Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

SWEARING IN OF MR VAN DYK AND BEGINNING OF EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT NOT RECORDED

MR VAN DYK: ... given to me at Vlakplaas before we departed - to use the old term, to the Eastern Transvaal, where we on average went out for three weeks to a month and we went to the Eastern Transvaal on this occasion. Before our departure he informed me that there was a certain person, Jameson Mngomezulu, who lived in the Golel are in Swaziland and that I had to go and fetch this person for further questioning.

MS VAN DER WALT: If you speak of fetching him, you speak of abduction?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, we had to abduct him for purposes of interrogation, to the RSA. The reason for this was that some time before this there was a shooting incident between Ulundi and Nongoma, where a Lt van Vuuren of the former Security Branch Vryheid was killed during a shooting incident by ANC members who came from Swaziland to the RSA.

MS VAN DER WALT: And were other reasons also forwarded?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, there were many other reasons forwarded. According to information he was a former operative of the PAC and when the PAC was disallowed in Swaziland, he then liaised with the ANC. And all the years he was involved in the assistance of infiltration of insurgents to the RSA, he knew all the routes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know where he lived?

MR VAN DYK: Yes. During visits to Swaziland, if we knew where certain person were or had knowledge of, we went to these places to see if we could observe something.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then take certain members of Vlakplaas along?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct. It was Aubrey Mgade, Joe Koole, Almond Nofomela, Mbelo. I'm not entirely certain whether there were other people along. I also went through to Swaziland.

MS VAN DER WALT: I see you mention on page 87, paragraph 2, a certain Moss.

MS VAN DER WALT: No, I think I am mistaken there, I confused him with Piet Mogoai.

MS VAN DER WALT: You then went to Eastern Transvaal.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where exactly?

MR VAN DYK: We first went to Piet Retief where we had a place there where we accommodated ourselves. We did not go there to execute this operation, we drove around to see whether the place was fine, that we could launch an operation from there. And then once on a certain evening I told the members let us go. I informed them what it was about, but before that they did not know what this operation was about, or that there was to be an operation because Col de Kock informed me at Vlakplaas. We did not inform the other members, we were afraid that there might be some leakage.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then on one particular evening you went in.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, we went into Golel. We went close to Mngomezulu's premises where we stopped the vehicle. Nofomela, I, Koole and the other men then left and some time afterwards they brought this man back.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you remain at the vehicle?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, we remained at the vehicle so that if other problems arose we could be of assistance, because we could not leave the vehicle alone, one never knew what could happen.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when the other members arrived at the vehicle with Mr Mngomezulu, was he visibly assaulted or do you not know?

MR VAN DYK: It was dark but I could deduce because we were not very far from them and from the sounds that I heard, he was definitely assaulted. It did not bother me at that stage, the major point was to get him out at that stage.

We then returned to Golel border post. Just before Golel border post there is a road that turns off away to the right from the border post, we stopped there and told the other members to drop off this person and the other persons next to the fence, so that they do not move through the border post. ...(end of side A of tape)

... through the border post and Mgade drove the minibus through the ...

MS VAN DER WALT: And on the other side of the border?

MR VAN DYK: On the other side of the border we then waited for these people and we took the man and we returned to Piet Retief.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened at Piet Retief?

MR VAN DYK: At Piet Retief we started interrogating the man, primarily about when he last infiltrated people, what routes were used, were they armed, their descriptions, are they known, in which areas are they known and amongst others, persons who were involved during the shooting incident in Ulundi where two person of the ANC were also killed, whether they knew those persons and that these persons were with him and that he had helped infiltrate these persons into the country.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who undertook the interrogation there?

MR VAN DYK: It was primarily - I was present and just about all the black members were present. I think the whole lot of us questioned him.

MS VAN DER WALT: At that stage, was Mr Pienaar present?

MR VAN DYK: No, he was still not present then.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did Mr Pienaar later join you?

MR VAN DYK: I contacted him later and requested him to join us because the areas adjacent to the Swaziland border and Swaziland itself, they had more information and it was easier for them to question this person, or to give detail as to what we can question this person about.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because one needs information to question a person, is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And how long did you remain there just outside Piet Retief, or do you not know?

MR VAN DYK: It was quite some time ago, but as far as I can recall we were only there that night and the following day. I'm not certain whether I contacted Pienaar that evening or the following morning, but that afternoon I contacted Lt Schoon at Josini and he had much more knowledge and information about this person's activities.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes?

MR VAN DYK: We then moved down in the direction of Josini and we went to a farm close to Leeupoort. There was an old house and we met along the road and he led us to the this house, and that is where the interrogation continued.

MS VAN DER WALT: This Mr Beeslaar, where does he fit into this whole operation?

MR VAN DYK: As far as I recall, right from the start he went to Piet Retief.

MS VAN DER WALT: With you?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was the purpose of him accompanying you?

MR VAN DYK: As Col Gene has testified, sometimes there was a shortage of certain members and then we used some of the other people who were available.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the primary reason as to why you went to Leeupoort, was what?

MR VAN DYK: It was in Lt Schoon's area and we continued the questioning there.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the incident to which you refer, the shooting incident, was also in his area.

MR VAN DYK: No, it was not specifically in Gert Schoon's area.

MS VAN DER WALT: But it was in Northern Natal.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, it was in Northern Natal.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what happened at the farm there?

MR VAN DYK: We interrogated the person further, and during interrogation he was assaulted. He did supply information, but it was information that had to be followed up at a later stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: By whom was he assaulted? You say that during interrogation he was assaulted, by whom?

MR VAN DYK: By amongst others, myself.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do?

MR VAN DYK: I smacked him a few times and I assaulted him as usual, but I did not manhandle him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you present when he was assaulted by other members?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I was present and I saw what the other members did during my presence, but at some instance I had to go to Middelburg. I cannot recall during what part of the interrogation this was. I cannot recall why, but I had to travel to Middelburg and I returned later. But during my presence there, the man was interrogated in the normal fashion.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when you later went back, did you then go back to Mr Mngomezulu?

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what was his condition then?

MR VAN DYK: I could see that he was severely assaulted, because all indications he had not supplied all the information that we wanted and we continued.

MS VAN DER WALT: Although he was in such a condition?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You say that he was severely assaulted, can you tell the Committee why you say so.

MR VAN DYK: If I looked at the marks on his face and to his body, I could see that he had injuries.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. And what did you do then?

MR VAN DYK: I think it was the following day, after we arrived at Leeupoort ...(intervention)

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon, was this after you returned from Middelburg?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, this was after I returned from Middelburg. ... we decided that because at a stage, as far as I can recall, Lt Schoon also spoke to the man and attempted to recruit him as a source.

MS VAN DER WALT: Lt Schoon will be able to testify about that.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, he will.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then, what did you do then?

MR VAN DYK: At a stage when we saw that this man's condition was not good, we decided to take him away. We then picked him up and we drove to Josini and we took further decisions there as to what to do with this man.

MS VAN DER WALT: You mention in your application, I will just point it out to you, that you would have taken him back to the Swaziland border.

MR VAN DYK: We thought of it and speculated about it and discussed it for the simple reason that we thought that if there was any possibility to take him back to Swaziland and to infiltrate him back, if his condition would allow it, we would on the Ingwavuma side which was his area, he was well known to all the people there, there were small villages next to the fence, he could reach people easily, we could have done so.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then?

MR VAN DYK: But at Josini - we went along with Gert Schoon to Josini to find out at the office whether they did not have any other messages or whether there were any messages which were urgent or of import and there at Josini we looked at the man again.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where was he exactly?

MR VAN DYK: He was in the back of the vehicle and it appeared to me as if the man was dead.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then investigate further?

MR VAN DYK: I looked at him and I told Gert and Freek, Freek Pienaar, we all three had a look at the man and according to all three of us the man was dead.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then?

MR VAN DYK: We then decided, because Gert had explosives there, the three of us took a joint decision that we will destroy the corpse by means of explosives, so that no fingers could be pointed at us.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then?

MR VAN DYK: We then departed and on our way we met Beeslaar and another person, I cannot recall who it was. They had to wait for us at the fork that goes to Ingwavuma and the other road goes down to Sodwana. We met them at the fork. We did not tell them what the condition and the position was of the person.

MS VAN DER WALT: You say they had to wait at a certain point, was this when you first went to determine whether there were any messages?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: On page 88 of your application you say that you went to Mr Schoon's house to find out whether there were any messages, but now you have referred to an office.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, the office and his house were next to each other.

MS VAN DER WALT: So the persons did not drive with you?

MR VAN DYK: No, they did not.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you went back and you met them again.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, we met at that fork and we then drove down to Sodwana.

MS VAN DER WALT: And was Mr Mngomezulu still on the back of the bakkie?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And where did you go then?

MR VAN DYK: At Sodwana beach we turned right. I don't know how long we drove for. It was already dark. We found a suitable place, the tide was out, and there we blew him up.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened to Mr Beeslaar?

MR VAN DYK: We left them behind at some point with the other vehicle.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why?

MR VAN DYK: It was only myself, Gert Schoon and Freek Pienaar.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you leave him behind?

MR VAN DYK: I did not want to involve him in this story.

MS VAN DER WALT: So the less people who see this ...(intervention)

MR VAN DYK: ... the better. I would also like to say that initially we also thought that it would have placed us in a better position if the man was not so severely assaulted, so that we could release him. He could not point fingers because most of the time he was blindfolded. He could not point out the persons who questioned him.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you say then he was destroyed by means of explosives.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who handled the explosives?

MR VAN DYK: Let us all three of us.

MS VAN DER WALT: But Mr Schoon is the explosives expert?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you then return to the point where Mr Beeslaar was?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, thereafter we returned and we spent the evening on the beach and the following day we drove to a place where we destroyed the corpse and there was nothing, everything was clean, and we then departed back to Josini.

