody else assaulted him and when it came to the elimination, you only assisted and the others blew him up and it was actually not your command, it was Brig Cronje's command, so your role in this whole operation is very small? That is the version that you are putting to us?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, this is Mr du Plessis' impression of this whole incident, that is not what I have said and I know what role I played in this whole incident. I am not exonerating myself and I am not distancing myself.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you know Brig Cronje's evidence is and this would be, and this concurs with the evidence of Goosen and Strydom in their applications, that you approached Brig Cronje and said that you have to do something with the body, and he then made arrangements that Goosen and Momberg who were explosives experts, be made available to assist you with it. You are saying that version is incorrect?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: So your version is ...

MR PRINSLOO: ... of a body - that I brought Brig Cronje under the impression of a corpse, that is not correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you are saying these gentlemen are lying?

MR PRINSLOO: I can only speak in terms of Brig Cronje.

MR DU PLESSIS: But Goosen and Strydom says that the instruction from Brig Cronje was that they had to get rid of a corpse?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I say it must be a misjudgement if Brig Cronje speaks of a corpse.

MR DU PLESSIS: What I want to arrive at is, as I understand your version, after you proposed to Brig Cronje that this elimination has to take place of Mandla, he decided that the person who will undertake this elimination was yourself and Goosen and Momberg, is that correct? That is your version?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is how I regarded it.

MR DU PLESSIS: And how many other orders for elimination did Brig Cronje give you before and after this incident?

ADV PRINSLOO: What is the relevance for this investigation, with respect, honourable Chairperson?

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, this is ...

ADV PRINSLOO: If my learned friend would give me the opportunity to finish what I am saying. Mr du Plessis is aware of previous applications that have been directed here, and there are also further applications, what is the relevance of his question with regard to these applications?

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, it is all about probabilities.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: It is all about probabilities.

CHAIRPERSON: You are entitled Mr Prinsloo, to put things to Mr Prinsloo, the applicant.

MR DU PLESSIS: May I put certain facts upon which, may I put my whole argument and then he can comment on that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see Capt Prinsloo, there were three units, A, B and C. You were with Unit C, Goosen and Momberg were with Unit A and other persons, such as Hechter and van Vuuren were with Unit B. If one sketches a broader picture of all the evidence which all of us in the venue, do not have, but some of us do have the broader picture, I think that Judge Khampepe has the picture and so do I, the question which arises in one's mind after so much evidence has been submitted regarding the eliminations conducted by Unit B, that would be Hechter and van Vuuren and I think that amnesty has already been granted to them jointly with regard to approximately 80 eliminations, my question to you is then for which reason, if Brig Cronje had ordered an elimination, would he have gotten you to execute this elimination, and my question goes somewhat further and perhaps you could clarify this improbability for us, if you were involved in as many eliminations, it is probable that he would have given you the task of such an elimination, but if before and after, he had never given you such an order, I find it very strange that in this case, he would give you the order to eliminate the man?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it is very simple. I was involved in the arrest and the interrogation, and the investigation in which this man, Mbizana, was involved. It is logical that I would have to know what ultimately would happen with this person. I assumed that Goosen and Momberg were confidants of Brig Cronje and that is why he appointed these persons to assist me in getting rid of this man.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Prinsloo ...

MR PRINSLOO: I can only testify about cases in which I was personally involved.

MR DU PLESSIS: But Mr Prinsloo, you know that Momberg and Goosen were the two trained persons in that section, working below Brig Cronje at the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, they were the two demolitions experts, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: There were others.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but they were the most trained?

MR PRINSLOO: The two most trained?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, or the persons who were actually really trained in demolitions?

MR PRINSLOO: There were others.

MR DU PLESSIS: Who were they?

MR PRINSLOO: Coetzer was there, Dos Santos was another. I think van Jaarsveld was also trained, du Toit was also there. These are the names that I can recall immediately.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, but it isn't really about them, it is actually about you.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, but you put the statement that they were the only ones.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Capt Prinsloo, I don't wish to enter into a debate with you regarding who was trained, when as a demolitions expert. My instructions from Brig Cronje and it will be his evidence that they were the two most trained persons at that stage and that it was one of the reasons, not the only reason, but one of the reasons why the were selected to participate in this operation and furthermore his evidence is that he cannot recall, but he assumes, that they were available at that stage, and that is why he gave them the order to participate in this?

MR PRINSLOO: That could be so, I cannot dispute that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Let us then return to you, my question is how many other eliminations did Brig Cronje give you the order to execute?

MR PRINSLOO: Are we referring to me here?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, you yourself?

MR PRINSLOO: If I recall correctly, it would have been two. And then there is the case which was heard before the Committee last year, last week, which I also discussed with him and regarding which he also expressed his approval.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, let us examine this. Last week's case, I can tell you that I am in the process of compiling an affidavit of Mr Cronje that he disputes everything you say, he claims that it is nonsense, then there is the other of someone who died accidentally in a kombi? That is the other case or what are the other cases?

MR PRINSLOO: There is this case of Mbizana. And then there are still other cases pending to be heard before the Amnesty Committee, regarding somebody known as comrade Axe.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did this take before this case or not, the one about comrade Axe?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: It was after this event, wasn't it?

MR PRINSLOO: It may be so.

MR DU PLESSIS: Those are the only cases?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Okay, you see a further aspect that I find extremely strange and I will deal with this before it is one o'clock, this aspect is that your evidence that this man was interrogated at Compol and that he gave his full co-operation?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: That he gave you information?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, voluntarily.

MR DU PLESSIS: And that this was good and correct information?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it was affirmative of what I already knew, because at Compol I confronted him with facts that I already had at my disposal, that were already known because they had been disclosed by Msina and the others.

MR DU PLESSIS: How long did you detain him there for, at Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: If I am correct, he was arrested that evening and the following evening, I took him to the farm as far as I can recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and your idea at Compol was that you could possibly turn him as an askari?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now the question arises within me, why did you take him to the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it wasn't possible for me to detain him in terms of legislation, that is how I viewed it, it was my conviction, because there would be the opportunity that it become known in general that he was arrested. Secondly, after what he told me, and the impression that he brought me under that he was prepared to offer his full co-operation, and the fact that I had identified him as a potential askari and I was convinced that he could provide further information to me, I had to take him away from Compol to a safer place.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Prinsloo, it wasn't possible for you to assault him during interrogation at Compol and that is the reason why you took him to the farm, isn't that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, I can tell you that in as far as it may be relevant, the perception of that sort of action and taking a person to a farm to be interrogated, was according to Brig Cronje not simply for the purpose of asking questions and obtaining answers or not. According to the Brigadier's evidence which he will give, the purpose behind taking someone like that to a farm was to assault him and to get all possible information from him, don't you agree?

MR PRINSLOO: That is Brig Cronje's perception, not mine.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, so this man voluntarily disclosed information and you took him to the farm so that he could disclose further voluntary information as per your evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And he was a very committed MK terrorist, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is my summary of him.

MR DU PLESSIS: And eventually you had to eliminate him because he had so much information and was such a dangerous terrorist?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: But at the same time, you told us that he arrived there at the Compol building, had a cold drink or a cup of tea and simply told you everything?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if it was that simple, my job would have been far lighter at that stage, this man was trapped. The man, that night that he was arrested, he was caught in the house where he was and he got a tremendous fright when he was arrested there because he had not expected to be arrested. During my discussion with him, when I disclosed certain facts to him, also with regard to Msina Masango, Botsani and Makura, I believe that he realised that the writing was on the wall with regard to him. My evaluation of him at that stage was that this was a potential person, a potential askari who I could possibly turn to work on the other side of the fence.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Prinsloo, the reason why I find this strange is because in all the other amnesty applications in which I have been involved and it is a great number of applications, I have never once encountered that any of these trained MK terrorists after having been caught, was simply prepared to talk, unless they had to have been convinced to do so by means of interrogation and assaults and so forth. So this trained and committed and apparently reasonably successful terrorist, because he had been involved in many other terrorist operations, was just a man who walked into the Compol building, got a fright and started talking?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that is the perception of Mr du Plessis and the persons whom he is representing. I can recall other cases in which MK terrorists, due to the element of surprise under which they had been caught, would without assault, disclose all the information at their disposal.

MR MALAN: Mr du Plessis, the question is unfair because an application for assault where no assault had been performed, would not be submitted to the Amnesty Committee.

MR DU PLESSIS: But there has been sufficient evidence about assault forming part of a manner of interrogation in the past. I put the question to you in general terms, Mr Prinsloo. Mr Prinsloo, my examination of you is to attempt to prove whether or not you are telling the truth and after the lunch break, we will examine a number of aspects in which your evidence is improbable, and this is simply about the question of whether or not you are telling the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: I am telling the truth.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is what it is about. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Shall we adjourn for 30 minutes?

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, we have a problem with the restaurant here in that they cannot handle all the people and we cannot arrange for lunch. Can we make it three quarters of an hour please, if possible?

CHAIRPERSON: Okay fine. We will resume at quarter to two. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (still under oath)

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, may I just at this stage interpose. With reference to what Mr du Plessis put to the applicant, Mr Prinsloo, that he will file an affidavit pertaining to last week's application, that he was lying in that regard, I would like to place on record the whole of last week, we were not placed in any, and there was no application of Mr Cronje in this Bundle, and I only received this morning, part of that Bundle. It was never given to us last week, it was never given to Louisa van der Walt, I have asked her, I have just contacted her.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: I would just like to place that on record. I respectfully submit that it is also not relevant to this particular application, unless Mr du Plessis can show relevance in that regard. And then Mr du Plessis would have had the opportunity last week to have put questions to Mr Prinsloo if he was of the view that he was lying, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, I am not going to expect you to respond to that. I think the Committee will simply take note of the fact that that was made not in relation to this incident, and we will simply confine ourselves to issues you have referred to in relation to the incident concerning the killing of Mr Justice Mbizana.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: (cont)

As it pleases you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, before this incident, were you ever involved in the turning of someone to become an askari?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you know how it is done?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now how is it done?

MR PRINSLOO: In the first instance, a person has to be identified, that would be with the first contact, one would consider various aspects with regard to the individual. What I mean is that one wouldn't simply recruit anyone as an askari if this person would not later be of value in the struggle, and then one would also consider his personal capacities. The most important would be the willingness of such a person.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, let's just cut this short. Let's accept that you have identified this person as the correct person to become an askari, what would one do then?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, from my experience personally, it would depend upon how one treated that person from the moment of establishing contact with such a person, in other words let's say he was arrested or whatever the case may be, whatever the circumstances may be, one had to establish a position of trust by solely handling that person until one was absolutely convinced that that person fulfilled all the requirements of being used as a potential askari.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then, is that all?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that all?

MR PRINSLOO: That says a lot Chairperson, yes. And then by nature of the circumstances, one would not handle an askari on a Branch or departmental level, for that purpose the unit known as Vlakplaas was established according to my perception because they dealt exclusively with askaris.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Prinsloo, the regular practice would be that an askari from Vlakplaas would be tasked not to establish a relationship of trust with this person, but to establish a relationship of trust with the person where he was being held in order to turn him. The regular custom therefore would not be that you yourself, or one of the Security Police members necessarily established that relationship of trust, but that another askari would establish this relationship of trust with the subject. I put it to you that this would be Brig Cronje's evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: I will accept that that was the modus operandi of Vlakplaas. I am referring purely to my experience on the level upon which I worked.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Prinsloo, regarding what I just put to you, you did not attempt to get an askari from Vlakplaas to talk to this person and attempt to turn his thoughts, didn't you try that?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I referred to Vlakplaas and including that, the person would by nature of the situation, also be dealt with further by askaris in order to determine whether or not he was suitable for their purposes, because I myself would not be able to handle him on the level upon which I worked.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but you see, you did not take the effort to use this option to turn him as an askari, that is what I mean?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and further more I doubt and I will argue that your evidence is probably not true, that it was your intention to turn him to become an askari.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I will stand by what I stated, what my reasons and convictions were at that stage. Furthermore I would like to put it clearly that all the askaris who were attached to Vlakplaas, had not all been recruited by Vlakplaas askaris.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were never at Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: No, but I had much contact with Vlakplaas.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Now Mr Prinsloo, this other group for a moment, I have forgotten the name of the other group of which Mandla was a member.

MR PRINSLOO: It was Msina and others?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is correct. Did I understand your evidence correctly that they were arrested approximately three months before Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, as far as my recollection, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And at that stage they couldn't have already been charged?

MR PRINSLOO: No. As far as I can recall, the investigation had not been completed.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you involved in the investigation against them?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was in command of it.

MR DU PLESSIS: And ultimately they were found guilty?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was there any evidence given by witnesses who testified against them or upon what basis were they found guilty, can you recall?

MR PRINSLOO: Firstly they refused, there was evidence prima facie evidence and pieces of evidence. Initially they refused to participate in the trial and stated that they would not recognise the South African legal system. If I recall correctly the Court ordered that defence be appointed for them and the State led all available evidence which then led to their conviction as guilty.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that the manner in which they were found guilty?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, by means of evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see I find this rather strange Mr Prinsloo, because yesterday when Brig Cronje approached you about this, as I understand it, you told him that they were found guilty on the basis of identifications and acquaintances? You said the evidence was led?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, maybe I can interpose here. In that particular matter, I appeared on behalf of the State and there was evidence led by each witness although the people did not participate in the trial itself, but the Judge, His Lordship Mr Justice de Klerk ordered that all the witnesses be called in order to prove the State's case, if there is any issue about it. The matter is reported as well in the Transvaal Provincial Division as well as the Appellate Division.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what is the issue you want to make, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I just wanted to know what the position was? I understood from what was said yesterday, that it was done by, simply of confessions. Now I have to accept that evidence was led, honourable Chairperson, and I will leave it at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Sorry, Mr Prinsloo, were any confessions made by those who were charged?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, as well as identifications which they conducted.

