CHAIRPERSON: Who is the next applicant?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I'm ready to start with the next applicant, Mr Koole.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what language will Mr Koole be using, Mr Lamey?
CHAIRPERSON: Chairperson, his mother language I understand is Tswana.
JOHANNES KOOLE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Lamey.
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair, there's a further supplementary statement which has been placed before you, I just want to make sure whether you have it. I have the original signed with me and I'll hand it up after I've had it confirmed by the applicant. I have distributed copies thereof also to I think almost all the legal representatives except perhaps Mr Ramawele. I beg leave to hand a copy to him?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR LAMEY: Mr Koole, you have applied for amnesty inter alia also for your involvement in the abduction, interrogation and assault on Mr Mngomezulu, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: The particulars of your amnesty application we find on page 16 up to, regarding this incident on page 22, 23 up to 25 of the bundle before the Committee. Could you just have a look at it, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And these particulars you have given after you have obtained legal representation, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Initially there was amnesty application, submitted to the Truth and Reconciliation dated 9 December 1996 which we find on page 11 up to 15, is that correct, and that was submitted by the Attorney General, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Mr Koole, then prior to this hearing and after also having had an opportunity that the other aspects and certain versions of applicants were discussed with you, there was a supplementary statement drafted which is now before you, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson
MR LAMEY: And which you have signed, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Do you confirm that your amnesty application regarding the particulars of the Mngomezulu incident in your initial application as amplified by your further statement are to the best of your knowledge correct and do you confirm that?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: I beg leave to hand up the original document of this further supplementary statement? Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: When was this statement signed, Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I think it was signed yesterday by Mr Koole. Yesterday was Monday before the commencement in the morning.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, was this statement signed by you on the 8th of this month?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, was this attested to before any attorney?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, the approach was as I experienced previously with other applicants that he confirm it under oath before the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes I'm just asking whether this was attested to or it was merely a statement?
MR LAMEY: It was made a statement with the intention to be confirmed under oath here before the Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay. It has been confirmed, you may proceed.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. Chairperson, I've just received a note from the interpreters that they require the copies of this incident, are they referring to the further supplementary statement?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes they are referring to the statement as appearing particularly on page 22 to page 25.
MR LAMEY: Unfortunately, I've run out of copies, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll give them our copy. How many statements do they need? Only one? You may now proceed, Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Koole, before - could you just explain, were you part of a group of Vlakplaas who was in the area of the previous Eastern Transvaal prior to the abduction of Mngomezulu?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: What were you doing there?
MR KOOLE: We were doing our normal duty of patrolling around South Africa and Swaziland.
MR LAMEY: Alright. During that time did you receive - during that time who was the leader of your group?
MR KOOLE: Mr Paul van Dyk, Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: Did you receive while working there any specific instruction relating to Mr Mngomezulu?
MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: And what was that?
MR KOOLE: We were instructed to go to Swaziland to a particular place to abduct a certain person called Mr Mngomezulu and bring in the Republic of South Africa for him to be interrogated here.
MR LAMEY: Okay. Now on page 23, could you just have a look at that, the names which you have stated you recall, is that correct and do you confirm it, the names of Moses Nzimande, Nofomela, Mbelo and then Mogadi - I think is that wrongly spelt? It must read M-G-A-D-I, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: That is Mogadi.
MR LAMEY: Okay and was he the driver of the mini-bus?
MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson, he was the driver of the mini-bus.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall which border post you entered Swaziland?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, if I remember well, it was the Golele border post.
MR LAMEY: Okay. You've also stated here that you had a false passport in the name of Jackson Chidise which you used to enter Swaziland, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Koole, Chairperson. I was using that name in my passport.
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, sorry to interrupt you. Did he not confirm the correctness of everything right at the beginning? Do you have to lead him through everything? If there's anything material or additional please lead that but don't lead him through all what has been written and confirmed. Thank you.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases the Chair, Chairperson.
Chairperson, with your leave, may I switch? I've started in English, I don't know why. Just for a matter of convenience, the statement is in Afrikaans, could I just?
CHAIRPERSON: You may switch in whatever language you feel like at any time Mr Lamey.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.
Mr Koole, did you initially arrive at the right place and how did you arrive at this place where Mr Mngomezulu was overpowered?
MR KOOLE: There was somebody that I was not sure of their name but it seems like he was an informer that was based in Piet Retief or Swaziland. He took us to a room house initially but we went to the right place finally.
MR LAMEY: And who pointed out the person that you abducted?
MR KOOLE: If I can recall clearly it seems to be that man who seemed to be an informer. I'm not sure whose informer was he but he's the one who pointed out the man.
MR LAMEY: I accept that you then grabbed the man, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir.
MR LAMEY: And during this abduction in Swaziland, was he assaulted?
MR KOOLE: When we abducted him he was fighting back, he was resisting and therefore he had to be beaten to bring him under control.
MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you also participate when he resisted?
MR KOOLE: Yes I participated in beating him up and abducting him.
MR LAMEY: In your statement in paragraph 4 you say amongst others you strangled him when he tried to scream, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir.
MR LAMEY: And then I would just like to ask you in paragraph 4 you have mentioned, if you could just have a look. You say
"When we loaded him into the mini-bus he was unconscious"
and this is one of the aspects in your supplementary affidavit and which is explained by you and that you wanted to explain further on and describe further on. You further describe it in paragraph 6 in your supplementary affidavit that it was not a matter that he was not conscious but he was overpowered to such an extent and assaulted to such an extent that he became passive and he no longer resisted, is that correct, so that you could handle him?
MR KOOLE: Your Honour, I cannot distinguish but the thing is he was not fighting back but he was still breathing, alive et that time.
MR LAMEY: Very well and furthermore you then transported him from there and you went on foot through the border fence where you met with the mini-bus that Mogadi was driving later on, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir.
MR LAMEY: And your recollection from there is that somewhere Paul van Dyk met with you, Steve Bosch and Fred Pienaar according to your initial affidavit and in your supplementary affidavit you say that you mentioned Steve Bosch in paragraph 7 but you cannot say with certainty whether he was present there, is that correct?
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, from the time I spoke to you initially there is nothing that he has confirmed?
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you.
Mr Koole, your recollection with regard to the lapse of time, from your statement it appears that he was abducted that evening and taken to the house on the following day, you say Mr de Kock arrived and Beeslaar and Mogai was there and there was an assault on Mr Mngomezulu and you spent the night at that house and the following morning you departed. Are you entirely certain in your memory with regard to the lapse of time as to how long he was detained or are you not entirely certain?
MR KOOLE: Your Honour, I cannot clearly be precise about the time whether it was two to three days.
MR LAMEY: Very well. The place that you do recall is the house at Josini dam, is that correct, where he was interrogated and assaulted?
MR KOOLE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Did you also participate in the assault there?
MR KOOLE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Can you tell us in which manner you participated there?
MR KOOLE: I cannot clearly explain but I do know that I participated. I kicked and I also slapped him.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall what the physical condition was of Mr Mngomezulu when you received instruction to return to Piet Retief?