MS VAN DER WALT: The point where you left Mr Beeslaar to the point where you destroyed the corpse with explosives, was it quite a long way?

MR VAN DYK: It was quite a long way, I would guesstimate a kilometre to two kilometres.

MS VAN DER WALT: And that part of the beach, was it open to the public during that time?

MR VAN DYK: No, it was not open to the public.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was it exactly?

MR VAN DYK: It was this missile range that's just next to this beach area, it's an old missile range that the airforce had used.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you then - after the operation was concluded, did you report back to anyone?

MR VAN DYK: After the operation, I cannot recall if I contacted Col de Kock by telephone, but one usually does not convey such messages over the telephone. And after my return I told him things were concluded and I did not inform him in detail as to what happened.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you have heard Mr de Kock's evidence that such an operation, the final arrangements are made by you and you decide what exactly had to be done.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have also heard what Mr de Kock submitted in his evidence of the political objective with regard to the elimination of this person. Do you concur?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I agree. If I may elaborate, at that stage we were in a state of war, if the man was an enemy - I will use the English word, if he was "committed" to the struggle, he could expect anything and the same could have happened to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard of the assault or method of assault that Mr de Kock testified to, about the barbed wire that was used. He also testified that he knows that somebody told this to him, with regard to Mr Mogoai, and he said he does not know whether it was you or Mr Beeslaar. Do you have any knowledge of this incident?

MR VAN DYK: I don't know of this incident, not in my presence.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you convey such a message to Mr de Kock?

MR VAN DYK: No, but I suspect it could have been Gert Beeslaar.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you receive any reward for the abduction or the destruction of the corpse, with regard to Mr Mngomezulu?

MR VAN DYK: No, only my monthly salary.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did you have any ill feelings towards Mr Mngomezulu?

MR VAN DYK: No, it as not a matter of ill feelings, it was about the government who impressed on us that if the ANC took over there would be a communist government and I believed this. According to them I would lose my job. For me, for any person that was in that position, he would do his work even if it was such an unconventional method that was used.

MS VAN DER WALT: And during the year of 1986 the terrorist attacks increased tremendously.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, it did.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you then request this Honourable Committee to grant amnesty to you for any offence which might flow from the abduction and the death of Mr Mngomezulu, as well as any delictual accountability.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr Hattingh, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Mr van Dyk?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr van Dyk, the interrogation that took place in Piet Retief took place in your presence.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you say during that interrogation this person was assaulted.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: How severe was the assault at that stage?

MR VAN DYK: Several methods were used during interrogation with a wet bag ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr van Dyk, it was not asked to you what is usually done, it was asked what you did there? Please listen to the question and answer pointedly.

MR VAN DYK: As I've said, a wet bag was placed over his face, it was removed, he was questioned, he was assaulted, bare fist, with the feet. There was a case that I can recall where a stick was used.

MR MALAN: Was he struck with the stick?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, he was struck over his back.

MR HATTINGH: He was struck over his back?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, over his back.

MR HATTINGH: And when you departed for Middelburg, was Mr Mngomezulu still at Piet Retief?

MR VAN DYK: I am not certain whether he was at Piet Retief, I think it was when we were already at Leeupoort, that I went to Middelburg. I was gone for a few hours.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. When you departed for Middelburg, what was his condition, Mr Mngomezulu's condition?

MR VAN DYK: If I say he was assaulted, but not so serious that he could freely move about. I would not say tremendously serious.

MR HATTINGH: Was he still conscious?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, he was.

MR HATTINGH: I could not hear the answer there.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, he was still conscious.

MR HATTINGH: And when you returned from your visit to Middelburg, what was his condition then?

MR VAN DYK: He was still conscious, in the same condition more-or-less.

MR HATTINGH: Did he at some stage lose consciousness?

MR VAN DYK: According to my knowledge, the next day, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Can you say what led to him becoming unconscious?

MR VAN DYK: It is possible that it was because of the continuous interrogation, because he did not have much sleep. The men worked in groups.

MR HATTINGH: Were any blows struck to his head which might have led to him being rendered unconscious?

MR VAN DYK: It is possible. There are cases where I myself at some stage, I cannot recall what it was, whether it was wood or rubber that I struck him at the back of the head with.

MR HATTINGH: Can you please tell us, Mr van Dyk, from the time that you arrived at Piet Retief with him, up to the time you departed from Leeupoort with the apparent objective of returning him to Swaziland, how much time had elapsed since then?

MR VAN DYK: I would say more-or-less three days.

MR HATTINGH: And was he continuously during this period of three days, was he questioned?

MR VAN DYK: No, Chairperson, he did have time to rest.

MR HATTINGH: Were you continuously present during interrogation or were there times when you left the place where he was assaulted?

MR VAN DYK: I was not continually present, there were other case that I also had to deal with and I was not present all the time.

MR HATTINGH: So despite the time when you departed for Middelburg, there were also other times when you were not in the presence of Mr Mngomezulu when he was assaulted.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, as far as I can recall, for brief periods.

MR HATTINGH: Would you bear with me a moment please, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Did any of the members who were involved in the interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu, did any of them mention to you that Mr de Kock had arrived there while you were not there?

MR VAN DYK: No, at no stage. I am convinced that he was not there, otherwise someone would have told me.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Beeslaar, did he remain behind when you left for Middelburg?

MR VAN DYK: That's correct, he remained at the scene.

MR HATTINGH: He remained there.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, he did.

MR HATTINGH: He also did not report to you that Mr de Kock had been there?

MR VAN DYK: Mr de Kock would not have left before he saw me, usually he would stay until he saw everybody.

MR HATTINGH: And you were the Commander of the whole operation?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, we have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr Swart?

MR SWART: No questions, Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR SWART

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams?

MR WILLIAMS: I've got no questions, Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR WILLIAMS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr van Dyk, on page 87, the third paragraph - I beg your pardon, the second paragraph, you have mentioned who the members were that abducted Mngomezulu from Swaziland. There you refer to Nofomela, Mgade and Moss.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And in your evidence you said that - may I just ask you, who was Moss?

MR VAN DYK: Moss was a member of Vlakplaas, he is long deceased, but the thing is I confused him there because they had the same build and it was so long ago that I thought it was Moss, but Moss is deceased now. I contradicted myself there.

MR LAMEY: But Moss was not deceased at that time, he was still alive then.

MR VAN DYK: I think so, I'm not entirely certain.

MR LAMEY: Are you certain it is correct to substitute the name of Moss with Mogoai, it could not have been Moses Nzimande?

MR VAN DYK: No, there were other people there, but they remained at the base because Nzimande was familiar with the area. He knew the area quite well and as far as I can recall he was also present.

MR LAMEY: But what I mean, the confusion with reference to Moss and Moses Nzimande, could you not have confused those two instead of Mogoai?

MR VAN DYK: "Dit is moontlik, ek is nie seker nie. Maar soos ek sê, Moss is ek seker van was nie saam nie."

MR LAMEY: My instructions from Mr Mogoai is that later he arrived with Beeslaar at Piet Retief where Mngomezulu was later brought to, he was not with the group that had abducted him from Swaziland. Would you concede if that is his evidence?

MR VAN DYK: As far as I know he was not in Swaziland, but he definitely departed from Vlakplaas to Piet Retief along with us.

MR LAMEY: Are you certain of that?

MR VAN DYK: Let us I am 80% certain about that, I cannot - because it's such a long time ago.

MR LAMEY: Yes, it was a long time ago, you are also not entirely certain about that. Could it be that he arrived there with Beeslaar?

MR VAN DYK: But I cannot see how they arrived there later because they all left at the same time. If he was not from Vlakplaas he would not have accompanied us.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to refer you that Beeslaar - I don't know what he will testify, but according to his statement he does not mention Mogoai, but on page 137 he says that he went to Piet Retief to go to an informer there and later he arrived where the unit was housed, and from the context of his statement it would appear to me that he arrived there and then later, after he arrived there, the man was brought in there to be interrogated. So it would appear it is not his statement that he was along with the group with the abduction.

MR VAN DYK: No, he was not there, I was there.

MR LAMEY: But it would appear that he later arrived at the "section". The "section" would refer to Vlakplaas.

MR VAN DYK: The Vlakplaas section, yes. But Beeslaar would not have accompanied us if he did not have a passport with fictional names, because in this instance one would use a passport with false names. That is the only reason I can think of now as to why he would not have accompanied us to Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: Because according to his statement the impression that I get there is that he did not depart with the Vlakplaas group to the area, he later arrived there.

MR VAN DYK: I would not deny that, but he was deployed with the group, but there must have been a reason why he left later.

MR LAMEY: Beeslaar was more an administrative official at Vlakplaas, he was not one of the recognised operatives.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct, but he regularly went out along with the other groups.

MR LAMEY: But he was not primarily tasked with this type of abduction, his task was primarily administrative in nature.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: You were the group leader of this group.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Did Beeslaar ever mention to you that during his presence a method was used by using the barbed wire and putting it up the urethra of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR VAN DYK: No, I don't know.

MR LAMEY: If something like that happened, would they have mentioned it to you?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, but I cannot recall it.

MR LAMEY: You know what barbed wire looks like.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you think it's possible to push this up a person's urethra?

MR MALAN: Please Mr Lamey, that is an unnecessary question, he's not an expert witness and everybody says they have never heard of it.

MR LAMEY: Very well. But the point is, if it had happened and Beeslaar saw it or knew of it or any of the other members, Pienaar or Schoon, would that have been mentioned to you?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I believe it would have been mentioned to me, but I do not know of any such incident.

MR LAMEY: Did you at any stage after you were at Josini, before you took Mngomezulu away from there, was there any bleeding around the private parts of Mr Mngomezulu? Did you observe any bleeding?

