A M HEYSTEK: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Heystek, do you also request that Exhibits A and B be incorporated with your evidence?
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And do you also confirm the contents of your amnesty application which has been served before the Committee, as being true and correct according to your best knowledge?
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: In 1982, where were you? Where were you stationed?
MR HEYSTEK: I was second in command of the Security Branch in Soweto.
MR VISSER: Who was in command of the Security Branch?
MR HEYSTEK: At that point it was Col Erasmus. He has retired as a Lieutenant-General.
MR VISSER: Is that Gerrit Erasmus?
MR HEYSTEK: No, Louw Erasmus.
MR VISSER: Louw, yes.
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And who was the Head of the Intelligence Unit?
MR HEYSTEK: I myself dealt primarily with it, but it was Willem Coetzee's portfolio.
MR VISSER: But if he had gone to a higher officer, would he have come to you or to someone else?
MR HEYSTEK: He would have come to me.
MR VISSER: In 1982, did you come to hear of a plan with regard to the victim in this matter, Mr Lengene?
MR HEYSTEK: Yes, that is correct. And at that stage I was the Acting Commander, because Erasmus was on holiday.
MR VISSER: What was your knowledge regarding this incident?
MR HEYSTEK: Mr Coetzee and Mr Pretorius came to see me due to certain information that we possessed indicating that SAYRCO specifically wanted to destroy Protea in order to create controversial news and so-doing gain assistance from abroad. Coetzee acted as the speaker during that visit and told me that there was a recruitment action in place and that they were busy with the recruitment of Lengene and that information that he had already disclosed by that point, had led to the arrest of certain persons. I then gave them the order to continue with the project.
MR VISSER: Just to pull this through, were you later once again approached by Mr Coetzee, to ask you or to tell you that contact had been established and that a visit would be undertaken to Botswana by him, so that he could continue the project?
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Was the question of Mr Lengene's abduction mentioned to you specifically at that point?
MR HEYSTEK: Chairperson, as far as I can recall it was not specifically mentioned to me, but I accepted that if any problems would occur over there, it would be done and it enjoyed my approval.
MR VISSER: Were you familiar with the background of SAYRCO, as it has been sketched by Mr Coetzee here?
MR HEYSTEK: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And do you agree with the fact that the members of SAYRCO were indeed a threat to the Republic during that period in time?
MR HEYSTEK: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Did you also share the information regarding Mr Lengene's position in SAYRCO?
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct.
MR VISSER: That among others, he was the Head of the military wing, TSU?
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Was it reported to you after the abduction, how things had progressed regarding Lengene?
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And did it also enjoy your approval?
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Did you study Mr Lengene's affidavit, have you read it?
MR HEYSTEK: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: In his affidavit, Mr Lengene refers to the fact that he went with you to Pretoria, although he states that he went with other persons.
MR HEYSTEK: Yes, that is correct, he refers to it.
MR VISSER: Can you tell us what you know of that?
MR HEYSTEK: The visit to Pretoria was due to a visit which was paid by Commissaris Hershveld, who was from the Botswana Police at that stage, as well as the Head of their Security Branch, the Head of their Criminal Investigation Division, which was arranged by the Department of Foreign Affairs under the order of Gen Johan Coetzee. I gave Coetzee the order to bring Lengene to my office on that particular morning, I think it was a Tuesday morning, and Sgt Mothiba and I went to Pretoria with him for this interview.
MR VISSER: On page 59, paragraph 35, if Mr Lengene with his reference to Protea, means to indicate Pretoria, then the question arises whether or not Willem Coetzee, Pretorius and Matheus would have accompanied him. Now I assume that the Matheus would refer to your name, wouldn't it?
MR HEYSTEK: Yes, it is possible.
MR VISSER: What is your name?
MR HEYSTEK: My name is Marius. That is what people call me.
MR VISSER: But on the day when you went to Pretoria, you say that Mothiba ...(intervention)
MR HEYSTEK: Yes, Mothiba accompanied me. There were only three of us in the vehicle.
MR VISSER: And can you tell us what took place in Pretoria, according to your recollection?
MR HEYSTEK: On our arrival in Pretoria we were taken up to the floor where Gen McDonald was seated. We were informed that Commissaris Hershveld, along with his two assistants, were with Gen McDonald in the office. At that point he had the rank of Brigadier.
MR VISSER: What did Hershveld want to know?
MR HEYSTEK: The purpose of the visit as I understood it, was to determine whether or not Mr Lengene voluntarily came to the RSA and if whether he was prepared to return to Botswana.
MR VISSER: What was Mr Lengene's viewpoint on this, did he tell them that he had been abducted or what?
MR HEYSTEK: In the first place, Mr Lengene had a long discussion of Head of Security and the Head of the Criminal Division, after which Commissaris Hershveld came in, when they were finished. General or Brig McDonald at that stage, told the Commissaris that we could leave the office and that he wanted to speak to Mr Lengene alone. In fact he insisted later that we remain in the office where the discussion took place.
MR VISSER: Who insisted on this?
MR HEYSTEK: Commissaris Hershveld. The discussion that ensued was exclusively between Commissaris Hershveld and Mr Peter Lengene, and it took place in English.
MR VISSER: Did Lengene tell him that he had been abducted and that he wanted to return?
MR HEYSTEK: Mr Lengene told him that he was in the RSA and that he was very happy and that he did not want to return to Botswana. If I am correct, Commissaris Hershveld upon three or four occasions, put three or four different requests to him, among others one which I recall specifically and it was that he said that he would only take him alone in an aeroplane to Botswana where he would have to sign a document indicating that he wanted to return to South Africa voluntarily, but Mr Lengene still refused to go back with him to Botswana.
MR VISSER: In his statement, in paragraph 35 and onwards, Mr Lengene states that some of his comrades in Botswana at that stage, had already been captured and prosecuted with regard to acts that they had committed there and he was afraid that he would also be put in jail by the Botswana authorities. What do you say about that?
MR HEYSTEK: Chairperson, the information which led to the arrest and conviction and sentencing of the persons to whom he referred, was given that morning by him to the Head of the Detective Branch and the Head of Security. At that stage those persons were still unknown to the Detective Branch, they didn't know who was responsible for those deeds.
MR VISSER: And then you say - is it your evidence that because of the information that Mr Lengene provided you with, that these people, the previous comrades of Mr Lengene were arrested in Botswana and later convicted?
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Mr Lengene was later attested as a member of the Police Force.
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And concerning yourself, were you aware of any unhappiness?
MR HEYSTEK: No, I attested him myself as a member of the Force.
MR VISSER: Were you also involved in interrogations or discussions with his mother and his safety?
MR HEYSTEK: After it appeared in the newspapers that Mr Lengene had been abducted I got instructions from Head Office to arrange that he meet his mother and appease her, in the sense that he is safe and not as it had been alleged that he was assaulted and injured. We then did that. If my recollection is correct, such meetings occurred there times within my presence, it was not in an office, it was in a vehicle that was used for this purpose.
MR VISSER: And do you carry any knowledge of any medals that Mr Lengene received?
MR HEYSTEK: It was after my time in the Force.
MR VISSER: Very well. Thank you, Mr Chairman, I believe that's the ...
Oh yes, there's one aspect that I want to deal with. There was a person in Botswana that was arrested, a certain Tijiana, I think a persons spell it, T-i-j-i-a-n-a.
MR HEYSTEK: That's correct, yes.
MR VISSER: And was a legal representative appointed to represent him?
MR HEYSTEK: Yes.
MR VISSER: Where was this legal representative, in Botswana or here?
MR HEYSTEK: No, somebody was appointed in Botswana, but there was an Advocate, I'm not quite sure what his surname was, I was given the instructions once again to go and consult with the Advocate. I think it was an Adv Cohen, I'm not quite sure who he was, I cannot remember.
MR VISSER: Was this in Johannesburg?
MR HEYSTEK: Yes. After which on his request, I arranged that Mr Lengene, and I think it was Sgt Mothiba who went with us, who accompanied him and as far as I know Mr Lengene consulted with this Advocate alone. That was the requirements.
MR VISSER: You were not present?
MR HEYSTEK: No.
MR VISSER: Or any other member of the Police Force?
MR HEYSTEK: No, not at all.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
MR VAN DER HEYDE: I have no questions, Mr Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER HEYDE
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Heystek, do I understand you correctly, that the way of recruiting someone, you did not know anything about this?
MR HEYSTEK: The information that I had, that I received from Mr Coetzee was that Mr Peter Lengene was willing to work with us, but that we did not have any guarantees at that stage that this is the case. I told Mr Coetzee to go and try and recruit this person but also to use their own initiative, because to recruit somebody in a foreign country, a country where you are not welcome, is always a very dangerous and surely an illegal act. But that was the situation.
CHAIRPERSON: When you gave the approval to go and recruit him, did you foresee any irregularities in what may happen to him? I can understand that you understood that they will cross the border illegally and that they may break other laws in the process, but did you foresee that they will act in an unlawful manner towards him?
MR HEYSTEK: Mr Chairperson, if I may put it this way, although I did not tell them this directly, I would have been very unhappy if they found themselves in a situation where they were arrested by the Botswana Police, because you must know that I did not have approval from anyone to execute this operation.
CHAIRPERSON: Your knowledge at that stage was that he was willing to work with you and then you gave your approval.
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And then you gave your approval.
MR HEYSTEK: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: When you received approval, did you foresee or plan that they will act unlawfully towards Peter Lengene? In other words, to assault him, to hit him.
MR HEYSTEK: No, I did not expect it.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you foresee that when you gave your approval he be abducted?
MR HEYSTEK: Yes, I accepted that if something went wrong they would abduct him and bring him back to South Africa, and I think I had a good reason to think this.
CHAIRPERSON: What was that?
MR HEYSTEK: We were in a war situation and I want to call it a situation of war, with the then government and the current government and the current government and if SAYRCO succeeded in levelling Protea with the ground, as they planned to do, and that's the information we had, they would have received a lot of attention, especially from abroad but also in South Africa amongst the black communities or those who did not have the right to vote, if I can put it this way, and that I wanted to prevent at all costs.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you ask them to come over?
MR HEYSTEK: When did I ask them, Mr Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: Before you gave them approval.
MR HEYSTEK: Honourable Chairperson, Mr Coetzee told me that this man is recruitable ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, my question is, did you ask Coetzee if they asked this person to come across?
MR HEYSTEK: No, they hadn't had contact with him, so how can they ask him?
CHAIRPERSON: How did they find out about this?
MR HEYSTEK: Through their informers, Mr Chairperson. My answer to you is that they did not speak to him personally, but there was information on the table that indicated that this person is willing to come across.
CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't ask Coetzee then to ask the person through your informer?
MR HEYSTEK: Time played a factor. Time was a factor to prevent chaos in Protea and Soweto and in the whole Republic of South Africa.
CHAIRPERSON: And you believed that SAYRCO will do this to South Africa?
MR HEYSTEK: Honourable Chairperson, if SAYRCO succeeded in blowing up the whole Head Office of the Soweto South African Police, the Unrest Unit, the Detective Head, the Uniform Head, the Department Commissioner, the Head of the Security Branch, that whole complex, if they attacked that complex and succeeded in it, then you can understand what reaction it would have in the rest of South Africa and in the rest of the world.
CHAIRPERSON: You see I cannot understand your answer, the person could have been asked in the same period of time that it took to abduct him. That's all.
MR HEYSTEK: Honourable Chairperson, who do you ask to go and ask him?
MR MALAN: The same person who told you that he's willing to come across.
MR HEYSTEK: But then we sit with the same situation that if he turns around and says "No, I am not very honest", because at that stage he already had knowledge of two of our men who worked across the border, then their lives would have been in danger.
MR MALAN: Please explain it to me.
MR HEYSTEK: Mr Chairperson, Mr Lengene, if I understood it correctly and if my recollection is correct, he already had contact with - or maybe he wasn't aware of it or completely aware of it, I do not really know what the circumstances were, but that that stage he already had contact with two of our cross-border operators, or whatever you want to call them, who were both members of the Force. If he had been approached by one of them and they say "Well come across to our side" and he had said "No, I will not, why do you ask me", then it would have led to a chain reaction and it would have put the safety of our own people in danger and I was not willing to place somebody under my command in such a situation. That is why Mr Coetzee suggested that they go across the border with a few men, sum up the situation and then take their own initiative, and I agreed with that.
CHAIRPERSON: I think it was Mr Coetzee that said that if you followed the route of the informers and to convince him to come over without abducting him and he refused, then he would have left it that. I think it was Coetzee who said that. Now what do you say about this?
MR HEYSTEK: I do not quite understand the question, can you just repeat it.
CHAIRPERSON: I asked him what would happen if you had chosen the route of inviting to walk across the border and come here and he sent a message "I refuse to do it", he's not interested, then Coetzee said that he would have left it there and wouldn't have done anything else.
MR HEYSTEK: Mr Chairperson, it's very easy to speculate at this stage, but I accept that if somebody on the other side said "I'm not interested", I will not have any interest in him either. That is logical.
CHAIRPERSON: The impression that you create in your testimony is that you didn't have this option, you had to abduct him because if you provided him with the option to come across, you would have placed your members or the agent's lives in danger and that is why you couldn't do it. I am now referring to asking him personally to walk across.
MR HEYSTEK: What was discussed that morning in my office is what Mr Coetzee suggested, we did not have the situation in terms of what could happen. Mr Coetzee reported to me that this person was recruitable. I mentioned that time was a factor and we wanted this person on our side.
CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence does not correlate with that of Coetzee's on this point and I will tell you why. You are telling us now that according to the information that you had that morning in that meeting, you knew that they had to do everything except abduction, or including abduction, to get this person to cross and to ask him to walk across was not an option for you because if he was asked and he refused, then you place the agents at risk. Now Coetzee says well if we had that option that we did not use, but if we did use it, to ask him to walk across and if he then refused, we wouldn't have done anything else to him. That is what he said. Do you understand that your testimony or evidence is different?
MR HEYSTEK: Mr Chairperson, I do not really understand where we're going. In my knowledge our evidence is exactly the same, we may not use the same words, or I may not use the same words as he did, but I did not think about the idea if this man will possibly be recruited or how it will happen or what happened there, it was Coetzee's duty and his work to accomplish that task. Coetzee came to me and told me that this person is recruitable. I told you in my evidence-in-chief that after they left there with this that they abducted Lengene, although I did not give him permission and although we did not discuss it, I did not have any objections.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us go back to that meeting. I am going to repeat my question on this point, please listen carefully. When you gave the approval to go and recruit Lengene, for whatever reason, we are not going to discuss that now, you planned that any illegal or unlawful acts may be executed towards Lengene.
MR HEYSTEK: The possibility was always there.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you know that there's this possibility that he could be abducted?
MR HEYSTEK: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And later on in your evidence you testified that it was not an option to ask him to walk across himself. Can you remember that you said that?
MR HEYSTEK: Yes, I did say it.
CHAIRPERSON: Then to Lengene if he had walked over, there wouldn't have been any unlawful acts towards him.
MR HEYSTEK: I understand what you're saying.
CHAIRPERSON: If that option was not an option to you, what else except illegal actions against him could have been taken?
MR HEYSTEK: I didn't even think of the option of asking ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, I know that, but what other ...
MR HEYSTEK: But it wasn't my work, it had nothing to do with me. Coetzee and them came to me and said "This is a project that we want to do", and he had to execute it.
CHAIRPERSON: But you knew that it could be possible that they would have abducted him.
MR HEYSTEK: Yes, in the back of my head I thought of it.
MR MALAN: I wish we could start with the first witness, because the evidence that was read out confused me. If I think back now, because we constantly cover the same point now, but this is my same question. If Lengene was willing to come through, why didn't we ask him to walk through? I cannot remember, we'll have to look at the evidence and I'm not quite sure and I do not know if I'll find it in my notes. If the witness said or the informer said, Khoza's information to you was that Lengene is willing to walk across to the Police or that Lengene - and this appears in the application, or was it just Khoza's idea that Lengene would have liked to have done that and it was Khoza's impression that he was recruitable? I do not know what the facts are anymore, I would like to look at the transcript. Can you comment on this? Can you tell me how you understood it?
MR HEYSTEK: Mr Chairperson, Mr Coetzee came to me and Anton Pretorius and we discussed shortly about what possibilities there were. In other words, Peter Lengene is on the other side - I cannot remember the exact words, but the fact of the matter is that he was willing to become an informer for us and already at that stage he did provide us with some information. This is according to Mr Coetzee. I cannot confirm that the information did come from him but I have no reason to say that it did not come from him.
MR MALAN: Very well. Then I want to take you back to the statement of Mr Lengene, that I assume you also read. If you then look basically from page 51 of the bundle, paragraph 11 right through, his statement is that he worked with George Khoza and in his whole statement he said that he was quite surprised to see that Khoza blocked his escape and according to Lengene's statement at the stage when he was abducted, that Khoza was not an agent. And the question is, is that not also a possibility or explanation that Khoza would have let you know that "Lengene is recruitable, according to what he had said to me." It's a different story in that Khoza would have told Coetzee or Pretrious that Lengene wanted to join them. It's two different stories.
MR HEYSTEK: Mr Chairperson, I cannot deny this statement of Lengene, but where my name has been mentioned is lies. If that is a lie, then I must make the conclusion that some of the other facts are also lies. That is point number one. Point number two is that I do not think that one of us testified that we spoke to Lengene himself, the information that we received was that Lengene's motive or willingness to work with us came from informers, the informer amongst others, Mr Khoza. What Khoza told Mr Coetzee - and unfortunately he is not with us anymore either, but what Khoza told Coetzee, I cannot say, I was never present.
MR MALAN: Yes, but what can stand out in your mind is the two possibilities. Either Coetzee came to you and said "We has Khoza that tells us that he, Khoza, thinks that Lengene is recruitable because he's saying all kinds of things", or Khoza comes to Coetzee and says "Look, Lengene told us that we have to give a message. He knows I am an agent and he would like to come back and come and work." In other words, Khoza is the messenger of Lengene, or the message comes from Khoza and not from Lengene at all. Do you have any feeling about this and about how you understood it at that stage?
MR HEYSTEK: What I understood at that stage was what I heard from Mr Coetzee.
MR MALAN: And the question is, what? What did you understand?
MR HEYSTEK: What I understood from Mr Coetzee is the fact that people were arrested because of information that Mr Lengene would have then sent in some way or another to Mr Coetzee. That is a fact. The second thing is that Mr Coetzee came to me and told me that this person is now willing to work with us and they want to cross to the other side. Where the information came from, how we received it, or in which way we received it, I cannot assist you in that.
MR MALAN: I will then summarise that version. Lengene is the messenger and he's the one who conveyed the information that Khoza is only the medium.
MR HEYSTEK: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I just need to clarify one aspect which I failed to do so. It's just one question.
FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Did you also notify Head Office concerning the recruitment of Mr Lengene?
MR HEYSTEK: Mr Chairperson, I did not.
MR VISSER: What I actually want to know is, did you tell Head Office that he was abducted?
MR HEYSTEK: After it became known in newspaper, yes I did.
MR VISSER: Did you report to somebody that Mr Lengene had been abducted?
MR HEYSTEK: I told Johan Coetzee who was then the Head of the Security Branch. He contacted me the Friday evening, a few days after the abduction of Mr Lengene, that Mr Twet Masire, the then President of Botswana was at Pik Botha and the allegation was that we had abducted Mr Lengene. I then told him that we do have him with us, but that it was a recruitment action.
MR VISSER: Thank you, that is what I wanted to know. No further questions, Mr Chairperson. No further witnesses either, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Mr Chairperson, I wish to call Mrs Cynthia Lengene as a witness.
CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Lengene, which language would you prefer to use?
MS LENGENE: I'll make use of Sesotho, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objection to taking the oath?
CYNTHIA LENGENE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER HEYDE: Mrs Lengene, you were married to Mr Lengene, the victim in this case, is that so?
MS LENGENE: That is correct.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: When did you meet him? The year.
MS LENGENE: We met in 1982, in August.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: And were you married until the time of his death last year?
MS LENGENE: That is correct.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Can you tell us about the scars on his body, did he show it to you, you saw it and where was it and how did it look?
CHAIRPERSON: Look here, Ms Lengene, I assume before he was kidnapped you were able to say whether he had any scars on his body and wherever they were?
MS LENGENE: He had no scars before he was abducted.
CHAIRPERSON: How long after he was abducted did you see him again?
MS LENGENE: When I first met him the scars were still fresh.
CHAIRPERSON: How long after he was abducted did you first see him?
MS LENGENE: He arrived in February and I saw him on the seventh month, that is July.
CHAIRPERSON: 19?
MS LENGENE: 1982.
CHAIRPERSON: You told us that you first met him in August 1982.
MS LENGENE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you say you first met him after the kidnapping, in July 1982?
MS LENGENE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Something is wrong then, you could not first have met him in your life in August 1982 and then met him for the first time again after ...(intervention)
MS LENGENE: That is correct, Chairperson, I first met him in 1982, in August.
CHAIRPERSON: And when did you - then he was abducted, correct?
MS LENGENE: He informed me that he was abducted.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you know him before he was abducted?
MS LENGENE: The person who knew him was my brother.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking about you.
MS LENGENE: No, Chairperson, I did not know him.
CHAIRPERSON: So you met him first in 1982, in August?
MS LENGENE: Correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: He had already been abducted by then.
MS LENGENE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I assume you met him in South Africa then?
MS LENGENE: Correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say - did I hear you correctly, that when you met him his scars were fresh?
MS LENGENE: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Did they still have scars on when you met him?
MS LENGENE: He died with those scars, Chairperson, and they were ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm talking about - let me put it this way, did those wounds have crusts on them when you met him, because you say they were fresh? Or why do you say they were fresh?
MS LENGENE: Yes, Chairperson, they were fresh scars, they were still fresh wounds.
CHAIRPERSON: And how did they look for you to say they were fresh?
MS LENGENE: If a person has a stitches on a particular place in the body, you'd see that the flesh is not correctly connect as it were, or the skin is a little bit cut.
CHAIRPERSON: So he still had stitched in his body?
MS LENGENE: The stitches were removed, but you could see the stitch scars.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright, now I understand. Please carry on.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Tell me, where on his body did he have these scars?
MS LENGENE: One was under the penis and the other scar was on the hand and the other one on the face. Other scars were on the two legs and the other one was at the back, because the one at the back had a bit of a hole.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Was one of his testis removed?
MS LENGENE: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Did he tell you what happened that one of his testis was removed?
MS LENGENE: I was surprised because we stayed for too long without having children, without conception.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I just think let's allow it, I'll know what to do with it.
MR VISSER: I'm not objecting, Chairperson, I think it's important, as you say, for her to say what she has to say.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Mr Chairperson, I realise that some of these questions I ask may be hearsay evidence, but it's ...
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe she needs to say it.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: How did the community react to the fact that they knew that your husband was now working for the Police? The community that you lived in.
MS LENGENE: He did not stay at a black area, he went to stay with the Coloured community, because many Coloured people did not know him, so he went to stay there.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Why did he go to stay there?
MS LENGENE: Because he was afraid to come into contact with black people because they would call him an informer.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Can you tell me, according to you, did he have a drinking problem?
MS LENGENE: No Chairperson, he did not. He was a casual drinker. For example, during weekends.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Did he ever tell you that he was afraid of the people that he worked for?
MS LENGENE: Yes, we were taken to a particular farm after we had been removed from the community township. That is where I experienced that he was afraid of his employers, because they would come even during the night when he was asleep, to send him a particular errand.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Tell me, did he change his surname?
MS LENGENE: That is correct, Chairperson, I have two IDs. I have Lengene ID and then I have Abrahams ID.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: Why did he change his surname?
MS LENGENE: Because he did not want to buy a house with Lengene's surname because those people who were with him in exile would burn his house.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER HEYDE
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, have you got any questions?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Allow me one question, Chairperson.
Was he seen by a doctor as far as you know, for any of his wounds, and if so, who was that doctor?
MS LENGENE: The doctor I know is the only doctor who is the only gynaecologist we went to when we were going to get help for conception.
MR VISSER: Thank you, no further questions Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
ADV SIGODI: Do you know if your husband has got any children besides from the marriage?
MS LENGENE: That is correct, Chairperson, he had one child. That is correct, Chairperson, it's a daughter.
ADV SIGODI: And how old is the child now?
MS LENGENE: She was born in 1986.
ADV SIGODI: '86 or '76?
MS LENGENE: She was born in 1976.
ADV SIGODI: And what is her name and surname? Do you have her details, her name and surname and address?
MS LENGENE: I have the address, it's at home, but I know her name and her surname.
ADV SIGODI: ...(inaudible)
MS LENGENE: Her name is Mpo.
ADV SIGODI: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, will you be able to give us that?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I don't have those details with me but I'm sure we will get it. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you, you're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Heyde is that all?
MR VAN DER HEYDE: That's all, Mr Chairperson.
ADV STEENKAMP: No further evidence or witnesses, Mr Chairman, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Would anybody like to make any submissions?
MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Chairperson, yes there is perhaps one thing I should refer to. I don't want to repeat the evidence etcetera. I would submit to you that on the evidence there is - there ought to be no problem, in the sense that there was a decision that the man was going to be abducted and authority was sought from Mr Heystek, who knew of that possibility and in fact, Mr Lengene was abducted.
The question of course is the obvious question that arises and that is, if the man suggested that he wanted to cooperate, why then abduct him? And I discussed this with the applicants, Coetzee and Pretorius in consultation, and the answer they gave me is the answer they gave you. The point is that Coetzee felt that it was important for him being in a strange country, that he had to take control, take Lengene to a safe place where he could make certain that he could work with him undisturbed in order to secure his cooperation.
CHAIRPERSON: I accept that argument in a sense I can understand, I don't mean ...(indistinct) understand it. The problem with that argument is that there were previous attempts to meet him there and for other reasons beyond Coetzee's control, it couldn't happen. So they did attempt to do that and now you argue that they had to take him away safely to deal with him. I' not too sure if that is conflicting or not.
MR VISSER: I would suggest to you that it is not in conflict, there were attempts and they came to nothing. And on this occasion what Coetzee decided the way to go, would be to abduct him, Chairperson and that is why they're here before you as applicants.
CHAIRPERSON: What you are saying then, whether it was the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, it was a judgmental matter and that's the decision he made?
MR VISSER: We know it was wrong, we know it was wrong, that's why he's here.
Chairperson, the only other matter that really has to be addressed is the statement of Mr Lengene, from where it appears that various allegations of assault ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Let me put it to you this way, I don't think we can put much value on it where there's a dispute. On the common cause issues, maybe we can rely on it.
MR VISSER: I just wanted to make the one submission, Chairperson, as to what the evidential value is, and I would submit to you with respect, that at most it calls for an answer which is not inherently improbable or impossible or clearly not believable. And I submit that we've dealt with that through the evidence of Coetzee and certainly his answers are not so improbable that you can reject them, and therefore Chairperson, we would ask you to accept the evidence of the applicants.
In those circumstances, Chairperson we would ask you to allow the amnesty as we've asked for. In the case of Heystek of course, there is not a question of assault, he never knew of it.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR VISSER: Yes. Chairperson, it would entail abduction, unlawful detention, assault and then there would be contravention of border control regulations as far as entry and exit of persons and firearms are concerned. There is not a question of possession of illegal firearms in this case, because they took their own service pistols along. And then any other offence or delict, Chairperson. And then clearly, on the evidence of all the witnesses, Head Office was informed but they were not informed that the man was abducted, so there's clearly a defeating of the ends of justice as well. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
MR VAN DER HEYDE: I have no submissions, Mr Chairperson.
NO ARGUMENT BY MR VAN DER HEYDE
ADV STEENKAMP: No submissions, Mr Chairman.
NO ARGUMENT BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: We'll reserve the decision in this matter and we'll issue a decision in due course.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, before you rise, would you give me an opportunity just to address you on another issue please.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)
MR VISSER: I didn't want to interrupt you.
Chairperson, my attorney received a telephone call from a Mr Julian Rademeyer who is, apart from obviously being a concerned citizen, is a reporter of the Pretoria News and this gentleman was kind enough after he had heard of our dilemma of not being able to obtain extraneous evidence as to dates etcetera, has gone to the trouble of going to the archives of the Pretoria News and finding news clippings in regard to Mr Naledi's death, for which we've thanked him already. Chairperson, I haven't had an opportunity of studying it, but we would like to hand this to you.
CHAIRPERSON: For what it's worth?
MR VISSER: Yes. There are some things that are of interest to you, Chairperson. For example, the names of the deceased are mentioned on the first one. And the second one, Chairperson, the second aspect here is, it would appear that the raid, the SAW raid into Botswana was in fact this raid, the raid on the house of Naledi. We had such suspicions, but we didn't have the evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about the matter that we're still going to hear?
MR MALAN: The arms cache.
CHAIRPERSON: The arms cache?
MR VISSER: Yes. So it had to do with the operation against Naledi, not against the other U-shaped building where no people were killed. And as far as we suggested to you that that might be the position, we were obviously wrong, but we'll leave this with you. It makes no difference to the applications one way or the other, it just gives more information.
CHAIRPERSON: ... say that the issue of newspaper cuttings fall in the same category as we agreed on with ...(inaudible) But that's why I say we accept it for what it's worth. Thank you.
We'll adjourn till the 24th of July, 10 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