MR KOOLE: I cannot explain clearly because since from the time we picked him up he was not talking much, he was not responding even when he was asked. He was silent most of the time therefore I cannot actually tell the difference in his physical status.
MR LAMEY: What I mean is how would you describe the assault with the lapse of time was he severely assaulted? Can you recall any injuries?
MR KOOLE: Not with what I saw or I witnessed other than when he was beaten on his eye which was swollen, but that was the only thing I could see, the swollen eye.
MR LAMEY: Very well and then on page 25 you then request amnesty for your participance in the abduction and assault as well as any other offence or unlawful act which might emanate from this incident, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir.
MR LAMEY: And with regard to the political objective, it is set out from page 25 to 26, do you confirm that?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, I confirm that.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Hattingh, do you have any questions to put to Mr Koole?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Yes thank you Chairperson.
Mr Koole, how good is your memory about these incidents?
MR KOOLE: I cannot recall all the incidents clearly.
MR HATTINGH: In your evidence in chief you said that the versions of other applications was discussed with you and because of that your memory was refreshed and this led to your supplementary statement.
MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir, in some incidents that I could not recall that might be possible or true but it's not applicable to all the versions.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, you erred by saying that Mr Bosch was present, do you accept that?
MR KOOLE: Yes I accept that because I knew him well, that is how I recall that he was present.
MR HATTINGH: Was he present or was he not present?
MR KOOLE: I only realised there after that he was actually not present.
MR HATTINGH: If you knew him so well why did you make a mistake with his presence?
MR KOOLE: It's because I knew him that well, I used to see him more often and you know, like this was just a mistake, it was just because the fact that I used to work with him more frequently, that is why I mentioned his name, it was just a mistake.
MR HATTINGH: How often did you work with Mr de Kock?
MR KOOLE: I wouldn't work with Mr de Kock frequently but he would visit us wherever we were deployed but we were not dealing with him frequently.
MR HATTINGH: But you knew him quite well?
MR KOOLE: Yes I knew him well.
MR HATTINGH: In your initial statement you also state that after you took Mr Mngomezulu through the border fence you then met Mr van Dyk, Bosch and Mr Freek Pienaar. Are you certain that Mr Pienaar was present?
MR KOOLE: I cannot recall quite clearly whether it was Pienaar but Van Dyk was not alone.
MR HATTINGH: Do you know Mr Pienaar.
MR KOOLE: Yes I know him but not that well.
MR HATTINGH: And you positively stated in your statement that it was he?
MR KOOLE: I have said that some of the things I can recall clearly because this has happened a long time ago, this could have been a mistake.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Pienaar's version is that the day after Mr Mngomezulu was abducted and that he was informed about it by Mr Van Dyk and was requested to assist in the interrogation. Was that version of his also not discussed with you?
MR KOOLE: Nobody told me who called him and why.
MR HATTINGH: But was it not told to you that his version is that he was not involved in the abduction?
MR KOOLE: Nobody told me whether he was present when Mr Mngomezulu was being abducted.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, maybe I'm not stating myself correctly. That his version is not that he was present when you came through the border fence with Mr Mngomezulu, was that not told to you?
MR KOOLE: That I was not told, I said that this might be a mistake on my side.
MR HATTINGH: What is possibly a fault?
MR KOOLE: Mentioning him that he was one of the people who were present and yet he might not have been there.
MR HATTINGH: And then you also have no recollection that after you had apprehended Mr Mngomezulu that you first went to a place close to Piet Retief where there was a caravan?
MR KOOLE: That is not correct, I cannot recall going to a place in Piet Retief where there was a caravan nearby.
MR HATTINGH: That is what I put to you, you have no recollection thereof?
MR KOOLE: I cannot recall that, going to a place in Piet Retief where there was a caravan nearby.
MR HATTINGH: And where Mr Mngomezulu was interrogated and tortured, you don't have a recollection thereof?
MR KOOLE: Even that I do not recall, sir.
MR HATTINGH: Can you recall why do you not remember the place where you went firstly where Mr Mngomezulu was first assaulted and interrogated but you recall the place where he was taken afterwards and assaulted?
MR MALAN: Mr Hattingh, is that a fair question? If he says he has no recollection of the first place, he cannot confirm it?
MR HATTINGH: I don't know if it's a fair question, but my submission is it is a question I can put to him and he should be able to answer it, Chairperson. I am testing his memory, Chairperson.
Can you explain why you do not have a recollection thereof?
MR KOOLE: I have clearly stated your Honour that there are incidents that I recall and some that I do not recall and therefore I cannot be able to explain as to why can I recall other details and omit others.
MR HATTINGH: I would not like to put it to you that you are deliberately telling lies, that is why I'm trying to give you an opportunity. Is it possible that you could be mistaken when you say Mr de Kock arrived there at some stage?
MR KOOLE: There was a time that I recall that Mr Mogai and Mr Beeslaar did not come with us but Mr de Kock did arrive at that place in transit but I cannot recall exactly which day it was.
MR HATTINGH: But was it while you were questioning Mr Mngomezulu?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir.
MR HATTINGH: Are you entirely certain about that?
MR KOOLE: That is one of the things I clearly recall, sir.
MR HATTINGH: And when Mr de Kock arrived, did he arrive alone or was he accompanied by anyone?
MR KOOLE: When he arrived there he was alone, I did not see if he was in the company of anyone else.
MR HATTINGH: And did anybody else arrive there at the same time when he arrived there?
MR KOOLE: No sir.
MR HATTINGH: And then I would like to refer you to paragraph 8 of your original application on page 24 where you say
"During the course of the day De Kock arrived as well as Beeslaar and Piet Mogai. They arrived independently."
Is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Your Honour, I had explained that Piet Mogai arrived with Beeslaar and De Kock arrived alone. I assume that that is exactly how I explained it.
MR HATTINGH: Who arrived first?
MR KOOLE: Mr Mogai and Mr Beeslaar arrived first and Mr de Kock found them there.
MR HATTINGH: Did Mr de Kock arrive alone in a vehicle there?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir, he was alone.
MR HATTINGH: And this was while you were at the house at Josini, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir, we were not inside the house but it was at Josini dam.
MR HATTINGH: Did you spend the previous evening there?
MR KOOLE: Yes we spent the evening there.
MR HATTINGH: When Mr de Kock arrived what other White members of the police were still present?
MR KOOLE: I recall Mr van Dyk and Mr Beeslaar but I'm not sure whether Mr Pienaar was there or not but I'm certain about Van Dyk and Beeslaar.
MR HATTINGH: What about Mr Schoon?
MR KOOLE: It's the first time I hear of Mr Schoon's name here, I don't know where he was but I do not know him.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Schoon is the person who sits next to Mr Mogai with the light cream coloured or white shirt, I'm not entirely certain what the colour is. Did you see him there?
MR KOOLE: I've seen him at some stage driving in a van, time has lapsed but I think I have seen him before.
MR HATTINGH: Are you able to say whether he participated in the interrogation?
MR KOOLE: I cannot tell exactly who was interrogating because I was at a distance because they were talking in Zulu and Tswati but most of the time I was not there during the interrogation.
MR HATTINGH: Where were you?
MR KOOLE: One could go outside or even keep a distance where Mr Mngomezulu was being asked, one was not standing at the same place all the time, one was moving around.
MR HATTINGH: But the times when you were there did you see Mr Schoon there?
MR KOOLE: I think he's the man that I saw there, he looks like the man that I saw there.
MR HATTINGH: And the man that you think you saw there did he participate in the assault?
MR KOOLE: I cannot give evidence to that.
MR HATTINGH: What about Mr Pienaar, did he participate in the questioning and assaults?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to testify as to whether who were responsible or who played which role but he was present during the interrogation but I'm not able to verify as to whether who played a particular role.
MR HATTINGH: So Mr Pienaar was present during his interrogation?
MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson, he was present.
MR HATTINGH: And Beeslaar, did he participate in the interrogation and the assaults?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember seeing him taking part in the interrogation.
MR HATTINGH: What about Mr Mogai?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to place a particular person for a particular role because the person who was interrogating directly is who I have the problem in distinguishing who played which role.
MR HATTINGH: I'm not entirely certain that I understand your answer. May I ask you unambiguously, did Mr Piet Mogai participate in the assault and the interrogation that you observed?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I saw him that he was present during the interrogation but I'm not able to testify that he took part or which part during the interrogation but he was present in the interrogation team even in the assault.
MR HATTINGH: And then I refer you to paragraph 8 of your
statement on page 24, I will read the entire paragraph again.
"During the course of the day De Kock arrived as well as
Beeslaar and Piet Mogai. They arrived independently, they
also participated in the interrogation and assault."
How can you say now that you cannot say whether they participated in the assault and interrogation?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, you were asking which part did he play in the interrogation and in the assault but I'm stating that all of us who were present there took place in the assault and a person would just ask a question so you were not able to distinguish who took part in the interrogation and what question did he ask or what part did he play in the interrogation.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, I think several questions were put to you whose purpose was quite clear and that was to elicit information from you about who had participated in both the interrogation and the assault of Mr Mngomezulu. Several questions were put to you about whether Mr Mogai participated in the assault and interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu and you were also questioned about the same thing with regard to Mr Beeslaar. With regard to all those questions your response has been quite direct and your response was that you couldn't remember if any of them had participated in both the assault and the interrogation?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just come in here? But he also said he recalls that they were present during the interrogation and assault, it is just that he cannot recall which part they played.
CHAIRPERSON: He then went on when he was questioned ultimately, the last question he said Mr Mogai and this was in relation to Mr Mogai, he said Mr Mogai was present in the interrogation team and the assault. Those are my notes. But that does not mean that he was very vivid with regard to Mr Mogai's participation in the assault as obviously alleged in his written application.
MR LAMEY: Yes Chairperson, my impression just of the evidence was he cannot say which role they played in the assault but I'll leave in for argument, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.
MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, my question was put in Afrikaans. And I ask you unambiguously whether Mr Piet Mogai participated in the interrogation and the assault, I did not ask what role he played.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, those are not my notes, Mr Hattingh, I think you have put several questions to Mr Koole and his response has also been direct with regard to the question put, that is with regard to the participation of both Mr Beeslaar and Mr Mogai in both the assault and interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu.
MR HATTINGH: And he was unable to state, his answer to my recollection is that he could not say whether they participated in the assault.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he can't remember.
MR HATTINGH: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you again, Mr Hattingh, put your question as you say in an unambiguous fashion?
MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it has been unambiguous but you may put it again.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you Chairperson.
Mr Koole, I ask you once again. Did you see whether Mr Beeslaar or Mr Mogai participated in the interrogation and the assault on Mr Mngomezulu?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, I saw them.
MR HATTINGH: So you say they assaulted?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And the interrogation?
MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson, I observed.
MR HATTINGH: And how did Mr Beeslaar assault him?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it was the use of hands and kicking. I saw him taking part with his hands but I saw him taking part in the assault.
MR HATTINGH: And did he kick him?
MR KOOLE: I did not see him kick him.
MR HATTINGH: But you said that what you refer to hands and kicks?
MR KOOLE: You're asking about Beeslaar, as to whether did he take part and which role did he play in the assault? I saw him taking part in the assault with the hands but I'm not sure as to whether he kicked Mr Mngomezulu.
MR HATTINGH: And Mr Mogai, how did he assault him?
MR KOOLE: He used his hands, I don't remember as to whether he was kicking but some people are taking part in the kicking but I did not observe who took which part or who kicked Mr Mngomezulu.
MR HATTINGH: How is it possible that you can remember who hit but you can't remember who kicked?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it is possible that you'd be able to see a person being assaulted and you would see a person using hands in the assault and then you'd never know whether he used his hands or his feet. You'd be able to observe some other incidents during the assault but you would not be able to remember all of them.
MR HATTINGH: Did Mr de Kock participate in the assault?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember seeing him take part in the assault.
MR HATTINGH: Did he participate in the interrogation?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, there was some instance where he asked some questions and then somebody interpreted for him. Yes he took part in the interrogation, thereafter he left.
MR HATTINGH: For how long was Mr de Kock on the scene?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to specify the duration of his stay during the assault and during the interrogation but he did not stay long, then after that he left.
MR HATTINGH: If you say that he left, do you mean that he departed the place where Mr Mngomezulu was assaulted or interrogated?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Did he get into his vehicle and drive away?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Did you see him after that again?
MR KOOLE: No Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: So you only saw him there for a short period during the assault?
MR KOOLE: Yes I saw him when he came near the interrogation scene, then during the interrogation, then from there he left.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you see him leaving? Sorry Mr Hattingh.
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And you saw him getting into his car?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I saw him leaving but I did not see him entering the car but I saw the car moving.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say you saw him leaving, what do you mean, do you mean the situation where you see him moving away from where the interrogation had taken place or you mean you saw him leaving the place, the house, moving away completely?
MR KOOLE: I saw him leaving completely, that area.
CHAIRPERSON: In his car?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you.
And after Mr de Kock departed, did the interrogation continue?
MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson, it continued.
MR HATTINGH: And the day afterwards as well?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to recollect as to whether the following day the interrogation continued but that is the day when we departed that area.
MR HATTINGH: When Mr de Kock arrived there was in the morning or the afternoon?
MR KOOLE: I was during the day, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: But can't you say whether it was in the morning or the afternoon?
MR KOOLE: It is possible that it was in the middle of the day.
MR HATTINGH: And did the interrogation continue till that evening?
MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, it did not continue until during the night.
MR HATTINGH: At what time did you stop with the interrogation?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it was somewhere in the afternoon. Somebody would ask a question then sometime we would rest and then after if would continue again but I think it stopped somewhere in the afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I'm going to request that we stop for the lunch adjournment for forty five minutes. As Mr du Plessis would say the cafeteria will close before we've been able to have something.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed with your cross-examination.
JOHANNES KOOLE: (s.u.o.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont)
Thank you Chairperson. Mr Koole, perhaps I have to ask this question first, was Mr Mbelo present when Mr de Kock arrived?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember that Mr Mbelo was present at that time.
MR HATTINGH: And Mr Mogadi?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember all those people who were present at the time De Kock arrived.
MR HATTINGH: You made a statement to the Attorney General's investigating team, that is the team who investigated the crimes for which Mr de Kock had been charged, is that correct Mr Koole?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And was it said to you by the people who took down the statement that if you then state clearly and fully what you knew that you would begin indemnity against prosecution?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And then you made a statement?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: The statement that you made in connection with this application of yours, the one that was signed on page 15, it was signed on the 9th December 1996 and it was taken down by one De Lange, who was a member of the special investigating team of the Attorney General, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: In this statement you say on more than one occasion on page 12 for example, paragraph 9(a)(ii) and under (i) you also say as per my statement in the position of the Attorney General at the moment. Can you remember when you made that statement? The statement to the Attorney General?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember the date Chairperson, when I made that statement.
MR HATTINGH: That must have been a long time before you made or signed this application for amnesty?
MR KOOLE: I'm not able to verify about the duration but it's not before or after a long time, but I don't remember well.
MR HATTINGH: You knew that the investigating team was looking for evidence against Mr de Kock? Is that correct?
MR KOOLE: They did not inform about the reason behind the investigation, they only informed me that I should report about incidents I knew.
MR HATTINGH: Did you mention in that statement the fact that Mr de Kock arrived and participated in the interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Very well, did you also say that Mr de Kock only arrived, asked a question or two and then departed?
MR KOOLE: That is my recollection, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: While you were present he then left again?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Mr Koole, did anyone decide that the interrogation and the assault had to stop?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember anybody giving that instruction, as when it was given, again.
MR HATTINGH: Sorry, I don't know whether I understand you correctly, could you recollect whether such an instruction was given?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember as to whether there was a person who gave the instruction that the assault and interrogation should cease.
MR HATTINGH: Was it ever said in your presence what had to happen to Mr Mngomezulu after the interrogation had been stopped?
MR KOOLE: Nothing was said as to whether what would happen to him after the interrogation.
MR HATTINGH: You were then told the next day to do what?
MR KOOLE: We were instructed to go back to our base where we were staying.
MR HATTINGH: Was that in Piet Retief?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And did you then depart?
MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Only the Black members or some of the White members as well?
MR KOOLE: The Black members left and then I think White members were left behind.
MR HATTINGH: You say in your statement that the assault on Mr Mngomezulu was a very serious assault, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: And the only injury you saw was a swollen eye?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: What do you mean with a heavy or a serious assault?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it is because of he was assaulted by many people at the same time.
MR HATTINGH: Did any of the person who assaulted him, did they use any object during the assault?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't remember any instrument except fists, open hands and feet.
MR HATTINGH: I want to put it to you, Mr Koole, that your testimony that Mr de Kock was present is not true. Mr de Kock testified that he wasn't present at all at Piet Retief when the person was abducted, interrogated and assaulted? What do you say to that?
MR KOOLE: Mr de Kock wasn't during the abduction but he was present during the interrogation for a short period then thereafter he left.
MR HATTINGH: Did anyone of the persons who participated in the assault kick Mr Mngomezulu in his private parts?
MR KOOLE: I'm not able to say that because I did not observe that incident.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson, we have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr du Plessis?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair.
Mr Koole, in your application it is stated that after you abducted Mr Mngomezulu you took him to the specific house in Piet Retief and that the next morning with the interrogation, the interrogation started, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And your evidence was that as I understood it that Mr Beeslaar at the interrogation and assault that took place that he was present, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Your question doesn't explain who was present or not, can you clarify that Chairperson?
MR DU PLESSIS: I'm going to ask it in another way. Let me leave the question there, I'll return to it. On a particular day your evidence is that the interrogation started the next morning. Could I perhaps ask you, Mr Beeslaar says in his statement that the interrogation started the same evening, that was the evening that Mngomezulu was brought to the house, is it possible?
MR KOOLE: It's possible Chairperson that it happened that way.
MR DU PLESSIS: Okay and then Mr Beeslaar also states that in his statement that the man was not tortured or seriously assaulted but he was slapped, do you agree with that or do you disagree?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I would not dispute or I knew that he was slapped but I'm not that even feet were used.
MR DU PLESSIS: And how long did this assault take place?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it took around ten to fifteen minutes.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, are you referring to the assault on the evening of the arrival of Mr Mngomezulu?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I'm referring to the first assault.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: That was either that night or the next morning but he conceded that it could have been the same night. Thank you Madam Chair.
Mr Koole, could I just get this right, were you present when Mr Mngomezulu was taken to the farm near Josini?
MR KOOLE: Which farm, Chairperson?
MR DU PLESSIS: The man was interrogated at the house in Piet Retief and shortly afterwards, a day afterwards, he was taken to a farm with the name of Leeuspoort near Josini dam. Were you present when he was taken there?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I was present when he was taken to the farm. I don't remember about the house in Piet Retief but I know that was present when he was taken near the dam.
MR DU PLESSIS: At the dam, at the farm, were you present there?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you say that you weren't at all involved during an interrogation that took place in Piet Retief?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I've already explained that I do not remember as to whether we interrogated Mngomezulu in any farm in Piet Retief. It is possible but I don't remember.
MR DU PLESSIS: So you say that it is possible that he was interrogated in Piet Retief, it was not a farm, the places name was Moolman and it was at an Eskom Power Station. Can you remember that he was interrogated there, that you were present during that interrogation?
MR KOOLE: I would not dispute that but I don't remember that he was interrogated at that place.
MR DU PLESSIS: And the last time you saw Mr Mngomezulu in what kind of condition was he?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to explain, I stated that from the beginning, he was not responding to questions and again I observed his eye, that it was swollen. Those are the things which I'm able to remember.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could he still walk at that stage?
MR KOOLE: When we left at that scene, he was not standing or walking, he was sitting. So I'm not able to state as whether he would be able to walk or what.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you say that the only injury that you could observe was a swollen eye?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: I just want to put it to you that Mr Beeslaar's evidence with regard to Colonel de Kock was that Colonel de Kock was not present during the time that Beeslaar was present, that was at Piet Retief or at the farm near the Josini dam. Your comments?
MR KOOLE: I don't understand your question, Chairperson, will you please repeat?
MR DU PLESSIS: What I'm saying is that what Mr Beeslaar will testify is that Mr de Kock was not present either in Piet Retief where Mngomezulu was interrogated or by the house next to the Josini dam?
MR KOOLE: I don't know what Mr Beeslaar will testify but i know that he was present.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you say that Mr de Kock was present?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams?
MR WILLIAMS: I've got no questions Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR WILLIAMS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair.
Mr Koole, did you see when the deceased was taken away from the dam, that is the last place where he had been interrogated at the house in the dam as you refer to it?
MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, we left him there, I did not notice whether he was taken or not taken. We left him there.
MR PRINSLOO: My colleague, Mr Hattingh, has already put certain questions to you concerning Mr Fred Pienaar and you conceded that Mr Pienaar was not met by you along the road by other people but that only at Moolman the next day he was only present there. That was how he testified, can you comment on that?
MR KOOLE: I'm not able to remember all things that happened, it is possible that he was present or he was absent.
MR PRINSLOO: You heard that Mr Pienaar testified that he was not met along the road by Mr van Dyk and yourself and others. Thank you Chair, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: What is your response to that Mr Koole?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember as to whether we met him or not.
CHAIRPERSON: And you can't therefore dispute what Mr Pienaar's version is with regard to how he made contact with Mr van Dyk?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I would not testify in that regard because this happened a long time ago, I'm not able to remember.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chair.
Mr Koole, on page 23 of your application, paragraph 6, you make mention that:
"we then drove back in the direction of Piet Retief"
Is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: So you didn't go in the direction of Josini, that is in a total different direction, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: It's not correct Chairperson, when we go from Golele, you pass Josini dam. The dam is between Golele and Piet Retief, the dam is in between the two places.
MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment? I put it to you because I want to take this further, I just wanted your comment. The dam that you're referring to is not between Golele and Piet Retief it is on a different road, would you like to comment?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, there are different roads going there but the road we used, that from Golele to Piet Retief, you'd pass the dam first before you arrived at Piet Retief.
MS VAN DER WALT: I put it to you that you are not correct but I want to take you further. You say that
"somewhere on this road we were met by Paul van Dyk and Steve Bosch and Fred Pienaar."
Is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, that's what I've corrected on my statement because that is a mistake there.
MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, I want to take you to your statement, your supplementary statement, that is on page 2, paragraph 3 and there you state that applicants Mbelo and Paul van Dyk mentions that Paul van Dyk also went into Swaziland when Mngomezulu was abducted.
"I cannot remember that and can only recall that after the abduction we met Paul van Dyk and Pienaar along the road on the side of the R.S.A."
and all that you are leaving out here is the name of Steve Bosch, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: I've stated that Steve Bosch was not present and I did not remember who we met at the road. I remember that we met Paul van Dyk but I don't remember who was in his company.
MS VAN DER WALT: In your supplementary statement it is then also incorrect to state that you also saw Fred Pienaar there, that is the new statement that you signed on the 8th, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: I'm not able to find the page, so I'm trying to look for the page, can you tell me which page?
CHAIRPERSON: Won't you assist, Mr Lamey? It's page 2, supplementary affidavit - of the supplementary statement, page 2, paragraph 4.
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't remember as to whether I saw Paul van Dyk there.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Koole, when Mr Hattingh took you under cross-examination you said that you cannot recall if you saw Mr Pienaar there. Now I'm putting it to you that the statement that you made on the 8th is then also incorrect, that is your supplementary statement, because there you say that you saw Freek Pienaar, is that correct? I'm referring to your answer, what I stating to you that your supplementary statement regarding Mr Pienaar is also incorrect?
MR KOOLE: I don't dispute that fact, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Now you say that you cannot recall whether you saw Mr Paul van Dyk there?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember that I saw him in Swaziland.
MS VAN DER WALT: In other words you're not referring to the road, the point on the road where you met him on the way to Piet Retief because that is what this paragraph is all about?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, that is why I'm saying I'm not able to state as to whether I saw him in Swaziland. I saw him within the republic of South Africa.
MS VAN DER WALT: Could I just understand your testimony correct, can you not recall or is there a possibility that he was there or do you say that he was definitely not in Swaziland?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it is possible that he was present in Swaziland but I don't deny that he was there in Swaziland but I'm saying I don't remember when I saw him there.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Koole, Mr van Dyk was in command of this operation and he would never have allowed a group of people to enter to execute an operation if he as commander did not accompany them. Do you have any comment?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, in other places we would not be able to enter, that is why I'm saying I don't remember as to whether I saw him there or not.
MS VAN DER WALT: Is it correct, Mr Koole, that there was the bus in which Mr Mngomezulu was put after you took him from his house and another vehicle?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember as whether there was another car, I only remember the mini-bus which was driven by Mr Mogadi which we used.
MS VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that you drove with this mini-bus up to a certain point and then Mr Mngomezulu was taken by foot across the border, you didn't pass the border post?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson, we didn't cross the border post, we jumped the fence.
MS VAN DER WALT: That was on foot?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: I then want to put it to you that as Mr van Dyk testified that the mini-bus and his vehicle which was an ordinary sedan vehicle was through Golele's border post and on the road to Piet Retief Mr Mngomezulu was loaded into the vehicle or into the bus once again. Could you comment on that?
MR KOOLE: It's possible Chairperson, after we alighted the car then we jumped the border on foot then across the border within South Africa we found our mini-bus then we went into it.
MS VAN DER WALT: You were questioned about this by Mr Hattingh, I just want to ask you what do you mean by a severe assault, paragraph 7, page 24?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, a severe assault, I meant that if people were four or more than four then they assaulted together, that is a severe assault because each and every person would use anything to assault that person, that's why I'm saying it was a severe assault.
MS VAN DER WALT: And that is what happened, they did anything they could to hurt him, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I did not know the intention of each and every person who played a role in the assault.
MS VAN DER WALT: It is you who mentions the serious assault. I would like to know, you say the persons wanted to hurt him there and that is what happened? That is what I ask you.
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I agree that if people are many then attack a person, that is a severe assault because each and every one would use anything to assault that person that is why I stated that it is a severe assault. We were not attacking him individually, we'll assault him at the same time.
MS VAN DER WALT: How many days were you on the farm there at Josini?
MR KOOLE: I'm not able to remember the duration and I'm not able to say how many we were.
MS VAN DER WALT: In that same sentence you mention that the interrogation was accompanied by a serious assault by everyone including yourself, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And your participance, what did you do? How did you assault him?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, that is where I kicked him, then I used open hands. I'm not able to state as to whether what I used but I remember that I used fists and open hands and then I kicked him, I mean that's my role.
MS VAN DER WALT: Did you kick him on his body?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to state as to whether which part of the body I kicked him but I know that I kicked him but I'm not able to state a spot on his body where I kicked him.
MS VAN DER WALT: And you state furthermore with this serious assault by everyone who was present he only had one mark and you say his eye was swollen, is that correct?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: But if everybody assaulted this person so seriously, that could not be possible Mr Koole.
MR KOOLE: That is possible Chairperson, because it depends on where he was assaulted. We'd kick him as many or assault him as many but one would kick him on the eyes he would be injured but on the other parts he won't be injured, that is possible.
MS VAN DER WALT: Was he sitting, standing or lying down when this assault took place?
MR KOOLE: He was lying on the ground, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: And while he was lying on the ground everybody present kicked and hit him?
MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard what Mr van Dyk said, that he struck the person on the back and on the head with a baton, what do you say about that?
MR KOOLE: I didn't observe any instrument used, I did not observe that, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Were you present all the time?
MR KOOLE: I would not say that I was present at all times. It is possible that you would go out and do something which would not put you on the scene and to observe anything which was happening there. I was not there at all times.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you Madam Chair.
Mr Koole, I want to refer you to that very same page and paragraph, page 24 and paragraph 27 where you say :
"the interrogation was accompanied by an assault by everybody"
Was Mogadi in the "everybody present" or can you not remember whether he was there?
MR KOOLE: I'm not able to testify as to who was present and who was not present but I know that we all assaulted him but I don't know who did what or who was present at what time.
MR NEL: So you cannot say whether Mr Mogadi assaulted him while you were there because you cannot remember, or you are not able to say?
MR KOOLE: I'm not able to explain the role in that place but I know that all of us attacked him at the same time. I was not able to observe as to whether he took part, I just think that he took part in the assault.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, was Mogadi present at the assault you have referred to in paragraph 7?
MR KOOLE: Yes he was present Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: So it means he participated in the assault because your version is that every person who was present there participated in that assault?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR NEL: Well my instructions are Mr Koole, that Mr Mogadi was not present during the interrogation and he was also not present during the assault and did not assault Mr Mngomezulu. What do you say about that?
MR KOOLE: I dispute that Chairperson, he was present and there was no one whom I saw him being an observer during the assault, all of us took part in the assault.
MR NEL: I've got nothing further Madam Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, I just want to follow up on a question of clarity. Are you able to say who was present? You've just mentioned Mr Mogadi as having been present during that assault. Who else was also present?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, all of us who were there, there was no one who was observer during the assault. The whole group which was present on the scene of the assault took part in the assault itself. I'm not able to state how many we were and who was present and who was not present.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm interested in the constitution of the group. You are making an allegation that all those who were present participated in the assault. You must know who constituted that group for you to be able to say they all participated otherwise I have a difficulty in you remembering that everybody who participated in the assault, yet you are unable to remember who constituted that group that participated in the assault? Do you get my difficulty?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, those I know that they were present is Armand Nofomela, Johannes Mbelo, Mogadi, myself and Mr Paul van Dyk. Those are the names I'm able to remember.
CHAIRPERSON: Did this assault take place prior to the alleged arrival of Mr Beeslaar and Mogai?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, the assault happened before they arrived, they came later after the first assault, they came during the second assault.
CHAIRPERSON: And where was Mr Pienaar at this stage, had he not yet joined the group?
MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, I don't remember as to whether he had already arrived or not.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Ramawele?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Just a few questions.
Mr Koole, after the kidnapping, where precisely was Mr Mngomezulu taken?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember about Piet Retief, I remember that he was taken near the dam.
MR RAMAWELE: No, what I mean is immediately after the kidnapping, where was he taken, if you know?
MR KOOLE: According to my recollection we took him to the house near the dam.
MR RAMAWELE: Was it at a deserted house?
MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.
MR RAMAWELE: And you say it was in Piet Retief?
MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, it's near Josini.
MR RAMAWELE: Are you familiar with the surroundings there?
MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, I'm not familiar with those surroundings.
MR RAMAWELE: Because Mr Nofomela will say that he was taken after the kidnapping to the house in Pongola, what do you say to that?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember, Chairperson, I don't remember that incident.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you correct Mr Ramawele?
MR RAMAWELE: Chair, this is what my client has indicated in his application and this is what he will testify about where after the kidnapping where Mr Mngomezulu was taken.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But doesn't he say he was taken to a house between Pongola and Piet Retief?
MR RAMAWELE: Chair, I'm trying to be very specific to say that it was in Pongola.
CHAIRPERSON: You are not specific, that's what we have before us. What we have before us is that Mr Nofomela says that after his abduction Mr Mngomezulu was taken to a house which was a farm between Pongola and Piet Retief, you are saying it was Pongola as if it was in Pongola whereas he's saying it was a house between Pongola and Piet Retief?
MR RAMAWELE: My instruction now after recollection is that he was taken to Pongola, not actually between Pongola and Piet Retief.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, these are your later instructions?
MR RAMAWELE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Because I am now reading from what appears from his application on page 170.
MR RAMAWELE: I've noted that.
CHAIRPERSON: My apologies.
MR RAMAWELE: Thank you.
What is your answer to my question?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't know that area, I know that we were near the house, we were in a house near the dam.
MR RAMAWELE: So you wouldn't dispute that?
MR KOOLE: I would not dispute that, Chairperson.
MR RAMAWELE: Where were you, if I can put it this way, where were you stationed or where were you supposed to go sleep, you know, after this incident. Is it Piet Retief or is it Pongola?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, we were sleeping in Piet Retief.
MR RAMAWELE: And according to your recollection, the place where Mr Mngomezulu was taken, is it very far from the place where you were supposed to go and spend the night?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR RAMAWELE: So it's very far from the place?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson. It's a distance from where we left him.
CHAIRPERSON: May I just make a follow up with your permission Mr Ramawele?
Mr Koole, I'm trying to understand your evidence the best way I can. I thought during cross-examination by Ms van der Walt you were almost firm in that you were familiar with the place where the interrogation took place when it was put to you that the interrogation was conducted in a particular place, you actually were firm that the place where this interrogation took place was between Golele and Piet Retief, do you remember saying that? And you were very firm because Ms van der Walt wanted to put the version given by her clients then you went on to explain why you were insisting that your recollection had to be accepted, you said there could have been different routes used to go to a particular place. I'm trying to recollect your evidence. I can't do that verbatim but I seem to recollect your evidence to this aspect being that the interrogation happened between Golele and Piet Retief. Now if you concede that it could have been in Pongola, I'm a little troubled by that concession. Have I understood your evidence correctly so far?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't remember as to where we were, whether it's Golele, what I know is that the house near the dam is between Golele and Piet Retief. I don't know that place well.
CHAIRPERSON: So you concede you don't know the place well?
MR KOOLE: I don't know that place Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And do you know whether Golele is part of Pongola?
MR KOOLE: I don't know as to whether Golele is part of Pongola, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But it is your recollection that the first interrogation was conducted next to Josini farm, is it not so?
MR KOOLE: That's what I stated Chairperson, that's what I recollect. The second interrogation was made near the dam. I stated that I don't remember where was the first interrogation conducted.
CHAIRPERSON: Was there a first interrogation, other than the Josini dam interrogation, was there any other interrogation prior to the Josini dam interrogation?
MR KOOLE: That's what I said that I don't remember about where the place in Piet Retief, where the interrogation was done firstly.
CHAIRPERSON: Was such an interrogation conducted at any place other than the house next to Josini dam?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember that, Chairperson. I don't know anything about the interrogation near Piet Retief as to whether there was an interrogation at a particular place except the one near the dam.
CHAIRPERSON: So to your recollection there was only one interrogation and that's the one that was conducted at Josini dam?
MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson, that's the one I remember.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ramawele?
MR RAMAWELE: Thanks Chair, I've got no further questions. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAMAWELE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Thank you Madam Chair.
Mr Koole, I'm trying to understand your idea of a severe assault. When asked whether every times when you were there was the victim severely assaulted, you replied by saying that he was severely assaulted because many people were assaulting him. Now I'm trying to understand it in the light of the injuries he had. Except for a swollen eye would you say Mr Mngomezulu was severely injured?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I regarded it that way because we attacked him, that does not mean that if he is attacked in that fashion he would die but I know that he was attacked by kicking and being assaulted by fists. That is my understanding.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi, the one I understand his definition of the severity of assault, is that that is constituted by the number of persons who participated in assaulting Mr Mngomezulu. I doubt if you can take it further than that?
MR KGASI: I just wanted to understand that.
And it's your testimony that you were never present at all the time of interrogation?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR KGASI: Now the last time when you saw the deceased, you still remember his state?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, he was lying on the ground, he was still alive at that time because we could see that his lips were moving. I would not know that he was in pain but what I know that he was lying there and still alive. I saw him with my eyes, I did not do anything to him physically further.
MR KGASI: If I understand you correctly he was conscious?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, he was lying on the ground but he was not doing anything. I would not say anything other than saying he was lying there, I would not say he was conscious or not dead, because I cannot put it the other way in Tswana.
MR KGASI: And you still remember why you were told to leave?
MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, we were just informed that Black members should return to our base near Piet Retief, we should go and wait there, we were not given reasons why.
MR KGASI: That instruction was only given to Black members of the team?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR KGASI: And you have no idea why that is so?
MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, I've no knowledge.
MR KGASI: Thank you Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KGASI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?
MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: Mr Koole, you have heard, I think it was Mr van Dyk's evidence which said that Mr Mngomezulu was blindfolded. Did you hear that evidence?
MR KOOLE: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: What do you say about it?
MR KOOLE: It's correct Chairperson, he was blindfolded when we put him in the car.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you understand his question. It was Mr van Dyk's evidence that during Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation, not at the time of his abduction. During his interrogation he was blindfolded and that is the question which is being asked of you.
MR KOOLE: I don't remember as to whether he was blindfolded at the time of the interrogation.
MR MALAN: I find it very strange that one cannot recall that because you can tell us that his one eye was swollen. Could you see it if he was blindfolded?
MR KOOLE: He may be blindfolded for seconds or minutes and thereafter it would be removed so there will be chance. At the time when I saw the eye being swollen, I don't know as to whether he was blindfolded or not but maybe before then he was blindfolded.
MR MALAN: I don't know if we're missing each other or whether it's the interpretation of what you are saying. Please tell us, how could you see if a man's eye was swollen because of an assault while he had a blindfold around his head, how does one see that?
MR KOOLE: As I have explained Chairperson that I will not be able to see the swollen eye if he was blindfolded. At the time when I saw that eye swollen he was not blindfolded.
MR MALAN: And you cannot recall that he was specifically blindfolded during the interrogation and the assault?
MR KOOLE: There is a time when he was blindfolded and there was a time when he was not blindfolded.
MR MALAN: Can you tell me, when he was blindfolded was he blindfolded when you abducted him?
MR KOOLE: Do you mean after we crossed the border or whilst we were still in Swaziland? After we crossed the border within South Africa he was blindfolded within the Republic of South Africa.
MR MALAN: So while he was in Swaziland he was not blindfolded?
MR KOOLE: He was taken to the car from the house then we alighted the car, then we walked on foot, then we boarded the car after we crossed the border.
MR MALAN: And at which stage did you blindfold him for the first time?
MR KOOLE: For the first time it was when we put him in the kombi whilst we were still in Swaziland.
MR MALAN: When did you remove the blindfold for the first time, can you recall?
MR KOOLE: I don't remember as to whether we were in the kombi but the blindfold was removed but it was after he was abducted.
MR MALAN: I do understand that because the blindfold was applied after he was abducted is that not so? You didn't find him there where he had blindfolded himself but I think I will leave that question there. I would just like to get certainty from you, from your recollection was he blindfolded most of the time or was he not blindfolded most of the time?
MR KOOLE: He was blindfolded most of the time, that's what I'm able to remember.
MR MALAN: Can you please tell us why he would be blindfolded?
MR KOOLE: I'm not able to recollect the reasons behind that, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: And you are entirely certain that at times he was not blindfolded?
MR KOOLE: Yes that is correct, Chairperson, there was a period where he was not blindfolded.
MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. Mr Motata?
ADV MOTATA: Just one, Madam Chair, thank you.
Mr Koole, you say most of you participated in the interrogation and assault. You will recall you said Mr de Kock subsequently came to the scene as well as Beeslaar and Mogai, you recall that?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
ADV MOTATA: Would you say now the team that assaulted Mr Mngomezulu grew because on page 24, I think, paragraph 8, you said
"they also participated in the questioning and assaults."
Does that suggest that the party that interrogated him and assaulted him grew besides those who were there before their arrival?
MR KOOLE: It is correct Chairperson, after the arrival they took part in the interrogation and the assaults which means the group grew.
ADV MOTATA: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Just on a point of clarity with regard to what's contained in paragraph 8, you also mention on the last, on the one but last line, on that night, that's paragraph 8, page 24
"you all again spent the night at that house"
would this include Mr de Kock who was present at that stage?
MR KOOLE: They hadn't arrived at that particular time, the three of them at that particular time.
CHAIRPERSON: I have a problem with that because if you read what is contained in the few lines before that you will see that you start by saying that during the day Mr de Kock also arrived as well as Mr Beeslaar and Mr Mogai. Then you went on to explain that they also participated in the interrogation and the assault of Mr Mngomezulu. How can you say they had not yet arrived by that stage? You mentioned three persons who later showed up during the day and that's Mr Beeslaar, Mr Mogai and Mr de Kock?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, Mr Mogai and Mr Beeslaar, they came on the second day and they took part during the interrogation and the assault, they were not there during the first day so I thought maybe the group day during the first day and during the first interrogation and the second interrogation.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you responded to Mr Motata's question out of context, you did not understand the question? Because if that is so it means you then did not respond to the right question?
MR KOOLE: Maybe I did not understand the question Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: You however referred to a specific paragraph, were you not, Mr Koole? He referred you to your paragraph. How is it possible that when you are referred to a paragraph you then do not understand the context in which the question is being asked?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, the way I explained, is that the way I remember is that Mr Mogai and Beeslaar and Mr de Kock came later then on the second assault that is where the group or the team grew.
CHAIRPERSON: During your evidence in chief you will remember that you stated that you were able to identify Mr Mngomezulu during the abduction because he was pointed out by the informer?
MR KOOLE: I stated that he was identified by the informer then we abducted him, that's what I stated.
CHAIRPERSON: So the informer was with you as you went into Mr Mngomezulu's house?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure about this aspect of your evidence?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I did not know any person who knew that house and even that informer was lost, we went to a different house and thereafter we went to the right house.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm not worried about whether you were initially lost or not in locating Mr Mngomezulu's house, I'm asking you if you are sure about the fact that the informer was with you when you went into the identified house of Mr Mngomezulu?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And he did the pointing out and that's how Mr Mngomezulu was abducted?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I am asking this question is because we have before us an affidavit from Mr Mogadi who was the driver of the kombi. Do you remember that Mr Mogadi was the driver of the kombi that transported you to Swaziland?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Mr Mogadi very well?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, but not that well.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mogadi says that when you arrived at Mr Mngomezulu's house the informer remained behind with him inside the kombi. What do you say to that version given by Mr Mogadi and I draw your attention to page 15, paragraph 22 and page 16, paragraph 25.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just had to take the document from the pile here, sorry could you just repeat that?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's page 15, paragraph 23, let's commence with that. He says
"The members in my vehicle alighted and told me that I should keep the informer with me in the vehicle. I was informed that it was of the utmost importance to keep the identity of the informer secret. The informer was sitting in the back of the kombi. He had a balaclava over his head."
He goes on further on page 16 at paragraph 25 to say:
"I remained at the kombi with the informer."
What do you say to Mr Mogadi's version with regard to the informer and the fact that the informer remained with him at all times material to the abduction concerned?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I will explain shortly. So that we worked with the informer, at the time when we went to abduct Mr Mngomezulu we went with the informer then we instructed Mr Mogadi in the car that we'll do a sign with a torch, then when we make that sign, there should be a sign that we succeeded in the action. We did that, then from there we used the torch that we've arrived and he did not come. Then one of us left to go and inform Mr Mogadi then he informed us that he found him asleep. He was alone in the kombi.
CHAIRPERSON: So do you still persist that Mr Mngomezulu was abducted with the assistance of the pointing out of the informer who was with you at the time of his abduction?
MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And that if Mr Mogadi says differently, he would be lying?
MR KOOLE: I would not say that he would be lying, it is possible that he did not understand the situation as we did but my understanding that we made a sign with a torch that he should come, that we succeeded, then we sent somebody to go and call him because he was wasting time. If there were two he couldn't have slept in the car.
CHAIRPERSON: But if Mr Mogadi says that the informer remained with him inside the car during the abduction, wouldn't he be lying?
MR KOOLE: I have no evidence to say that he's lying but my understanding is that we went with the informer towards the house of Mr Mngomezulu.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which is the same as saying Mr Mogadi would be lying. I also need a little bit of clarity, Mr Koole, with regard to the length of Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation. I must say I'm a little confused with regard to when he was interrogated and where he was interrogated on your version. Now after abducting Mr Mngomezulu on the night when he was abducted to the best of your recollection where did you proceed to?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't want to state what I heard, I want to state what I remember. I remember that he was interrogated from - we went straight to the dam. About the interrogation at Piet Retief, I don't remember about that so I would no say that I heard that he was interrogated at Piet Retief. I not certain that it's not like that but I'm saying I don't remember.
CHAIRPERSON: You do not recall the interrogation that was conducted in Piet Retief at Moolman?
MR KOOLE: That is the one which I've already mentioned that I don't remember about that one, I only remember about the one which happened at the dam.
CHAIRPERSON: To the best of your recollection, how long did the interrogation that took place at Josini dam last?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, on the night it did not happen a long time because he was not responding to anything, they were speaking with him in Zulu, it took about ten minutes and that was all then we were told to rest.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you participated in the interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu, he briefed you on what you had to ask Mngomezulu about?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I did not ask any question and there is no one who instructed me to asking a question. They were using English and Soswasi and I'm Tswana speaking so no one instructed me to ask a particular question. That is what I learnt when they were interrogating him, in English or in Zulu so I did not know the content of the interrogation.
CHAIRPERSON: So when you say that you participated in his interrogation, what do you mean?
MR KOOLE: I'm certain that I was present during the interrogation because the interrogation is accompanied by assault. I would understand the question when it was asked in English but I would not understand what he was saying. I only took part in the assault but I know that the interrogation was accompanied by assault.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall Mr Mogadi having to be called to translate for anyone during Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation?
MR KOOLE: It's not him alone, Chairperson, he was also instructed that he should interrogate Mr Mogadi about certain names and again other places which I did not understand then he would translate that into Zulu and I did not understand.
CHAIRPERSON: You do not understand Zulu?
MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, I only understand Zulu here and there so I would not say I'm conversant, I don't know the difference between Zulu and Xhosa.
CHAIRPERSON: You obviously never put any question to Mr Mngomezulu?
MR KOOLE: Not from me Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The reason why I'm asking this is because as you were given evidence I was under the impression that you participated though to a minimal extent at both his interrogation and assault?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson when you say to a person respond to the question it's part of their interrogation so then after that if that person does not respond to the question you would make a remark of saying respond to the question, thereafter you would assault that person.
CHAIRPERSON: You didn't say anything to Mr Mngomezulu because you didn't speak Zulu? I thought you said nothing? Have I understood you incorrectly?
MR KOOLE: I did not put a question to Mr Mngomezulu, I did not ask you a question.
CHAIRPERSON: Who in your opinion was the chief interrogator amongst the Black members?
MR KOOLE: There's no one whom I would say he was a chief interrogator, at times it would be Mogai, at times Mr Mogadi. The one who I would say he was - I'm not able to mention any person who was leading the interrogation or who was the chief interrogator.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, Mr Mogadi states in his affidavit on page 18 which has already been put to you by Mr Hattingh that he recalls that Mr Mogai was the one who was busy with Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation to a point that he thought that he was the chief interrogator. Would you dispute his version?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't dispute that version but I'm not able to state that who was leading or being a chief interrogator, I'm not able to say if it's Mr Mogai or Mr Mogadi.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you worked with Mr Mogai for some time, Mr Koole?
MR KOOLE: Not for a long time Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: To your understanding, does he speak Zulu?
MR KOOLE: I don't know as to whether the language he is able to speak is Zulu or a combination of the Nguni languages so I don't know whether he knew Zulu or not.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you personally observe him putting questions to Mr Mngomezulu?
MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, I did not listen or concentrate because I did not hear what they were saying, I would just listen but I would not understand or hear what he is saying.
CHAIRPERSON: Yet you participated in Mr Mngomezulu's assault without understanding what was going on?
MR KOOLE: Chairperson when it is stated that a response to the question, then I see that this person is not responding to the questions asked, so therefore we take part in the assault because many things which were asked there he did not respond to.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, any re-examination?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, no re-examination thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Koole, you are excused.
MR KOOLE: Thank you Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if all counsel has been brought up to speed with regard to the many requests that were channelled to us as early as yesterday. We have two counsel who have approached us because they have an engagement which cannot be postponed and that requires them to leave at half past three. Another counsel has to attend to a commitment that requires him to be at a particular venue by 4 o'clock. The Committee was therefore approached with a view to requesting that we adjourn today at 3.30. I was however assured that this matter has also been discussed with all counsel involved. If it hasn't, may I apologise on their behalf. I see Mr Hugo is shaking his head as not having been made privy to this special request? Mr Williams has discussed it, Mr Prinsloo and Ms van der Walt have also conveyed their request to be released early. What is your position now, Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, I have no objection to taking the adjournment now. As I understand the position we're carrying on with the other matter tomorrow and we're starting at half past eight, is that still the position?
CHAIRPERSON: That is still the position. This matter will stand down until Thursday morning at 9.30 and the Mandla incident - the Mahlangu incident will commence tomorrow at 8.30. Is that in order, Mr du Plessis, that we adjourn early?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I have no objection that Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, you are not involved, you are the subject of the request. Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: I have no objection.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?
MR NEL: I really have no objection, thank you Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele?
MR RAMAWELE: I have no objection, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?
MR KGASI: Same with me, Madam, I have no objection.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This matter is therefore postponed until Thursday morning at 9.30 and counsel appearing in tomorrow's matter are reminded that the matter will be proceeding at 8.30 and not 9.30. Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