MR VAN DYK: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, is Mr de Kock's evidence not that it was either Beeslaar or even Mr van Dyk who reported this gruesome method of torture to him? You put it to Mr van Dyk as if Mr Beeslaar is the only person who Mr de Kock suggested might have been involved in advising him about this incident.

MR LAMEY: Yes, indeed Chairperson, Mr de Kock mentioned Mr van Dyk or Beeslaar. Mr van Dyk's evidence as far as I understand it, is that he did not report such a thing to van Dyk, so other possibility according to de Kock's evidence, could have been that of Beeslaar and that's why my examination surrounds Mr van Dyk being the group leader and the probability that such a thing, if it was out of line and totally unusual thing, that he would in all probability, have mentioned it to van Dyk. That is now against the background of the evidence of de Kock, as far as such a method was totally out of line of the usual methods.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I'm sure you've exhausted that point.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you.

Mr van Dyk, with regard to the questioning, Mr Mogoai says that Mngomezulu was also questioned about his connections with the PAC. Did you see that in his statement?

MR VAN DYK: I did not read his statement, but previously he had been a PAC member. According to what I heard he was trained by the PAC in Libya or somewhere up there, but after the Swazi Government had kicked out the PAC from Swaziland, he worked along with the ANC.

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, he does not say that he was also PAC, he says he was a PAC member, but I think you can leave it there in light of the previous evidence with regard to his membership of previous times.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, wasn't your question whether he was questioned, whether Mr Mngomezulu was questioned about his PAC activities. Was that not your question?

MR LAMEY: Yes, that is so.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, you may respond to that question.

MR VAN DYK: He was also active in the PAC as well as the ANC, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But was he questioned about his PAC activities during his interrogation?

MR VAN DYK: He was questioned about PAC, whether there were any of them that were working underground in Swaziland and if some of them were being infiltrated to the RSA.

MR LAMEY: And then with regard to this aspect, you have heard that both Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai place Mr de Kock at the scene during interrogation and the assault. This aspect, are you entirely certain that Mr de Kock was not there? Could it not be that because of - I beg your pardon, I shall put it as follows. This was a type of cross-border operation where a man was abducted and questioned and there was a specific request channelled, also the instruction which was verified in this instance by Brig Schoon. Is it not, despite the fact that you were the group leader and we had the previous evidence that Mr de Kock, with such a task, Mr de Kock would have arrived there at some stage? Is it not possible that you may forgotten this aspect and that he had indeed been there, as Mr Koole and Mr Mogoai say?

MR VAN DYK: Firstly, I could say no specific day or date was attached to this operation. Mr de Kock was definitely not there. If he was there, he would have said so, he would not deny it. There is no reason for him to deny it. He was busy with other tasks, otherwise he would definitely have arrived there, that is for certain. Something else might have occupied him. But he did not arrive there, he was not present and he did not participate in this.

MR LAMEY: Are you certain of this?

MR VAN DYK: Entirely certain, yes.

MR LAMEY: You as a group leader, when you were deployed in some area, did you not from time to time report to Mr de Kock?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, we did this, sometimes on a daily basis. If it was not possible, then at a suitable time, but usually on a daily basis we reported to him.

MR LAMEY: And in this regard you had a specific instruction that this man be abducted. Did you not at any stage contact him and tell him listen, we have abducted this man and we will now interrogate him? That was an important instruction with regard to this deployment.

MR VAN DYK: But we did not speak of this over the telephone.

MR LAMEY: I did not say over the telephone, you could have contacted him.

MR VAN DYK: There was no other contact except for telephonically.

MR LAMEY: Do you have no recollection that you gave Mr de Kock feedback during this period that you had this man?

MR VAN DYK: I could have telephonically in some manner, have made him understand that the operation was concluded or something.

MR LAMEY: Or ongoing.

MR VAN DYK: Or ongoing.

MR LAMEY: But in a such a manner Mr de Kock would have know that you had the person.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, he would have known, but he did not come there.

MR LAMEY: May I just check my notes, Chairperson, I think I'm through.

And then one last thing. Is it correct that after the interrogation, after the conclusion of the interrogation and the man had been severely assaulted, the black members were requested to leave the area, leave the Josini area.

MR VAN DYK: At the same time when we moved to Josini, I gave instructions to the other persons to return to Piet Retief.

MR LAMEY: So the black members did not know that the man was blown up or what happened afterwards to him, after they had left there?

MR VAN DYK: There was no necessity for me to discuss it with them, they had rendered their assistance and they were no longer needed.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr van Dyk, insofar as it has regard to Mr Pienaar, you came from head office and you had command over him in that sense, by calling him to assist you.

MR VAN DYK: I don't know. I differ there for the simple reason that Mr Pienaar was the Commander of his area, I was from head office, Gert Schoon was a Commander in his area. I did request their assistance, but I did not have command of over them. In this case we could say that for this specific period that this operation was ongoing and they assisted me, I would have been their Commander, but otherwise not at all.

MR PRINSLOO: So as a Warrant Officer, he was your subordinate and you were a Lieutenant.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And because of the fact that you are from head office and this was a request, this could be interpreted by him that this came from a Commander.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to Mr Schoon, he was not tasked with the abduction of this person.

MR VAN DYK: No, he was not. I contacted him from Piet Retief and told him that we were on our way to his area, if he could meet us there. We met along the road and that is where we went to Leeupoort.

MR PRINSLOO: And this was after the deceased had already been abducted and interrogated.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And this is when he became involved.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to the assault, Mr van Dyk, did you consider it a possibility that this detention and assault could lead to the death of this person?

MR VAN DYK: That is always a possibility. Anything could go wrong during something like this, the possibility did exist.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you, Madam Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo. May this will be an appropriate time to take a lunch adjournment for 45 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

PAUL JAKOBUS VAN DYK: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, do you have any - Mr Prinsloo, have you concluded?

MR PRINSLOO: I've finished, thank you Madam Chair. It's Mr Nel's turn.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel, do you have any questions to put to Mr van Dyk?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you, Madam Chair, very briefly.

Mr van Dyk, my statement and question is built around the statements which I have read in the bundle of Mr Mogoai, Mr Koole and Mr Mbelo, and it would seem from their statements that not one of them mentions the fact that Mr Mgade was involved, my client, Mgade, was involved in the assault of Mr Mngomezulu. The question I would like to put to you is that you said that just about everyone assaulted the man. Is it possible that you may be mistaken with regard to Mr Mgade, because he denies assaulting the person?

MR VAN DYK: I have to concede I may be mistaken. He was part of the group and I cannot say specifically that this person did this and this person did that.

MR NEL: And with the actual abduction, would you confirm that he was left with the minibus and according to Mr Koole's statement, he was not involved in the actual abduction and assault during the abduction?

MR VAN DYK: That's correct, we went through with two vehicles, I was with one vehicle, he was with the other vehicle.

MR NEL: Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Mr van Dyk, you were the leader of the group, is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

MR KGASI: And that the specific instructions that were given to you by Mr de Kock, was to abduct the deceased and bring him into the Republic of South Africa for interrogation, is that so?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct.

MR KGASI: So tell me, prior to this operation, did you know where the deceased lived?

MR VAN DYK: Are you speaking of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR KGASI: Yes.

MR VAN DYK: From time to time we passed the place, but I would not say I knew exactly which specific hut he lived him, but I knew which village.

MR KGASI: Was there any reconnaissance that was done in that village just to ascertain whether indeed he is a former operative, I mean he was an operative of the PAC or an ANC, and as to where he lived?

MR VAN DYK: Please repeat that.

MR KGASI: The question was, in order to determine whether he is a PAC or an ANC operative and where he lived, was any reconnaissance done around that area to determine the truth of the information that you had in your hand, in order to carry out this operation?

MR VAN DYK: No, we did not specifically concentrate on this person earlier before we received the instruction to fetch this person from Swaziland. The persons who dealt with information and managed sources, would have had that information I believe. But the information that I had, the core stories was that he was earlier a PAC member and after the PAC was kicked out of Swaziland, he joined the ANC. I would not say he was an enrolled member, but he was of assistance to them.

MR KGASI: As the group leader, were you fully briefed on the nature of your operation and the methods to be used to carry out the operation?

MR VAN DYK: My instruction at Vlakplaas was to go, we had to fetch this man, there were no specific dates given. It was not specifically prescribed what methods I had to use, I had to follow my own head and that is what I did and at a specific time we went in along with the people. It was not specifically told to me, you have to do this and that, I had to follow my own head.

MR KGASI: And the other members of your group, when did they know about this operation?

MR VAN DYK: The other members of the group, the day when we left for this operation we went in the evening and it could have been during the morning or the afternoon that I informed them.

MR KGASI: Okay let's move a little bit further to the interrogation session. You have testified that you only smacked him a few times and that during your presence he was interrogated in the normal or the usual manner, is that so?

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MR KGASI: And that when you came from Middelburg, you found him severely assaulted, is that so?

MR VAN DYK: When I came from Middelburg as far as I know, I'm not saying that I am correct there, the man was already at Leeupoort. This is in the Natal area, we were not at Piet Retief any longer, and the man was seriously assaulted. It was not play, I have to concede here. If one interrogates a person, you're looking for information as quickly as possible, there is an urgency, one has to obtain information to follow it up, so he was seriously assaulted.

MR KGASI: You have further testified that there were times for example, when you went to Middelburg, which I take it that by then you left him with other members of your team. Now in your absence, who was in charge?

MR VAN DYK: The time when I was away, Mr Pienaar was there and as far as I know, Lt Schoon. I am not entirely certain, but that is as far as I know.

MR KGASI: Do you think that they can shed more light into this severe assaults that you witnessed when you came back?

CHAIRPERSON: He wouldn't know, would he? Before you answer that. Mr Kgasi, isn't that a question that you should put to Mr Schoon and Mr Pienaar, if you think they will be in a position to shed more light? Don't ask him to speculate.

MR KGASI: Madam Chairperson, I would retract that question. My apologies.

You have further testified that you took him to Josini after you realised that he was not well, is that so?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, we then already decided to cease the interrogation.

MR KGASI: Now if I understood you correctly, the purpose of you going to Josini was to check whether there are any messages.

MR VAN DYK: Amongst others, yes, whether there were any messages and also, would it be possible to speak further to this man in this condition, because we wanted to negotiate whether he would be an informer for us. And at Josini we wanted to do the same, we wanted to get him to one side where the other members were not present. It does not help if one recruits a source and everybody knows of him.

MR KGASI: Alright.

CHAIRPERSON: May I make a follow-up.

I want to hear you explicitly on this question, Mr van Dyk. So there was another reason why you had to go to Mr Schoon's house, and this was to enable the three of you to further interrogate Mr Mngomezulu, without the presence of the other members.

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, the purpose was to hear whether there were any messages which had to be followed up at Lt Schoon's house. And amongst others, if his condition would allow it, to speak to him in a very proper manner to find out if he was willing to cooperate with us.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you define as a proper manner?

MR VAN DYK: To speak to him without assaulting him.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that not capable of being done at Josini?

MR VAN DYK: One could probably have at Josini or at Piet Retief, but if one looks for information and it is urgent, world-wide assault is used and pressure is placed on him to supply the information.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Kgasi.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Chairperson.

Do I understand you correctly, Mr van Dyk, that you did not try to recruit him at Leeupoort or at Piet Retief or Moolman, this you wanted to do after you took him away?

MR VAN DYK: No, Chairperson, I think at Leeupoort, as far as I know, Lt Schoon knew the Swazi language quite well and we spoke to him and at some stage he spoke to this person to see if this person would not cooperate, but with all the persons around him we decided to take him through to Josini and the other people would return to Piet Retief and then it would be easier to speak to this man, if his condition allows it.

MR MALAN: Are you entirely certain that Lt Schoon tried to recruit him at Leeupoort or are you just thinking it could be so?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, it was at Leeupoort, it started at Leeupoort, where he spoke to him the first time.

MR MALAN: He spoke to him very nicely without assaulting him?

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MR MALAN: So why did you think that you could remove him and if you speak to him nicely he would say yes?

MR VAN DYK: It works in that way in many cases. I would say during talks and stories that I have heard, that persons whom one worked with were seriously assaulted and later they did good work. But we tried our best, we wanted to see if there was any way in which we could recruit him.

MR MALAN: You do not have this experience yourself, you say this is talk and stories that you have heard.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, if one goes around, from many people one hears that somebody recruited a very good source in this manner. I've read books ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You don't have to tell me about those books. But you do not have such experience yourself?

MR VAN DYK: No, I did not.

MR MALAN: But you decided to do it here.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, we decided to try.

MR MALAN: Was this your proposal?

MR VAN DYK: I would not say so, I would say it was - as far as I can recall, it was Mr Schoon's idea.

MR MALAN: And you took him specifically because you wanted to recruit him.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is why we moved him to Josini, because we wanted to get the other people away from him.

MR MALAN: You did not move him away to go and release him at the border?

MR VAN DYK: That was the primary objective, if he would go along.

MR MALAN: Are you saying that if he did not cooperate you would not release him?

MR VAN DYK: I think we would have followed the same road, but unfortunately he died. Otherwise we would not have released him.

MR MALAN: But now I don't understand what you are saying to us. At that stage you did not have a plan to release him when you went to Josini.

MR VAN DYK: Firstly we spoke to him and if he agreed to become a source ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Then you would have released him.

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MR MALAN: So when you drove away with him from Leeupoort, you had no plans of releasing him.

MR VAN DYK: Not at that stage, no. We wanted to negotiate with him and then we would decide.

MR MALAN: So at no stage did you have any plans of releasing him, you would have just kept it in the back of your mind if he became a source.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, if he became a source.

MR MALAN: So why did you not tell this to us in your statement? In your statement you tell us a different story. In your statement you say that from Leeupoort you took him away to release him at the border. Period. In fact all three of you say this.

MR VAN DYK: I beg your pardon, is ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Is that mistake?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that's a mistake, the purpose was to take him for negotiations.

MR MALAN: And if he did not agree, then you would kill him.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, then we would have removed him.

MR MALAN: You don't have any possible explanation why you did not tell this to us right from the beginning.

MR VAN DYK: There's probably some things that one keeps inside and one does not tell immediately. And in the case of these statements it is sometimes so that there are things that one does not want to hear and to see.

MR MALAN: And then one builds a story.

MR VAN DYK: No, I did not build a story.

MR MALAN: Is this not a story you constructed by saying you drove away with him because you wanted to release him?

MR VAN DYK: No, the story is the truth, we drove with him and if he agreed then we would have released him.

MR MALAN: But unfortunately that is not what you said. Mr Kgasi, you may continue.

ADV MOTATA: No, before you do, Mr Kgasi. May I come in, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may.

ADV MOTATA: But when you removed him from Leeupoort and ...(indistinct) Josini, the man was already badly beaten and that's when you had made a decision to leave him at the border and dispose of him somewhere, but unfortunately you found him dead. Now how could you expect to talk to a man when you left the place where he was interrogated finally, and in a bad position, and say you could subsequently be spoken to nicely?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, he was severely assaulted. His condition was bad when we left the place there at Leeupoort, but it was a chance. The idea was - it would have placed less pressure on myself as a person if he co-operated, we could release him as opposed to removing him. That was what was in the back of my mind. It was not a matter of just killing him and getting it over with. If there was another possibility, I would have followed that possibility. I did not just want to go and follow one path.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm a little confused, Mr van Dyk, with your evidence. I thought in your evidence-in-chief you stated that Lt Schoon had attempted to turn Mr Mngomezulu as a source and at a later stage you all realised that the interrogation was becoming fruitless because you were not getting any information from him and he had not been turned by Lt Schoon, and you then decided that he had to be returned to Swaziland, whilst you were at Leeupoort farm. This is my impression of your evidence-in-chief. Now what really troubles me now is, at what stage and where did you decide that you had to take him to Josini for purposes of talking to him nicely, with a view of turning him? Because at that stage in your evidence-in-chief, you conceded that he had been severely assaulted and Lt Schoon had attempted to recruit him as a source and had failed.

MR VAN DYK: I would say it was after Lt Schoon spoke to him and he also mentioned that the man was no longer answering or thinking rationally, this is now Mr Mngomezulu. And what we discussed there was "let us remove him from the other persons, we would go to Josini and see what we reach with this man". That was the primary purpose.

CHAIRPERSON: So the primary purpose of taking him away from Leeupoort to Josini was not to enable him to be returned to Swaziland, it was to further conduct some kind of interrogation or another, with the emphasis of turning him, notwithstanding the fact that Lt Schoon had attempted to turn him and had failed.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct, Chairperson, that is why I say we had a look to see if there was any possibility that this man's condition was such that we could return him. And as I have said, was his situation or his condition not so haggard that we could place him back to Swaziland, he would have followed the other road.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Malan.

MR MALAN: I don't know if I should do this later or right now but just to follow up, in your evidence you said, in your evidence-in-chief, that - or it might have been under cross-examination from someone else - in any event, that you could place back because he was blindfolded, there was no risk to the other members that he could identify any of the other members and that is why you decided to return him. That was your positive evidence.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson. But on the other hand, if we would have left a person there that was deceased, what impression would that create? It could only point fingers back to us.

MR MALAN: That's right, but could it not point even more fingers back to you when you left a man there that was still alive?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, unfortunately we had no other choice ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: That's correct, Mr van Dyk, and now you're telling us that he was so severely assaulted that you could not release him.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct. There at Josini when we realised it, it was too late.

MR MALAN: So you never had any plan of releasing him then, you never had any plan to release him, there was no decision taken to that effect.

MR VAN DYK: No, amongst ourselves, that was our decision. If there was an opportunity, if this man's condition allowed it, we would take him to an uncontrolled area that was his area and we would have left him there.

MR MALAN: "If his condition allowed it", would include that his condition should be that of an source, an informer. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MR MALAN: Not his physical condition.

MR VAN DYK: No, not his physical condition.

MR MALAN: But you have just he was so severely assaulted, you could not leave him.

MR VAN DYK: No, we could not release him. That is why I said, when we arrived at Josini and I looked under the tarpaulin ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: And with that you are saying that he was so severely assaulted, you were actually on your way to kill him and getting rid of his corpse, with a possibility that somewhere along the way he would wake up and agree to become a source and he would not be blown up then.

MR VAN DYK: No, I cannot agree with that. The primary purpose was - I mean, in my position it was only a matter of "is there a possibility or is there not a possibility" and if there's no possibility I would not even consider it.

MR MALAN: But on his physical condition you could not release him, so you had to eliminate him because of his physical condition.

MR VAN DYK: No, it's possible that sometimes the physical condition is such that he looks as if he's entirely gone and then he recuperates again later ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: No, we are speaking of the severity of the assault, not the fact that he was unconscious.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I agree, he was severely assaulted.

MR MALAN: What did the marks and bruises look like?

MR VAN DYK: He had injuries. As I have said, he had head injuries.

MR MALAN: What type of injuries?

MR VAN DYK: These were welts and open places and his lips and his lips and his eyes ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: These were all open wounds.

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Kgasi.

MR KGASI: Mr van Dyk, at what stage of the operation did you report to Mr de Kock?

MR VAN DYK: I am not entirely convinced - as I have said I would not discuss the matter over the telephone with him, and whether it was when we had returned to the farm after our three weeks that we were deployed, or whether it was at some other place. I would imagine that it was at the time when we returned to the farm. But as I have said - the question was put earlier to me, I could have given him a hint over the telephone that the operation had been completed.

MR KGASI: If I gather clearly, what you are saying is you do not recall whether you have reported to Mr de Kock during the course of the operation, but you are hinting that you might have reported to him afterwards.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MR KGASI: Alright. When you reported to him, I would take afterwards, did you specifically mention to him that Mr Mngomezulu has died?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I mentioned to him that the operation had been concluded and unfortunately the man had died and we had to get rid of his corpse. I did not give him any detail of what had happened there.

MR KGASI: So you did not report to him on the severity of the assault.

MR VAN DYK: No, by nature of the situation, as far as I can recall I did not say anything about the assault. It was quite some time ago, I cannot recall entirely. What I do recall is, usually in such a matter one reports only the basics, one does not go into detail.

MR KGASI: Okay. Mr van Dyk, earlier on you denied knowledge of other gruesome means of interrogation. You have testified that whatever severe assaults that took place, it happened in your absence, am I correct?

MR VAN DYK: No, in my presence and in my absence. At times I had to see to other things and in that case assaults could have taken place that I do not know of.

MR KGASI: Now Mr van Dyk, to you, what constitutes normal or usual methods of interrogation?

MR VAN DYK: There are several methods, as I have mentioned earlier. A bag over his head, a wet bag, and then this man cannot breathe anymore, there are cases where he would be struck over the back with a stick. It was a rubber baton or a wooden baton that he was struck over the head with. So that is basically that. There was physically nothing else that we did.

MR KGASI: The method of interrogation that was explained earlier, that was administered by Mr Mogoai ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You mean torture, Mr Kgasi.

MR KGASI: Torture. I'm sorry, Madam Chairperson.

... that method of torture, insertion of barbed wire into a person's urethra, do you consider it a normal torture method?

CHAIRPERSON: Is there something called "a normal torture"? Can we put a definition of ...

MR KGASI: I would rephrase it to say an acceptable torture method.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Won't you just find out then, lay a basis for your question. Find out if there were any accepted methods of torture that were practised by his operatives.

MR KGASI: Mr van Dyk, I would in that case repeat the question that has been put to me by Madam Chairperson, that to you or the members of your team, were there any methods of torture that were considered acceptable at Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DYK: No, as I have said, as we interrogated him, it was the usual assault with a baton, with a bag. There was no specific prescription or rules of torture. That is basically what we used. There were no other things that I can now recall that we used otherwise, other than that what I have mentioned. - other methods.

MR KGASI: Now back to that method of inserting a barbed wire into a person's urethra, do you consider it a usual method of torture?

CHAIRPERSON: What's the relevance of that question, Mr Kgasi?

MR KGASI: Madam Chairperson, I am trying to establish or to find out whether they did not exceed their mandate here, which was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: His evidence is that he doesn't know of that method having being used.

MR KGASI: I'll retract that question in that case, Madam.

Now Mr van Dyk, when you drove to - it was your testimony earlier that from Josini you took explosives and resolved to destroy the body. Is that so?

MR VAN DYK: That's correct, yes.

MR KGASI: Now when you got to Sodwana at that missile base, who actually took part in the demolition of this body?

MR VAN DYK: It was myself, Lt Schoon and Freek Pienaar, just the three of us.

MR KGASI: Further to that, Mr van Dyk, if the family of the victim would request you to take them to that scene, can you do so?

MR VAN DYK: I do not know the area and I would not be able to point out anymore unfortunately. I only visited that place once and it was during the evening.

MR MALAN: Did you not say that you were there twice? You said you went there the following day to see if it was clean.

MR VAN DYK: I mean we were there once and we went back the following morning to see if it was clean.

MR MALAN: So you went back.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, it was at the scene, it was about a kilometre from there.

CHAIRPERSON: But if that is so, what should - Mr van Dyk, I don't understand your response to Mr Kgasi's question. If you were there on the day of the detonation and you then went the next day to investigate, why should it be so difficult for you to try and recollect the precise place where the explosions took place?

MR VAN DYK: We went there during the night, it was dark and after the story we slept about two kilometres from there and then the following we went back to see. It was the first time that I arrived there, so I do not believe that I will find it. We can go anytime, but I doubt whether I would be able to find the place again. It was low tide at that stage, so the sea could have been high up. But I am prepared to go there anytime to see if I can find the place.

MR KGASI: Now tell me, Mr van Dyk, do you know ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR KGASI: I'm sorry. Mr van Dyk, tell me, what happened to the deceased's personal effects, like clothing, anything that belonged to him?

MR VAN DYK: I am not certain, but I think we destroyed it along with him, as far as I can recall. Or we burnt it, I am not entirely certain. I cannot recall.

MR KGASI: Mr van Dyk, what was Mr de Kock's reaction when you told him that the operation is completed?

MR VAN DYK: He said it was an order and what briefly was discussed was, what information did we gleam, was it successful and unfortunately I had to tell him that it was not successful because this man did not disclose everything to us, he did not speak of everything that we wanted to know about.

MR KGASI: One last question, Mr van Dyk. What do you say to the fact that Mr de Kock, or rather that other applicants have placed Mr de Kock at the scene of the interrogation and that he in his earlier testimony has denied that?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi, what do you expect him to say? He, on his version Mr de Kock wasn't there. You can't speculate about ...(intervention)

MR KGASI: Perhaps, ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I just finish, or maybe I should listen to you.

MR KGASI: You may finish, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't expect him to speculate about what other people are saying in placing Mr de Kock at the scene when he and Mr de Kock say that Mr de Kock wasn't present.

MR KGASI: Madam Chairperson, I would retract the question in that light. Perhaps I might have missed a point where he made, where he testified that he did not see Mr de Kock at that scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, his evidence has been quite explicit and very clear, that as far as he recollects the facts, Mr de Kock was not present at all. And he has gone on to further state that had Mr de Kock been present, he definitely would have known about it because he was the one who was in command of the operation and Mr de Kock would not have been around the scene of this incident without touching base with him and making contacting with him.

MR KGASI: Thank you for bringing that to my attention, Madam Chairperson. I would retract that question. I have no further questions for Mr van Dyk.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KGASI

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, no questions, thanks.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Mr van Dyk, you have listened to Mr de Kock's evidence when he said that he was contacted by Schoon, who asked him to abduct this person.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, I heard that evidence.

MR MALAN: Did you have knowledge thereof, that the question came from Schoon?

MR VAN DYK: No, it was not conveyed to me that it came directly from Schoon. I contacted Schoon later, so whether I knew at that stage or not, I don't know.

MR MALAN: What was your instruction?

MR VAN DYK: My instruction was to - the instruction that Col de Kock gave to me was this incident which took place between Nongoma and Ulundi, where a member was shot, this man was involved there, we have to fetch him and according to information he was a - how can I put it, according to information he was one of the old hands who still helped with the infiltration of people and weapons into the RSA, fetch him and see what information we can obtain from him. But it sounded to me - the primary reason was Lt van Vuuren who was killed between Ulundi and Nongoma.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, I didn't hear your last words here.

MR VAN DYK: It appeared to me as if the matter which took place between Ulundi and Nongoma, where Lt van Vuuren was shot, was one of the primary reasons why we had to fetch this man and this man was an old hand who had for many years helped with infiltrations.

MR MALAN: Was anything else told to you, what to do when you could not obtain information?

MR VAN DYK: I had to deal with it myself and take decisions myself.

MR MALAN: Was it specifically told to you as such?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, it was.

MR MALAN: And what did you think, did that mean you could kill him if you want to?

MR VAN DYK: If the opportunity arises and I had no choice, I had to do it.

MR MALAN: You have heard Mr de Kock's evidence that the placing back of a person after serious assault would have caused an international incident, also after an abduction or cross-border operation.

MR VAN DYK: That is so, yes.

MR MALAN: And you say that you contacted Schoon out of your own volition.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, that is correct, I contacted him from Piet Retief.

MR MALAN: And he never told you that he asked de Kock?

MR VAN DYK: I didn't discuss it with him. We did not discuss that.

MR MALAN: So according on your understanding of the situation, de Kock somewhere - if we take his evidence into consideration, somewhere in reports he saw that this man was an old hand and he just decided out of his own to tell you to abduct this man. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR VAN DYK: No, Chairperson, I don't think he would have taken such a decision on his own. There had to be somebody who directed such a request otherwise he would not have done it.

MR MALAN: Where would such a request have come from?

MR VAN DYK: It could have come from Northern Natal or from head office, I don't know.

MR MALAN: You have heard that Mr de Kock says that he gave you instructions "abduct the man and deliver him".

MR VAN DYK: What do you mean "deliver him"?

MR MALAN: Deliver him to the people who want him abducted, they want to interrogate him. He referred to Schoon.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, he said that the person who worked in that area, such as Schoon and Freek Pienaar, are people persons who were better conversed in the information ...(intervention) ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR MALAN: So you knew you had to abduct him and then deliver him to these people.

MR VAN DYK: That was a normal action of ours.

MR MALAN: So that's what I ask you. You knew he was correct when he says Schoon wanted him and you had to deliver him.

MR VAN DYK: If you put it as such, that is how I have it.

MR MALAN: Very well. And you have also said in answer to a question, that with regard to the black members, the reason why they did not accompany you to Josini was because they had rendered their services.

MR VAN DYK: As far as I was concerned, they were done with the interrogation, I did not want them to work any further with this man because at that stage his condition was so bad that it was not necessary. As Lt Schoon said, because he also spoke to the man, he said the man cannot think or speak rationally anymore. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR MALAN: And you did not want the black members to see he was to be eliminated.

MR VAN DYK: Once again, I did not want to involve them, that's correct.

MR MALAN: And you say the deceased was blindfolded.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, we blindfolded him so that he could not see the faces.

MR MALAN: When did you blindfold him?

MR VAN DYK: The time when we fetched him in Swaziland.

MR MALAN: After he arrived at the minibus?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I would say at the minibus.

MR MALAN: So he would have known who his abductors were, because they did not blindfold him while they abducted him.

MR VAN DYK: No, but it was very dark, he could not have seen any faces.

MR MALAN: How did they identify him if he could not identify them?

MR VAN DYK: Well they knew exactly which hut to go to and they found him there.

MR MALAN: He was then blindfolded and brought to the minibus.

MR VAN DYK: I cannot speculate about it, but I think as far as I can recall he could have been blindfolded at his hut, I don't know.

MR MALAN: And he was continually blindfolded.

MR VAN DYK: I don't know whether persons removed his blindfold at times.

MR MALAN: What type of blindfold was it?

MR VAN DYK: It was normal fabric cloth.

MR MALAN: Over his nose and eyes?

MR VAN DYK: No, his nose was open and it was tied at the back.

MR MALAN: And he could never see anything in the entire time that he was there?

MR VAN DYK: Not as far as I can recall.

MR MALAN: You say he had injuries to his face, you say he had a cut below his eye, how did you see that when the blindfold was still on?

MR VAN DYK: One could see blood filtering through, one could see injuries. And there times where a person looks at him because he was half in a coma ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: So you did not see any injuries to his face, wounds to his face?

MR VAN DYK: Well there was blood on his face and there had to be a wound because there was blood. That is what I accepted. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR MALAN: But you did not see a mark, you saw blood on the cloth. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR VAN DYK: No, at Josini itself I could see.

MR MALAN: So why did you remove the blindfold?

MR VAN DYK: Because he was lying motionless.

MR MALAN: So you removed the blindfold.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, and I saw that he had many injuries.

MR MALAN: And you left the blindfold off, you didn't blindfold him again. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR VAN DYK: Well there was no purpose in blindfolding him thereafter.

MR MALAN: Very well. Where did Gert Schoon get the explosives from? Did he have it in his car?

MR VAN DYK: He removed it from his office somewhere.

MR MALAN: Did you not drive to the office to fetch the explosives, Mr van Dyk?

MR VAN DYK: No, the first idea was to see whether there were any messages and then to possibly speak to this person, but the purpose was not to go directly and pick up the explosives.

MR MALAN: Did he first try and find out whether there were messages, or did you first try to speak to the man?

MR VAN DYK: He went to look for messages and during that time I looked at the man and when he returned I told him there was a problem and then we had a look and then we made a decision as to what we should do.

MR MALAN: And then?

MR VAN DYK: We fetched the explosives.

MR MALAN: From where?

MR VAN DYK: From his office.

MR MALAN: And you say you never went to his house.

MR VAN DYK: No, I didn't go into his house.

MR MALAN: What type of explosives did you use?

MR VAN DYK: It was plastic explosives.

MR MALAN: Do you know how much you used?

MR VAN DYK: No, I have no idea. I was not trained in explosives at that time, I had no idea how much there was.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr van Dyk, the purpose for him to be blindfolded was that he shouldn't recognise you people, but could any other person recognise him? Whilst he could not recognise you who were torturing him, could the members of your squad recognise him?

MR VAN DYK: He was fetched from Swaziland - I don't understand the question.

ADV MOTATA: No, no, I said if say one of your members - and I'll be fair to you in this instance, Mgade says at one stage when he was asked to interpret, he recognised Mngomezulu because he knew him well around the area of Josini.

MR VAN DYK: Yes, there was one person who knew him quite well, that was Moses Nzimande. He was helped by Mngomezulu to infiltrate the RSA before he was arrested. So he knew Mngomezulu very well.

ADV MOTATA: Mgade, did he work in the Josini area before he was transferred to Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DYK: No, from the time he was arrested he went directly to Vlakplaas.

ADV MOTATA: I'm reading - have you had an opportunity to read his affidavit? That is of Mzuzu Aubrey Mgade?

MR VAN DYK: I had a look at his statement but I did not read it completely.

ADV MOTATA: He says on page 19 of that statement, paragraph 36

"I was however on one occasion called in to assist with the interpretational problems. It was only then that I noticed that the arrested person was indeed Mngomezulu. I recognised Mngomezulu. As indicated herein before, I was previously employed in Josini area and the Mngomezulu faction fighting between those who wanted to form part of Swaziland and those who wanted to form part of South Africa, was well known to me."

That's what Mgade is saying.

MR VAN DYK: There's some confusion here. I speak of Moses Nzimande who knew him, not Mgade. I'm somewhat confused here. No, Mgade knew this person because he went along when we picked him up and before we left from there I told him that this man would be fetched. So he knew who this person was.

ADV MOTATA: Now was this the information you had other than that he assisted in the infiltration, that he was also involved in the then dispute between the Swazis around Piet Retief and Swaziland, that they wanted that Piet Retief be incorporated into Swaziland, since people in the vicinity of Piet Retief were mainly Swazi speaking? Did you know this information or you just knew the information about his assistance to ANC members, or that he was previously a PAC member?

MR VAN DYK: The only information - information which you refer to, I did not know of that, we did not go in-depth there. The primary objective was about people he head infiltrated with firearms, who were these people, where did they go to and information surrounding that, that was of import to us in order to trace those people in the RSA.

ADV MOTATA: You see I find difficulty here, like Mr Malan has asked you, that Schoon knew more of this man and that in this operation Schoon was present. What information was known to Schoon or this was never discussed?

MR VAN DYK: You should ask Schoon, he will be able to answer that. But we went along with the story as to what information did he have, who did he infiltrate, what sort of weapons and what can he tell us, any information which would be of import to us, in the RSA. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

ADV MOTATA: You are the leader of this operation, you were the leader of that operation, wasn't it so?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

ADV MOTATA: And Schoon was your underling, because you were the leader there.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct, yes.

ADV MOTATA: And you knew from the orders you got from Mr de Kock, that Schoon possessed information which was in the knowledge of Schoon.

MR VAN DYK: Usually we involved every region. Let us say in this instance, Eastern Transvaal and Northern Natal, because those people know more than we from head office do because it was in his area, and that is why we had to involve those people. I could not interrogate him if I did not have the real background to everything. Schoon worked many years in that area, he knew exactly how this man's infiltrations worked.

ADV MOTATA: Who was the chief interrogator there, between you and Schoon?

MR VAN DYK: No, Schoon - when he started questioning, he said that the man was no longer clear in his answers, but he would be the chief interrogator.

ADV MOTATA: Even though you were his leader or Commander under the circumstances.

MR VAN DYK: In that case it is not in regard to the Commander, it's about who knows the most and who can undertake the questioning.

ADV MOTATA: What information did you seek? Because the person who knew more and would obtain further information and confirm it, would have been Schoon. What were you wanting from the man, because you didn't know much about him?

MR VAN DYK: No, our primary objective was, and I will stand by this, we wanted information about infiltration of people, who are these people, where are they, when was the last time he had contact. There were many points which we could touch upon. To elaborate on it now would take a long time. If we had to dissect this whole story again, the most important was; who was infiltrated and even with the van Vuuren matter; were there more persons who were infiltrated because only two persons were shot dead. Two ANC persons were killed and Lt van Vuuren was killed. We wanted all that information; are there people still in the area that had come into the area for the last month or so. That was what was important to us.

ADV MOTATA: Prior to the request made to you, were you briefly told what you should get out of the man information-wise? When you got the instructions to abduct the man, were you briefly given his background by de Kock for instance?

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson. I was briefly informed that this man was involved in the infiltration of people and that van Vuuren had been shot and that he had been involved for many years in the infiltration of persons and we wanted to find out what exactly was going on here. It was not a long story. The import of the story was; bring the man out. This was the procedure in all interrogations; who did he bring in, who were these people, where could we find them, what did they bring in with them and so forth.

ADV MOTATA: And you could not confirm if he had provided information that this is the information in your possession, because you had no idea about the man.

MR VAN DYK: Do you mean Mngomezulu?

ADV MOTATA: Yes, we're referring to Mngomezulu, we're not talking of someone else.

MR VAN DYK: No, I knew about Mngomezulu, but earlier he was not a target. It was only in this case when Col de Kock told me to fetch this man, that is when he became a target, earlier he was not a target. If he was not a target we would not have gone to fetch him.

ADV MOTATA: Let's not speak past each other. We are speaking about Mngomezulu as a target and as what was obtained when he had been abducted. So whatever reference I may make in asking questions, we are just speaking of Mngomezulu at that point, not earlier. Would we understand each other, because I just want clarification? Don't be unduly perturbed by my questions.

MR VAN DYK: If we refer to Mngomezulu - I understand that you're speaking of Mngomezulu, but there is some confusion which is why it's not clear to me and that's why I ask.

ADV MOTATA: Oh no, please do so. When there is confusion, please don't answer until you have cleared it up. It's your right to ask if you are confused, what confuses you, so that we don't waste time by asking unnecessary questions.

MR VAN DYK: That is why I asked whether we are speaking specifically of Mngomezulu.

ADV MOTATA: Okay, thank you. So what I wanted you to highlight is not a story that would take you weeks because you never created that impression to me, that when you received instructions from de Kock, it took a long while giving you background information about Mngomezulu. So in other words, it's that when de Kock gave you instructions they must have been precise, it wouldn't take us the whole to get those instructions, would it?

MR VAN DYK: No, as I have said, the instruction was; fetch the man, find out what happened to the persons who had been infiltrated by him. That was the primary objective of the story. It was about people whom he had assisted in infiltrating the country, who committed acts where persons were killed. That is what we were looking for from this person, nothing else.

ADV MOTATA: Did you confirm - that is now during that night when Mngomezulu was abducted, did you confirm with the informer that this is the man?

MR VAN DYK: With the source?

ADV MOTATA: That's right. Because in fairness, my understanding of the papers before me is that he was in one of the vehicles. When they went to abduct him, he remained in the vehicle, one of the vehicles. That is what I've read. If I'm mistaken, please enlighten me.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct. As I have said, Nzimande who specifically knew this person, he knew the person personally, Mgade was also knew him. He did not with go to the abduction. And there was a man in the vehicle. If it was the source, as they say the source, then it was the source, but the right person came out. It was not the wrong man that we abducted. The real person that we wanted to get, we got.

ADV MOTATA: You mentioned Mgade. When he was abducted and Mgade driving the kombi, were you aware that this Mngomezulu is know to Mgade? Did you know that information at that juncture?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, with regard to Mgade, in the earlier years Mgade worked in Northern Natal, I don't know whether it was in Josini, but Mngomezulu was known to him.

ADV MOTATA: When Mr de Kock gave instructions that this man has infiltrated people or brought people in and out of South Africa, did he tell you about the age of this man? Did he know that?

MR VAN DYK: No, at that stage he did not say what his age was, we did not discuss that, but from each actions there was a file on each person's actions at head office and at regional level. I had a look at it and as far as I can recall he was in his fifties during that time.

ADV MOTATA: This you have been asked and I must say I'm still in the dark about it, but please be kind enough to repeat it. I could not get it with certainty when this man was really blindfolded. I could not get it with certainty, bear with me.

MR VAN DYK: As I have said, I'm not entirely certain whether when he arrived at the car he had already been blindfolded. My memory tell me that he was only blindfolded at the vehicle, but I cannot say whether he was blindfolded when he arrived at the car. I cannot say with certainty whether he was blindfolded at the car or before that.

ADV MOTATA: And when was the formulation of the idea that you now want to turn him on, because the impression created by your evidence-in-chief and even under cross-examination, was that this man wouldn't give information, hence the severe assault on the man. Now Leeupoort and Piet Retief, where did the idea come that you could use him as a source?

MR VAN DYK: Lt Schoon, when we arrived at Leeupoort he came forward with the idea that we should recruit the man or we should try to recruit him and that was the first time. At Piet Retief there was no talk of recruiting him.

ADV MOTATA: You were asked a question by Mr Kgasi, lastly, that when you left for Middelburg to do some other business, between Pienaar and Schoon, who was in charge, and that question was never answered.

MR VAN DYK: I think in that case it would have been Schoon because it was in his area.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, you were questioned about whether you know at which stage Mr Mngomezulu was blindfolded. You were not part of the group that went inside the house resided by Mr Mngomezulu, that did the abduction, were you?

MR VAN DYK: No, I remained at the vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: And will I be correct if I say that the people who participated in the actual abduction of Mr Mngomezulu were amongst others, Moses Nzimande that you've already referred to.

MR VAN DYK: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nofomela.

MR VAN DYK: Nofomela, Koole.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole.

MR VAN DYK: And Mr Mbelo.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Mbelo. Will that be correct?

MR VAN DYK: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: After Mr Mngomezulu had been abducted, was he placed in your vehicle, or was he placed in Mr Mgade's vehicle?

MR VAN DYK: As far as I can recall, he was in the minibus with Mr Mgade, because I drove first because he had to drop them off so that they could go through the fence, the border fence.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were planning the abduction, was it known to you that Moses Nzimande knew Mr Mngomezulu quite well?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, at that stage it was known because usually if a person is apprehended a statement is taken from him and in this statement everything is written down, from the time he left the country up to the time he returned and he was arrested and it was clear from there that Mngomezulu assisted him in infiltrating the country. That is why I knew that he knew him.

CHAIRPERSON: And Mr Nzimande assisted greatly in luring Mr Mngomezulu. There was no reason for Mr Mngomezulu to suspect any foul play because he was known to Mr Nzimande.

MR VAN DYK: I think at that stage he already knew that Mr Nzimande had been arrested and was possibly co-operating with the police.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mbelo - no, Mr Mgade is of the view that Mr Mogoai was the main interrogator during Mr Mngomezulu's abduction. What is your opinion?

MR VAN DYK: I am inclined to agree. Piet Mogoai did most of the questioning, but he was assisted by the other people. I will not differ there.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it under your instructions that he became the chief interrogator? I'm referring to Mr Mogoai.

MR VAN DYK: No, it was not my instruction, the only thing I told the people was "listen clearly and properly to the person's answers and if anybody has any background about the answers that he gives, he must do the interrogation". There was no specific instruction given to anybody to undertake the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: At which stage did you bring your operatives up to speed with regard to the type of information that you wanted to extract from Mr Mngomezulu?

MR VAN DYK: I think at that stage it was general knowledge that if I speak of arrest in the RSA or in this case where we have abducted him, when one interrogates him the chief idea was, we wanted to know "who infiltrated you" and all the knowledge that he can give to us, what was brought to the RSA, whether it be persons, weapons, vehicles. That was what was important to us at that stage. Afterwards it is the long story; when did you leave the country, but in this instance it was only who did he assist and where were these people.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you probably didn't understand the import of my question, I wanted to know at what stage did you advise your operatives on what you wanted obtained during Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation. Was that done at Vlakplaas? Did you advise them on what you wanted to obtain from Mngomezulu, whilst you were all driving to Swaziland? I just want to know at which stage you brought them up to speed. Because when I listened to your evidence, I got the impression that they did not know what the operation was all about until shortly before it took place.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson, in this case these persons were not briefed beforehand in case there was a possibility that something could go wrong, some information might be leaked. The day that we executed the operation I informed them and I am not certain what was said there exactly, but information was conveyed on the specific day that the operation was carried out.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that be prior to departing from Swaziland to the RSA or after you had arrived in one of the houses you used immediately after crossing the border from Swaziland?

MR VAN DYK: No, Chairperson, where I informed them was already at Piet Retief, before we went to Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: I am a little confused with regard to the many places various interrogations on Mr Mngomezulu were made. I just need clarity on that. Where exactly did you go on the evening of the abduction, the first place you went to?

MR VAN DYK: The evening of the abduction we went directly to Piet Retief. We had a base there, it was at Moolman. We went directly to Moolman where the interrogation took place and as far as I can recall, the following day, the afternoon, we moved down to Leeupoort there by Josini by the dam and the day afterwards, the afternoon, we went to Josini.

CHAIRPERSON: At which stage, to your recollection, was Mr Beeslaar involved in the interrogations on Mr Mngomezulu? Was this at Moolman or when you had moved to Leeupoort?

MR VAN DYK: It was from the time that we arrived at Moolman in Piet Retief, as well as at Leeupoort.

CHAIRPERSON: In your evidence-in-chief you indicated that Mr Beeslaar was with you right from the beginning, if I recall your evidence correctly.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what I want to know is, was he with you when you were parked outside Mr Mngomezulu's house, during the abduction?

MR VAN DYK: Could you please repeat the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let me explain why I'm asking this question. In your evidence-in-chief you've testified that Mr Beeslaar went to Piet Retief with you, from the beginning, right from the start. That's your evidence. And the reason why he had to accompany you, even though he was an administrative officer, was because there was a shortage of personnel. What I want to know is, was he with you from Piet Retief, did he travel with you to Swaziland when you had to wait outside while Messrs Mbelo, Koole and Nzimande were abducting Mr Mngomezulu? Was he with you in your vehicle?

MR VAN DYK: No, Chairperson, he was not present. I think I have testified about this. He was not present. As far as I recall, he waited at Piet Retief at Moolman. He may have waited outside Golel, but he was not in Swaziland with us.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But to your recollection he travelled with you from Vlakplaas to Piet Retief.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And the main purpose of him accompanying you was to make up for the shortfall because you didn't have sufficient people to have with you for purposes of conducting this operation.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct, Chairperson. It happens from time to time that we have a shortage of a number of person, so we had to use other persons to fill the numbers and in this case it may have been that that was the case.

CHAIRPERSON: And was he with you when you moved to Leeupoort?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, he went along to Leeupoort.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he with you when you moved to Josini?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, Josini, but he drove in another vehicle. He travelled - I think he travelled in the vehicle that I usually travelled in and they waited for us at a T-junction where one would either go to Ndumu or to Sodwana.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did you at any stage prior to taking a decision to dispose of Mr Mngomezulu's body, did you at any stage prior to that decision having been taken or even prior to taking a decision to move Mr Mngomezulu to a place where you would be able to speak to him nicely, with a view of turning him, did you speak about what you intended to do with Mngomezulu, to Mr Beeslaar?

MR VAN DYK: It was never discussed with Mr Beeslaar what our objective with Mr Mngomezulu was and that we wanted to speak to him to see if he was in a condition to act as a source. I never discussed it with him.

CHAIRPERSON: I just need clarity with regard to when Mr Pienaar was brought into this operation. He was brought in subsequent to your invitation as a person who was in command of this operation.

MR VAN DYK: After we brought him out from Swaziland and took him to Piet Retief, that was the evening and as far as I recall the following morning I approached Mr Pienaar and wanted him to accompany us with the interrogation and could he supply us with background of Mr Mngomezulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what other information was he able to share with you, that you had not already been briefed by Mr de Kock concerning Mr Mngomezulu?

MR VAN DYK: There was no information except for when I said that the person who had the knowledge of the people with whom they worked. I mean they worked in that area, they had all that knowledge. It was impossible for me to conduct an interrogation on the same level as the persons who worked in that area. That was the only reason why Pienaar was involved and why Gert Schoon was also there.

CHAIRPERSON: It is still not clear to me why he was brought into this operation. What assistance would he have provided to you?

MR VAN DYK: It was normal practice that if you act in a person's area, one has to involve that person because those persons could assist with information since they knew more of the area and of the persons in that area.

CHAIRPERSON: Your role in this operation had nothing to do with you having to know the area, you had to extract information from Mr Mngomezulu and you already had a safehouse in Piet Retief, which you had used prior to going to Swaziland to conduct the abduction.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct, Chairperson. Before we travelled to Swaziland we went to Moolman at Piet Retief and then we moved down in that direction. But as I have said, I did not convey any information to anyone of this action.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I want know what important role did you think Mr Pienaar would play, why did you involve him? Why could you not conduct this operation without involving him?

MR VAN DYK: I could have executed it without his assistance, it would have taken much longer to obtain the information and it would have been much more difficult. I would have had to use their files there if I wanted to research any information. The person who worked in that area had much more information available and they could much easier have undertaken the interrogation without files and books. I had to go back and go back to books and the background of everything and then I had to undertake the interrogation. The only reason was that these persons were the best interrogators in that area and that is why they were approached.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that when you were initially instructed by Mr de Kock, you did not have sufficient information with regard to the subject you had to interrogate after the abduction?

MR VAN DYK: No, basically to me it was about the shooting incident there between Nongoma and Ulundi. We had to find out what people he infiltrated and why they infiltrated and where they infiltrated. Those were the basics at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had reasonably enough information to be able to conduct the interrogation you had been instructed to conduct by your seniors?

MR VAN DYK: Yes, I could have done so myself, but as I have said, it would have taken much, much longer.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Malan requested that I afford him an opportunity to put one last question which he omitted to ask you when he was examining you. Before doing so, I just want you to maybe explain to me, I have not been able to be on the same wavelength with you with regard to the severity of the injuries sustained by Mr Mngomezulu at the point when you decided either that he had been so severely assaulted that further conduct of interrogation on him would be futile, or as you have later suggested that you then decided to move him to a place in Josini where he would be interrogated in a better atmosphere that the one which prevailed at Leeupoort. What kind of injuries had he sustained at that stage? You spoke of open wounds, can you explain the nature and the extent of such injuries, indicating whether he had suffered any facial wounds.

MR VAN DYK: Chairperson, it was so long ago, but what I can recall was that he did have injuries to his face, to his arms, on his head and these were places - as I've said it was a rubber baton or a wooden baton that we struck him over the head and on his back with. He had injuries all over, but I cannot specifically go and say that the left arm or the left leg or left eye or right eye at that stage, but he had many injuries.

CHAIRPERSON: So he sustained injuries all over his body, more-or-less.

MR VAN DYK: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And were these open wounds?

MR VAN DYK: Some of them were open wounds, the others were just welts.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van Dyk, you will be examined by Mr Malan. I will allow him to ask one question.

MR MALAN: Mr van Dyk, this follows from Mr Beeslaar's statement and I have read it that he says that the day after the interrogation, you left from Leeupoort and he suspects that the activist, as he refers to the deceased, he said he was loaded onto Gert Schoon's bakkie. He says, Freek Pienaar, Douw Willemse, is that the other person who was with him?

MR VAN DYK: It's possible.

MR MALAN: Where is Douw Willemse today?

MR VAN DYK: I think he's somewhere in the Cape.

MR MALAN: He was not from Vlakplaas?

MR VAN DYK: No, earlier he was from Vlakplaas.

MR MALAN: That is what I mean, he was attached to Vlakplaas.

"Paul van Dyk and Gert Schoon left the premises with two vehicles."

Do you agree with that? He then says -

"I then knew that the terrorist or activist would be eliminated. We then drove (he says) in a southerly direction. We went into Sodwana Bay and drove in a southerly direction to an unknown location. It was cold."

And as far as he can recall he says he remained in your vehicle. Is that what your recollection is? He says you then left there and he and Douw Willemse remained behind. He does not know what you took along with you, but he knew that this person would be eliminated. Is that correct?

MR VAN DYK: I believe he could have accepted when we took that road, because originally we would have taken the Ndumu road, but when we took the Sodwana road and we kept going, he assumed that ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You see the reason why I ask this, according to his evidence you left Leeupoort together.

MR VAN DYK: Yes.

MR MALAN: And you arrived at this point in Sodwana together where he stayed behind.

MR VAN DYK: That's correct.

MR MALAN: And nowhere does he refer to stopping at the house, he doesn't refer to looking and lifting up the tarpaulin.

MR VAN DYK: No, he was not at the vehicle. One turns into Josini to the place where Gert Schoon lived, and they kept going and at the bottom where the road forked, they had to wait for us there until we decided what road we will take. We did not tell them exactly what we would do because they were not present where we had a look at this person at Josini, they just drove past ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: We'll ask him about that detail there then. Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, I see you have just pressed your microphone.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, yes. May I please, if you'll afford me the opportunity, come in here.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS ADDRESSES: I was not here this morning, I apologise for that, I've spoken to Mr Malan this morning about my situation and about the fact that the hearing was scheduled for

a day earlier and it caused me a bit of a problem. I believe it has been placed on record that Mr Beeslaar could not be traced by us, nor by Mr Steenkamp, on behalf of the Truth Commission.

I find myself in a bit of a precarious position in that regard, Madam Chair, in that obviously I have to deal with the application on the basis of the written application, without any instructions on some of these discrepancies.

Insofar as I am able to, I will endeavour to do so and we will endeavour, and I want to place that on record, we will endeavour to get hold of Mr Beeslaar before the end of this week. If we do not find him I am in a position that I have to deal with the application on the basis of what his written application contains. However, obviously the fact that the process is continuing without him, could perhaps cause him some prejudice and I want to place that on record. I feel it my duty to do so.

I've listened to the questions that you've asked him. I've been informed by Mr Swart about the evidence and I don't intend to ask any questions of Mr van Dyk, because I think the questions that Mr Malan and yourself asked covered everything that I wanted to ask eventually. Thank you for affording me the opportunity.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Firstly, Mr du Plessis, next time you are not going to be available in the morning, please try and make sure that that is communicated to me timeously. I was not aware of your predicament when I arrived this morning. I subsequently had discussions with Mr Swart who said he was going to appear on behalf of Mr Beeslaar. When we commenced this application he placed himself on record as representing Mr Beeslaar. That being so, even though you were not here, Mr Beeslaar's interests, as an applicant, were properly represented.

We were further informed by Mr Swart that attempts were being made to try and establish the whereabouts of Mr Beeslaar. Mr Swart in the process, undertook to inform the Committee after 11 o'clock, by which time we anticipated to have been in a position to know what success would have come out of the attempts to locate Mr Beeslaar. Unfortunately we have not had the occasion of making further enquiries from Mr Swart, to find out what has happened to his attempts in locating Mr Beeslaar. We covered this with Mr Swart and the interest, my interest in this matter, is to make sure that all applicants are properly and appropriately represented. I have been informed by Mr Swart that you are on brief, that you are properly instructed and we proceeded on the basis of that information. It is important for us to know exactly what the situation is with Mr Beeslaar, because obviously it would affect not only ourselves as a Committee, but it will obviously affect the other applicants. We will now again ask what the situation is with Mr Beeslaar's application.

MR DU PLESSIS: May I respond to that, Madam Chair. I apologise for this morning. I scheduled certain things to do for today as the incident was supposed to start tomorrow. I tried till this morning to shift that and to change that and I could not. And I wanted to raise it with you this morning personally, but after having spoken to Mr Malan, he gave me the assurance that it would be okay and on that basis I left before you arrived here this morning. So please, I apologise if I didn't act appropriately in that regard.

I however spoke to Mr Swart about this matter and we decided that he will place on record what he did place on record, so it doesn't really contradict what I said just now. And as far as his instructions go and my instructions go, we're on the same level and we find ourselves in the same situation. So what you have placed on record is a hundred percent correct. Obviously in a normal trial we would be in the position that we would probably have to withdraw in a matter such as this, but my submission and in my view, I have a duty towards my client here, which differs from a normal litigation matter. That is why I have taken the decision to act for Mr Beeslaar in this matter. We do not want to prejudice the Commission's hearings, we do not want to bring Court applications to stop the Commission's proceedings and things like that. So we will participate in this hearing on that basis and we will keep you informed on the whereabouts of Mr Beeslaar.

What I foresee may happen, Madam Chair, is that if we do not find him this week, we will find him sometime and depending on your situation pertaining to judgment, it may be possible for me to place his evidence before you at some later stage, I don't know. But if we can just place this all on record so that the position is clear and my position from an ethical and a professional point of view is also clear, because I have to protect Mr Beeslaar's interests under the circumstances, but I can only do it with what I have and that is the affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you have a right, do you have a legal right to protect his interest, are you properly briefed?

MR DU PLESSIS: Well Madam Chair, I am briefed on the basis of what is stated in the affidavit, I can't take it any further. The problem I have is as I have stated already, it's not the same situation that we have here as in a normal criminal trial or a normal civil trial. If I withdraw from this matter, it would mean that the matter would carry on without Mr Beeslaar, he would not be represented and his chances of receiving amnesty on that basis would be probably less than if I represented him on this basis.

So I find myself in a very difficult precarious position in that regard and I have decided that I will have to do the only thing that I can do under the circumstances and that is act in the best interests of my client, and that is to be here and to represent his interests as far as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr du Plessis, I was under the impression that vigorous attempts are being made, and I say vigorous deliberately, vigorous attempts are being made to establish the whereabouts of Mr Beeslaar and advice him of the fact that these proceedings are taking place.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I place on record that as far as my discussions with Mr Swart have gone, they have contacted all family of Mr Beeslaar. I have participated in the attempts to locate Mr Beeslaar, by speaking to people who knew him and asking them to assist in tracing him and it seems that it has been fruitless up to now, but we will carry on making all endeavours that we possibly can to try and locate him and I will keep you informed as the week goes, of the position.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I get an undertaking from you that you advise us before we commence tomorrow morning about what attempts have been made before we are in a position to proceed tomorrow morning.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, I will try and obtain an affidavit from Mr Swart, setting out exactly what the position is and I will present you with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms van der Walt, do you have any re-examination to do on Mr van Dyk?

MS VAN DER WALT: No re-examination, thank you.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Dyk, you are excused as a witness.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, are we going to proceed to hear the evidence of Mr Pienaar?

MR PRINSLOO: That's correct, Madam Chair.