MR MALAN: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Was the conviction based on the confessions made by the accused?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, as well as identifications and other evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. Very well, Mr Prinsloo, when you spoke to Brig Cronje for the first time regarding Mandla, where in the chronological sequence of events, did this take place? What I mean is when did this take place, was it shortly after his arrest or when?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, he was already on the farm. I cannot recall whether it was the third day.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then let me ask you this, was it during that very same discussion that you also told Brig Cronje that you thought that he should be eliminated, or are these two different discussions?

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the elimination, there was only one discussion with Brig Cronje.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but do I understand you correctly that before that, there was another discussion during which you told him that he was being detained at the farm, that Mandla was on the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, because he was my Commander, I had to inform him.

MR DU PLESSIS: What did you tell him about Mandla during this first discussion?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I told Brig Cronje that he was a member of this group, Msina and others, that he had accepted responsibility for all the acts whether as a criminal or as an accomplice and that during the period that we were searching for him, he had undertaken reconnaissance and that I reckoned that there was a possibility of turning him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And when you went to Brig Cronje to tell him that he should be eliminated, what did you then say to Brig Cronje according to your evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr du Plessis? What was the import of having this discussion with Brig Cronje?

MR PRINSLOO: What I have just mentioned? It was to keep him up to date with what was going on, because he was the Divisional Commander. He had to know of what was taking place in his area.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Proceed Mr du Plessis.

MR PRINSLOO: It was regular practice.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. May I then repeat the question, the discussion that you held with Brig Cronje when you suggested that Mandla be eliminated, what did you tell him during that discussion?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I recall correctly I told him about the change in attitude in Mbizana or Mandla and what the information was that he was hiding that he did not want to disclose, about where it was and that I did not see my way open to charge him or to release him because if I were to charge him, he would have access to certain persons, then he would have the opportunity to channel that information that he had gathered to the ANC. If I recall correctly, I also informed Brig Cronje of the information that it held the potential death of police officers and possibly also informers.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. That is what you told him?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You told him that this justified his elimination?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Now Mr Prinsloo, what separates Mandla's case from the others?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the other four were jointly arrested on the same day. Mandla evaded us, consistently. As I have described, we chased him and I also described the subsequent events. And by nature of the matter, because I had identified him as a potential askari, from my perspective, I did not follow the regular procedure of first building up a case against him. I wanted to keep it as quiet as possible, the fact that he had been arrested.

MR DU PLESSIS: Didn't you identify any of the others as potential askaris?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Why not?

MR PRINSLOO: I had not personally arrested them, however they had been arrested by members of Vlakplaas.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you involved in the investigation, did you lead the investigation and the interrogation with regard to them, or what was your involvement with regard to them?

MR PRINSLOO: I was in command of the entire investigation. I myself interrogated some of them and I myself, also collected some of the evidence. They were involved in a number of incidents.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see Mr Prinsloo, what bothers me regarding this, and this also creates a problem with regard to your evidence in terms of the order which you allege to have been given by Brig Cronje, it is that you have just given evidence that these four were found guilty with regard to the same incidents as what Mandla was involved in and the convictions did not rely solely upon confessions as I thought, but there was evidence which was submitted by witnesses in those proceedings. You see, if the facts with regard to the investigation were made available to Brig Cronje, with regard to the other four, then I find it strange that Brig Cronje with regard to Mandla, would have issued an order to you to eliminate him, yet with regard to the other four, he allowed the investigation to continue and that they were ultimately found guilty. I find this discrepancy completely unexplainable.

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to Msina and the others, Brig Cronje was informed regarding what it all involved. I have already described the circumstances surrounding Mandla, what my convictions were. I discussed this and stated that I proposed that the man be eliminated. I could not charge or release him.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Prinsloo, that explanation does not make any sense, because Brig Cronje and I put it to you, Brig Cronje will testify that it was never said to him that he was never brought under the impression as far as he can recall, that Mandla and these other four, came from the same group and that they would probably be found guilty with the same evidence, or anything like that. In fact Brig Cronje will testify that he was brought under the impression during the interrogation that Mandla was dead and that you had requested permission from him, to dispose of the body.

MR PRINSLOO: No, not as far as I can recall. At that stage the man was still alive, and he was on the farm.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Brig Cronje will testify furthermore that if the facts and circumstances regarding Mandla's actions with exception to the fact that evidence was available against the others to find them guilty, but if all the other facts had been made known to him, he would have given you the instruction to eliminate Mandla, but he will testify that if he was aware that there would probably be evidence to find all four and Mandla guilty, he might have thought twice about it.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I will return to what I have already testified about. I stated that I had not followed the regular procedure of arresting somebody, so my first most important task would have been to see whether or not the man was prepared to make a confession before a Magistrate which could then be submitted as evidence in court. I did not do that because I reckoned that he held potential and that I could use him, and Brig Cronje was according to me, completely up to date with what his connection with the other four was, that he was in fact a member of that group, because by nature of the situation he was involved in the murder of Brig Malope of the Bophuthatswana police here in Mabopane.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, may I interpose with your consent Mr du Plessis. I want to understand why you did not follow the normal arresting procedures with Mandla, as opposed to the other four?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have already testified about that when I said that this man from the moment we reached my office, voluntarily offered his support. In fact from Eersterus to my office, he had already declared his willingness to offer his full co-operation, and after I had questioned him ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, before you go further, because I will be more confused, I want to know when you initially took a decision to go to Eersterus to abduct him, what did you have in mind?

MR PRINSLOO: It was the arrest and detention of Mandla.

CHAIRPERSON: You intended to lawfully arrest and detain him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: In terms of which law?

MR PRINSLOO: The Internal Security Act, 74 of 1982.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you decide not to arrest him under that law?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, after we had been at my office, when I questioned him. As I said on the way from Eersterus to the office, he had already declared his willingness to offer his full co-operation, and I believe that he realised what it was all about. At the office I confronted him with certain facts and told him that we knew about his activities and then he said or he had already said it and he repeated that he would give his full co-operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Now between Eersterus and your office, you are saying he had already disclosed useful information to you?

MR PRINSLOO: No, what I said was that he stated his willingness to cooperate, he said "I will cooperate with you guys". He extended his willingness to cooperate, because I believe that he realised that he was in a situation that he was trapped, that he could not get away. He knew that Masango and the others were arrested at that stage in time.

CHAIRPERSON: Now having indicated to you that he was willing to cooperate, what prevented you from proceeding to arrest him in terms of, under the legislation you intended to arrest him under?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, once again as I have stated, it was for a low profile to be maintained, so that he not be detained in terms of the Internal Security Act. That is why I did not take the legal process further. After I had been convinced that he could potentially become an askari.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you become convinced, this is what I am trying to ascertain, at which stage did you become convinced that you could potentially turn him into an askari?

MR PRINSLOO: It was after I arrived at my office at Compol from Eersterus, when I questioned him which took up the greater proportion of that night, quite a few hours that I spent interrogating him, when I then recognised the potential and decided that he possessed the potential. And from there I decided to take him to the farm, but I couldn't do this by daylight.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you not immediately arrest him in terms of the Security legislation as you had intended to, once you reached your office?

MR PRINSLOO: In my opinion he had been legally arrested in Eersterus and I took him to my office for further interrogation. I have already described his reaction to this on the way from Eersterus to my office and in my office for the rest of the night, that I spent interrogating him to inform myself of what he was involved in, to confirm whether he would confirm what the others who were in detention, had already disclosed. Also with regard to further information, which to me was an indication of his willingness to cooperate with the Security Branch and then I decided that I wouldn't take him any further, that this man could be employed, that we could possibly turn his mind. The greater proportion of the group had already been charged, it was no longer a clear and present danger that he would be walking about freely outside.

CHAIRPERSON: I can't take it any further Mr du Plessis, proceed.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, as I understand your evidence, here at a specific stage five or six days as I understand it, that he was at the farm, he suddenly had a change of heart and decided that he was no longer co-operating, do I understand your evidence correctly?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what was the reason for that?

MR PRINSLOO: I have already said Chairperson that when I arrived there, I greeted him, we started talking and I started asking him questions about Kibusa and that is when he told me he will not say anything any more and he will no longer cooperate with regard to MK.

MR DU PLESSIS: But what was the reason?

MR PRINSLOO: I have already said he did not give me a reason. Something had happened, I don't know what happened. I don't know whether in retrospect he decided that he will no longer cooperate or what happened.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, I find that quite improbable that here was a person who for I don't know how long, for at least longer than a week, was questioned according to your version, without him being assaulted, and it seems it was going quite well with him at the farm there, no one was hitting him and nobody is unpleasant towards him and then on a day, he decides that is the end, he will not say anything any more, after he had told you everything. It is very strange.

MR PRINSLOO: He did not tell me everything at that stage Chairperson, I wanted to obtain further facts from him. That is how I found him when I arrived at the farm and as I have testified, I cannot take it any further.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then you decided, if that is so, if he does not want to give any information, we have to eliminate him?

MR PRINSLOO: That was the only option which I saw open at that stage. That was the only option.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And then after you allege that you received the instruction and the elimination is to be continued, you went back to the farm and you found him where he had been assaulted by Capt Crafford, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then you testified that you were extremely dissatisfied with the assault?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: I don't understand that at all Mr Prinsloo. You return with an instruction that the man be eliminated and now you are dissatisfied that he was assaulted, how does that work? You proposed that he be eliminated, but you are dissatisfied with the assault?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have already said it was a meaningless act. I did not see any necessity in it at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Prinsloo, what is more probable is that assaults were the order of the day and that would have been continuous as Sakkie Crafford's evidence was with regard to the time when he questioned him and Mr Strydom's at the time when he questioned him, they assaulted him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, my recollection is that Strydom and Crafford's were one instance.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but I am referring to the same instance.

MR PRINSLOO: But you did not put it as such sir.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see Mr Prinsloo, because it seems to me that you are the only person who tried to explain to us that you did not participate in the assaults during interrogation, you are shocked by these assaults and then just after you had proposed his elimination, you come here with this shocked expression when you find out that he had been assaulted, it just does not rhyme.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have never said that I did not participate in any assaults with any other arrests, as a means of convincing a person, that is a false statement being made there, firstly. Secondly, I focused myself on this specific instance, where I did not assault him because of the reasons which I have supplied.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Prinsloo, how many times did you question him while he was at the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it is difficult to say. When I had the opportunity I went out to the farm and I cleared up certain aspects with him and then questioned him about certain aspects, and then I continued with my other tasks. You must recall that I was involved in investigations at that stage, and other information follow up actions.

CHAIRPERSON: The question Mr Prinsloo is, how many times did you question him on the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it is difficult to say, whenever I had the opportunity and I wanted to clear up certain things, I went out to the farm and then I cleared it out with him. I would almost, I cannot take it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: According to your evidence, he was there for five to six days, you cannot recall how many times you questioned him during that period, whether you questioned him once?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it is on the fifth day when he did not cooperate with you?

MR PRINSLOO: It was various times Chairperson, from the time that he arrived at the farm and I was there when I questioned him.

CHAIRPERSON: How many times, can you approximate? Did you question him once?

MR PRINSLOO: Let us say three or four times. It could be three or four times.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, if we look at the alleged instruction from Brig Cronje, as I understand it and I have to say that I do not understand your evidence about this, but as I understand you, Brig Cronje said that he will make arrangements for the elimination and he then spoke to Goosen and Momberg?

MR PRINSLOO: He told me that I have to meet with Goosen and Momberg.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you don't know what he told Goosen and Momberg?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you did not ask them?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I accepted that they knew.

MR DU PLESSIS: You have testified that Goosen and Momberg said that, or do I understand your evidence correctly that Goosen and Momberg said that he had to be killed with explosives? That is what my note says?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is how I understood it.

MR DU PLESSIS: So your evidence is actually that you did not receive the instruction to eliminate him, but Goosen and Momberg received the instruction, is that your evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: No. I am not saying that they had to eliminate him. I include myself in that group. These were the persons that were made available to me by Brig Cronje and given instruction to assist me in disposing of this person.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose? You see your evidence is that Brig Cronje said he would make the necessary arrangements for Mr Mbizana's elimination?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Which, when I questioned you - may I proceed, may I finish - which when I questioned you during your evidence-in-chief, you said you understood elimination or getting rid of Mr Mbizana, you understood that to mean to kill him. Now, what Mr du Plessis wants to get clarity from you is how could you have understood yourself to be part of the arrangement by Brig Cronje to arrange for Mr Mbizana's killing? How could you be part of that arrangement, because you were not made part of the arrangement? He said he would make the necessary arrangements and definitely there was nothing which he conveyed, at least not from the evidence that is before us, to have given you or to have suggested to you that you were to be part of the arrangement for his elimination?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, my involvement and my discussion with Brig Cronje and the fact that I had control of Mandla as such, and would take him to a place where he could be eliminated, and the discussions that I held afterwards with Momberg and Goosen, I accepted that Brig Cronje had informed them and it was told to me that they would use explosives. That was my involvement there. I can associate myself with that. In other words, Momberg and Goosen did not receive instructions to take the man alone and do away with that person. I think there one worked in an absolute position of trust with regard to that, the minimum amount of persons should know about it, of involvement in doing away with a person.

ADV MOTATA: But this confuses me because I cannot understand, you speak to Brig Cronje and he says he will make arrangements for the elimination, you depart and you take yourself along with the other two, because he would have made arrangements with Momberg and Goosen, where do you fit in, what was arranged? What did he arrange with Momberg and Goosen and what did he, meaning Brig Cronje, arrange with you, that is not before us? That is why it confuses me.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, in the first instance, as I have already described, I discussed the matter with Brig Cronje and said that this man ...

ADV MOTATA: Yes, but what was arranged there?

MR PRINSLOO: Brig Cronje then said that he will make the necessary arrangements and if I recall correctly, the day afterwards he told me that I had to make contact with Goosen and Momberg, which I then did. I was in control, they did not know where this man was detained and who or what he was.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, why would Brig Cronje not tell them, because you told him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I am trying to - the question was put to me ...

MR MALAN: Please Mr Prinsloo, don't make any reconstructions, tell us what you know. You don't know whether they knew or did not know, you don't know what Brig Cronje told them?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the day when I held discussions with them in my office, it was clear that they knew they had to assist me in the disposal of a person, an MK member, because I briefly informed them, but instances where the person was involved and arrangements were made as to where I would meet them and at that stage, I could not take them out to the farm where there were many eyes who could see how they removed the man from the farm. That is why I removed the man by myself. I had control over the person, and they had control as to why or how they would get rid of the body. If he was dead at that stage, yes. With regard to me, he arrived at the scene there alive.

MR MALAN: With regard to you, they did not have instruction that they would kill him? They would have blown him up, so whether it be a body or still a live person?

MR PRINSLOO: I did not know exactly what Brig Cronje told them.

MR MALAN: But your understanding was not that they would kill him, you thought that you had to kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. Or, not I, he had to be killed. My conviction was that he was still alive and as I have said, from previous experience, I realised that this man cannot sit there alive, so something had to be done to him to render him immobile, whether he be alive or dead, I may have given him too much of the sleeping tablets, and he would be killed there, then it would be a corpse that they had to get rid of.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, we use the expression which is very strange, but you planned immobilising him the whole day by using tablets. Did you start that plan before you spoke to the two or afterwards?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, it was after I spoke to them and we had made our arrangements and that evening, I prepared it at my home, and the following evening, I met with them.

MR MALAN: Did you tell them what you were to do, that you would immobilise him, did they ask you?

MR PRINSLOO: No. It was only the blowing up of the person.

MR MALAN: You see, according to your evidence and the understanding and the discussion or discussions with them, it would seem to me as if I was in their shoes, I would have understood that I was here to blow up a corpse, I do not know anything of a live person, but you never put it to them? You never informed them about your plans to kill that person?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I accepted that Brig Cronje ... (tape ends) ... think of a body at that stage, that is why I said that I ...

MR MALAN: So why when they arrived at you, you did not ask them "how would you kill him", why did you not ask them "do you want me to immobilise him and feed him some sleeping tablets"?

MR PRINSLOO: I did not do that.

MR MALAN: But why not? That is what I want to know from you. You know that they knew a man who is alive, won't lay still so that you can blow him up. They never asked you "how do we immobilise this person" and you never tell them?

MR PRINSLOO: This was not an issue.

MR MALAN: That is correct, because they thought it was a body?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot argue with their instructions there.

MR MALAN: You don't argue that they were under the impression that it was a body and you are saying that they would have received instructions from Brig Cronje?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So if Cronje made them understood it was a corpse, then Cronje's evidence of what he understood from you is probably correct, from his understanding of the discussion?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct or incorrect Chairperson, I do not understand properly. I never spoke of a corpse to Cronje.

MR MALAN: Yes, you just spoke of the disposal of a corpse of a person?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: Disposal of a person, not killing. That is why he sent you explosives experts, for the disposal of a corpse?

MR PRINSLOO: I never spoke of a corpse.

MR MALAN: You said get rid of a body? You didn't think that Brig Cronje would think of it as a corpse? Getting rid of a body is not the same as getting rid of a corpse?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I never referred to a corpse or a body.

MR MALAN: Mr du Plessis, I don't know if you want to follow it up any further.

MR DU PLESSIS: There is one question which I would like to ask about this. Do I understand you correctly, Brig Cronje did not give you a pertinent instruction to eliminate him and as you are saying now, it would seem as if Goosen and Momberg did not receive a pertinent instruction to eliminate him because they were only given instructions to blow up the corpse, is that what you are saying?

MR PRINSLOO: As I have said in my evidence, I proposed to Brig Cronje that he be eliminated and he agreed with it. With regard to their instruction, it is possible that the interpretation from Goosen and Momberg could be correct, that they thought that they had to blow up a corpse.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your testimony is at the end of the day that according to your own evidence here, you are saying that Brig Cronje would have given an instruction that this person be blown up with explosives? In other words that is the method of elimination that Brig Cronje thought up, is that what you are saying?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what I inferred after I had contact with these two persons.

MR DU PLESSIS: How many similar eliminations do you know of where living persons were blown up with explosives?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, where I was involved?

MR DU PLESSIS: Persons who were still alive?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes - two.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where you were involved with?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And do you know whether Brig Cronje was involved in any elimination were living persons were blown up with explosives?

MR PRINSLOO: Not first hand Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, now I will put it to you that I am not aware of any similar incident where Brig Cronje was involved where somebody in this manner, was blown up, or to be blown up with explosives and that is why I find it very strange that Brig Cronje, under these circumstances according to your version, would give an instruction that the person who was still alive, be blown up with explosives?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that is not correct and I will stand by what I say, at that stage that man was still alive.

MR MALAN: But I don't think that there is a dispute whether he was alive.

MR PRINSLOO: But I never spoke of a corpse. Then I would have eliminated him alone where I was at the farm, whether it be by shooting him.

MR MALAN: Yes, but then everybody at the farm would have known of it, and you did not want that?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I had already sent everybody away from the farm, specifically to keep it secret that they do not become involved in the disposal of this person.

MR MALAN: While you are saying you sent them away, did you send them away or were they busy with other work?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I told them that they could go home and collect fresh clothing.

MR MALAN: You know in your statement you said that they were busy elsewhere, in your statement you did not say that you sent them away?

MR PRINSLOO: Some of the members under my command, as I have said in my evidence-in-chief, were busy with other Intelligence collecting in the area, in other words I wanted to be alone there with Mandla.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Prinsloo, as I understand your evidence, you gave the man a doctored, spiked, Coke and later the same evening, when he became conscious again, you gave him another Coke and he drank the second Coke with no problem?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Not for one moment did he wonder or think or have a problem with the second Coke?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Or think that after he drank the first Coke, he became unconscious and now you are giving him the second Coke?

MR PRINSLOO: He just voluntarily drank it, because I asked him if I recall correctly, if he was thirsty and he said "yes", he was and I gave him the Coke.

MR DU PLESSIS: I find that very improbable as well, where he drank the first Coke and immediately afterwards was rendered unconscious and now suddenly you give him a second Coke, and now he drinks it voluntarily, I find that very improbable?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what happened Chairperson.

ADV PRINSLOO: Chairperson, is this not a matter for argument? We have heard many improbabilities and I would like to object, this is for argument later, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: As far as you can, you should leave it for argument, if it is specific evidence.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, in all fairness I would like to hear the applicant's comment of something that I would argue later. My whole argument will be based upon the improbability of his evidence. I am almost done, if you would just grant me a few more moments.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to do so Mr du Plessis, I think it is only fair that you put it to Mr Prinsloo and we get his comment even before you argue, because your argument may be based on your perspective, without having afforded him an opportunity to respond to your argument.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, that is why I am dealing with it on that basis.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair. Very well, Mr Prinsloo, you say - your evidence was about the people who had to guard Mandla there on the farm and you said that as I took it down here, you said "I assumed that Kruger and the others had to guard him", that was your evidence, is that correct or would you like to change that?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, that is the inference that I drew when I arrived at the camp and the persons whom I saw there. You have to keep in mind, I was not there continuously. They had to arrange amongst themselves who would guard him and who would be elsewhere and sometimes I told them who was...

MR DU PLESSIS: I thought you were in control or in command of the whole situation there, so the persons who had to guard him, would have been under your command, so then you would have known who guarded him, when?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I cannot recall 15, 16 years back what programme was drawn up as to surmise who had to guard him and who not. I recall that when I arrived there, the persons that I found there, I assumed that they were guarding Mandla there.

MR DU PLESSIS: I would tell you that the probability is probably that Capt Crafford, because he being Head of the unit, was the person who was in command of who had to guard whom, where, and these persons were given instructions.

MR PRINSLOO: It is possible, it is possible, in my absence, yes. It is entirely possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Prinsloo, how many people, other people, did you give sleeping tablets in other instances?

MR PRINSLOO: Including this incident, two Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: If you would just bear with me, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst you are going through your notes or consulting with Mr Cronje, may I just find out, Mr Prinsloo, in your evidence-in-chief, when you were questioned by members of the Committee, you stated that you had made it quite clear to Crafford, amongst others, that they were not to interrogate Mr Mbizana - at which stage did you make that quite clear to Crafford, as well as the other members that they were not to interrogate Mr Mbizana? Was it when he was brought into the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it was when he arrived at the farm. By nature of the situation, Crafford and I had close contact with each other and I told him. The older members were aware of my modus operandi and I told them "you do not question the man".

CHAIRPERSON: At that stage, did you not assign members that would look after Mr Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, once again as I have said, the basis had already been set up, the members came there, there were no fixed times when they moved in and out to collect Intelligence and move around, so the persons who were at the camp, who were specifically delegated for that purpose, two persons had to be present at least at the camp, to guard that man. They could not leave the camp so that everybody moved off.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not assign specific persons to look after Mr Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: It is possible that I could have indeed appointed persons, but one could not keep all the members there, to do the guarding work.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Kruger one of the persons you assigned to look after Mr Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what I inferred when I arrived there, that he was one of the persons doing guard duty at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr du Plessis.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr du Plessis, before you continue. I would just like to ask one or two questions with regard to Crafford. Initially I understood that Crafford was under your command and under cross-examination you said that he was your immediate Head. I deduced that he was not a Security man?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson. He had been there briefly.

MR MALAN: So you did not have much appreciation for him as a Security Police officer?

MR PRINSLOO: Not at that stage.

MR MALAN: Who, before him, was your immediate Commander of the unit?

MR PRINSLOO: Myself.

MR MALAN: Why did he take over from you?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot answer that Chairperson, you can find that out from Brig Cronje.

MR MALAN: Were you dissatisfied because Crafford became Commander in your place?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR MALAN: You did not ask why, you never asked Brig Cronje why? You don't know why he was appointed above you?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I don't know whether he came from the Detective Branch or the Uniform Branch, where he was transferred to the Security Branch.

MR MALAN: You were the Head and then he became the Head?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, and then he left and then I was once again the Head.

MR MALAN: And while he was your immediate Commander, why did you not report to him? Why did you not discuss the problem with your immediate Commander?

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to what Chairperson?

MR MALAN: With regard to Mandla Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: He was aware of it Chairperson.

MR MALAN: He was aware that he had to be eliminated?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: So you discussed the elimination of Mandla with him?

MR PRINSLOO: I just briefly, after I discussed the matter with Brig Cronje, I cannot recall where we had met, I briefly told him that this man would be taken out.

MR MALAN: Did you just tell him or tell any of the other members?

MR PRINSLOO: I only told him, I only told Crafford. I would not have told the others.

MR MALAN: Why did Crafford not speak to Cronje? Would that not be the route?

MR PRINSLOO: He was not up to speed with what the surrounding circumstances were with regard to Mandla, what the broader picture was and what Mandla had disclosed to me, he was not aware of that.

MR MALAN: Why did you not in your evidence earlier tell us that you discussed it with Crafford?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, now that I am being asked about it, it just came back to my mind, I just recalled it now.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS: There is just one other improbability which I would like to put to you, as I understand your evidence, you did not receive a direct instruction to carry out the elimination from Brig Cronje, but you are saying that he would make arrangements and then he spoke to Goosen and Momberg and in other words, we have to accept that he did not return to you to give you any further instructions and I would just like to put it to you that I find it very strange, where you are Goosen and Momberg's senior, that Brig Cronje did not give direct instructions for the elimination as you had said earlier, but he gave instructions to your subordinates and you had to hear these instructions from your subordinates. I just put that to you.

MR PRINSLOO: I will stand by what I said earlier on Chairperson, and Brig Cronje agreed with me when I made the proposal to him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, just for the record, I am not going to ask him any further questions, because I think it has been dealt with in detail, his whole evidence surrounding the sleeping pills and everything surrounding that, I will argue. I put it to you Mr Prinsloo, that your evidence with regard to the sleeping tablets and everything surrounding that, and the theft of the sleeping tablets, is very improbable. I will argue that it is entirely incredible.

MR PRINSLOO: I will stand by what I have said Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr du Plessis. Who is next in line of cross-examining? Mr Jansen?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Yes, thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, I would like to commence with the arrest and you mention that Mr Machene was present at Eersterus with the arrest, that is the impression I have from page 339.

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Would you concede that you might be mistaken about that?

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to Machene's presence?

MR JANSEN: Yes?

MR PRINSLOO: It is possible Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: I would not like to go in detail through all the other applications, but it would seem from the applications that we have on record here, that you are the only one who pertinently mentions him on his name, at the arrest, do you accept what I am putting to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I believe so. I wonder, I would just like to explain, Mathebula, Machene and More I would say were more trusted amongst the black members, which is why I accepted all three of them were present, it may be that I am mistaken about this fact.

MR JANSEN: Another aspect of Machene's evidence, if you would just grant me a moment to find it, is in regard to the condition of Mbizana at the Compol building. Sorry Madam Chair, at page 86 he makes the statement that the person was confused and it appeared as if this person was not at his full or total positives, do you recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: It is possible that he may have been tired from the interrogation, but I cannot say that he was entirely confused.

MR JANSEN: I do not want to dispute this with you, but it may be so that somebody becomes disoriented or appears to be because of long term interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JANSEN: And then in the following paragraph there the farm was identified as the farm Klipdrift of one Mr Pretorius?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct, I recall that now.

MR JANSEN: I would also like to mention to you that Mr Machene's version with regard to the instruction with regard to interrogation is the following - he cannot recall any specific instruction from you that persons were not to question Mbizana, but he says that his comprehension as a junior was that in any, in all cases, no questioning had to take place except under your and according to your instructions?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was my modus operandi Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: I would just like to say the possible contradiction has to be removed, or there is a chance that you did not mention it to Machene or Mathebula, because you would have known that they knew what your modus operandi was?

MR PRINSLOO: That is entirely possible Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: It is also so that Mr Machene at that stage was a Constable in your unit, under your direct command?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: And would it be correct of me to say that you would under all circumstances have expected of him not to speak out about what had happened there on the farm, and more specifically what had happened to Mbizana?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I said that they were my confidants.

MR JANSEN: I would just like to take it somewhat further, if we accept your version, it is probably not difficult to accept that persons should not talk out, this would be regarded as part of their work, to remain silent, but there is another scenario. If the suggestion was made and if there were findings that this was an interrogation that went wrong, and that the other persons like Crafford and van Jaarsveld were inebriated and had continued with a senseless assault which led to the fact that Mbizana could not be handed over to the legal system, and it was decided that he would be eliminated? If one would speculate about such a possibility, it would still be the case that persons had to remain quiet or it would be expected of junior persons, or from everybody to remain quiet as to what had happened there?

MR PRINSLOO: I would accept that, although it was not applicable in this case.

MR JANSEN: That is why I put it to you on the basis that it is a supposition. Thank you Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen. Mr Joubert?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you Madam Chair, I will pose a few questions and then with leave of the Committee, reserve the right to ask questions later on.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: As pointed out earlier this morning, I came into this at a very late stage and I haven't had the opportunity to prepare properly for the hearing today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will afford you that opportunity should you seek it.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you very much. Mr Prinsloo, singular aspects with regard to the incident at Compol when Mandla was detained at Compol, it is my instruction that Mr Mathebula was not involved in the arrest or at least the initial arrest, but that it was only at the Compol offices that he observed the subject. Can you confirm this or can you recall that he was involved in the initial arrest?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, he was involved in the arrest, because if he had seen him at Compol, it could only have been upon the following morning, when he reported for duty, which would have been seven o'clock or half past seven.

MR JOUBERT: And the other members, More and Machene, were they also involved in the arrest?

MR PRINSLOO: I have said that as far as I recall, the possibility exists that some of them were there. Let me put it as such.

MR JOUBERT: But you cannot state unequivocally who was present at the arrest and who not, you are simply recalling a possibility?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, black members were involved, and that is how I have stated it. So if one of them wasn't there, it could be a mistake on my behalf, but it was not a case that all three of them were absent.

MR JOUBERT: Is it possible that only one of the three was present?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no, it is improbable. By nature of the situation and the action, we had to park some distance away from the house, so in the first instance, a vehicle had to be guarded, and then one would also have to take someone with in the event of requiring an interpreter. So I may be mistaken with one, but I will maintain that at least two had to have been present of Machene, More and Mathebula.

MR JOUBERT: But you cannot say specifically which of this group of persons was present?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Then at the Compol offices, you undertook the interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: And you stated that it is possible that some of the members may have been present at certain stages of the interrogation, or did you undertake it privately in your office?

MR PRINSLOO: I think I conducted it within my office, because by nature of the circumstances, when one is interrogating someone, one would require the person's undivided attention. It may be that one or two of the members was present during the initial questioning which was undertaken.

MR JOUBERT: Could you perhaps explain to us, when such interrogation took place at the Compol offices, was there any opportunity for members to move in and out, or around and about, or was it a completely cordoned off room?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I loathed it if persons moved in and out of a room while I was interrogating a subject, because it would break the train of thought, and also break the concentration of the person who was being interrogated. It was standard practice of mine, that I did not approve of such conduct, only under exceptional circumstances, if somebody wanted to fix my attention on something, if this was somebody who came in from outside. Yes, but there was no open-door policy of in and out movement while someone was being interrogated.

MR JOUBERT: Therefore you would concede that while you were interrogating the subject, some of the members may have been present?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: But you cannot say which members?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: Which members would you normally have wanted to be present during such an interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: As I have already stated, one or all three of these three that I have mentioned, More, Mathebula and Machene.

MR JOUBERT: Therefore it is possible that they may have been present during the interrogation at the Compol building?

MR PRINSLOO: Some of them yes, some of them yes, because it would have been senseless to have all three of them there.

MR JOUBERT: My instruction is that during this interrogation in Compol, a measure of assault did indeed take place on Mandla, what is your reaction to that?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, I have already been examined about that, no assault took place in my presence.

MR JOUBERT: Earlier today you were pointed at certain improbabilities by my learned colleague, I find it strange that Mathebula would sketch a situation of assault at Compol if that is not the truth, why sketch a darker picture than the real one?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot respond to that, perhaps he would be able to give an answer.

MR JOUBERT: I would just like to give you the opportunity to respond to this.

MR PRINSLOO: I do not know of any assault, the man was willing to cooperate, he had begun talking, why was it necessary to assault him.

MR JOUBERT: Then with regard to the man's condition during the assault, my instructions are the same as that of Mr Jansen, that he appeared to be disoriented, that it appeared that he was not at his full positive?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it is my experience that if one lengthily interrogates a person, he or she would become tired and incoherent. By nature of the situation, one would be naturally evasive, so I assume that this stress and the tension which I have noticed with many other subjects, would break one, so to speak, so that one would appear to be disoriented to others.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula and Mr Machene were all experienced policemen at this stage, although they were Constables?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: They were experienced in the sense that they had worked for the Security Branch and that they were your confidants to a certain extent?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, they were.

MR JOUBERT: So they would have been well aware of the fact that extensive interrogation could lead to disorientation?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, by nature of the situation, the person who was being interrogated, would also tire. One would have to break, in order to give him the opportunity to regain his composure, or afford him the opportunity to get some sleep, because if things went on like that, he would eventually provide incoherent answers, which would be completely useless.

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall whether any of the members who may have been present, put any questions to the subject, or whether it was you alone who put questions to Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the core interrogation, it was I alone who undertook this interrogation.

MR JOUBERT: What would you describe as core interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: That would involve involvement and other information. It could be that questions may be put to highlight a point and that he would not respond adequately, but those are singular aspects.

MR JOUBERT: Do you mean that they may have put questions to him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, upon my order.

MR JOUBERT: Would the question have been formulated by you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: And then interpreted by them?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, he was fluent in English, but there were certain concepts which were not the same as mine. There were certain points which had to be clarified.

MR JOUBERT: Very well. When someone reached such a level of disorientation, was it the custom to cease the interrogation and to resume it at a later stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, because it would be senseless to continue with such interrogation.

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall that during the interrogation, upon a question put by Mr Mathebula, Mandla made the following statement - " my father killed my mother", which Mr Mathebula regarded this as nonsense under the circumstances, lending credence to his statement that the man appeared to be disoriented?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't recall anything like that, it would have remained in my mind, because this would have been an exceptional statement. One would determine the attitude of the person who was being interrogated, what length of time one had interrogated the person, measure his reactions, see whether or not the person was tired and determine whether or not to give him a break.

MR JOUBERT: And all that took place at Compol according to you, was this interrogation and then the following day he was taken to the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, the following day.

MR JOUBERT: Were you involved in any other actions or activities with Mandla before he was taken to the farm with the exception of the interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not as far as I can recall.

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall that there was an occasion upon which Mandla was taken to a bathroom where he was washed?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was the regular procedure, it is not exceptional. The man had to eat, he had to rest, if he wanted coffee, he would get coffee, if he was a smoker, he would have the opportunity to smoke, these were all regular procedures for me.

MR JOUBERT: Was it the regular procedure for you to wash a man?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I did not wash him.

MR JOUBERT: That is what my statement is about. The man was specifically bathed by you, you and one of your members were involved and you made the statement "this is the first time that I am bathing a terrorist"?

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

MR JOUBERT: That will be the evidence of Mr Mathebula at a later stage. Mr Prinsloo, this camp or camp site on the farm, for how long had it been in existence at the time when this incident took place?

MR PRINSLOO: If I can recall correctly, it was a number of days. I think it may have been a week before the incident, that the camp was set up.

MR JOUBERT: Very well, and after Mandla had been taken away and eliminated, for how long did the camp remain there?

MR PRINSLOO: Easily another week or so, because we continued with tasks.

MR JOUBERT: The reason why I ask you is that my instructions are that after the interrogation at Compol, the following morning, you gave Mathebula and the other members specific instructions to put up tents on the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, this was before the arrest of Mandla. Because initially I had to approach the farmer and ask him whether or not we could camp there, one would need water and other amenities, I couldn't set up camp anywhere in the veld. He still had to provide a water pot for us so this camp had to have existed before Mandla was arrested.

MR JOUBERT: Very well, Mr Mathebula's evidence will be different in this regard. His evidence will be, and I accept that you have read his application, his evidence is that he went there to set up the camp and that on the same day he returned, and on that day, Mandla was removed and taken to the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: That is not correct.

MR JOUBERT: That is not correct with regard to the setting up of the camp?

MR PRINSLOO: No, as I have already stated, the camp had already been set up.

MR JOUBERT: At least a week before the incident?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, roughly. It was definitely before Mandla was arrested.

MR JOUBERT: According to your version, it was shortly before his arrest, a week before his arrest?

MR PRINSLOO: Approximately.

MR JOUBERT: And then approximately a week or so after his elimination ...

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, according to my recollection.

MR JOUBERT: What was the purpose with this camp? Was it to interrogate specific persons or was it an operational base?

MR PRINSLOO: As I have already stated, similarly to other cases, the camp was used as a base from where one could move out into Bophuthatswana and the Hammanskraal vicinity, in order to gather Intelligence whether it be first hand, or by means of informers. One couldn't always drive back and forth from Pretoria every time. This could also have endangered the rendezvous points, therefore that was the initial reason for the establishment of the base.

MR JOUBERT: And it was established for approximately four weeks, a week before his arrest, a week during his arrest and then two weeks subsequent to his elimination?

MR PRINSLOO: The camp site was established as an operational basis, so that members would not have to commute between Pretoria and Hammanskraal on a daily basis, because one would have to see an informer at any time of the day or night, and one didn't want to have to travel back and forth all the time.

MR JOUBERT: The statement has been put to you regarding when you decided to turn him as an askari and what the procedure would be for the further employment of someone as an askari. If I am correct, please assist me if I am incorrect, you decided that you could possibly turn this person but that you have not had the opportunity to obtain another askari from Vlakplaas to assist in the turning of such a person?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I did not regard it as necessary at that stage.

MR JOUBERT: That would essentially be your evidence, if you had had an askari at your disposal, would you have used this person to assist in the turning of Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, via Brig Cronje I would have established contact with Vlakplaas.

MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, may I just have a second please.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you Ma'am, I am indebted to you. My instructions are that there was an askari from C-Section at that stage by the name of Bafana?

MR PRINSLOO: No, his real name was Moses Mbatha.

MR JOUBERT: Why didn't you make use of this person?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I would not have used him to turn the man, because by nature of the situation Mandla would not have been employed or used at that stage in my division and he was also not up to date with the latest techniques and methods and so forth, which were used by the askaris with regard to their information.

MR JOUBERT: The position regarding the askaris, the techniques that they used were told to them at Vlakplaas?

MR PRINSLOO: What I mean by techniques is that there were various techniques, there was MK, there was APLA and there were some who had spent a length of time there, there were others who were newer, and they had to be trained precisely in the methods of approaching the subject and recruiting and orienting a person, because you couldn't send someone in among them, whom they didn't trust.

MR JOUBERT: Therefore Mandla's profile would not have been suitable for this?

MR PRINSLOO: No, at that stage he had been arrested and he would have been oriented and employed under my command. One could say that he was beyond the main-stream of terrorism as such.

MR JOUBERT: Furthermore you testified that at the stage when the decision was taken to eliminate Mandla, you instructed some of the members to go home, some of them went home, some of them performed other duties, but you alone remained there with Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR JOUBERT: What was the position with Crafford at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: I would imagine that Crafford departed shortly after my arrival there. For some or other reason, he departed. I can no longer recall precisely.

MR JOUBERT: Was it upon your request or instruction?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I said that he departed for some or other reason, but I cannot recall what the reason was.

MR JOUBERT: Shortly after you arrived there?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it was after our discussion.

MR JOUBERT: Was it during that discussion that you informed him that this person had to be eliminated?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, briefly.

MR JOUBERT: Your evidence or version is also that you stated that you were called out to the farm, if I understand you correctly, that this was when you went to the farm and found Mandla there and saw that he had been assaulted, I may be incorrect?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I was not called out, I was on my way.

MR JOUBERT: Therefore it was part of your regular visitation?

MR PRINSLOO: No, not my regular visits. I was on my way to fetch him, to eliminate him.

MR JOUBERT: And when you arrived there, you found out that he had been assaulted?

MR PRINSLOO: I went to the farmer first, and that is where I heard that a shooting had taken place.

MR JOUBERT: And then you arrived at the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: At that stage, was Mandla in the tent where he was bound?

MR PRINSLOO: He was not bound as far as I can recall. I know he lay there in the tent, in a tent.

MR JOUBERT: And can you recall that Mathebula was present there at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would imagine that he said so, that they were there.

MR JOUBERT: That will be their version as well, and they will testify that you were highly upset when you saw that the person had been assaulted and that you expressed your dissatisfaction with regard to this? Madam Chair, at this stage, I have no further questions. If the panel, the Committee will bear with me, I will be able to indicate by tomorrow at the latest, whether I have any further questions. I very much doubt it, I think most issues have been covered.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Mr Joubert, we are aware of your predicament in that you have been brought into the matter quite late, and you haven't had sufficient time to consult with a view of being able to put appropriate and exhaustive questions to Mr Prinsloo. Should you require such an opportunity, we shall afford you.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you very much Madam Chair, I appreciate it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Alberts?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, when did you leave the Police Force, when precisely, can you recall?

MR PRINSLOO: The 30th of November 1996 as far as I can recall.

MR ALBERTS: The 30th of November?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And if I recall correctly, it was approximately two weeks before the initial cut-off date for amnesty applications, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would accept that that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: But do you recall this? I see that your application was filed early in 1997, approximately two months subsequent to the cut-off date?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall the precise date, but I would accept that that is possibly correct.

MR ALBERTS: Then you would surely be able to re call that the initial cut-off date was extended, can you recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Upon the day when it was to expire, an extension was granted?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I would imagine something like that, I am not entirely certain, but I know that there was a further extension of time.

MR ALBERTS: When you arrested this person, Mandla, you must have bound him or cuffed him?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he was cuffed.

MR ALBERTS: And as such with his cuffs, he was taken to the Compol building?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: At what time during the day did this take place?

MR PRINSLOO: It was early that evening. I don't believe that it could have been any later than nine or ten o'clock.

MR ALBERTS: Nine or ten o'clock in the evening?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, it may even have been earlier.

MR ALBERTS: How did you manage to get him into the building?

MR PRINSLOO: He walked into the building between us. The lift was near the entrance, yes, that is correct, he walked in with us.

MR ALBERTS: So he walked in and when you took him out, you smuggled him out in a trunk?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Was he cuffed while he was in the trunk?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR ALBERTS: Could we then accept that you were reasonably up to date with his activities and so forth, you were aware of who you were dealing with and who you were looking for before you arrested him, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And he was a well trained terrorist if I understand you correctly?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Who was operational at that stage?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Now, after the plan and order and so forth according to your version with regard of the elimination of this person had been formulated, and the order had been issued, you decided if I understand correctly, that this person had to be administered some form of sleeping substance or medication?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: What was the purpose behind this sleeping medication?

MR PRINSLOO: I have stated that already, I will repeat it. My scant experience at that stage was that explosives would be involved, therefore the man would be blown up by explosives and that one had to immobilise such a person, so that one would be able to position the explosives correctly in order to eliminate any fingerprints or any form of identification if possible. At that stage I had sleeping tablets at my disposal, so I decided to administer these to him, so that he would go into a coma or become unconscious. Then he would be able to be positioned easily.

MR ALBERTS: The idea with immobilising him had to do with the manner in which you were going to destroy his body, namely be means of explosion?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Was that the only purpose?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Now you say that before you executed this whole plan, at least a day prior to this, you discussed this execution with Mr Goosen and Mr Momberg, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it was very brief.

MR ALBERTS: So on that day already, when the discussion had taken place, you knew that you were going to kill this person in Bophuthatswana on the other side of Rustenburg, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Why was it necessary for you at Hammanskraal already, to administer a sleeping agent to this person?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, in the first instance, I was alone and I didn't know how strong the potion was that I had concocted, I didn't test it beforehand, so I didn't know how well it would work. That is why I gave him a can on spiked Coke on the farm, because I had to transport him in some or other fashion and I decided to place him in the boot of my car. If I had placed him in the boot in a sober and conscious condition, he would have made a noise which would have drawn attention. That is why I gave him the Coke on the farm already.

MR ALBERTS: In other words this substance was administered for another purpose as well, in order to facilitate the entire execution of your plan?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Not only to keep him quiet on the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: It was part of the plan, part of the execution of his elimination.

MR ALBERTS: It was in order to facilitate this process for you, to make it as easy as possible so that he would not be able to offer any resistance? If he was unconscious, he would not know what was going on and he would be completely unable to resist and you could do exactly as you pleased?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Inside or outside the boot, wherever?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: It would be as good as handling a bag of cement?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: If I understand you correctly, you do not agree whatsoever with the versions of Goosen and Momberg in so far as they state that the initial rendezvous took place at the Compol building, that would be the meeting among the three of you?

MR PRINSLOO: According to me, it was on the Rustenburg road.

MR ALBERTS: Is that your recollection, or do you stand by that firmly?

MR PRINSLOO: It stands out to me due to the discussion that we had about where we would meet and at what time.

MR ALBERTS: Therefore if it is their evidence, as it will be, that at approximately eight o'clock that evening, you met them there in front of the Compol building, it would be false?

MR PRINSLOO: I would say it would be a mistake on their behalf.

MR ALBERTS: But it would be a fabrication, it would be incorrect, not the truth?

MR PRINSLOO: According to my recollection, no it is not so.

ADV MOTATA: Sorry, but would they be lying, because they would say we were standing in front of Compol building, would they be lying? Forget about your recollection for now, if they come and tell us that, would they be lying?

MR PRINSLOO: As I have stated, I have to rely upon my recollection, and that is why it stands out to me, the particular place that we had agreed to rendezvous at, and I would then have to say that they are not telling the truth.

MR ALBERTS: The reason that you submitted, if I understood your evidence correctly in my recollection of it, the reason why you would not have met them there is because it would have presented some form of a risk for you?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, apart from the person in the car, I had to think about these members as well. We could not be seen together there. If anything were to go wrong with the operation in future, the three of us would be connected with one another immediately.

MR ALBERTS: But you could have been seen together every day in the Compol building?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, but I am referring to these particular circumstances.

MR ALBERTS: But what is so strange about these circumstances that it is impossible for you to be seen in one another's company outside the Compol building?

MR PRINSLOO: I did not want to enter the city with the man in my vehicle, and that is why we agreed on the previous day where precisely I would meet those members.

MR ALBERTS: Why didn't you wish to enter the city with the man in the boot? Nobody would have seen him there, nobody knew about it? What would the difference be?

MR PRINSLOO: To me it made a bit difference, that is how I viewed it at that stage, that is what I had discussed with them. There was no objection from their side, and I met them at the place that I described.

MR ALBERTS: And while the man was virtually lifeless because he was not completely conscious, he couldn't even do anything about it, because he didn't even know he was there?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: So from where then this risk that you have testified about?

MR PRINSLOO: I will reiterate that this was the manner in which I operated. That was what I discussed with them, that is the reason why I didn't wish to go into Compol.

MR ALBERTS: Is that your best and final answer?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: You know what their version is in that regard, I definitely don't have to put this to you again?

MR PRINSLOO: I have studied it.

MR ALBERTS: Now tell me how many of these sleeping tablets did you grind into the first Coke that you gave Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: Quite a number, as I have already stated, I cannot say precisely.

MR ALBERTS: Something like five emerges in my mind?

MR PRINSLOO: It could be five.

MR ALBERTS: Five to ten?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, it was put to me by Mr Malan and that is when I stated five to ten. It wasn't simply one or two.

MR ALBERTS: You stated that you had previously experienced problems sleeping and that is how you obtained sleeping tablets per prescription?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: What was the prescription, can you recall?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR ALBERTS: How many tablets would you have to take in order to sleep peacefully at night?

MR PRINSLOO: Initially if I recall correctly, it would be half a tablet and then the dosage was strengthened to one.

MR ALBERTS: And the assumption was that one would be sufficient to ensure a peaceful night's rest?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, not in my case. I would spend two, three, four hours sleeping after the effects had worn off.

MR ALBERTS: How many did you give to Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall.

MR ALBERTS: What was the arrangements, at what time would you meet the others?

MR PRINSLOO: I would have to leave the farm at Hammanskraal and travel through Pretoria North to get to the road where I would meet them. That was quite a distance, I cannot recall at what time we would meet one another.

MR ALBERTS: What time did you leave the farm?

MR PRINSLOO: It was already dark when I left the farm. I would say that it must have been approximately seven or eight o'clock, perhaps somewhat earlier.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, may I ask you a question about the route from Hammanskraal where the farm was. I do not recall that you stated precisely where the farm was located.

MR PRINSLOO: If one followed the N1 on the Pietersburg highway, and reached Hammanskraal the town, there would be two roads that turned off. One would turn right there, one would go over the junction and turn right, and then I would say that the farm would be approximately eight kilometres, eight to ten kilometres away.

MR MALAN: The reason why I am asking is so that I can establish a route in my mind which you would have taken from there to Kosmos. Did you go through Pretoria?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I travelled via Pretoria North.

MR MALAN: Yes, through Pretoria North, out through Pretoria West?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: You say that you are not certain, but that it may have been six, seven or eight o'clock?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot say precisely.

MR ALBERTS: Would you then perhaps be able to estimate with more certainty on how long it took you to leave the farm, travel the distance and meet Goosen and Momberg?

MR PRINSLOO: It must have been the best part of 40 to 45 minutes to an hour, if I had to give a rough estimate.

MR ALBERTS: Tell me, how many of these powerful Coke's did you take along with you on that particular day?

MR PRINSLOO: I had three if I recall correctly.

MR ALBERTS: Three that you had prepared at home?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And sealed?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: And did everyone of them contain an equal measure of the sleeping tablets?

MR PRINSLOO: I prepared the mixture and then checked to see how much a syringe could contain and then placed this into every can.

MR ALBERTS: So can we then accept that the medication was equally divided among the three Coke's by means of a water mixture that you prepared?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And was the total volume that you used between five and ten sleeping tablets, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. As far as I recall.

MR ALBERTS: Or was it five to ten per can?

MR PRINSLOO: No, it wasn't that much.

MR ALBERTS: Now how long ...

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Alberts, may I ask you, tell us about the syringe, where did you obtain the syringe?

MR PRINSLOO: I had dogs and sometimes one would have to administer medication to the dogs and that would be the instrument that one would use.

MR ALBERTS: How long did it take after Mandla had consumed the first Coke, for him to fall asleep or to lose consciousness or whatever it was that happened to him?

MR PRINSLOO: If I recall correctly, I would say that it was approximately an hour to an hour and a half or two hours.

MR ALBERTS: One and a half to two hours?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: So this substance only took effect after that period of time?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. That would be my estimate.

MR ALBERTS: And afterwards you state that you loaded him into the boot, immediately?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I first checked to see whether there were any items of his clothing in the tent, I cleared up that area, then I loaded him into the boot and drove away.

MR ALBERTS: But that is virtually immediately?

MR PRINSLOO: I would say about half an hour to 45 minutes afterwards.

MR ALBERTS: Half an hour to three quarters of an hour?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: So did you just leave him laying there while you were clearing things up?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And then you loaded him into the boot and drove for approximately 45 minutes?

MR PRINSLOO: 45 minutes to an hour.

MR ALBERTS: And then you met the other two members?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And during that rendezvous, Mandla regained consciousness as you stated?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, he appeared to be at his full positive. I instructed him to climb out, gave him another Coke because it appeared that the first one had not been strong enough.

MR ALBERTS: Was he cuffed or not?

MR PRINSLOO: No, he was not cuffed.

MR ALBERTS: Are you completely certain about that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. He was in the boot, and as far as I was concerned, he was asleep when I loaded him into the boot. It is possible that he was cuffed, but I cannot recall something like that.

MR ALBERTS: Goosen and Momberg will both testify that he was indeed cuffed, with handcuffs and leg irons?

MR PRINSLOO: I would concede to the handcuffs, but not to the leg irons, otherwise he would never have been able to climb out of the boot.

MR ALBERTS: But you could lift him out?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I didn't lift him out, he climbed out himself. He stumbled out of the boot. We were standing there next to the road, between the two cars.

MR ALBERTS: Why did you give him the second Coke?

MR PRINSLOO: Because I saw that the man was not entirely under as I wanted him and I wanted him unconscious before we took him to the place where we would blow him up.

MR ALBERTS: And his condition, did it seem normal?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I would not say entirely normal, not as I knew him.

MR ALBERTS: And how long did you pause there with this initial meeting?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, not long. I know we drank the cold drink, or he drank the cold drink and then he went back into the boot and then we drove, so it couldn't have been long.

MR ALBERTS: So he climbed back into the boot himself?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, yes.

MR ALBERTS: Did he or did he not?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, he did climb into the boot himself.

MR ALBERTS: So you did not try to surmise whether the second batch which you gave him, was entirely effective before you drove away from there, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: So why did you give it to him then, if you don't know if it would work or not?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I gave it to him in the hope that it would work.

MR ALBERTS: And then eventually you arrive at the scene where the explosion was to take place?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: How long after you departed from the initial meeting with Goosen and Momberg?

MR PRINSLOO: It is difficult to estimate Chairperson. I would say an hour and a half, two hours probably. It might have been shorter, not very much shorter.

MR ALBERTS: Can you more or less recall what time it was that particular evening when you arrived at the particular scene?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot, it was dark, I did not have a look at my watch, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Was it late at night, early in the morning? A rough estimation Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson I would say it was late evening, before midnight.

MR ALBERTS: Could you please tell us who drove the vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: I drove Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Did you drive?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Where was Goosen in the vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall. Momberg and he were in the vehicle, but I cannot recall where either of them were sitting.

MR ALBERTS: You cannot recall?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR ALBERTS: Where did you stop the vehicle, did you stop on the road, in the bush?

ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, may I please ascertain from Mr Alberts, is he disputing that they took this man to this particular spot and where they stopped and all this detail? Is that in dispute? I don't understand his line of cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Where are you getting us Mr Alberts?

MR ALBERTS: I am merely testing the witness' recollection on the event. We know that his recollection is touchy to say the least, and I am merely eliciting from him under what circumstances they stopped because the cross-examination will show where I am leading to.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: In so far as that is concerned.

CHAIRPERSON: Does his version not accord with the version by your client, Mr Goosen?

MR ALBERTS: Not in every detail on this score.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed, but make sure that you take us to where you want us to be.

MR ALBERTS: As you please Madam Chair.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Alberts, before you continue. I don't know where I lost you, Mr Prinsloo, they drove separately in their vehicle and met with you on the other side of the Kosmos junction, where did they leave their vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: If I recall correctly, it was somewhere in Rustenburg, I am not entirely sure, after which they climbed into my vehicle and we drove further from there on the road that Momberg indicated to me.

MR MALAN: Somewhere in Rustenburg?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes. One has to go through the town.

MR MALAN: Did you drive through Rustenburg to get to the turn-off?

MR PRINSLOO: As far as I can recall, yes, because the vehicle had to be left there, we could not go into the field with two vehicles, it would draw attention.

MR MALAN: Which vehicle did you have to fetch?

MR PRINSLOO: I said we could not drive into the field with two vehicles, because that would draw unnecessary attention to us, because it is an inhabited area.

MR MALAN: Did they leave their vehicle with somebody whom they knew or did they just leave it in the street?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I cannot recall whether we left it at the police station and whether we just parked it in the street.

MR MALAN: Was it not very dangerous to go to a police office where all three of you could be connected to the same incident, was this not more dangerous than Compol?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, nobody knew us there.

MR ALBERTS: As you please Madam Chair. I will leave the previous question there. After you had stopped the vehicle, what immediately ensued after that, what did you do yourself, immediately after you stopped in the veld that evening?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I stopped and I climbed out of the vehicle and I moved to the car's boot to remove Mandla because if I recall correctly, I could imagine that Goosen had a bag or something in his hands, into the bushes which I said, as far as I can recall, was about waist high, which was not far from the vehicle, about 15, 20 metres. I recall that Momberg assisted me to carry this man to the point where Goosen went. I can recall there it was an open piece of land, behind the bushes, where they started connecting these apparatus and Mandla started regaining his consciousness and afterwards I went back to my vehicle and I fetched a spade from the boot, I returned and I struck him the blow to the back of the head, and he fell over and remained motionless. Then the explosives were draped around his hands and in his lap and I walked away to the vehicle. Then Goosen and Momberg joined me and we climbed into the vehicle and we drove off.

MR ALBERTS: All these events took place in the moonlight, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have already said it was, I saw it was close to a railway line, some of the lights from the surrounding residential areas, I did not know the area very well there, and there were some light that illuminated the area there.

MR ALBERTS: Was this a built-up area that the light of that area could not supply sight to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Not as close, but it was quite a way from there, but I recall there were very strong lights there. I don't know whether there were any mines in the area. I do not know the area.

MR ALBERTS: So you don't know how close the closest people were to you?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I had no idea at that stage. What I could observe, it was not close or next to a house, I could not see a house as far as I could see, let's say 100 or 200 metres from there.

MR ALBERTS: But is that not very dangerous and irresponsible of you, you are now busy with a cover-up here, and there could be people relatively close to you?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I depended on Momberg, I accepted that the place was safe there with regard to him. There was an explosion about to take place, and one does not expect to be in the middle of a street.

MR ALBERTS: But Mr Prinsloo, my instruction from Goosen is and I think Momberg will confirm this, was that it was a remote area where you eventually stopped and there was no significant light that had any influence on sight in the immediate vicinity or even the remote vicinity there, it was a very remote place?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, according to my recollection there was light, not natural light, light with which I could see certain things.

MR ALBERTS: Goosen's instruction to me furthermore is that he prepared the explosive device next to the left rear door of the vehicle, he says and the door was open all the time, so that he could amongst others, use the light shining in the interior of the vehicle, so as to see what he was doing on the floor, do you have an argument with that?

MR PRINSLOO: It may be so Chairperson, I cannot recall anything like that.

MR ALBERTS: But now your version is that he was approximately 20 metres away from the car?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, my attention was focused on this Mandla whom I had to remove from the boot and carry to the place.

MR ALBERTS: And Goosen furthermore states and that will be his evidence as well, that you alone had collected Mandla from the boot, it was a lifeless person as far as he could see and you dragged him away, a few metres away from the boot, to the rear of the car. It could have been two or three metres and you removed him from the vehicle, while he and Momberg were setting up the explosive device. Momberg assisted him with this. Can you recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall that, but it could be possible Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, could this be an appropriate time to have a short adjournment. I think this room is very hot and one has to take cognisance of the affect it has on our translators. Maybe if we had a five minute adjournment.

MR ALBERTS: Certainly Madam Chair, I have no problem.

CHAIRPERSON: We will have a five minute adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Can anyone ascertain, Mr Prinsloo's whereabouts? Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, everyone was called in. They were told to be ready within five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Adv Prinsloo is not wearing his watch.

ADV PRINSLOO: I apologise Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you Mr Alberts, you may proceed.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PRINSLOO: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: (continued) Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, before the adjournment, we paused at the scene where the explosion had taken place.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Goosen's version is that after you had dragged the person to the rear of the vehicle, a few metres away, you then made a remark with regard to a fear that you held that he might regain consciousness?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that he might regain consciousness.

MR ALBERTS: Can you recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, the first that I became aware of that I can recall, when he regained consciousness or was semi-conscious was behind the bushes where the explosives were placed into his lap. I cannot recall that I said beforehand that it is my fear that he would regain consciousness. I cannot recall that.

MR ALBERTS: Well, Goosen cannot recall your exact words, but it was something to that extent, but it is clear that you, even on your own version, that you had such a fear. If I understand you correctly you said that he did indeed start moving?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson. This was after the explosives were placed in his lap and around his hands, and I saw that this man was possibly regaining consciousness.

MR ALBERTS: The version of Goosen differs from yours, because he continues and says furthermore that at this time, you removed the spade from the boot of the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I stand with what I have said, I walked to my vehicle and fetched the spade and returned to where Momberg and he were, next to Mbizana.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Alberts, you are saying at this time, maybe you are referring to two different times? The evidence of Mr Prinsloo is after the draping of the explosives and Mr Goosen refers to while he was setting up the explosive device?

MR ALBERTS: That is correct Chairperson, I speak of while Goosen and Momberg were setting up the explosive device, this happened. You commented as I have already put to you and then you appeared with the spade? And you then delivered a few blows with the spade to Mandla's head. Goosen's recollection is that it was more than one, exactly how many he cannot recall, but it was definitely more than one, and if I recall your evidence correctly, you said you delivered a singular blow, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: That is what I can recall Chairperson, I can still recall that I held, I struck him with the sharp edge, not the flat edge of the spade and he became entirely motionless.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, Goosen agrees that it was the sharp edge of the spade and you say you cannot recall, is it not then possible that you may have delivered more than one blow?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, not that I can recall. My best recollection is that I delivered one blow, and it was quite a severe blow.

MR ALBERTS: Afterwards Goosen's version is that he and Momberg, where the person was laying after he was struck on the head by you, they there Goosen and Momberg, there set up the explosive device. The person was laying on his side.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct, that is what I said Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And the explosive device was set up in such a manner that it was limpet mines, do you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, mini-limpet mines.

MR ALBERTS: Mini-limpet mines. And the mines were set up in such a fashion that one was placed on the temple, on his temple as he was laying on his side, and the other one if I recall correctly, it is clear in their statements from Goosen and Momberg's statements, that one was placed in the vicinity of his hip and a third at his feet, at the feet of this person as he was laying on his side, on the top of his body?

MR PRINSLOO: That is possible Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And then there were six of these mini-limpet mines and the others were placed on the opposite sides, below the body, on the under side of the body?

MR PRINSLOO: That is possible Chairperson, I will not argue about that.

MR ALBERTS: And while they were busy placing the explosive devices in these places, Goosen observed that the person had cuts to his skull, there were cuts on his skull?

MR PRINSLOO: Cuts?

MR ALBERTS: Yes, hacking wounds.

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, I don't know what his observation was. As I say, my recollection is that I struck one blow, I would have expected there to be only one cut.

MR ALBERTS: Did you have a look or did you not take the trouble?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, when he lay motionless, Goosen and Momberg became busy with the explosives there and I just stood to one side. Not entirely away from them, but I just stood to one side, so that they could continue with their work.

MR ALBERTS: Their evidence is that this person was entirely motionless, while they were placing these limpet mines? That is Goosen's observations?

MR PRINSLOO: That was my observation too, Chairperson. I don't know whether he was dead or whether he was alive, but unconscious, but he was entirely motionless.

MR ALBERTS: And thereafter you and Momberg climbed into the vehicle, you climbed into the driver's seat, Momberg climbed in left, in front with you. You started moving forward with the vehicle, after Goosen told you that he was ready for the detonation. Can you recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: I would want to imagine something like that Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And then Goosen walked afterwards and at that stage, the left, rear left door was still open and after he detonated the device, he walked and climbed into the vehicle, and you drove to the road?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And the explosion followed?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, when we were a little away from the scene.

MR ALBERTS: So at the end of the day, the version that I have put to you now is in essence different from the version to which you testified, do you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: I would not say in essence, in essence in what sense, I do not understand?

MR ALBERTS: Let us take the position of where the explosion took place relative to the vehicle. On your version it was in the bushes, approximately 20 metres away?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with all respect, I did not say that the explosion took place 20 metres away from the vehicle, I said that that was the point where we draped the explosives over the man. I did not say that the explosion took place 15 to 20 metres away from the vehicle.

MR ALBERTS: The explosion took place where you draped the person, I am speaking of before the explosion, while the vehicle was still parked there, before you drove away, was there a distance of 20 metres between the vehicle and the place where you prepared this body for the explosion?

MR PRINSLOO: That is how I recall it.

MR ALBERTS: That is your evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: And on Goosen's version, it was a few metres, three or four metres, very close.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, that is not how I understood the question, it was put to me that Goosen will allege that I removed the person from the vehicle's boot and dragged him two to three metres to the rear of the vehicle, and there it stopped.

ADV PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, what is the relevance of this finer detail, whether it be four metres or 20 metres. What difference will it make at the end of the day? This person was blown up there?

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, Mr Prinsloo the applicant, I have listened to the questions and you agreed point for point what was put to you, amongst others and I have listened to Mr Prinsloo, your legal representative's objection and the difference is that you with the spade, had struck the deceased before the explosives were draped over him, while on your evidence earlier you said that the explosives were draped and then he started moving, and then you walked back the 20 metres or whatever it may be, to fetch the spade and returned, and delivered the blow and it is the first time, I have to say that it is the first time that I hear of the sharp edge of the spade, but let us say that I did not hear correctly first and foremost when you spoke about it, but you agreed with everything that has been put to you. The question is did they drape him and then he moved and then you fetched the spade?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, and that is how I understood the questions being put to me.

MR MALAN: So you do not dispute what had been put to you? I will leave it at that.

MR ALBERTS: Very well, I will depart from this subject, I will go to the second aspect of the essential difference has been put to you and I will not go through it again with you. Let us just return to the Coke. There is a difference in essence between your version and the version of Goosen with regard to the application of the Coke. Goosen will testify that when you stopped, you stopped under an overhead bridge on the road between, or the road that is known as the road between Brits and Rustenburg, do you recall that? On your version, is that where you met them?

MR PRINSLOO: If my recollection is correct, it was an open road, or was it under an overhead bridge, I am confused somewhat myself, whether it was under an overhead bridge or on the particular road.

MR ALBERTS: And Goosen's version will be, you know that the version right from the start, your version and Goosen's version, right from the start, differs in so far as Goosen testifies that you met Goosen and Momberg at the Compol building and they climbed into the vehicle there, but let us leave it at that.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Now you are on your way to Rustenburg and on that double carriage way between Brits and Rustenburg you stopped under an overhead bridge. It would seem to me as if you cannot recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR ALBERTS: Would that be wrong what Goosen says there?

MR PRINSLOO: No, as I am saying I am somewhat confused myself as to exactly where I met with them and this overhead bridge story, I cannot recall that.

MR ALBERTS: The evidence with regard to that part of the incident is that all three of you climbed out of the vehicle and you opened the boot?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, all that I can recall is where I met with them. When I opened the boot, indeed to see whether Mbizana was still asleep.

MR ALBERTS: After you opened the boot, Goosen says Mandla was in the boot, and he was conscious.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I will stand with what I have said, he was awake but he was not at his full positives.

MR ALBERTS: Goosen's impression was that the man was normal, he could not see that his level of consciousness was affected in any manner?

MR PRINSLOO: That was his observation.

MR ALBERTS: And he says the man had leg irons and handcuffs at the same time?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no he was not fitted with leg irons. I believe I would have recalled that, because I brought him from the farm. He may have possibly been wearing handcuffs, but not leg irons.

MR ALBERTS: Goosen will also further testify that you helped the person out of the boot so that after he was out of the boot, he stood with his back to the rear of the vehicle. The back of his legs were propped up against the vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I can imagine that. The climbing out that I would have assisted him, I cannot recall that.

MR ALBERTS: And at that point in time, you firstly produced a Coke which you gave to Mandla after you removed his handcuffs?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I did give him a Coke there. It was only the one time when I stopped and it was a sealed can of Coke, he had to physically open it.

MR ALBERTS: And he did it himself?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that could be.

MR ALBERTS: And then you gave Coke to the rest, including yourself, and you were all standing around there, drinking Coke.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Mandla finished his Coke first. Goosen says that he observed that you were rushing him to finish the Coke, can you recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot recall that at all.

MR ALBERTS: Would he be incorrect if he testifies that?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I cannot recall that.

MR ALBERTS: Very well. He says this Coke had a very quick affect on the man, he became somewhat dizzy. Can you recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, there was nothing like that, I loaded him back into the boot. I don't know whether we were still standing, smoking, there.

MR ALBERTS: Goosen will say that when you saw, it was clear to all of you that this Coke was affecting the man and that he would collapse, you then pushed him back into the boot of the vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, I cannot recall that at all. If it did happen, I believe that I would have recalled that.

MR ALBERTS: And besides that, you afterwards, after he was placed back into the boot of the vehicle, you took your finger and pressed on his one eye?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR ALBERTS: You probably will not agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: No, I cannot recall that at ll.

MR ALBERTS: And at that point in time already Goosen had the impression that this man was lifeless and it was clear that a very strong, something very strong was given to him.

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall. If it happened like that, I would have had a clear recollection of it Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: So it is only on the strength of the fact that you do not have a clear recollection, that you deny this?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I used the sleeping tablet on the farm, because I wanted to see how long it would take affect, after the first Coke he drank and as it is being put to me there, it was minutes after he drank the Coke, he was lifeless. It cannot be so. I cannot recall it at all.

CHAIRPERSON: You therefore cannot dispute it, Mr Prinsloo. If you cannot recall, you cannot dispute what somebody recalls quite clearly.

MR PRINSLOO: That is what I am saying, I cannot recall that at all Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Do you recall one Sam Moropa?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: The person was also known by the name of Drumsticks?

MR PRINSLOO: Drumsticks, that is correct yes.

MR ALBERTS: He was a member of your unit?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: Do you recall that one day, I am not entirely certain when this was, that you gave him an instruction and told him that he had to fill petrol into a vehicle that you were using?

MR PRINSLOO: I did that several times, Chairperson.

MR ALBERTS: Which he then did and he went to a filling station, and stopped, in execution of this instruction and there at the filling station, he was found.

ADV PRINSLOO: What is the relevancy of this question, Madam Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: I am sure Mr Alberts will soon bring us up to speed as to the relevance of Sam Moropa, in relation to this incident.

MR ALBERTS: I beg your pardon, I put an incorrect statement to you, it was not a commercial filling station, it was indeed at the Sunnyside police station filling station, where he filled petrol, and there he was found, after he drank a Coke which was in your vehicle, do you recall that Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, yes, I can recall something like that. I would just like to correct the facts there, the facts which you are not putting correct here. I sent him to clean the vehicle at Silverton police garage there, and I waited for my vehicle a few hours afterwards, and he did not arrive, and then I think Radio Control contacted me or contacted the office where it appeared that, if I recall correctly, it was somewhere in Pretorius Street, on his way to the office, where he had stopped next to the road and I think the persons who contacted Radio Control, was from a pharmacy and said that this man was ill, there was something amiss. If that is the incident to which you refer to.

MR ALBERTS: I refer to an incident where this Sam Moropa had finished a Coke which he had found in your vehicle, and had immediately lost his consciousness because of what he had drunk from the Coke, the can of Coke which was in your vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I may just continue. Investigation was launched and my vehicle was found there. Moropa was taken then, if I recall correctly, to a hospital close to Atteridgeville where he was taken up for treatment. When he regained consciousness, I know at some stage I asked him what had happened and he said that he went and cleaned the car and during cleaning the car, he found a Coke in the boot of the vehicle, this was at Silverton, and then he drove and in Pretorius Street, he started feeling ill and the doctors then, the doctors who treated him, diagnosed it as an attack of an illness that he had, falling sickness. And then I made the remark that it would teach him not to drink Coke. That was jokingly put to him.

MR ALBERTS: Especially not Coke which was found in your vehicle?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: However that may be, this Coke which Mr Moropa had drunk, one of your members, caused that he spent three months in the Kalafong Hospital until his health returned. MR PRINSLOO: Was this because of the Coke he drank?

MR ALBERTS: Yes, because of the Coke he drank?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, the insinuation is made that the Coke had something in it, and he consumed it and that I am responsible for it. I only know of what I have said here, and what the doctor's feedback was to me, that he had falling down sickness, he had an attack of falling down sickness.

CHAIRPERSON: When did this incident occur? Was this prior to the Mbizana incident or after?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall whether it was before or after the incident, I can really not recall. I think if we check the hospital records, we could get closer to the date.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, can you assist us?

MR ALBERTS: Unfortunately Madam Chair, I don't have accurate instructions as to a date. That I will have to obtain.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it before the Mbizana incident, that is what I want to ascertain? Before or after?

MR ALBERTS: I will establish that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: I cannot give you an answer as I am sitting here.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, you have earlier said that you prepared three cans of Coke. What happened to the third can of Coke?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I cannot recall whether it remained in the vehicle, or whether I had disposed of it. You have to recall, one drives around quite a lot. As I have already described here, because one is operationally active and sometimes one has a beer in the back of the vehicle or a Coke. So it could be that there could have been Coke or beer in the back of the vehicle. I cannot recall whether I disposed of the third can of Coke after the Mbizana explosion incident.

MR MALAN: Is it possible that this third can was the one drunk by Moropa?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, if I could just determine when it was - no, I cannot believe so.

MR MALAN: But Mr Prinsloo, if you do not know where, why could it not be him?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall when this incident took place in respect ...

MR MALAN: If it was afterwards, is it possible that it was that can of Coke?

MR PRINSLOO: It is possible, but very improbable.

MR MALAN: Why would that be improbable?

MR PRINSLOO: I mean I prepared it for a specific purpose.

MR MALAN: But you don't know what happened to it?

MR PRINSLOO: No, with all honesty I cannot say whether it remained in the vehicle or whether I disposed of it.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts?

MR ALBERTS: As you please Madam Chair. Do you recall Mr Prinsloo, that either at the end of November 1996 or early in December 1996, that would be approximately within the last few weeks before the initial amnesty applications' cut-off date, you contacted Mr Goosen one morning and asked him to meet you at the House of Coffees in Pretorius Street, can you recall that?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I know that before the applications were submitted, if I recall correctly, Mr Goosen and I met at the House of Coffees. At that stage, I was attached to the Security Head Office in Pretoria, that is why we met there. That was before the submission of the applications.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, it was just before the cut-off date, which was if I recall correctly - the 14th of December, to be precise?

MR PRINSLOO: In either event, it was before I had submitted my application.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, that would be correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Then I recall something like that.

MR ALBERTS: And is it correct that Mr Goosen also submitted his application?

MR PRINSLOO: I think it was upon Mr Goosen's request that I met him there.

MR ALBERTS: Well, Mr Goosen will testify that it was upon your request. Whatever the case may be, you admit that there was such a meeting?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR ALBERTS: And during that meeting, and it would appear that this was the only purpose with this meeting, at least from your side, it was to discuss this incident, among others, do you recall this, you discussed Mandla?

MR PRINSLOO: No. Chairperson, that is a complete lie. Goosen contacted me, I can recall this now, and he told me that he had information that I had to see him about urgently. Then I went to see him at the House of Coffees. He then told me that Mathebula had apparently stated that he was going to the AG team, that he wanted to open his heart and discuss all these incidents. That was the reason for the meeting between me and Goosen at that stage, nothing else was discussed. It is an absolute lie if he states that Mandla was discussed during that meeting.

MR ALBERTS: My instructions are, Mr Prinsloo, that Goosen prior to this meeting had been in telephonic contact with you, that he had telephoned you and said that Smuts Mathebula was at the AG, do you recall this?

MR PRINSLOO: He did not tell me this over the phone, he told me that he needed to see me urgently and that there were problems, upon which I went to the House of Coffees, we met each other and that is when he told me the story about Mathebula. He did not convey this to me telephonically.

MR ALBERTS: According to his version, he did.

MR PRINSLOO: Then he is lying.

MR ALBERTS: And he also told you that it was his intention to apply for amnesty?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct. He stated that.

MR ALBERTS: And initially with the initial telephone call, your attitude was that you were not interested in an amnesty application with regard to you yourself, was that your initial attitude, yes or no?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, the statement that is being made, is not correct. It was not discussed with me telephonically. I discussed it personally with Goosen.

MR MALAN: Do you wish to respond?

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, I did not respond. All that Goosen told me is that he, Goosen, was going to apply for amnesty and I told him that he was well within his rights, and that he should do as he pleased.

MR ALBERTS: During this meeting, was that the last or the final word on amnesty?

MR PRINSLOO: If I recall correctly, there were one or two other occasions after that, upon which we had contact regarding amnesty.

MR ALBERTS: I am referring to the meeting at the House of Coffees, did you discuss amnesty there, yes or no?

MR PRINSLOO: I have told you what we said at that stage, Goosen contacted me.

MR ALBERTS: Well, Goosen will say that you spoke specifically about amnesty at that stage in time. You changed your initial attitude and then you were also going to apply for amnesty, and you told him that?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, I really cannot recall that. What was discussed there was with regard to Mathebula, what he was doing at that stage, or what he was planning to do, and Goosen spoke of cases, maybe that was what was on his mind, that these were cases where Mandla may have appeared. He told me that he was going to apply for amnesty, I don't know why he said so, because in my opinion, nothing was known about his involvement with Mandla at all.

MR ALBERTS: Can we then accept that Goosen told you that he was going to apply for amnesty, among others for Mandla's incident?

MR PRINSLOO: It may have been discussed, but I told him that he was well within his rights to do exactly what he pleased, I never gave him any indication of what my situation was.

MR MALAN: Would it have been a fair inference on his behalf, that you were not going to apply for amnesty if you said to him "do what you please"?

MR PRINSLOO: That is possible.

MR MALAN: Well, wouldn't that be the logical inference?

MR PRINSLOO: It is possible Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Prinsloo, Mr Goosen's evidence will be that you discussed this very same Mandla incident that we are dealing with now?

MR PRINSLOO: It would have been at a later stage. As far as my recollection goes, this did not take place at the House of Coffees. He had a discussion with me and wanted to know from me whether or not the facts as he had them, were indeed correct. I can recall that after my discussion with Goosen, I established contact with Momberg. I also wanted to know from him what his version of this incident was and then their stories did not correlate, their versions did not correlate at that stage. I cannot recall the precise detail.

MR ALBERTS: Mr Goosen will state that on that day, you proposed to him that you took up position in one camp as it were, with regard to this amnesty application process.

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, I did not trust Goosen to that extent, not in that regard. I definitely did not make such a proposal to him because then I would definitely have recalled it.

MR ALBERTS: Goosen will also testify that in terms thereof, he stated to you that he had already obtained legal representation.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose before you answer, Mr Prinsloo. Is this the continuation of the discussion at the House of Coffees?

MR ALBERTS: It is the same discussion.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR ALBERTS: Yes, this was all part and parcel of the discussion.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I just want to put it clearly that I am referring to the second meeting that I had with Goosen. With the first meeting he told me what he was going to do and I stand by that. I imagine almost that upon the second meeting, when he discussed the Mandla aspect, he mentioned his brother who is also a legal representative, who had advised him to apply for amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: So you are saying Mr Prinsloo, these discussions came out of the second meeting, not the initial meeting?

MR PRINSLOO: Of the legal representation, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And the discussion about the Mandla incident?

MR PRINSLOO: The only reason why he contacted me was to tell me that Mathebula was going to talk. During our first meeting, he referred to the Mandla incident and my remark was "he doesn't know anything about that which would indicate your involvement, so why do you want to go and speak about it", upon the second meeting he again referred to it and said that his brother, who is also an Advocate, had advised him to seek legal representation and to apply for amnesty, and my attitude was the same as with the first meeting.

MR ALBERTS: Goosen will state that he only met you once physically with regard to these matters and that was in the House of Coffees, before your telephonic conversations?

MR PRINSLOO: No, that is not correct.

MR ALBERTS: Furthermore with regard to this application ...

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, before you continue, where did the second meeting take place Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot recall whether it was somewhere in the city or whether it was out of the city, but I do know for a fact that the first meeting took place at the House of Coffees, when he contacted me and told me that he had something of great urgency to discuss with me.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just put one question for purposes of clarity. You concede that at the first meeting with Goosen, which was held at the House of Coffees, the question of Mathebula having gone to the AG, was discussed, and it was the only issue that was discussed that day?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes Chairperson, and then he said "what about the amnesty" and then I asked him "with regard to what" and that was when he referred to Mandla. That is when I said to him, but Mathebula cannot incriminate you because he does not know, but then he said that he felt that he should request amnesty and that is when I said "well, then that is your right to do as you please."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I wasn't clear about that. I think Mr Alberts ...

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, he was speaking within the context of Mathebula.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: with regard to the first meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the issue of the Mandla incident came up during that first meeting.

MR PRINSLOO: He referred to it when I asked him "why"? "Did you do anything with Mathebula that I am not aware of" and then he referred to the Mandla incident. Upon the second meeting, it was once again about the fact that he said that he was definitely going to be applying for amnesty because his brother had advised him as such, I don't know if there was any other legal representative who was involved in this, and I don't know whether it was a gesture on his behalf of him applying for amnesty and therefore I should also apply for amnesty. At that stage, I had already taken my decision regarding what I was going to do.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Alberts.

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, Goosen will also testify that during this meeting, when the Mandla incident was discussed, you said to him with regard to the content of this incident, that if application were to be made for amnesty, then he should state in his application, that Momberg and he and you had rendezvous with one another on the other side of the dam, the Hartebeespoort dam, that this was where the rendezvous had taken place. What is your comment?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, it was never discussed in detail at that stage. All I know regarding the discussion about the incident was that it was not discussed with Goosen, this was when I discussed it with Momberg, and I asked him what was his recollection of the event. That was when he referred to the blow with the spade among others.

MR ALBERTS: Furthermore Goosen will testify that you also proposed to him on that day during that discussion, that silence be maintained regarding the Coke which you had administered to Mandla as well as the blow to the head with the spade?

MR PRINSLOO: No Chairperson, that is not so. He is lying if he says that.

MR ALBERTS: And then finally just to conclude this subject, Goosen will also testify that automatically after this meeting with you, he went back to the Advocates' Chambers and in particular to my chamber, and that later that same day, in terms of the nature of the discussion that he had held with you, he immediately established contact with Momberg and that they had met with each other on that very same day, furthermore it appeared that on that day, you had also spoken to Momberg?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, not as far as I can recall. If I recall correctly, I struggled to get hold of Momberg. I think that he was working at a security company at that stage, I tried to get hold of him. The statement that you have put to me is possible, but I cannot comment on it.

MR ALBERTS: Then finally Mr Prinsloo, I would just like to put it to you that in as far as it has to do with the essential discrepancies between your version and Goosen's version, you are patently insincere with this Committee, that you have adjusted your version?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, no, I will stand by what I have stated. I know for a fact that Goosen and Momberg caucused very closely with each other, they stated this to me as well, that they were going to handle their applications jointly. I believe that the one may have supplemented the other. That is my perception of it.

MR ALBERTS: Well then, just with regard to this thought, you stated that they caucused closely?

MR PRINSLOO: I have stated that that is my perception.

ADV PRINSLOO: With respect Chairperson, he does not say that they are caucusing closely with each other currently, but that this was the case when they made their applications.

MR MALAN: Well, I don't think this will take us any further, because it is common knowledge that applicants have visited the same legal representatives together, which appears to be the case.

MR ALBERTS: There is just one thing that I wish to make clear Mr Prinsloo, concerning this perception perhaps, and that is that on the day that Goosen saw you, on the day that this discussion took place in the House of Coffees, at that stage, he had not communicated with Momberg whatsoever, with regard to this application, and that they had no discussion regarding the incident.

MR PRINSLOO: I cannot comment on that, I do not know.

MR ALBERTS: Goosen's evidence will be that it was as a result of the meeting with you, that he went to the trouble of contacting Momberg?

MR PRINSLOO: That may be so. I don't know what he did.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all Mr Alberts?

MR ALBERTS: Thank you Madam Chair, I have no further questions. Thank you Mr Prinsloo.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Botha?

MR BOTHA: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed to put questions to Mr Prinsloo, may we establish if you are going to be longer than 30 minutes, because we have somehow sought the indulgence of our translators who are doing a very difficult job in having to concentrate on what they are doing, and it is a little difficult for them to so do at this late hour. They have granted us the indulgence to proceed to translate for us until five o'clock.

MR BOTHA: Madam Chair, I appreciate the work they do, but I think I will be more than 20 minutes, then it is five o'clock, now, I will most certainly be longer than that.

CHAIRPERSON: You will be longer than that?

MR BOTHA: For sure, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Botha, who knows, we might be lucky and you may conclude your cross-examination by five o'clock.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BOTHA: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Prinsloo, may I ask you this with regard to your evidence, that two vehicles were used to drive to Rustenburg, firstly, the Coke which was administered next to the road to Mandla and the fact that you struck him with the sharp side of a spade at the site where he was blown up, why did you not mention these aspects in your application?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I think that I did mention this in my application.

MR BOTHA: No Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: I stated that I had met them next to the road on a predetermined place, so they had to have arrived there in a vehicle. Let me just find my statement.

MR MALAN: Mr Botha, it appears in paragraph 6 that they were to meet one another on the Rustenburg road, it is clear that they cannot meet with one another if they are all travelling in the same vehicle?

MR BOTHA: That is true Chairperson, but he does not state that two vehicles were used to travel to Rustenburg and thereafter only one vehicle was used.

MR MALAN: Yes, but it is impossible to meet in one place without arriving there separately and in separate vehicles.

MR BOTHA: I would leave it at that. Then the aspect of the fact that you administered Coke to Mandla next to the side of the road, the Coke that contained a tranquilliser or a sedative, why did you not mention this?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I have referred to that on page 340, the final paragraph which must be read in conjunction with the fact that I again gave him a Coke there. I met them there and I once again gave him a Coke there.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Botha, Mr Prinsloo, I have also pointed this out to you previously. The chronology of these paragraphs have not been set out very well, paragraph 7 refers to the meeting, paragraph 6 says Cronje told you to meet them, paragraph 7 says that you took sleeping tablets on the farm, that you ground these tablets and mixed them with a cold drink which you gave to Mandla and then paragraph 8 sketches the rendezvous and at paragraph 9, was that you did not have a specific place.

MR PRINSLOO: I did not mention this in my application, I have given verbal evidence about that here.

MR BOTHA: On the contrary, it would appear from your evidence that you administered spiked Coke to him twice?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR BOTHA: But that is not clear from your application?

MR PRINSLOO: Correct.

MR BOTHA: The question then is why?

MR PRINSLOO: Perhaps it is an oversight on my behalf Chairperson.

MR BOTHA: And the sharp end of the spade?

MR PRINSLOO: I stated that I hit him with the spade.

MR BOTHA: The sharp end of the spade, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, it is a relative concept, flat side or sharp side, that is why I said that I struck him with the spade. It is just here that I clarified this in my verbal evidence.

MR BOTHA: Very well. Mr Prinsloo, if I understand your evidence correctly, at a stage in the process of your interrogation of Mandla, you realised that there was nothing further to be done with him, you could not turn him and you could not trust him, is that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOTHA: And according to your evidence, when you went to speak to Brig Cronje, you realised or suggested that the only thing to do with Mandla, was to eliminate him?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: Very well. Why didn't you just shoot him or strangle him and then bury him?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I simply felt that I was in a situation from which I could proceed no further, that is why I went to Brig Cronje, he was my Divisional Commander, and I discussed the matter with him. What ensued, is on record, I have given evidence about it. At that stage, it was so, I am sure that one could very easily have disposed of the person, I am sure I could have.

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct, that is the question, I want to know why he simply wasn't shot or easily killed and buried somewhere, why was it necessary to blow him up?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I believe that it was Brig Cronje's decision with regard to the explosion. I accept that if he wanted it to take place in another manner, he would have stated that to me.

MR BOTHA: Wasn't the idea to destroy his identity completely?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that was the chief objective.

MR BOTHA: Well, then why didn't you respond as such?

MR PRINSLOO: But the person could also have been burnt, and then nothing would remain of his identity as well. I simply discussed it with Brig Cronje and stated that the person had to be eliminated following my suggestion and with regard to me, he had to make the decision and the easiest way to dispose of the man, was to blow up his body, and that is how Goosen and Momberg entered the picture.

MR BOTHA: Messrs Momberg and Goosen were in Unit A?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOTHA: With regard to Mandla, they had nothing to do with his interrogation?

MR PRINSLOO: No.

MR BOTHA: Nothing to do with the investigation either?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: They didn't even know about the existence of such a person?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. Up to the point when they were informed about him.

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct. And if I have it correctly Momberg at that stage was a Lieutenant and Goosen was a Sergeant and you a Captain?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, I was senior to them.

MR BOTHA: So anything that you told them, they had to accept?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is how things functioned in the Security Branch?

MR BOTHA: You could have told them anything about the reason why this person had to be eliminated or was eliminated, and they had to accept it as such because they had no independent knowledge of this?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: As I understand the matter, Momberg and Goosen was simply used by C-Section in order to get rid of the identity of the body?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, under the order of Brig Cronje.

MR BOTHA: You were not very clear regarding this point. When you had the meeting with Momberg and Goosen in your office, can you just tell me whether or not you spelt it out for them whether or not the person was still alive or whether he was already dead? The person who was to be blown up?

MR PRINSLOO: I informed them briefly regarding the circumstances of the person who had to be eliminated. I did not refer to a corpse at that stage, I believe that I referred to a living person.

MR BOTHA: A living person?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, at that stage, the man was still alive.

MR BOTHA: If I read your statement correctly, you informed them about Mandla's circumstances only when you met on the other side of Hartebeespoort dam, isn't that correct?

MR PRINSLOO: No. As far as I recall, the first meeting after Brig Cronje informed me that they would assist me and that I could discuss the matter with them, and that I contacted them, and briefly informed them regarding the circumstances of the person that I wished to eliminate.

MR BOTHA: On page 341, paragraph 8 of your affidavit you state

"... just on the other side of the Hartebeespoort dam on the Rustenburg Road, I met Lt Momberg and Sgt Goosen where they were waiting for me. I briefly informed them regarding the circumstances of Mandla."

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct. At that stage, with the submission of my statement, the facts were not put in the correct chronological order, I corrected this via my verbal evidence. This was actually in the office.

MR BOTHA: In the office?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOTHA: Now let us examine the probabilities. If you told Goosen and Momberg that the person was still alive, that there would necessarily be a discussion regarding how to immobilise him so that he could be blown up with explosives?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I believe that the Security Branch accepted certain things as given, so I was not aware of how much detail Brig Cronje had given them. The fact that they had basic knowledge of the assistance that they were to give to me, according to that, I sketched the circumstances to them of who the person was, what he had been involved in and that was our discussion. Nothing was discussed regarding how the person would first be immobilised. I simply accepted that that would be my duty. Their task was simply to obtain explosives and to cause an explosion by means of which the body of the man would be destroyed.

MR BOTHA: Mr Prinsloo, my instructions from Momberg are that he was called to your office where he found Goosen as well, and the only thing which was discussed during this meeting in your office, in the Compol building, was that you asked them whether or not they were ready for the operation.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I briefly told them again, if I recall correctly, I asked them whether Brig Cronje had told them what it was about and I briefly repeated the information regarding Mandla, so that they knew where they stood. If I recall correctly, I doubt whether at that stage, anything was discussed about mini-limpet mines or where and with what sort of explosives the man's body would be destroyed.

MR BOTHA: Would you then deny the knowledge if Momberg were to testify that you simply asked them whether or not they were ready for the operation and that you would see them there that evening?

MR PRINSLOO: No, my version is that I briefly informed them.

MR BOTHA: Momberg also informs me that if he was in any way aware that the person who had to be exploded, was still alive, he would have wanted to know in which way he would immobilise the person first, because it is impossible to blow up a living person.

MR PRINSLOO: It is obvious, it was not discussed there and if it had been discussed there, as it is presented, I believe then that I would have asked for their suggestions. I would have attempted to exchange ideas with them.

MR BOTHA: Precisely Mr Prinsloo, that is my point. Would you then agree that at that stage, in your office, they were under the impression that they were supposed to destroy the identify of a body only?

MR PRINSLOO: If I study their statements in the light of the questions which are put to me, it is possible that it may be the perception or the impression that they had at that stage, if Brig Cronje had told them that they were supposed to get rid of a body. It was never discussed, whether it was a body or not, I approached the situation as if the person was still alive. I never mentioned anything about a corpse.

MR BOTHA: At a stage earlier today, you mentioned something about a body which had to be disposed of.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, the person or the body had to be disposed of.

MR BOTHA: Are you referring to, when you refer to a person, are you referring to the body that had to be disposed of?

MR PRINSLOO: In this particular case, yes.

MR BOTHA: In this particular case with regard to Mandla, did you refer to a body?

MR PRINSLOO: I said to get rid of Mandla. The concept remains the same in my opinion, in terms of the Security Branch. Then I would also have referred to the corpse or the body.

MR BOTHA: Earlier today someone in the Committee put something to you with regard to a body which had to be disposed of.

ADV PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, with regard to this point, I would just like to say that I think it was Mr Malan who referred to a body. Those were his words, but the witness used the word person as I recall it. We can listen to the record, but according to my notes, in all fairness, reference was made to a person and not a body.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson in both references I referred to a living person, I had not yet referred to a corpse at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: If I recall Mr Prinsloo, throughout you have been saying you never referred to a corpse, but you referred to a person having to be disposed of?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct.

MR BOTHA: Are you then saying now that mention was never made of a body when it came to Momberg and Goosen?

MR PRINSLOO: What I am saying is that a corpse was never referred to.

MR BOTHA: I think we are talking passed each other.

MR PRINSLOO: I referred to Mandla. I briefly informed them who the person was, what they were getting involved with and that they were to assist me in disposing of him. Whether I used the word person or whether I used the name of the person, both words indicated the same thing to me.

MR MALAN: I don't think it is necessary to examine this aspect any further, it is quite clear to me that Mr Prinsloo told us that he cannot recall whether or not he specifically brought it to their attention that the person was alive, he does not present that to us, that is where the discussion of the concept of the body ensued. It is common cause that Mr Prinsloo did not expect of them to kill somebody, he regarded that aspect as his own task or at least to immobilise the person. At times I believed that he conceded that it was his task to kill the person and all they had to do, was to blow up the body of the person who was either immobilised or dead. I don't see the question of expedient examination regarding this, because it is quite clear from his evidence, that is the picture and I don't think it really bothers anyone of us.

MR BOTHA: Thank you Chairperson, I will leave it at that. Might I just ask you Mr Prinsloo, why was Mandla smuggled out of the Compol building in a trunk?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, during my cross-examination I mentioned this upon a question which was put by a member of the panel, it was during the day and I wanted to get him out of the offices secretively so that nobody would see that this man was leaving the offices with us again. That is why I put him in the trunk. I told him this. At that stage there was an understanding between the both of us, which was quite good. I told him that I didn't want anybody else to see him leaving the building and the trunk was my solution to the problem in order to get passed the security guard. If I referred to security guards, these were not members of the Security Branch, these were uniformed persons, other guards who were guarding the entrance of the building. The idea was to get him passed those guards. They saw a trunk moving through the doorway, but they didn't know what was inside.

MR BOTHA: But he was taken into the building openly?

MR PRINSLOO: On the previous evening, yes. There were many people who entered the building.

MR MALAN: Mr Botha, I don't wish to interrupt you unnecessarily, but we are now asking questions about credibility which do not directly affect the applicant or the version of the applicant. Is it necessary to elaborate on this?

MR BOTHA: The point is that my client maintains that he was picked up at Compol building.

MR MALAN: Well, that doesn't really matter. I think that everybody understands that he was on the farm and that at a certain stage, according to your client, he must have returned to Compol. There can be no suggestion that he spent the entire week or eight days in the Compol building, I think it is common cause that he was on the farm.

MR BOTHA: I accept that Chairperson, however Momberg's version is that when they went out that evening to blow up the body, they were picked up at Compol and not by the side of the road.

MR MALAN: But there is no version regarding the loading of the person, he didn't even know about the person, because the person was in the boot? It is really not necessary to elaborate on this.

MR BOTHA: As it pleases you Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Botha, were you not simply testing his credibility, not in relation to whether the body had already been loaded onto the trunk at Compol or not? When you were putting that question to Mr Prinsloo, was it not done on the basis of testing his credibility generally?

MR BOTHA: Yes, Madam Chair, specifically in relation to the fact that Mr Prinsloo testified that it was too risky to go back to Compol, that is why he is saying my client is lying, that they did not meet at the Compol building.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BOTHA: It is in relation to that credibility that I put that question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR BOTHA: But I leave it there Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You are happy to leave it at that?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I leave it at that. Madam Chair, I see it is five o'clock, will it be an appropriate time to adjourn until tomorrow?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will adjourn until tomorrow morning at half past nine.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS