Amnesty Hearings

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson. I just want to point to the amendment that is Annexure A that is incorrect. Mr Engelbrecht's application will be part of the first volume. His application form is from 48 to 50 and Annexure A is from page 24 to 31 and then Annexure B would be 59 to 66.

CHAIRPERSON: Annexure A then just to confirm, of Mr Engelbrecht's application is on page 24, commences on page 24 and Annexure B of his application commences on page?

MS VAN DER WALT: 59.

CHAIRPERSON: 59, yes, thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Mr Engelbrecht, on the prescribed form of the Amnesty Commission, you applied for amnesty, and you also set out the events in Annexure A and the political motive and objectives in Annexure B, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, it is.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you confirm the contents of Annexure B?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were a Police Official in the South African Police?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I was first part of the Railway Police and that then merged with the South African Police in 1985.

MS VAN DER WALT: Since when have you served in the Police?

MR ENGELBRECHT: In the SAP I started in 1985 up to 1993.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your rank when you left the Police?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was Junior Detective Sergeant.

MS VAN DER WALT: And since when were you in the Security Police?

MR ENGELBRECHT: From 1985 up to when I resigned.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you were first an ordinary Detective at the Detective Unit?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was with the Robbery Unit and then also the Investigating Detective Branch at the Railway Police.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were involved with the arrest of Stanza Bopape on the 9th of June 1988, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, it is.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you just tell the committee how that happened that you were involved?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was involved with the arrest because we were on group service, and we were on duty and we were told that we had to assist.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where were you stationed at that time?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was stationed at John Vorster Square at the Investigating Unit.

MS VAN DER WALT: There was evidence that this arrest was initiated by West Rand, who gave you the instruction to assist with the arrest?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It was Captain Zeelie, Lieutenant Zeelie. He was second in command of our group assistance unit.

MS VAN DER WALT: What precisely did you do during the arrest, did you physically arrest, what was your position?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I didn't physically arrest, I helped with going through the flat afterwards, searching the flat.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where were you when the physical arrest took place?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was probably in the flat.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any information why these people were arrested?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We were just informed that West Rand was looking for the person in connection with acts of terror and that he was involved with the ANC and that he was possibly trained.

MS VAN DER WALT: On the 10th of June, you were still on duty and did you have anything to do with Stanza Bopape?

MR ENGELBRECHT: On the 10th of June, I didn't have anything to do with him before approximately twelve o'clock the afternoon?

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, and what did you do?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was informed that he was being transferred from West Rand to Johannesburg, John Vorster Square.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you interrogate him on that particular day?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I didn't. It was a Section 29, there was a procedure that was followed and things that had to be completed and processed.

MS VAN DER WALT: This processing that you refer to, is it only done with Section 29 detainees or with other people as well who are arrested under section 50?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It is more or less the same procedure that is followed with 50 and Regulation 3 as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know if Mr Bopape was taken to a District Surgeon?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Mr Bopape was taken to a District Surgeon by myself and one of our black members.

MS VAN DER WALT: When was that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That was Friday afternoon.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you perhaps give us a time, you say that at twelve o'clock you for the first time came to know about Mr Bopape?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It was approximately two o'clock in the afternoon.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know if Mr Stanza Bopape received any medication on that particular day?

MR ENGELBRECHT: After he saw the District Surgeon, he gave me a prescription, where I stopped and I got it from the pharmacy, I asked them why, for what it was, and they said it was for a nose problem that he gave it to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you got the prescription from the Doctor and you also gave it to the pharmacy yourself?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened to the medicine?

MR ENGELBRECHT: The medicine was then handed in when a person is booked in at the security cells and it is then given to the people in charge at the security cells.

MS VAN DER WALT: The cells that you are referring to, under whose control is that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It is under the control of the uniform personnel and they have to see to take care of these detainees.

MS VAN DER WALT: The rest of the day, the 10th of June, you referred to processing and he was taken to the District Surgeon, anything else that was done?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, fingerprints were taken, photo's were taken, the background was taken and then the 29 is done on him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you present when the 29 was done?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who did it?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That was Colonel Du Toit.

MS VAN DER WALT: I refer you to Chairperson, to volume 3, page 747. It seems to be an Occurrence Book that was held at the charge office.

MR ENGELBRECHT: This is held at the cell's charge office.

ADV BIZOS: There is an entry 399, 20h05, it shows that the detainee was booked in at the cells, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you have any knowledge of this, were you present?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I accompanied Warrant Officer Mostert to the cells.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then the medication was handed over?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: It is also put in the entry. The next day, the 11th, did you see Mr Bopape again?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that is correct I saw him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Under which circumstances and where?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Arrangements were made between myself and Warrant Officer Mostert because he had to attend the meeting at West Rand, that I should visit the detainee. I saw him that afternoon at one o'clock because I played rugby that Saturday afternoon.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was the object of this visit?

MR ENGELBRECHT: The purpose was if there was anything that he wanted to tell us, to ask us. You just want to know if he wanted to say anything, if he needs any assistance, if he wants anything, it is basic things that we did when we have a security detainee.

MS VAN DER WALT: I refer you once again to bundle 3, page 748, entry 418 Chairperson. There is an entry in the Occurrence Book, it is a visit to Bopape, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: There are two people with you according to the entry, it is Warrant Officer Wilken and Warrant Officer Syfert?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did those two people go along?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know whether they visited Nkosi at that stage, but we got each other at the office and we went together to the cells.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know whether they went with you into the cell?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, they didn't go with me, I was alone and I just asked Bopape if there was anything that he wanted to tell me, or that he needed something. He didn't answer me, he had nothing to say to me.

MS VAN DER WALT: If you visit a person like this in the cell, you don't take him out. Do you go to the cell?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct. I physically go into the security cells.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you are there, are there some of the uniform personnel present?

MR ENGELBRECHT: There are uniform personnel as well as cameras.

MS VAN DER WALT: In all the cells?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do I understand you correctly, you make an entry or an entry is made in the Occurrence Book and then the uniform personnel, the person goes with you when you visit the cells?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, he has to unlock the cell.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have anything further to do with Bopape or did with him on that particular day, did you visit him, asked him anything?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, not on the 11th.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the 12th?

MR ENGELBRECHT: If you are on group duty, it is the arrangement that you have to go to the office on Sunday and that is the arrangement with Mostert and that is that we would interrogate Bopape on the Sunday.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any information that you had to interrogate him about?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I got the information from Mostert after we had discussions with each other on the Sunday morning.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Committee how you conducted the interrogation on the Sunday with regard to Mr Bopape?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We booked him out of the cell, we took him to the office, we went over the background again, we asked different questions.

We gave him some of the facts, put questions to him, then we went back to his school career, his background where he was involved, different ways were followed.

MS VAN DER WALT: From the cross-examination of Mr Mostert, it seemed as if there was a problem because the period Mr Mostert guessed before the shock device was applied, it was approximately an hour and a half to two hours, what do you say was the period?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I would say the interrogation before we proceeded to the shock method, was approximately two and a half hours where different questions were put to him, not specifically only about his involvement with acts or his training or his ANC involvement, different questions were put and written down.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is it of necessity at such interrogation, that only questions are put about the information at your disposal, or could it be on anything that is not even relevant?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, sometimes you just talk about things that is not even related to the issue.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why do you do that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It is an interrogation technique that you learn.

ADV DE JAGER: It seems they do it as the Advocates do it?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was Mr Bopape's attitude towards you?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I won't say that he was very cooperative. I don't say that he was arrogant, but we didn't get through to him to cooperate.

MS VAN DER WALT: There is a statement by a very good friend, that is Mr Peter Maluleka who describes Mr Bopape as stubborn. What do you say about that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: With the interrogation after Mr Van Niekerk was with him, I got the feeling that he was stubborn and that he didn't want to cooperate, I would agree with that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Mostert and you, did only one of you talk and one write down?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We both asked questions, he did the writing, and we both asked questions.

MS VAN DER WALT: You say Mr Van Niekerk also came in at some stage, what did he do?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He once again asked Bopape and explained to him about the Section 29, the circumstances, what can happen and so forth and he asked us whether we were progressing. We decided that we had to get the information as quickly as possible.

MS VAN DER WALT: Please tell the Committee how it came about that you decided to proceed to more drastic actions?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That was because the information that was conveyed to me by Warrant Officer Mostert, was that they had a discussion on the Saturday and because of the seriousness of the case, I felt that we could take it further than just pure interrogation and continued to a drastic step.

MS VAN DER WALT: How did it happen then, did you talk to someone about it?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct. We talked to Major Van Niekerk and Captain Zeelie was also present.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened then? What did you decide?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We decided to take the drastic step and to apply the shock method.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell us what happened then, how did it come about that you got the device?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I know someone was phoned to bring the device. Sergeant Du Preez arrived with the device and a chair was taken from Mr Van Niekerk's chair, a big arm chair, and it was put in the middle of the passage.

The person was put on the chair, and we requested him to take off his shoes and his shirt.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what happened then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: The person was tied with velcro strips, we got it from Lieutenant Zeelie.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: The person was once again asked whether he wanted to say something, whether he wanted to cooperate, he didn't give any answers.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell us precisely how he was shocked?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Sergeant Du Preez stood in front of him, I stood next to him. The cords of this shock device was covered with cloth that was dipped in water, it was pulled over his body because the water doesn't leave any burn marks and it stays on the body when you pull it over.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now, who pulled the cords over Mr Bopape's body?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It was myself.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell the Committee precisely how you did that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It was pulled over his top half of his body, and it was a machine that was kept in different parts of his hand, and it was pulled over his body.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was it across his chest.

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, the top part of his chest.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was it from the top to the bottom over the chest?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I can't say precisely, but I would say there were different ways because I had two different cords in two different hands.

MS VAN DER WALT: If you take the cords, if you pull it then Mr Du Preez turns the sling?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happens then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Then the shock goes through the cords to the person's body.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happens then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It was for a short while, I think he turned once or twice and then it was asked whether he would cooperate, he answered no or sometimes he just remained silent, and it was repeated two or three times.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you say how this machine is turned. Is it a sling that is turned quickly?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, almost like an old fashioned farm telephone.

MS VAN DER WALT: And everyone that you mentioned, Mr Zeelie, Van Niekerk, Mostert and yourself, were present?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did anyone do the talking?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Many talked, may asked questions, but mostly I would say that I asked him because I was busy with the interrogation. I asked him questions and he didn't answer me or he said he was not going to cooperate.

MS VAN DER WALT: You say that the machine was turned approximately two or three times, what happened then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Then his head just fell over forward and at that stage Major Van Niekerk said that something was wrong, the person was untied, he was placed on the ground. Sergeant Du Preez did mouth to mouth resuscitation, we felt his pulse and we then realised that the person was dead.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do after that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We were all shocked, we couldn't believe that a person, that it could have happened in a few minutes. We decided that we should do, we had a suggestion that we first had to consult with our Officers and then to decide and Van Niekerk then left to go and see General Erasmus.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was the machine ever tested, examined after this incident to see what had taken place?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes. Sergeant Du Preez took the two points of the cords, and I turned the machine and he said there was just a shock that came through.

MS VAN DER WALT: Have you in the past seen torture with or assault with such a machine?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you operate it yourself?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was the reaction of, in that process?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It was more or less the same that Mr Bopape went through, but not with the consequences as in this particular case.

MS VAN DER WALT: This type of shock device that you used, is that the same that you saw the previous time?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I won't say it was exactly the same, it was similar.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did Van Niekerk then go to the Officers?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes. He said that we should wait, he would return with an answer.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened to the body of Mr Bopape?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Mr Bopape's body was placed back into the office which was next to the office of Van Niekerk's, that is where the interrogation was, and the door was locked.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was Mr Bopape open or was he covered?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He was placed in a foetal position, and he was covered with a blanket.

MS VAN DER WALT: After Mr Van Niekerk returned, what did he tell you?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He said we just had to wait, Brigadier Erasmus was contacting Head Office and that he would come to the office and then a decision would be taken.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: After a while Captain Zeelie, he was Lieutenant Zeelie, and Major Van Niekerk, went to the 7th floor and they returned and they told us what should happen.

Colonel Du Toit also came up to the 10th floor.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did Colonel Du Toit - why was he there?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He asked me where the person was that was deceased. I opened the door, he lifted the blanket and he had a look at the person laying on the floor in a foetal position.

MS VAN DER WALT: When Mr Bopape laying on the floor, as he was laying there, was there any external wounds, blood, anything injuries?

MR ENGELBRECHT: There were no injuries, no blood, nothing. MS VAN DER WALT: What happened then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Colonel Du Toit went out of the office, it was locked again and it was decided that the person should be taken to Bronkhorstspruit.

MS VAN DER WALT: How was he taken to Bronkhorstspruit?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Before he was taken there, Sergeant Du Preez went to fetch two, or he brought two black bags and the person was placed in. One bag was from his head, the other one from his feet and he was carried down in a blanket to the cellar of the Security Unit. He was placed in the boot of Lieutenant Zeelie's vehicle.

We then went to Bronkhorstspruit. We were informed that we would get people from Eastern Transvaal and that they would dispose of the "package" as it was called.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened there?

MR ENGELBRECHT: When we arrived at Bronkhorstspruit, we got two vehicles. Sergeant Du Preez and myself, we went with Van Niekerk's vehicle, and Van Niekerk, Zeelie and Mostert and the body was in Lieutenant Zeelie's vehicle.

On arrival we got two vehicles on the highway. We went to a dirt road from the highway. And it was a vehicle of a person that I did not know, I later came to know him as Mr Van Loggerenberg.

We pulled it together, the boot sides to one another and the body was placed from the one into the other.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you talk to Mr Van Loggerenberg there?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I didn't nor with Mr Visser. I don't think it was necessary to talk with him then.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were there any other people present besides you, Visser and Van Loggerenberg?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No. No one else except for the two people from the Eastern Transvaal and us from John Vorster Square.

MS VAN DER WALT: After the body was handed over, what happened then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Van Niekerk said that we had to go back to John Vorster Square. Myself and Du Preez went with his vehicle and the three of them went with Zeelie's vehicle to John Vorster.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you don't know what the other people discussed?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I don't know.

MS VAN DER WALT: And at John Vorster Square?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We were informed that we had to plan an escape because it was arranged by the people from Head Office and our senior Officers in John Vorster Square.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We planned an escape in the vicinity of De Deur.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do, what was your part?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Major Van Niekerk and Warrant Officer Mostert and Zeelie and myself, we went with my vehicle in the direction of De Deur, and we along the way we stopped next to the road and then Zeelie slashed the right back wheel and Mostert's bag was placed on the left front seat and also the handcuffs and so the whole escape was planned.

ADV DE JAGER: You say Mostert's bag ...

MR ENGELBRECHT: It was his jacket which was placed over the left front seat.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was that to go along with the whole issue that the key was taken from the jacket?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We were busy changing the tyre and Zeelie ran into the direction of the veld. Major Van Niekerk fired two shots in the air, we changed the tyre. Mostert was back to De Deur to report the incident.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you make any statements with regard to the escape?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the statements were false?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you ever try to find out what happened to the body of Mr Bopape?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I never tried to find out because senior officers were involved, and I didn't view it as necessary because they would not have assisted a person if they had not known what was going on.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was your rank at that stage?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was a Constable, Detective Constable.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Mostert worked at Sandton, and you were at John Vorster, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: But it is the same Unit?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It was an Investigation Unit, they were busy with other investigation at John Vorster, we were mostly involved with acts of terror and terrorists.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were in the Railway Police as well as in the ordinary South African Police and they were taken over at that stage, and then you went to the Security Branch.

Did the objects of your duties differ from the Railway Police?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, with the Security it is much more different than detective work, because you mostly had to do with political information which you had to get.

The objective of the politician is taken into account and the Security Branch is in fact a leg in politics.

MS VAN DER WALT: The interrogation that you did, what was the aim?

MR ENGELBRECHT: The interrogation that we did, was to get information to keep the government of the day in power and to make the country governable for them.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did they go, why did someone go to General Erasmus or weren't you part of that decision process?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I think the reason why we went to Brigadier Erasmus was because he was in command of us, he knew what we were busy with and what the investigation was about and because he was at the head of the Security Unit at John Vorster Square.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Engelbrecht, why did you participate in this action to shock someone?

MR ENGELBRECHT: To put it to you at that stage, I think everybody should know what the circumstances were, I felt and I was also involved with many investigations into bomb explosions and I just felt that the sooner we get the information from the person, the better we could perhaps act to prevent such actions.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you in any way obtain personal gain out of this?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: How did you feel afterwards?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was shocked because a person was dead and you didn't want him to be dead, you wanted information so that you could stop acts of terror.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you tested the shock device with Mr Du Preez, what reaction did that have with Mr Du Preez?

MR ENGELBRECHT: As I said Mr Du Preez could not believe that the shock from the machine that he got in his hands, that he was holding it, that that could have killed a person.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were busy with the interrogation for two, two and a half hours, interrogation of Mr Bopape and it is quite clear from the evidence that he didn't want to cooperate?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is quite a long period of time, why didn't you use other methods?

MR ENGELBRECHT: The circumstances and the time when the arrest was made and the explosions that occurred and the time for example the 16th of June was around the corner, and it is now Youth Day, that was Soweto Day then, and usually they had attacks at that time.

MS VAN DER WALT: What I want to know is you are busy interrogating Mr Bopape, that was now before the shock device arrived and it seems as if he doesn't want to talk, did you try anything else to make him talk, any other methods? That is now in the office?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I would say you raised your voice, you threatened him. Yes, perhaps you threatened him and said if you are not going to cooperate, we are going to do this and that to you, but you never assaulted him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know of other methods that could be used to get someone to talk?

MR ENGELBRECHT: There are many methods that could be used, I don't know all of them, but there are many methods to get a person to talk.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you didn't do anything to him in the two hours?

MR ENGELBRECHT: In the two hours I did not assault him, I only interrogated him, raised my voice and threatened him as to what could happen to him.

MS VAN DER WALT: You weren't at the office the whole day of the 11th, the afternoon you played rugby.

When you took Mr Bopape from the cells, did he appear to be normal or could he perhaps have been assaulted by someone else?

MR ENGELBRECHT: When was that?

MS VAN DER WALT: That was on the 12th, when you started interrogating him, on the Sunday?

MR ENGELBRECHT: On the Sunday Mr Bopape looked quite normal. Mostert and myself took him from the cells, he looked normal, he walked with us to the 10th floor.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions to ask this witness?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, just before the witness replies, I've got a message here from the interpreters, that the witness speaks a bit too quickly and they have difficulty in keeping up with the interpretation. He should just be aware of slowing down a little bit.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Engelbrecht, can you speak a little bit slower?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Certainly sir.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Engelbrecht, in the time from 1988 until the time when the attack took place, let's look at Exhibit D which was given to the Committee. If you look at that, without looking at incidents which took place at other places, it says 23 incidents which only took place in Pretoria, Johannesburg vicinity, explosions, etc?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: Different kind of explosions, then as you are aware, the indictment which was handed in to the Committee, which includes the accused and this man was apparently part of the group, the deceased, then several acts of terror were committed in the Pretoria vicinity, acts of terror which ranges from policemen being shot, explosions taking place in the centre of Pretoria, several cases of what happened in Mamelodi where

people got injured or died, explosions, are you aware of that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct yes. According to the information that we had, Mr Bopape was involved in the Mopanya group and that he was trained, or possibly trained.

ADV PRINSLOO: This Mr Mopanya that you refer to, is it the person that is referred to in the indictment who died in an explosion which he wanted to cause himself at Sterland Complex in Pretoria on the 5th of April, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

ADV PRINSLOO: All these cases, all the incidents took place in April, May just up to shortly before the arrest of this group?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

ADV PRINSLOO: If you look at your own experience, did the ANC operate in big groups such as these or would you say the intensity increased in this case?

MR ENGELBRECHT: In this case, in that time when the incident took place, these incidents increased.

ADV PRINSLOO: The reasons for these explosions and attacks on people as far as you know, were they all committed by the ANC and for what purpose?

MR ENGELBRECHT: ...[no sound] and they wanted to rule the country and that is why we acted against the ANC.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see it as a peaceful time or was it - or did you see it as the ANC, the culprit you were acting against?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I thought it was an attack against the ANC and the military wing, Umkhonto weSizwe. We were fighting them.

MR PRINSLOO: What the ANC did Mr Engelbrecht, by killing people in different ways, different methods, was also illegal. How did you respond to this illegal onslaught then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We tried to stop it, to curb it, maybe even using some of the same methods they used. We acted outside of the law and we tried to prevent it in this way.

MR PRINSLOO: Because the normal and strict rules and regulations that was there, did you adhere to them?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, not all the time.

MR PRINSLOO: I understand the situation that the ANC was outside South African and they believed in the policy of violence but inside South Africa you couldn't follow or propagate a policy of violence?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR PRINSLOO: If you did follow a disclosed policy of violence, what would you have done?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't think it would have been the police force then.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. Just one more questions please.

Mr Engelbrecht, according to Mr Zeelie the deceased shoes were taken off before he was shot, are you aware of this?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct, he was asked to take of his shirt and his shoes before he had to sit down on the chair.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, do you have any questions to put to this witness?

MR VISSER: No thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Rautenbach, do you have any questions to put to this witness?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

I'd like to take back to a part of your testimony Mr Engelbrecht. You said, after Mr Bopape was dead he was taken to your office, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: At that stage Major van Niekerk went to see General Erasmus, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Well, first we all got together, all of us involved and then we decided that he should go and see the higher officers first and tell them what happened.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you just give us clarity on that? When you spoke to Mr van Niekerk, Zeelie and Mostert, do you say that

you were shocked, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I just want to correct you, du Preez was also there then.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then the decision was taken that Mr van Niekerk would go and see General Erasmus?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that the only thing that was discussed at that stage?

MR ENGELBRECHT: If I remember correctly, Major van Niekerk said at that stage: "You can either walk the right road or we can go to our higher officers" and we decided that he first see the higher office and then he comes back.

MR RAUTENBACH: What do you think he meant with the: "Right road"?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That the person is dead and that he died in detention and that the normal legal procedures should be followed.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then he said, then he decided no, that he should first go and speak to the higher officers?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I think they knew what we were dealing with and they realised what we were doing.

MR RAUTENBACH: You said in your testimony that

"Bopape put back in my office"

and you spoke about the discussions that took place and you said this is what was discussed during the discussions and then you waited for van Niekerk to come back to tell you what the senior officers said, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: When van Niekerk got back, what did he say the senior official said?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He said that Brigadier Erasmus will come to the office and he will tell us what to do.

MR RAUTENBACH: Because in your testimony you say it very clearly that: "Bopape was put back in my office and he was placed in foetus position and he was covered in a blanket and then you on: "van Niekerk then returned". Why was he placed in a foetus position?

MR ENGELBRECHT: To explain, if it was decided that the body must be disposed of he would have been placed in a foetus position to be moved.

MR RAUTENBACH: But Mr Engelbrecht, I find your testimony amazing and I'll tell you why. Your testimony is that you were confronted with one of two options, the one the right way and only the truth comes out. Somebody ...[indistinct] and next there will be an inquiry.

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: The other road is - let's hear what our senior officers tell us, maybe there's another road to follow, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct, yes because Mr van Niekerk said that they'd always help us if something like this happened.

MR RAUTENBACH: He didn't specify, he just said that they could help?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: So where does the foetus position come into the story, why was he placed in a foetus position?

MR ENGELBRECHT: As I said before, if they were going to help us the person was in a foetus position so he could be placed in a vehicle and moved. This is all reason that I can give you.

MR RAUTENBACH: To be placed in the vehicle?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Should we ...[indistinct] if we followed the right road he would still be in the office.

MR RAUTENBACH: But where does the vehicle come into the story?

MR ENGELBRECHT: If the person was to be moved he could be placed in the vehicle in a foetus position but why do you think of the vehicle when you're thinking about the right or the wrong road?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I assume that's the way we'd do it.

MR RAUTENBACH: But where does the vehicle fit into the story?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Like I said, if we wanted to dispose of him we wanted to put him in a foetus position.

MR RAUTENBACH: So I suppose a foetus position which you understand, that it would then fit into a boot of a car?

MR ENGELBRECHT: To put a person in the boot of a car, I think that's the normal position to get a person into a boot should it be done. Fist you'd put him into a foetus position so they can fit into the boot of the car.

MR RAUTENBACH: And this foetus position, you'd rather want is before rigor mortis takes place?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I believe that's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm going to ask you again, where - at that stage whilst you were waiting for the officers, where did the thought come from to you that the man must be prepared before he gets rigor mortis to be put into the boot of a car?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I do not know, I suggested this but the person was placed in such a position.

MS GCABASHE: Could I just ask you, if your senior officer had said: "We're following the legal route", how would you have explained that foetus position?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Like I've said - I do not know who suggested this but the person was placed in such a position so if we had to follow the right road we would have explained that we first had to go and see our senior officers and that is why the person was placed in such a position.

MS GCABASHE: Sorry, I don't follow that. You assumed, are you saying that you assumed that you'd get authorization to follow a different route, not the legal route?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I wouldn't say that we got instructions what route to follow, we waited for Mr van Niekerk to come back to tell us which route we should follow or which direction this would take place in.

MS GCABASHE: But this is precisely what perplexes me, and I'm sure counsel for the family, then why the foetal position, wasn't that premature? It turns on that foetal position at that early stage.

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know if it was premature but I believe that the higher officers would have helped us because we acted wrongly and because they knew what was going on, that's what I believed.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Engelbrecht, we have a situation where the senior officer comes back after they spoke about this for quite a long time and they must have decided: "Let's go the legal way, let's follow and inquiry", and here you have a body which you placed in a foetus position which is suffering from rigor mortis. What complications would that have had, the fact that the body was different like that.

MR ENGELBRECHT: Like I've already said, that's what happened. The person was taken off the chair, we thought maybe our higher officers would help us. And then I would give the same explanation, the person was placed in the foetus position just in case the higher officers told us to follow that route.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you say about being taken off the chair and he was placed in that position in case you had another idea about how to handle the matter? He was already placed in the foetus position so just in case you wanted to take him away in a boot of a car, you would already be in the appropriate position, is that what your answer is?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I think you understand me incorrectly. The person was taken off the chair, he was placed on the ground and Mostert gave him mouth to mouth resuscitation. We realised the person was dead. Van Niekerk felt his pulse and we realised he was dead and then he was placed in my office where the interrogation took place and he was then put into a foetus position.

ADV DE JAGER: All the advocate wants to know from you is why he was put into the foetus position. At that stage had you already decided that you might have to put him in the boot of a car or that if you did not decided that, how would you have explained why the body was not lying like a normal body in a normal position?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I'd just like to explain. We did not decided immediately that the higher officers would help us. If I can explain it like this, we put it in a foetus position because if the right road was followed, I would have explained it, that the person was placed in that position because we thought that the higher officials would have helped us.

ADV DE JAGER: But if you followed the right road there wouldn't have been any mention or any question - this is now if the higher officials said: "Walk the right road", would you then have said to the district surgeon: "Sir I placed him in this position because I had another plan but the higher officials said: no, walk the right road"? Is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's what I would have done if the body was in a foetus position and we walked the right road, I would have explained that the higher officials didn't want to assist us but that's why the body was in a foetus position.

ADV DE JAGER: You or more of you, before van Niekerk went to General Erasmus, decided that you'd put him in a foetus position.

MR ENGELBRECHT: I cannot say whether it was immediate or not but he was placed in a foetus position before Major van Niekerk went to General Erasmus.

JUDGE NGCOBO: At that stage, were you confident that you were going to get the cooperation of your commanders?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Could you repeat the question please?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Were you confident that you were going to get the support of your commanders?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was certain because I believed they'd help us because they knew what we were involved in.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Is that the simple answer then to the question as to why the body was put in the position in which you put it?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I wouldn't say that's the answer but how can I put it? I think if we walked the right way we would have been able to explain it as such because our higher - our commanders wouldn't help us.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Thank you.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Engelbrecht, a question that comes to rise and one I'd like to ask you is, this situation that you were confronted with, now a decision was taken to place the person in a foetus position before an answer was received. Now I'd ask you the following, have you ever been involved in a similar situation where you so quickly decided to place the body in a foetus position?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was never before in such a position where a man died in detention and under interrogation, it was the first time.

MR RAUTENBACH: You see it goes further, if you want to move a body, even in a vehicle, it is true that a body can be moved and transported for example, in a station wagon or a microbus or a big kind of vehicle like an ambulance or a panel van or any of such vehicles but why did he have to be forced into a boot of a car? And that's what came - that's the idea they came to at that point.

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, it's not what came to me at that stage. He was placed in that position, he was - a foetus position, if he was to be put in a small compartment he had to be in a foetus position.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Engelbrecht, I understand from Mr van Niekerk's testimony that no one person made a decision, these things were discussed and then mutually a decision was made, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: When was this decision taken to create a mock escape scene?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We were told when we were driving to Bronkhorstspruit that there had to be an escape and when we arrived there Mr van Niekerk told us as we were driving back to John Vorster that we'd discuss it there further. And again we had discussions and we decided that there would be a mock escape added.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let me just get this clear, when was the first time this mock escape was discussed?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I think it's when we decided we should go to Bronkhorstspruit.

MR RAUTENBACH: Where were you when that decision was taken?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I think we were on the 10th floor.

MR RAUTENBACH: You were on the 10th floor? Then you already decided that the mock escape scene should be created?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct yes, and this mock escape should take place close to Bronkhorstspruit.

MR RAUTENBACH: And who would take responsibility for that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I believed Eastern Transvaal. Eastern Transvaal should take the body and they would also create the mock escape.

MR RAUTENBACH: You understood that the body would be given to members of the security branch in the Eastern Transvaal and they'd take the body and they'd also arrange the mock escape?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, we would have been involved in the mock escape in the Eastern Transvaal and they would have disposed of the body.

MR RAUTENBACH: I didn't understand you very well. There was testimony that Brigadier Victor clearly indicated that he did not want to be involved pertaining the arrangements of the mock escape, sorry, Visser not Victor.

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct, Major van Niekerk told us this. The Eastern Transvaal, Bronkhorstspruit, people did not want to be involved in the mock escape and that is why we drove back to John Vorster to create a mock escape at De Deur.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you discuss concerning the mock escape, except for the fact that it should happen? Did you discuss any detail, that's the question.

MR ENGELBRECHT: When was this?

MR RAUTENBACH: At John Vorster before you went to Eastern Transvaal.

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, we said the escape would take place in the Eastern Transvaal.

MR RAUTENBACH: So at that stage ...[indistinct] would be arranged in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Where was the shoes of the deceased when you left the John Vorster?

MR ENGELBRECHT: To tell you truth I do not know if the shoes were in my office or in the back of the car. It could have been in the back of - it could have been in Zeelie's vehicle or in my office but we used his shoes when we did the mock attack.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you take his shoes with you to Eastern Transvaal?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know if it went with to Eastern Transvaal, I cannot tell you.

MR RAUTENBACH: You can't remember that there was a discussion concerning the shoes?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I can't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Rautenbach.

Where was the deceased's shirt?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We put his shirt back on him after and then we first put the shirt back on his body and then pulled the plastic bags over him.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Who did that? Who dressed him?

MR ENGELBRECHT: If I remember correctly it was me and du Preez, we pulled the black bags over the deceased.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Whose decision was it that the shirt must be put back?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know whose decision it was but we clothed him again in his shirt and pulled the black bags over him.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Whose decision was it that the shirt must be put back?

MR ENGELBRECHT: As I said, I do not know.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes, thank you.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then concerning the black bags you say that you don't know who decided that the black bags should be placed over the body?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know who decided it but Sergeant du Preez arrived with the bags and I helped him to pull the bags over the body.

MR RAUTENBACH: From where did he come with the bags?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He went to buy it, as I inferred.

MR RAUTENBACH: How many bags did he buy?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I can remember there were two.

MR RAUTENBACH: Two?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Two, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And tell me, you were personally involved to get the black bags over the body?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Could you just repeat?

MR RAUTENBACH: You personally were involved in getting the black bags over the body?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And as far as you are concerned you already said in your testimony when your evidence was led, one black bag was brought from the feet end, the other one from the head side.

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: What else was done besides that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's all, and then the blanket was thrown over the person and after some time was taken down to the cellar so that he could be put into the vehicle?

MR ENGELBRECHT: And nothing more was done with regard to that, the black bags and the body?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: For example, some tape wasn't used to properly wrap the body in the black bags?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, the black bags weren't tied, they were only pulled over him.

MR RAUTENBACH: So when the body would have been taken from the one vehicle to the next or one or two from a vehicle or to the ground there's a strong possibility that this black bag would come from the body when for example the legs of the head was pointed towards the ground because it wasn't fastened?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you agree that a person who wanted to take a body from a vehicle, the boot of the vehicle, and that person is alone - I don't say that is impossible but it is something quite difficult especially a person who has rigor mortis, to lift someone from a boot.

MR ENGELBRECHT: I have never done it but I think it is possible to do it.

MR RAUTENBACH: But do you agree with me that it is quite strenuous?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, but I think someone would be able to do it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Would you agree with me that if you have a situation, and I now specifically us the words: "a loose plastic bag" pulled of the one side of the body and on the other side another bag is pulled, that it is quite possible that the black bag could come off should a person now strain to get the body from the car?

MR ENGELBRECHT: As I say, I don't know, well, it's difficult but I don't also agree. It could perhaps move away but it can be done.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's just have a look at the person, Stanza Bopape, what was his size?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I think he was a bit smaller than myself.

MR RAUTENBACH: How tall was he, was he taller than six feet?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Perhaps six foot.

MR RAUTENBACH: Weight?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I think he weighed approximately the same as myself.

MR RAUTENBACH: So that would be approximately six foot two and 85 killogrammes?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that's approximately my weight, I think I was 84.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you would agree that's quite a big person that has to be taken from the boot of a car with loose bags?

MR ENGELBRECHT: With a person placed in a foetal position I think that you could have taken him with some strain but you would have been able to do it.

MR RAUTENBACH: With some strain?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you agree with me that if you should take a person from the boot with the loose bags around him and he was placed on the ground and he was rolled on the ground, in other words the body would be rolled on the ground, that it would have been quite possible in that regard that the black bags could have come away?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, yes the plastic can tear.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes. These plastic bags that we are speaking about, perhaps I don't know whether I have the right picture but I'm thinking of the refuse bags?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, because they were bought at a shop and those are the only black bags that you can buy at a shop so it could have been those black bags.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to ask you, concerning the very strange incident as you and all the applicants describe it, where a person is shocked with a device and he gets a shock, what is a shock? As I understand you, people have been shocked in the past and nothing happened to them.

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And here we have a case where a person as you say, get's one, two, three turns and he is dead. I think Mr Mostert described it as a strange incident, is it also strange to you?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I couldn't believe it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did it ever occur to you that something went wrong, very wrong with this device?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It could perhaps be - why I could have thought and that's perhaps why we tested it after the person was shocked.

MR RAUTENBACH: I don't understand that part. If there's any doubt about the shock device, that perhaps something happened to it. It makes one think of a Steven King horror story. What happened to this machine? I find it inexplicable if it in any way occurred to you, I can't understand that you would for example say: "You du Preez, hold it and let's turn it".

MR ENGELBRECHT: We were shocked and that's why we tested it.

MR RAUTENBACH: If something was wrong with that machine as you thought, then du Preez would have been gone.

MR ENGELBRECHT: We could not believe that that machine could cause that person to die, we could not believe it.

MR RAUTENBACH: But one of the things that you considered was that something went wrong with the machine.

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's why we tested it.

MR RAUTENBACH: But that's precisely to see whether something was wrong.

MR ENGELBRECHT: We wanted to know whether it was shocking ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Rautenbach is getting at is, if you were of the view that a defect in the machine could have caused a stronger current or something that would have resulted in the death of the deceased, then wouldn't it have been a foolhardy thing to test it on your colleague because he could also have died? It's like playing Russian Roulette.

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know how much power this machine generates but I couldn't see that the power coming from that machine could lead to the death of a person.

JUDGE NGCOBO: If you didn't know how much power that device could generate, why then does it come as a surprise to you that a person is killed?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Because similar machines had been used and people didn't die.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you use this machine before?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I have used a machine similar.

MR RAUTENBACH: You also know that at that stage when you were ...[End of tape 5 day 2, side A - no follow-on sound]

...[no sound] referring to and you noticed that Stanza Bopape falls forward and he's dead and you realised quite soon that he is dead, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He fell forward and then we took him from the chair. Du Preez did mouth to mouth resuscitation, van Niekerk felt his pulse and then we realised that the person is dead.

MR RAUTENBACH: What do you say about van Niekerk?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He felt his pulse and then we realised that the person was dead.

MR RAUTENBACH: What I want to determine, it must have been something strange that a person falls forward and he is dead. He was lying still wasn't he?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He sat on the chair, we took him down and then he lay on the ground?

MR RAUTENBACH: And then he was still?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: He sat on the chair, he's not breathing, he's absolutely still.

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know whether he breathed at that stage but as he lay on the floor Sergeant du Preez did mouth to mouth resuscitation, van Niekerk felt his pulse and we realised the person was dead.

The reason why he died, well I can't believe that it was because of the shocks. I can't explain why the person died.

MR RAUTENBACH: What do you mean when you say you don't know whether he was breathing when sat on the chair? You could have seen something's wrong, the person isn't breathing.

MR ENGELBRECHT: Sergeant du Preez did mouth to mouth resuscitation, I don't know whether he had any breath.

MR RAUTENBACH: The point that I want to get at, did any of the people present there think of getting a doctor?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We thought about that.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then, what was the decision?

MR ENGELBRECHT: And then we realised that the person was dead.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know how long it takes before it can really be said that a person is dead and a death certificate can be issued?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I don't.

MR RAUTENBACH: But I suppose in any case you didn't want to get a doctor?

MR ENGELBRECHT: As I said, we realised that the person was dead.

MR RAUTENBACH: I understand that not even du Preez who according to his version, who tried to apply first aid, none of you had any knowledge of first aid.

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I did have first aid but I don't think - it was advanced to the stage that I would know what to do in such a situation.

MR RAUTENBACH: Didn't you think it would have been wise to get a doctor?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We discussed it and we decided what we should do because the person was dead.

MR RAUTENBACH: I know want to start with the arrest. As far as the arrest is concerned, can I just get clarity from you? You were present at the arrest?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: The people who were arrested, were you present in the room where Stanza Bopape was arrested?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I was in the flat. If I can give it to you in English, it is a bachelor's flat.

MR RAUTENBACH: How many people were there living in the room?

MR ENGELBRECHT: There were two people who in the room at present.

MR RAUTENBACH: Were both the people arrested?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you see how they were being arrested?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I didn't see but I knew that they were going to be arrested and that banned literature was also found on the site with the search.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you see that they were taken away?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, they were taken away with people from West Rand.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know where they were taken to?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know but I knew that the people from West Rand took them away from Johannesburg.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now the next day, how did you come into contact with Stanza Bopape?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That was on the Friday ...[intervention]

MR RAUTENBACH: The 10th?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct. I was informed by van Niekerk that I had to assist Warrant Officer Mostert with the interrogation of Bopape.

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know how Bopape went from West Rand to John Vorster?

MR ENGELBRECHT: If I can remember correctly he was taken by van Niekerk to John Vorster Square.

MR RAUTENBACH: So you didn't assist with that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: ...[inaudible]

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you know in any way where he was, from the arrest up to the point where he went to John Vorster?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I only know he was taken to the West Rand.

MR RAUTENBACH: And he was under the custody of West Rand?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: With the arrest, the people who were present, you were part of the group, Mostert was part as well as Zeelie, correct? None of the other applicants were part of that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, because I think the internal stability unit was also there and people from the West Rand.

MR RAUTENBACH: So it was you, Zeelie and Mostert, the only ones of the applicants?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: In your testimony you described that he was Section 29, could you just explain what this phrase means?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is a section that was used for internal security to detain a person on his own and to interrogate him and to withdraw him from the community and to get the necessary information from him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just give us more information, you refer to 10 June, what time was it that he was under Section 29?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He was taken to the district surgeon and when I returned to John Vorster, du Toit read his rights and told him that he was going to be Section 29'd.

MR RAUTENBACH: This section 29, what time was that approximately?

MR ENGELBRECHT: If I can remember correctly, it was just before four, just after three. If I can remember correctly, round about 2 o'clock in the afternoon I was at the district surgeon with Bopape.

MR RAUTENBACH: You were present so please inform us, how did it happen? You see, I think it was Brigadier du Toit ...[intervention]

MR ENGELBRECHT: He was Colonel du Toit at that stage.

MR RAUTENBACH: Colonel du Toit. Precisely how did it take place, what does he do? You are present and this man is now Section 29'd, what happens, what does he tell him?

MR ENGELBRECHT: He reads everything to him, the allegations against him, the reason, he gives the reasons for this Section 29 and then the man is then Section 29'd.

MR RAUTENBACH: Any documentation?

MR ENGELBRECHT: The documentation was done by us.

MR RAUTENBACH: And who keeps the documentation?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It is put in his detention file.

MR RAUTENBACH: Before we get back to Section 29 I just want to look at the district surgeon situation, you took him to the district surgeon, can you remember what time and where?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It was approximately half past one, 2 o'clock and it was at the district surgeon in Harrison Street where the traffic section was. That is where the district surgeon's offices were.

MR RAUTENBACH: There was a report that was made available after he examined the person, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct and such a report is received from the district surgeon, he places it in an envelope and then it is placed in the detention file of the suspect.

MR RAUTENBACH: You went with Stanza Bopape, did anyone else accompany you, I think you referred to someone as a black member?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct. I can't remember what his name was but there was a black member.

MR RAUTENBACH: You can't remember his name?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I can't say.

MR RAUTENBACH: You can't determine perhaps by looking at the records or do some enquiries if there are any records?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Then it would probably not specifically be taken to but only that he went to the district surgeon.

MR RAUTENBACH: The point is, you can't think of any way how we could determine who this person was so that he could just confirm that Stanza Bopape was taken to the district surgeon?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know who accompanied me but there was a black member with me to the district surgeon.

MR RAUTENBACH: You refer to a report in an envelope?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is this report handed to you a medical report?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you do with it?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I placed it in the detention file.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you do it personally?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, I did.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you take it out of the envelope?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Copies are made and then it's placed back into the envelope and into the file.

MR RAUTENBACH: You are a bit fast even I can't hear you. You refer to copies, could you just repeat that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, copies are made and then it is placed in the envelope back into the detention file.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you make the copies?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, not me personally, in some cases perhaps you send a black member to make but in this case I was involved and I think I would have made a copy.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you have a look at this report?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, to be honest I didn't.

MR RAUTENBACH: Why not?

MR ENGELBRECHT: My own opinion was that there was nothing wrong, no problems with Stanza Bopape or with the person.

MR RAUTENBACH: You had a look at him and said he looks strong and healthy, you don't have to look at the medical report?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And at that stage you knew that you were going to be involved with the interrogation of Stanza Bopape, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you knew that if he would not cooperate that other methods, I don't want to say unconventional, I want to say methods that weren't allowed, that you would proceed to that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Not at that stage.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you think would happen if he didn't cooperate? What happened in the security police?

MR ENGELBRECHT: It's not done at all times but some of the methods are used.

MR RAUTENBACH: But if this man would not cooperate, would those methods have been used?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Correct, but not at that stage that I brought him from the district surgeon, I didn't think that those methods would be used.

MR RAUTENBACH: You want to say to me that you did not foresee that - you know that you're going to interrogate him and you did not foresee that other tactics such as shocks or suffocating techniques would be used?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, not at the point that I brought him back from the district surgeon.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's go a bit further if that is not the case. When you busy interrogating him and he wasn't cooperating ...[intervention]

MR ENGELBRECHT: What are you referring to?

MR RAUTENBACH: I'm referring to the 12th, Sunday the 12th, the day that he died.

MR ENGELBRECHT: After some time I realised that he was not going to give his cooperation.

MR RAUTENBACH: You saw that he was not giving his cooperation and there was a decision taken to get a machine, did you know whom they phoned?

MR ENGELBRECHT: No, I didn't know who they phoned but I knew that there was a machine on the way.

MR RAUTENBACH: How long did you wait, from the point that you decided that you wanted the machine up to the point that the machine arrived?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I can't give you a time but if I should guess, it was approximately 45 minutes to an hour.

MR RAUTENBACH: You had all the opportunity in that time just to have a look at the district surgeon's report, that's why the report is there for the Section 29 detainees.

MR ENGELBRECHT: At that stage Warrant Officer Mostert was busy with the notes and that report was in that file.

MR RAUTENBACH: He also didn't have a look at it it seems?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I didn't have a look at it because the person at that point and that day looked fit.

MR RAUTENBACH: Isn't it the case that you just didn't care or wasn't interested in what was on file about his medical situation?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I wouldn't say that I wasn't interested but at that stage the work that I was busy with, the investigation was my first priority.

MR RAUTENBACH: It was a very urgent story for you?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, that's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: You wanted that information at all costs?

MR ENGELBRECHT: With the interrogation technique that we used before we went over to the drastic step, yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you shocked him once he also didn't give you what you wanted, is that correct?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you do then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: As I said, then the shock machine was turned again and once again he didn't cooperate and with the third time his head just fell forward and he was taken from the chair.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's first have a look at the first time. He is shocked, you are the person who moves the cords over his chest?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: How does he react?

MR ENGELBRECHT: His bodies, it's almost as if his muscles contracted and then he relaxes and what he then does ...[intervention]

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want to get clarity, did he still deny any involvement?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know whether he answered on questions, I can't remember precisely what he said or what his reaction was.

MR RAUTENBACH: The electrical shock that you gave, wasn't this successful, he stayed with what he said?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Yes, and I think because it was such

a short time that he said nothing.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you do?

MR ENGELBRECHT: We shocked him again.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now you're going to shock him again, how long did you shock him then?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Approximately the same time.

MR RAUTENBACH: But the first time didn't work. You say it's not a long time and this person still says he's not cooperating and you need this information urgently, do you want to tell me that you just gave him the same shock as the first time? You didn't try it for a longer time, you didn't try to show him: it's not going to help you to keep silent.

MR ENGELBRECHT: I wasn't in charge of the turning of the machine, Sergeant du Preez was.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you stood next to him, it's there that you can tell him: "What you're doing now is you're wasting time, it's not working, shock him properly? Isn't that the normal thing that should have happened, shock him for a longer period so that he listens?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I wasn't in charge of the machine. Sergeant du Preez stood in front of the person, I stood next to him and I looked at the person and pulled the cords across his body, du Preez was in charge of the machine.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now the second time, I suppose he jerks again, his body, what do you say?

MR ENGELBRECHT: As I said, he didn't give his cooperation.

MR RAUTENBACH: And the second time he is shocked his body shocks, I assume that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: What is his reaction, what do you say to him? He's already been shocked now, what do you say to him?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I don't know whether I talked to him the second time.

MR RAUTENBACH: You can't remember whether you talked to him the first or the second time?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: What did you say to him?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I asked him whether he was going to cooperate. I don't know whether it was the first time or the second time but I got no reaction from him.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now the second time you are not sure whether you talked to him or whether it was the first time but i take it someone standing there talked to him?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Possibly, I can't say who talked to him, whether everybody talked to him, I don't know but I know that I personally asked him whether he was going to cooperate.

MR RAUTENBACH: Well, it doesn't really matter now for the moment who talked to him the second time, the question is what was his reaction?

MR ENGELBRECHT: As I said, I don't know whether it was the first time or the second time what his reaction was but both times or once his reaction was that he said: "No". There was a reaction that he was not going to cooperate.

MR RAUTENBACH: He's shocked twice now, he still doesn't want to cooperate. How is he shocked again, the same way?

MR ENGELBRECHT: The same way.

MR RAUTENBACH: For the same duration?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I would say short periods.

MR RAUTENBACH: So he was shocked for a short period but it doesn't help but despite this these short shocks are repeated?

MR ENGELBRECHT: As I said, I was not in charge of the machine.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you were present, you could see what the duration was. Surely you would be the best person or in the same position to say that the intensity of the shocks became worse or not.

MR ENGELBRECHT: I won't say it became worse, it was approximately the same time.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr van Niekerk said something in his testimony, and with all respect but it actually makes sense. He said: "If a man doesn't want to cooperate what you would do is that you would in fact increase the intensity of the shock". So they would increase in intensity if a man doesn't want to cooperate, don't you agree with that?

MR ENGELBRECHT: I think if the person had not died after the third shock, the shocks would not have become more intense but longer and that is why it is inexplicable for us why the person died after such a short time. If the person had perhaps lived, the shocks would have continued for longer.

MS GCABASHE: What's so magical about the number three? Why the third shock, why would you do something different after the third shock?

MR ENGELBRECHT: Because there were three shocks because he died after the third shock. I'm not saying it would have been different but in this case after the third shock the person died.

MS GCABASHE: Yes, that is true, but I understood you to say that: had he not died after the third shock you might have had slightly different shocks applied, unless I misunderstood you. So I just wanted to know what is so different with number three, do you go one, two, three and do then decide in a more severe form of torture? Just to explain it to me.

MR ENGELBRECHT: I wouldn't say that he would have been shocked more after the third shock but I think it like this, that after the third shock - it could have been also the fifth shock for example, but if he continued to live the shocks would have lasted longer but it's not necessarily the third time.

ADV DE JAGER: What you're saying is, if you he hit with the first you would give him one hit with the fist, he didn't react, then you hit him with the fist again and still he doesn't react and then the third time you hit him with a fist maybe he reacts or maybe he does not react and maybe you'll hit him a fourth time with the fist or you would hit him continuously with your fists if he does not react?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct, that might have happened.

ADV DE JAGER: But he died after the third fist blow. And if he wasn't dead after the third fist blow you would have given him a harder fourth or fifth blow?

MR ENGELBRECHT: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, there is still a number of issues that I'm going to deal with. We are not sure what you intend regarding the day's proceedings, when do you want to - I just don't want to inconvenience anyone, I would like to get some direction.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think this might be a convenient time to adjourn. I see it's twenty past four and I know that a long day is extremely difficult for the interpreters, so if this would be a convenient time to adjourn and then we would resume again, would half past nine be convenient tomorrow?

I wonder if it would be possible to see the legal representatives just briefly in our office to discuss the future of this hearing, thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS