CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. On behalf of the Committee I would like to apologise for not having been able to start at 9.30 as we had arranged. We had some personal problems concerning the TRC that we had to solve this morning.
MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair I have been requested to humbly request whether or not the gentlemen can remove our jackets for the rest of the sitting.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson during the evidence of Mr Pule I omitted to request that the supplementary statement be given an exhibit number. Could we perhaps just attend to that?
CHAIRPERSON: You mean the further supplementary affidavit of Mr Pule?
CHAIRPERSON: Is it really necessary Mr Lamey? We can, if you think it's absolutely necessary.
MR LAMEY: I'm in your hands there. If you think it's not necessary, then I'll leave it there, then it's just regarded as part of his ...
CHAIRPERSON: As part of his affidavit.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Which applicant are we going to hear today?
MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chairperson, with the Committee's leave I will call Mr Schoon. I've already discussed this with the other representatives of the other applicants and they have no objection to this particular procedure. I call Mr Schoon.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.
GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. You may proceed Mr Prinsloo.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair.
EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, you are an applicant in this specific incident with regard to the death of Mr Jameson Mngomezulu, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: And your application with regard to this specific incident appears in the bundle. Your formal application appears on page 68, 69 and the specific incident which will be addressed here, appears from page 71 to 73 and then the political motivation appears from page 74, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, at the time of this incident you were stationed at Josini, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: And what was the rank that you occupied at that stage?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I cannot recall dates pertinently. I know that it was after December 1985, so I had to have been a Lieutenant.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you mean 1985?
MR PRINSLOO: And you were a Lieutenant?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, can you recall the date of this incident or not? You have heard when more or less it happened and can you assist the Committee any further with specific dates?
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, you have already heard the evidence of Mr de Kock in this matter, that a request was directed that Mr Jameson Mngomezulu be abducted from Swaziland for purposes of questioning. What is your recollection in this regard?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that I called him telephonically, but I think it was improbable to discuss something over the telephone.
MR PRINSLOO: Would you have personally directed this request?
MR SCHOON: De Kock did visit Josini from time to time and I believe that I directed such a request to him personally.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, this person Mngomezulu, was he known to you?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson I had a file on the man. I did not know him personally, but I knew him on paper.
MR PRINSLOO: You had a file of him. What information did you have with regard to the deceased, Mr Mngomezulu?
MR SCHOON: I knew that Nkomweni, in the district of Ngwavuma, where he had a kraal, in the RSA.
MR PRINSLOO: And besides this kraal that he had in the RSA, did he have any other kraal elsewhere?
MR SCHOON: He went to Swaziland and established himself in Swaziland.
MR PRINSLOO: Can you give the Honourable Committee a background as to the two kraals that he had and why he had established himself in Swaziland? Can you please supply the Committee with the background?
MR SCHOON: There was a dispute in the Ngomezulu tribe. The Captain of the tribe went away to Swaziland and Jameson accompanied him to Swaziland. He also went to Swaziland. I can also just mention that a part or a section of the sub-ordinates of the Captain also lived in Swaziland, in other words part of his property was in Swaziland and part of it was in South Africa.
MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Mngomezulu, did he receive any training during the 70's from any organisation that you had direct knowledge of?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson. He was militarily trained by the PAC in Libya.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you know more or less when this took place?
MR SCHOON: I am not entirely certain of the date, but it had to have been the beginning 70's to the middle 70's, somewhere around there.
MR PRINSLOO: And besides his relationship with the PAC, did he have any relationship with any other political organisation afterwards?
MR SCHOON: After the PAC were kicked out of Swaziland, he was recruited by the ANC and he received military training under the banner of the ANC abroad. I don't know in which camp he was, I cannot recall that.
MR PRINSLOO: From his membership with the ANC, what was his interest to you where he was located in that vicinity that you have just now mentioned to the Committee? Can you please tell the Committee what he did, what your information was and what interest you had in him?
MR SCHOON: The information was that he had received trained military ANC persons at his kraal and that he had brought three different groups of terrorists into South Africa and that they had founded three bases and established three bases in South Africa. I cannot recall the group leaders of every group, but I know that there was a group under the leadership of one Mogadi. There was one group under the leadership of one Post and the third group's leader I cannot recall.
MR PRINSLOO: Can you continue and tell us further what you knew of them and what they did?
MR SCHOON: These three groups, along with their arms, were according to information infiltrated by Mngomezulu into the RSA to the bases.
MR PRINSLOO: You can continue.
MR SCHOON: During 1984 I assisted in the investigation of terrorist activities in the Ngwavuma district. I operated as an explosives expert and on approximately 20 different places I took out weapons and ammunition that were pointed out to me and the arms were pointed out by the one group to whom I have referred, under the leadership of Mogadi and within that group, I cannot recall whether there were four or five who were arrested, people who were trained abroad and one was killed in police action. But in any event that group was entirely taken out.
The second group under the leadership of Post, we did not know much about them, but we did find where their base was and in a police operation, Post, who was the leader, was shot dead. We recovered a small part of their arms, but not all of it.
The third group, we did not know much about them and we did not find any of their arms.
MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Schoon, for what reason did you want Mngomezulu in order to interrogate him or whatever your purpose was?
MR SCHOON: It was vitally important for us to know where exactly the other trained ANC members were who had infiltrated South Africa and to find their arms.
MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Schoon, there has already been evidence with regard to Mr van Vuuren who had been killed. Would you please inform the Committee about this?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson. The information was, I was not personally involved in that investigation, but the information was that the persons who were responsible for this, had also been infiltrated by Mngomezulu to the RSA.
MR PRINSLOO: And was there any other incident, any shooting incident of persons from the ANC by the police?
MR SCHOON: As I have already mentioned, one member of Mogadi's group was killed during police action and during this police operation one Capt Holloway was wounded in his hand.
MR PRINSLOO: According to you, was Mr Mngomezulu an important or the weak link between the ANC and the insurgents and operatives in the Republic? What can you say about that?
MR SCHOON: He was the most important link between the ANC abroad and the infiltrated persons within South Africa.
MR PRINSLOO: Would you have had knowledge or not of possible cache points within the RSA, or were you personally involved in any investigation?
MR SCHOON: We had information that all three groups had brought in arms and as I have already said, we only found the total amount of Mogadi's arms and a small amount of Post's arms.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, you have already said that according to your memory and you would have probably discussed the matter with Mr de Kock, were you contacted at any time by any person with regard to this person Mngomezulu, for which you were called to be present?
MR SCHOON: On a day I received a telephone call from Capt van Dyk and he said that I had to meet him at a ruin somewhere at Leeuspoort, he did not elaborate on the telephone what it was about, so I believed that it had to be something important and I did not ask any questions.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, this specific place at Leeuspoort, is this close to the Josini Dam?
MR SCHOON: It is approximately 30 kilometres from Josini in the direction of Golela. It is also approximately 30 kilometres from Golela. I would say approximately 5 kilometres from the main road and approximately 3 kilometres from the dam.
MR PRINSLOO: This specific place, the farmhouse, had it been previously used for purposes of the police?
MR SCHOON: The house was regularly used by the police when road blocks were set up in the area or when there was any operation in the area.
MR PRINSLOO: This specific place, was it known to Mr Freek Pienaar, one of the previous applicants?
MR SCHOON: That is correct. He sometimes went there with us.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon following on this telephone call from Mr van Dyk, did you go to this place?
MR PRINSLOO: And can you recall what time of the day or night did you arrive there, can you recall?
MR SCHOON: If my memory does not fail me, it was during the evening.
MR PRINSLOO: And when you arrived there, were the people already there or did they wait for you?
MR SCHOON: They were already there.
MR PRINSLOO: When you say 'they', whom do you refer to that you can recall?
MR SCHOON: Van Dyk was there, Pienaar was there, Beeslaar was there and there was another white member who was unknown to me but who, during this amnesty application, that I heard could have possibly been one Willemse.
MR PRINSLOO: And the black members, did you know them?
MR SCHOON: The black members who were present, I only knew Mogadi, he was a Warrant-Officer I think.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you know him personally?
MR PRINSLOO: The others, were they just mentioned to you?
MR SCHOON: The others, I knew that they were from Vlakplaas, but I did not know them.
MR PRINSLOO: There has already been evidence that the person who had been involved was Mr Mngomezulu, did you see him there at the farm?
MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Committee, as you saw him, what was his condition?
MR SCHOON: It was clear that he had been assaulted and had endured much punishment.
MR PRINSLOO: Were you requested to interrogate Mr Mngomezulu?
MR SCHOON: Capt van Dyk, or Lieutenant van Dyk then, gave me instruction to do so.
MR PRINSLOO: And did you question him?
MR SCHOON: Yes, I did or I tried to interrogate him.
MR PRINSLOO: In which language did you question him?
MR SCHOON: I spoke Zulu to him.
MR PRINSLOO: And are you fluent in Zulu?
MR SCHOON: Yes, I can help myself in Zulu.
MR PRINSLOO: And is it understandable for a person whom you address?
MR PRINSLOO: And the questioning which you did with Mr Mngomezulu, did you receive any information from him?
MR SCHOON: Not on the first evening. I obtained nothing from him that evening.
MR PRINSLOO: What did you do then when you saw that you could not do anything with the man?
MR SCHOON: I had him rest until the next day.
MR PRINSLOO: And the following day, what happened then?
MR SCHOON: The following day I periodically questioned him. He was still relatively weak, but he did supply names and I made notes of these names and later I had to investigate these names.
MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Schoon, the evening when you arrived there, did you assault him?
MR SCHOON: I never assaulted Mngomezulu, at no stage.
MR PRINSLOO: Did anybody assault him in your presence?
MR SCHOON: No-one assaulted him in my presence, but I could see that he had already been assaulted.
MR PRINSLOO: And the following day when you periodically questioned him, was he then assaulted during this periodical interrogation while you were present?
MR PRINSLOO: During interrogation, were you alone or were there other persons present or can you not recall?
MR SCHOON: Because I was fluent in Zulu and that was my proposal, I was alone and I tried to win the confidence or trust of this man, so I would not have wanted the people who had assaulted him to be present, but it is possible that some of the other members from time to time peeped in to see if there was any progress.
MR PRINSLOO: During the course of this day when you periodically questioned him, was there at any stage, did you stop at any stage questioning him, what happened?
MR SCHOON: I questioned him and I went out and left him so he could rest.
MR PRINSLOO: Was there an opportunity when the persons there left from there or did everyone remain there all the time, or can you not recall?
MR SCHOON: I have listened to Capt van Dyk's evidence that he left but I cannot recall that, but it is possible that some of the members had left for elsewhere for a brief period of time and it is possible that I myself had gone back to my office briefly.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, you have heard the evidence here of Mr Pienaar and Mr van Dyk that the deceased at some stage was taken away from this farmhouse. Did you have anything to do with the decision to take him away or what is the position?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I decided that this man could serve no further purpose to us and that he had to be taken back to Swaziland. I'm saying I decided, although I was not in command or in control of the operation, but there were two options open to me as to what I should do with this man. The first was, we had to kill the man and the second was that he had to be released and the most acceptable choice for me was that he should be released.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, did you at any stage attempt, or not attempt, to recruit this man as a source?
MR SCHOON: That was my objective all the time, firstly to obtain information and then to try to recruit him and send him back to gain information for us.
MR PRINSLOO: And did you try then?
MR PRINSLOO: Was it successful?
MR SCHOON: The man was deceased before we could reach finality.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mngomezulu was then taken away from the farm. Where did you take him?
MR SCHOON: We took him to Josini.
MR PRINSLOO: With regard to this decision which you said was taken to take this person away, your decision was to take him back to Swaziland. What was Mr Pienaar and Mr van Dyk's attitude in this regard?
MR SCHOON: They opposed it, but I realised that they cannot force me to follow them or to kill a man. I could force them to do a less serious thing.
MR MALAN: What is the less serious thing, Mr Schoon?
MR SCHOON: This was to put him back over the border.
MR MALAN: Was it an offence to place him back? If you say "less serious", why do you use that expression? I'm trying to understand.
MR SCHOON: I use this expression that it would have come to light that the man had indeed been assaulted, but then he had not been killed yet.
MR MALAN: Is that all that would have come to light, that he had been assaulted and that he had been abducted, cross-border abduction?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, what would the consequences have been, in your opinion at this stage, if he was taken back over the border in this assaulted state that he was in and he had been abducted?
MR SCHOON: My objective was to send this man back for purposes of obtaining information and I realise and I know that the possibility for success was closer to zero than anything else, but it was more acceptable than killing the man.
MR PRINSLOO: What would have been the consequences Sir, for your placing him back in Swaziland? Could something have happened from Swaziland side or from this side, or from any side? What was your impression with regard to that?
MR SCHOON: If we placed him back in Swaziland, the worst that could have happened was that he would report the matter to the Swaziland police.
MR PRINSLOO: And what did you think the consequences of this would be?
MR SCHOON: Even if they investigated it, although there might have been an indication that the man was speaking the truth, they could not prove anything against us.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, this person, according to the evidence, was taken with a bakkie from the farmhouse and he was taken to a place. To which place did you go from the farmhouse?
MR SCHOON: From the farmhouse we went to my house. I wanted to find out whether there were any messages for us.
MR PRINSLOO: And the deceased, Mr Mngomezulu, where was he?
MR SCHOON: The vehicle which we drove with, it was a 4 x 4 bakkie. Mngomezulu was on the back of the bakkie. The bakkie was covered with a tarpaulin. My usual manner when I had my camping equipment on the back of my van, was to cover it with a tarpaulin and to tie it up with rope and not as Pienaar had said by leaving the thing loose on the van, so I cannot recall that I did as Pienaar had said I did. I would want that we covered the tarpaulin in my usual manner, but I cannot recall.
MR PRINSLOO: The deceased, can you recall whether he was loaded onto the bakkie or whether he climbed up himself?
MR PRINSLOO: And you say you went to your house. What happened there when you stopped there?
MR SCHOON: While we were there one of the three of us opened up and lifted up the canvass and saw that the man had died.
MR PRINSLOO: What did you do then? What did you decide then, if any decision was taken?
MR SCHOON: I then once again realised that now we had a problem. We either had to dispose of the body somewhere or we had to cover up this whole incident and I proposed that we destroy the corpse with explosives, since I was an explosives expert and I also had the necessary explosives available.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you then obtain explosives?
MR SCHOON: Yes, we fetched it from my office.
MR PRINSLOO: What type of explosives was it?
MR SCHOON: It was PE 4, in other words Plastic Explosives.
MR PRINSLOO: And what was the amount? Can you recall?
MR SCHOON: If I recall correctly it was 25 kilograms a case.
MR PRINSLOO: Can you give us an indication how large a 25kg case of explosives is?
MR SCHOON: If I may indicate, it's about this much centimetres, if you can judge ...
MR MALAN: I would make my estimate in inches.
MR SCHOON: I shall put it as follows, more or less the size of a cardboard beer case. It might have been a little bit bigger, but I don't know whether everyone drinks beer here, so we'll have to judge.
MR MALAN: I think Mr Schoon has a 50 cm x 35 cm x 20cm case...
MR PRINSLOO: What else did you take with you except for the explosives? Anything else?
MR SCHOON: I also had a container where my other explosive equipment was in and a roll of electrical wire.
MR PRINSLOO: What were the dimensions of this electric wire?
MR SCHOON: The diameter was, I would say, 30 cm and it stands on a stand which makes it a little bit higher. It's on a wooden round top.
MR PRINSLOO: And the other case, the size more or less?
MR SCHOON: It's a square container it would seem 50cm x 50cm x 30. It might be less than 50.
MR PRINSLOO: And that is what you took along?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is what I took along.
MR PRINSLOO: There has been evidence about a Mr Beeslaar and another person, allegedly Mr Willemse. What happened to them when you departed from the farmhouse?
MR SCHOON: Because I knew that these members were not familiar with the vicinity, I told van Dyk to give them instruction to wait for us at the fork, it's just on the other side of Josini, where the Ngwavuma road turns off from the Mbazwana road.
MR PRINSLOO: These two persons, Mr Beeslaar and Mr Willemse if I may call him for purposes of the record, did they resort under your command or not?
MR SCHOON: No, they were under the command of Mr van Dyk.
MR PRINSLOO: And with whose vehicle would they drive?
MR SCHOON: They drove with van Dyk's vehicle.
MR PRINSLOO: And as per previous evidence, Mr van Dyk and Pienaar drove with you and the deceased on the back of that van. Was it your van?
MR SCHOON: Yes, it was my bakkie.
MR PRINSLOO: And what happened then? You took the explosives and the decision was taken to destroy the person. What happened then?
MR SCHOON: We drove up to the point where the other two members waited for us and they followed us from there, right up to Sodwana.
MR SCHOON: And at Sodwana we went to the coast and we drove along the coast in a southerly direction. And I do speak under correction, but I think we drove approximately 30 to 35 kilometres in a southerly direction where the one vehicle with Beeslaar and the other person who was possibly Willemse, was left behind. van Dyk spoke to these people who remained behind. I don't know what the conversation was about, but I assume that he told them to inform us if any other vehicles would approach because that is how we had discussed it.
We then drove on approximately 2 kilometres further with my vehicle. There we removed the corpse from the vehicle and took it to a point. I would just like to mention that it was low tide at that stage. We then took him to a point below the high tide mark where I packed the explosives on him. I cannot recall, the other persons might have assisted me. I don't know what each one did exactly, but the main operator was I, because I was the expert. We then, with the help of a detonator and the electrical wire, the explosives were detonated and the corpse was entirely destroyed.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, with such an explosion is there a loud bang or is it a soft bang with so much explosives?
MR SCHOON: It was a very loud bang.
MR PRINSLOO: From a distance of a kilometre and a half, would it be heard?
MR SCHOON: Under normal circumstances I believe that it should have been heard, but depending on the direction of the wind, there is a possibility that one cannot hear it but I believe that one should have heard it from a distance.
MR PRINSLOO: Will anything be visible?
MR SCHOON: There would have been a flame and a smoke cloud. The smoke one could not have been seen at night but you would have seen the flash.
MR PRINSLOO: So are you saying it was dark?
MR SCHOON: Yes, it was after sundown, if I recall correctly it was after sundown.
MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall at what time of the year this was?
MR PRINSLOO: Or what the climate was at that stage?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that. I heard that it is speculated that it was cold that specific day. I cannot deny this and I cannot confirm it.
MR PRINSLOO: And this person was then destroyed. What happened then? Did you depart from there or did you remain in that vicinity?
MR SCHOON: The three of us returned to the point where we had left the other two members and then we spent the night there on the beach.
MR PRINSLOO: Did anything happen the following day?
MR SCHOON: The following day I and some of the members, I don't know if all of us went there or only some of us went there, but I know that I went there along with some of the members, it might have been all, I don't know and we went and investigated at the point where the explosion had taken place to see if there were any remains left behind. That is also the reason why we stayed at the beach that evening.
MR PRINSLOO: Were there any remains that you could see?
MR SCHOON: No, there were none that we could see. I would also like to mention it was already low tide then, in other words the high tide had already passed the place and had covered the place where the explosion had been and the water had receded again.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, that vicinity, was it well-known to you or was it not well-known to you, the surroundings and environment there, did you know it well?
MR SCHOON: Yes, I knew it reasonably well.
MR PRINSLOO: But that area, is it well-known to you? I'm not speaking of the specific place.
MR SCHOON: This place is known to me.
MR PRINSLOO: How long did you know that specific area, more or less?
MR MALAN: I don't know if it's important, I beg your pardon, but this does not give us an indication. Ten years, two years, fifty years, Mr Schoon?
MR SCHOON: It won't be fifty, but it could be ten.
MR SCHOON: I don't know if it is that long.
MR PRINSLOO: This specific place where it happened, would you be able to point it out more or less?
MR SCHOON: I believe I should be able to find it.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar in his statement alleges that at some stage, let me just find this place. Please grant me a moment Chairperson. Mr Beeslaar says on page 138 of his application
"While the black members of the police remained behind with the activist, I patrolled with the white members, amongst others the no-go area where the army had tested missiles."
At that point did you go on any patrol with Mr Beeslaar or any other persons during that time when Mr Mngomezulu was held at the farm?
MR SCHOON: I assume the military area which is referred to is the place adjacent to the point where the explosion had taken place because this was a place that was used by the Air Force, where they shot off their missiles. It was closed to the public and the coast was as well and the coast was part of this area.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, I assume that that is the area to which Mr Beeslaar refers to? Did you drive on a patrol there?
MR SCHOON: Except for the patrol when we disposed of the corpse, no other patrol.
MR PRINSLOO: And then Mr Beeslaar continues. He says
"The operational members had discussions with Mr Schoon in his office and I was not always present."
Did you speak to operational members in your office at any stage?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall, but I will not deny it.
MR PRINSLOO: Do you refer here specifically and I assume from what is being said, during the time that Mngomezulu was being interrogated or afterwards, at that time were any discussions held? It is not very clear what is stated in the statement.
MR SCHOON: We had discussions at the house where the interrogation had taken place and I may also mention that Beeslaar was actually a passenger, from what I saw that he did, it was absolutely nothing. He didn't do anything. He didn't do anything right or wrong. I cannot connect him to any incident.
MR PRINSLOO: But was Mr Beeslaar at any stage in your office where there were discussions held?
MR SCHOON: Not that I know of.
MR PRINSLOO: Very well. What was Mr Beeslaar’s state of sobriety when he was left behind at that place, can you comment on this or are you not able to?
MR SCHOON: I could see that he had had something to drink.
MR PRINSLOO: How did you see this? What created this impression?
MR SCHOON: At that stage I had been a policeman for 20 years, more than 20 years and I know what a person looks like when he's inebriated.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, at a stage when you saw Mr Mngomezulu at the farmhouse, did you then realise that he had been abducted from Swaziland?
MR SCHOON: I was informed to that effect.
MR PRINSLOO: But you realised that he was detained unlawfully there?
MR SCHOON: Yes, I knew he was there illegally.
MR PRINSLOO: And under those circumstances, he was held against his will and that amounts to abduction?
MR PRINSLOO: You also saw that he had been abducted, been assaulted and you did not get any medical help for him and you did not report this assault on him?
MR SCHOON: No, I did not, but I did see the assault.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you consider the possibility that Mr Mngomezulu, because of the assault and the injuries, that he could have died there without any medical assistance?
MR PRINSLOO: And you associated yourself with the fact that you did not supply him with medical assistance?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And thereafter Mr Mngomezulu died and he was then blown up by you?
MR PRINSLOO: Did you at that stage realise that with blowing up the corpse you at least were guilty as an accessory after the act which, depending on the legal argument, would come down to culpable homicide or murder?
MR SCHOON: Yes, I realised that.
MR PRINSLOO: And that it is also an offence to destroy a corpse in that manner?
MR SCHOON: Yes, I realised that.
MR PRINSLOO: And you never reported this matter to the police and this would amount to defeating the ends of justice.
MR PRINSLOO: And at a stage when you applied the explosives for this purpose, did you know that you were using the explosives for an illegal purpose and that you had illegally transported it to that stage and that you had possessed it illegally.
MR SCHOON: No, I did not possess it illegally, but I transported and applied it illegally.
MR PRINSLOO: This incident, did you inform your command structure that Mr Mngomezulu had been interrogated and assaulted there and had died and had been blown up, did you inform your command structure?
MR SCHOON: No, I accepted that Lieutenant van Dyk would directly report it to his superiors.
MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Schoon, under these circumstances you then request amnesty from the Honourable Committee, that amnesty be granted to you for the acts which I have put to you, or any other offence which might emanate from the evidence placed before this Committee, as well as any delictual accountability that might emanate from the evidence?
MR PRINSLOO: You have indicated that you are willing to point out the place where the body was blown up?
MR PRINSLOO: Did you act out of malice, did you have any grievance towards Mr Mngomezulu?
MR PRINSLOO: Did you act out of personal gain?
MR PRINSLOO: At that stage you were on duty and you performed your duty as a policeman?
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr Hattingh?
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Schoon it appears to me that you accept that Mr de Kock, that you had directed a request to Mr de Kock to the effect that Mr Mngomezulu be abducted from Swaziland so that he could be interrogated by you?
MR SCHOON: Yes, I accept that Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: The only thing which you are not sure about is that you say that you do not believe that the request had been directed during a telephone conversation?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR HATTINGH: Because such a thing would not be discussed over the telephone?
MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that such a request could have been directed in an indirect manner so that if somebody was listening in on the conversation that they would not know what it was about?
MR HATTINGH: But to put something as that clear would have been difficult, but you do not have a recollection that a specific time was agreed upon, it was a request that was directed in general. It was not agreed that it would be executed at any specific time?
MR SCHOON: No, there was no specific time specified.
MR HATTINGH: So you did not sit and wait for the arrival of a date that you would have expected the person to be brought in?
MR HATTINGH: The position in the police was that when a Commander from another area enters your area of command for official purposes, that he had to inform you about it, is that correct?
MR HATTINGH: And this was a requirement which was applied quite strictly, is that not so, in the police?
MR SCHOON: Although it was not followed, it had to be followed at all times?
MR HATTINGH: To ascertain that other police officers were busy in your area?
MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock did not visit you in this regard during your interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu?
MR HATTINGH: You did not see him at all during this interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu?
MR SCHOON: No, I did not see him.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, when you put Mr Mngomezulu in the bakkie at Josini, who was all involved in loading him onto the van?
MR SCHOON: The question is not clear. We did not load him at Josini, we loaded him up at the farm Leeuspoort.
MR DU PLESSIS: Where you loaded him, who was all involved there?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that. I don't know.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could one accept that it was all the persons who drove from there to your house?
MR DU PLESSIS: This is yourself, Pienaar and van Dyk, Beeslaar and Willemse?
MR SCHOON: I have already said Willemse was a passenger.
MR DU PLESSIS: No, you said Beeslaar was a passenger.
MR SCHOON: Yes, Beeslaar and if the other person was Willemse, then I could also include him there.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the question is not clearly stated, it is ambiguous. When he said that he drove to his house, there is no evidence like that. His evidence is that Beeslaar and Willemse did not go to his house but to a point where they had to meet with them. It could be interpreted incorrectly.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, I never meant to say that Beeslaar and Willemse also went to his house and that's also not Mr Beeslaar’s version, with the utmost respect, but I'll rephrase the question.
CHAIRPERSON: You meant the house at Leeuspoort?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, the house at Josini, but let me rephrase the question. Mr Schoon, I will try and clear it for you. There was a stage when you loaded Mr Mngomezulu on the back of the bakkie at Leeuspoort, at the farm at Leeuspoort?
MR DU PLESSIS: You were there when he was loaded onto the bakkie, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: Was Mr van Dyk present when he was loaded onto the van?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall exactly who was there, but I am speculating. I am not entirely certain who was there, but I believe that he would have been there.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall who drove on the back of the van with the man?
MR DU PLESSIS: And did you drive in the bakkie?
MR DU PLESSIS: And who was inside the bakkie along with you?
MR SCHOON: Pienaar and van Dyk and the deceased was on the back of the bakkie.
MR DU PLESSIS: So Pienaar, van Dyk and yourself drove in the bakkie?
MR DU PLESSIS: Is there any possibility that van Dyk and Pienaar were not present when he was loaded onto the bakkie? Is it not probable that they were present there?
MR SCHOON: I believe that they were, but I am speculating, but I believe they should have been there.
MR DU PLESSIS: Was there any other vehicle?
MR SCHOON: There was the other vehicle that the other two persons were in.
MR DU PLESSIS: What type of vehicle was it?
MR SCHOON: It had to be a 4 x 4 vehicle because we drove along the coast and a normal car could not drive along that road.
MR DU PLESSIS: It was Mr van Dyk's Safari.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall that Mr van Dyk’s vehicle was there?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I accept that the second vehicle that was there was van Dyk's vehicle. I cannot recall what it was and I do not know what van Dyk's vehicle was, I don't remember.
MR DU PLESSIS: And in the other vehicle, the Safari, I know you are saying that you cannot recall it, but you're saying this was Mr Beeslaar and Willemse in the other vehicle?
MR SCHOON: In the other vehicle, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: And they drove behind you.
MR DU PLESSIS: Do you agree that Mr Beeslaar was in the area there, or do you not recall, when this man was loaded onto the back of the van?
MR SCHOON: I believe he was there.
MR DU PLESSIS: You then drove to Josini?
MR DU PLESSIS: This is a little town?
MR DU PLESSIS: How big is this place? How many houses are there? Can you give us an indication?
MR SCHOON: The town is actually in two sections. The section where my house was, there were probably 30 to 40 houses, I cannot say with precision and the second section, which was a few kilometres from there.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Schoon, as I understood it Beeslaar and Willemse did not go into the town in their vehicle, they stayed at the cross roads outside the town?
MR SCHOON: Yes, they drove past and waited at the cross roads.
MR DU PLESSIS: So you did not speak to Mr Beeslaar there at your house, because he was not there.
MR SCHOON: No, he was not there and I did not speak to him.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you drove from there to Sodwana?
MR DU PLESSIS: And you arrived at the beach.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you immediately left the one vehicle and drove with the other vehicle?
MR DU PLESSIS: And when you arrived at Sodwana, you saw that Mr Beeslaar was inebriated. When did you see that he had consumed liquor?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall the exact time, but I was in his company.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, very well, when were you in his company?
MR SCHOON: After we returned after the explosion and I cannot tell you exactly at which point in time it was.
MR DU PLESSIS: My question is, Mr Schoon, as I understand your evidence, you said he was inebriated when you arrived there. Am I incorrect? Did you see he was inebriated the first time when you arrived there?
MR SCHOON: It could have been at the time when we left from Leeuspoort.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see, if it is so and you are telling us that there, where the vehicle had stopped, before the one vehicle continued, there you saw Mr Beeslaar was inebriated. Now my following question to you is, if it is so, how did you see that he had drunk?
MR SCHOON: Once again, I have been a policeman for a long time and I could see when a person had been drinking.
MR DU PLESSIS: Could you smell it?
MR SCHOON: It is easy to see that the man's eyes were bloodshot and the exact story I cannot recall exactly, but I knew he had been drinking.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you speak to him?
MR SCHOON: I spoke to him after the incident. We all congregated there where we slept and we spoke there, but I cannot recall in detail, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see your evidence was that where you had left the one vehicle with Beeslaar and Willemse and you had continued further, you testified that Paul van Dyk spoke to Beeslaar and Willemse before you continued.
MR DU PLESSIS: That was your evidence in chief.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: If that is correct, that means that you could not have spoken to Mr Beeslaar.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Then you couldn't have smelled him either. You could not have spoken to him and you could not have smelled him.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then my question is, how did you see he had been drinking?
MR SCHOON: Once again, I cannot recall at which time it was, whether it was a Leeuspoort already or whether it was after we returned to them.
MR DU PLESSIS: Let us investigate the possibility that it had been at Leeuspoort, because that is the only other place where it could have been, is it not? Do you agree with me?
MR DU PLESSIS: It could not have been at your house because he was not there. Do you agree? And in the meantime you were in separate vehicles, do you agree?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: Let us investigate the possibility that it had been at Leeuspoort. It could have been so that you saw that he had been inebriated at Leeuspoort, then you are telling us that a man who was drunk, and you took a man along who was drunk, on a sensitive operation, to take Mngomezulu back across the border, a man who had been entirely inebriated, or was he not that bad?
MR SCHOON: I would just like to say that I was not the one who took him along. I was not in control of the operation.
MR DU PLESSIS: But you were the man who said that: "We'll take him back to Swaziland".
MR DU PLESSIS: The other two did not want to, but you said: "Let's take him back to Swaziland". Now you take a drunk person with you. Does it make sense? May I ask you as follows, had you been drinking at Leeuspoort?
MR DU PLESSIS: Had Mr van Dyk been drinking?
MR DU PLESSIS: Had Mr Pienaar been drinking?
MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Willemse?
MR DU PLESSIS: I put it to you that if you saw Mr Beeslaar had been drunk at Leeuspoort, I find it extremely, extremely improbable that you would have taken him along to dispose of the man.
MR SCHOON: I would just like to say that Beeslaar was a passenger. He didn't do anything. The reason why that vehicle went along was so that van Dyk and Pienaar had transport back. I realised it was a mistake to take the persons along with us because in reality they did not play a role at all. It was unnecessary taking them along.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, please just answer the questions that I put to you. We do not want to know as to...
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, Mr du Plessis' question went directly as to why they took a drunk person along and he answered and he said that that vehicle was the vehicle of Mr van Dyk's and they had to return with that vehicle, that is the reason why they went along and not the reason was to take him along to help with taking the man across the border and I can see no reason, with respect, that he does not answer the question.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I proceed?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, let us return to the events there at the beach. Do you agree that after the corpse had been blown up, you ate and drank there?
MR SCHOON: That is possible, but I cannot recall. I cannot tell you whether we had eaten, what we had eaten and I cannot tell you whether we had had anything to drink, what we had drunk.
MR DU PLESSIS: It will be Mr Beeslaar’s evidence that you then had something to drink.
MR SCHOON: I will not deny it, but if one works with explosives, you will not drink before the time. That is a rule and I would not have transgressed the rule.
MR DU PLESSIS: Is it not possible Mr Schoon that what you recall from Mr Beeslaar, that he had been drunk, had to do with the time period after this corpse had been blown up? Is that not possible?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall exactly at which stage, but as I have said, the man was drunk and I saw him.
MR DU PLESSIS: I ask you, is it not possible that you recall him at a stage after you had blown up the corpse and all of you had consumed liquor?
MR SCHOON: It is possible, Chairperson, I cannot recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: I ask you if you are willing to accede to that possibility?
MR SCHOON: I said it is possible.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't he made a concession? He says it's possible, he can't recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: Well, he didn't say in so many words it's possible, he said everything is possible, but he didn't want to make the specific concession that that was possible and that's what I wanted from him, that that was possible.
CHAIRPERSON: Well the English translation came, "It's possible."
CHAIRPERSON: "I can't recall."
MR DU PLESSIS: That wasn't in the Afrikaans exactly correct Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: What was said by him? I need to correct my notes?
MR DU PLESSIS: He said: "Enigiets is moontlik" "Everything is possible".
MR DU PLESSIS: "Anything is possible." That was his answer.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there was a mistake then with the translation.
MR DU PLESSIS: But now he has given me the concession. He has said it is possible that he saw him in a drunken state after the...
MR SCHOON: I just added that I could not recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: No, we accept that Mr Schoon. Very well. Mr Schoon, your evidence is furthermore that you, Capt van Dyk and Freek Pienaar drove in the bakkie, upon which you had Mr Mngomezulu.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar will say that he and Willemse and as he recalls, Mr van Dyk, were in the Safari and that only yourself and Mr Pienaar drove in the other vehicle.
MR SCHOON: As I recall it, Pienaar and I and van Dyk were together in the vehicle.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see, I do not know if you know a Safari. It is not a bakkie. It is similar to the new types of 4 x 4. What appears strange to me and I would like you to clear this up for me, is that you, Capt van Dyk and Pienaar, all three of you large men, drove in the front of a bakkie as opposed to when there is more than enough space in the Safari. Do you not find it strange?
MR SCHOON: I would imagine that it was a double cab Toyota, but I will not swear on it, but I would imagine it was a double cab Toyota bakkie.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr du Plessis. What was a double cab Toyota? The one that Mr Beeslaar drove in or the one that you drove in?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall Mr Beeslaar’s vehicle, but I would imagine the vehicle that I drove in was a double cab Toyota.
MR MALAN: Did you not earlier say that it was your own official vehicle?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR MALAN: Would you not know exactly what your official vehicle was then?
MR SCHOON: My personal official vehicle was a 2 x 2 bakkie, so I could not have driven with that one. I would want that it was one of the other official vehicles at the branch, which is a double cab bakkie. I cannot recall 100%.
MR SCHOON: But I did not have a 4 x 4 bakkie that was given to me personally.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Schoon and as I understand your evidence now, you and Mr van Dyk and Mr Pienaar then drove to your house. This was on the way to Swaziland, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: And then you drove to your house?
MR SCHOON: That is correct. The others continued up to a point where they waited for us at the cross roads.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you have to turn off to the place where your house was from the main road?
MR SCHOON: Yes, I had to turn off.
MR DU PLESSIS: And did you have to drive quite a way to your house? You had to turn off specially?
MR DU PLESSIS: And was your house where it's a residential area where there are many houses?
MR SCHOON: Yes, there are other houses.
MR DU PLESSIS: Surrounding your house?
MR DU PLESSIS: Next to your house?
MR DU PLESSIS: So you have neighbours on both sides of you?
MR DU PLESSIS: Opposite the street?
MR DU PLESSIS: You then rode with Mr Mngomezulu on the back of your bakkie to your house and you say he was still alive at that stage or you do not know what his condition was. He was still alive when you loaded him onto the back of the van, so when you turned off, you thought he was still alive.
MR DU PLESSIS: And when you put him on the back of the van, was he just lying there? Were his hands cuffed?
MR SCHOON: Once again I cannot recall exactly but I would imagine that he had leg irons.
MR DU PLESSIS: Leg irons? That is the first time that we hear of that. Are you certain?
MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Chairperson. It was somebody else, I can recall offhand that he had been in cuffs. I think it was a Mbelo who testified that he had been wearing leg irons.
MR DU PLESSIS: I mean it's the first time that he has given this evidence now. Mr Schoon, you did not give this evidence in your evidence in chief. Are you certain about this?
MR SCHOON: I am not certain, that is why I did not mention it, but I would imagine that that is what he had.
MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether he had a blindfold or did you do something to his face?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall at any stage that he had a blindfold. I heard that Capt van Dyk said that he had been blindfolded but I cannot recall that at any stage during the time when I dealt with him, that he was blindfolded.
MR DU PLESSIS: You can definitely recall that his mouth was not gagged?
MR SCHOON: Well, he could not have been talking if he was gagged.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Very well. You then drive with this terrorist that you were on your way taking to the Swaziland border, you quickly go into Josini to your house, what did you want to do there?
MR SCHOON: I wanted to find out whether there were any messages for us.
MR DU PLESSIS: You drove with this man into a residential area, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: Without his mouth being gagged, on the back of a van, while you think he is still alive?
MR DU PLESSIS: ; And you want us to believe that, Mr Schoon?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, that is what happened. Whether the person asking the question wants to believe it or not, that is what had happened.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, it sounds to me really, Mr Schoon, that it appears entirely improbably that here while you are on the main road on your way to Swaziland, you turn off with this man on the back of your bakkie. You don't know what his condition is but you think he's still alive, you drive into an inhabited area, while you are driving with an abduction, an illegal operation, to receive messages, how do you explain that?
MR SCHOON: You must just keep in mind this man had been covered under this canvass on the back of a van. He did not know where he was, he did not know he was in an inhabited area and on the other side, I am the man who had the law on my side, I was the authority in that area, so no one would have asked me any questions that I could not answer.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, I shall tell you straight out what it appears to me. It would appear to me that this part of your evidence had to be added in your statement to appear, you add this fact that Mr Mngomezulu had accidentally died on the back of the van and you had to add this so that you could not - it would appear to me that you wanted to kill him on the beach.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, my share in all of this is more gruesome than any other. I know that I'm guilty of murder and I cannot see that it would serve any purpose for me to deny if I had killed the man or if he had died coincidentally as a result of my negligence.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Schoon, why are you saying that your share was so gruesome, because you say that your share in the murder is based upon the fact that you knew that he could have died during interrogation.
MR MALAN: Is that so gruesome? Why is it so gruesome?
MR SCHOON: Because I allowed the man's body to disintegrate completely, I don't know if there is a more gruesome manner than this.
MR MALAN: But now I do not understand you. To let his body disintegrate had nothing to do with murder, except if you had killed him in this manner.
MR SCHOON: The fact that I was an accomplice in the whole operation and the man had died during an unlawful operation, it is murder.
MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, you see it seems very strange that Mr van Dyk and yours and Mr Pienaar's versions are entirely similar, word for word and Mr Beeslaar comes along and says that this man was killed on the beach, he was eliminated. Where does Mr Beeslaar come with this story?
MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Honourable Chairperson, is that Mr Beeslaar’s version, because it does not say so in his statement?
CHAIRPERSON: I don't have that version, Mr du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I just rephrase the question? Mr Beeslaar’s evidence would be that he was taken to Sodwana Bay, that the two vehicles were parked next to each other on the beach at Sodwana and that he was taken by yourself or van Dyk and Freek Pienaar and that he had walked next to you on the beach and that they had returned later without him and that later he was informed that he had been eliminated and blown up. That is Mr Beeslaar’s version. Now I ask you and the inference is apparently quite apparent that he was eliminated there on the beach. If that is Mr Beeslaar’s version, I would just like to ask you, how does it come about with this version, if your evidence is correct, that the man had already died on the back of the van? Where does Mr Beeslaar get this from?
MR SCHOON: If that is Beeslaar’s version as you have put it now, then I deny that in totality because that is an untruth.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see the fact that Mr Beeslaar was later informed that the terrorist had been blown up, he could not have been drunk then as well. Are you saying he recalled it incorrectly and he's lying about it.
MR SCHOON: I am saying he lies when he says that the man walked away from there and I had 25 kilograms of explosives under my arm plus the other container plus the other things while I had a vehicle to drive it.
MR DU PLESSIS: You see, you did not speak to Mr Beeslaar before this application was drawn up, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: But you did indeed speak to Mr Pienaar and to Mr van Dyk?
MR DU PLESSIS: And you drew up your versions collectively?
MR DU PLESSIS: So you collectively tried to recall this incident and tried to reconstruct it from your memory?
MR SCHOON: I believe that we might have joggled each other's memory and I agree with you that would be the reason as to why there is a great similarity.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. You see I put it to you, I won't take it any further, I just put it to you that it is quite improbable that Mr Beeslaar, who had independently drawn his application from you, would differ to such a great extent, what is your comment to this?
MR SCHOON: I am saying that I deny that it happened as Beeslaar states. It is entirely untrue.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, let us just investigate the probabilities a little further in your story. You are saying that you were on your way with this terrorist after you had interrogated him, to Swaziland. What would you have done, would you have placed him back across the border?
MR DU PLESSIS: Where would you place him back?
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr du Plessis, I would like to ask this question. The question was, you were on your way to place him back across the border. May I get your answer again?
MR MALAN: And you said it was your idea?
MR MALAN: And the question was whether you were on your way and not whether it was your idea. Were you on your way to the border at that stage when you left from Leeuspoort?
MR SCHOON: We were on our way first to my office and then we would have gone to the border.
MR MALAN: My question is when you left from Leeuspoort, did you depart to go and place him across the border?
MR MALAN: That decision was taken at Leeuspoort?
MR MALAN: And you told the others: "We drive from Leeuspoort to the border, we will place him back across the border".
MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr du Plessis.
CHAIRPERSON: That has been always your evidence in chief, Mr Schoon.
MR DU PLESSIS: And your evidence, as I understand it, is that you yourself took the decision. You were the solitary person who took that decision.
MR SCHOON: Yes, I decided and the other members did not agree with me.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Would you page to the second paragraph, page 72 of the bundle, of your statement? Will you please read that paragraph to us?
"Capt van Dyk and I decided that it would serve no purpose to interrogate the man any further and that we had to take the man back to the Swaziland border."
MR DU PLESSIS: So which version is correct? The one that you have testified now or the one in your application?
MR SCHOON: It might have been a poor choice of words. The fact is I decided that we would do it. I realised that these people could not oppose me, I speak of van Dyk and Pienaar, because I could force them to do a less serious thing, but they could not force me to commit murder.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Schoon, what did van Dyk and Pienaar tell you about this decision to take him to Swaziland, can you recall?
MR SCHOON: They did not agree with me.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but what did they tell you? Why did they not agree?
MR SCHOON: They pointed out the consequences that might ensue.
MR DU PLESSIS: And what was that?
MR SCHOON: That it could cause an international incident.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, that is what I want to arrive at. You see Mr Schoon, as it appears to me, your evidence was that if he was placed back he would have gone to the Swaziland police and they would have investigated it.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is what I believed.
MR DU PLESSIS: But that is not all that would have happened. Do you not think that the ANC would make it into an international incident?
MR SCHOON: Yes, they could have done so because the man was still alive.
MR DU PLESSIS: And that it would have grave consequences for the South African Government, do you agree with me?
MR SCHOON: If they could prove it, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: You know just as well as all of us here in this hall that the allegations of the ANC at that stage were believed internationally whether they could prove it or not.
MR SCHOON: We would have just denied it.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well and do you not think that the government on their part would have investigated the Security Police activities where you had interrogated him and that would have cause a problem to you, is that not so?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, it would have caused a less serious problem than it would have been if we murdered the man from my vantage point during the incident.
MR DU PLESSIS: And despite what I have sketched for you now, but I hear what you say, and despite what Pienaar and van Dyk told you, you are saying no, you decided that he would be taken to the Swaziland border? Does this not sound improbable to you?
MR SCHOON: That is what happened Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And what makes it even more improbable, Mr Schoon is that you were lesser in rank with regard to Mr van Dyk.
MR DU PLESSIS: And do you agree, we have had this evidence much, that Vlakplaas members who operated in specific divisions would be taken up for that period while they were there, so you would have had to follow the instructions of a higher rank?
MR SCHOON: If it was about a lawful order, yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: An illegal instruction as well, Mr Schoon. Any instruction.
MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see there is much evidence before the Truth Commission about persons who executed illegal instructions because it was part of their counter revolutionary struggle, are you saying this is not true?
MR SCHOON: I am saying it is true, many illegal orders were given.
MR DU PLESSIS: I think your brother testified to this effect.
MR SCHOON: But an unlawful instruction does not necessarily have to be executed because one can refuse it.
MR DU PLESSIS: You see what I find improbable furthermore is that you who were lesser in rank, just gave a command and said: "We'll take the man back to Swaziland and the others can follow", I find that entirely improbable.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson we did argue in the vehicle. They probably thought that they could convince me to decide differently and then on the other hand, I was the person who knew the area, on their own they would have gotten lost so it was necessary for them to keep me with them.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, Mngomezulu was a South African citizen, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: As far as I know, he had dual citizenship.
MR DU PLESSIS: In other words his allegations, do you agree with me, could lead to investigations within the RSA against you and the others, is that not so?
MR DU PLESSIS: Because the abduction and assault and the murder, or I beg your pardon, the assault and the abduction, let us forget the murder, the abduction and the interrogation took place within the RSA, is that so?
MR SCHOON: No, the abduction was from Swaziland.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but a part of it took place within the borders of the RSA.
MR DU PLESSIS: So that would have been investigated against you, is that correct?
MR DU PLESSIS: And by nature of the situation, it would have caused a great problem for the Security Branch if such questions were asked?
MR SCHOON: Well it still had to be proved.
MR DU PLESSIS: But still it was a risk for the Security Branch and now you are saying that he had to be taken to Swaziland and be released.
MR SCHOON: ...(not interpreted) (transcriber's translation - Every action in the Security Branch was a risk)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, haven't you already covered this already? He has given several responses but his cardinal response was that this was a better risk to take, than the one option that was left to him, which was to kill him.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, I've explored the one improbability about the international incident. I'm exploring now the other question which would or should have gone through their minds and that's the question of an investigation internally in South Africa and the damage it would have caused to the Security Branch and then the probabilities surrounding the fact that notwithstanding that, he'd let him go over the border. I'm just exploring ...
CHAIRPERSON: Have you not covered that as well?
MR DU PLESSIS: I'll leave it there.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you've dealt with it and his response was even if they had been investigated, the ANC would have had problems and problems. You can't take it further than that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, alright I'll ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: It's his belief in any case. It's what he believed at that stage.
MR DU PLESSIS: I will leave it there and I will argue the improbability Madam Chair.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well Mr Schoon, let us return to where you turned off to your house. Your evidence was, as I understood you, that you believed that from the time you had departed from Leeuspoort, let us rather go there, that you could still turn him as a source or an askari, do I understand you correctly?
MR SCHOON: Yes, there was a minute possibility.
MR DU PLESSIS: But where would you have done this?
MR SCHOON: We would have spoken to him further at Josini.
MR DU PLESSIS: Was the idea therefore, are you telling us now to question him at your house?
MR SCHOON: The idea was to speak to him again, to see if we could not convince him to other insights and to gain his co-operation.
MR DU PLESSIS: That is the first time that you have said that now, you did not say so in your evidence in chief.
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose also, Mr du Plessis? I thought I understood your evidence that once you took a decision that the man should be returned to Swaziland, you then left Leeuspoort for the border with the explicit intention of effecting the decision that you had taken and that is to release the man across the border? Now that was your evidence in chief. That was your evidence during cross-examination. Do I still understand your evidence correctly in that regard?
MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, we would have tried to turn the man but whether he would turn or not, I decided that the man had to go back to Swaziland. That was the objective.
CHAIRPERSON: So the objective of leaving Leeuspoort, putting the man onto the vehicle was to return him to Swaziland. That was the objective.
MR SCHOON: That is correct Chairperson. We would have left him there whether he had co-operated or not, we would have left him there in any case. That is how I decided.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Lamey, I see you want to say something.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson I apologise for being disruptive. I just want to ask whether I could be excused just for a minutes?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Maybe you may not be the only person who needs to be excused for a minute, so this would be an appropriate time to take a five minute adjournment.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.
GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, you may proceed.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: (cont.)
Very well Mr Schoon, you were involved in other interrogations I'm sure of terrorists and activists.
MR SCHOON: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: Were you involved in other interrogations of people who operated from Swaziland?
MR SCHOON: I don't follow the question.
MR DU PLESSIS: I will repeat it. Were you involved in interrogations of terrorists who operated from Swaziland that you had apprehended?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: What did you do with those people?
MR DU PLESSIS: You did not send them back to Swaziland?
MR SCHOON: No they were legally apprehended in the RSA.
CHAIRPERSON: Your question is a little elastic to elicit the kind of answer that I think you want to elicit.
MR DU PLESSIS: I'm not going to pursue this further, Madam Chair. I'm going to leave this point. If you'll just bear with me please. Let us return to the reason or the allegation or the evidence that you have testified in your evidence in chief where you said that you wanted to turn him as an askari or as an informer. Did you leave with that idea in your mind from Leeuspoort that it could still happen?
MR SCHOON: I realised it was a minute possibility but it was in the back of my mind.
MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you were asked a few minutes ago as to what had happened at your house. Do you stand by your evidence that you wanted to question him at your house?
MR SCHOON: That is correct. Not at my house, at the office.
MR DU PLESSIS: Or at your office, I beg your pardon. Despite the fact that you decided to take him back to Swaziland.
MR DU PLESSIS: I shall leave that point there because I shall argue that Mr Schoon, that version of yours is quite improbable.
MR SCHOON: That is what happened, Chairperson.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then I would just put it to you that Mr Beeslaar will testify that in so far as he can recall, Mr Mngomezulu could still walk when he was loaded onto the back of the bakkie at the farm Leeuspoort and then he could also walk on the beach at Sodwana when you stopped there. What do you say about that?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall his exact condition, the condition of Mngomezulu when he was loaded up onto the back of the van, but if Beeslaar says he saw him walking from the vehicle on the beach, then I am saying it is a lie because the man was never in Beeslaar’s presence removed from the bakkie. There was no reason for it.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Madam Chair. I've got no questions.
MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Schoon, can you recall a time - how long before you had seen Mr Mngomezulu at the dam at Leeuspoort or before he was abducted? Did you know how long before that he had been abducted?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I had no knowledge of the previous abduction. I did not even know that he was questioned at Moolman. I believed that he was taken directly from the border to me.
MR LAMEY: Yes, but according to your understanding, was it more or less a day before that the abduction had taken place or how long before?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall whether I was informed about it or whether I asked about it, I don't know.
MR LAMEY: May I ask you as follows? How long before you saw the man at the Josini dam before you saw Mngomezulu, did you direct the request to Col de Kock to abduct the man?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that either. It was definitely not a brief period before that, then I would have recalled it, but I cannot recall it.
MR SCHOON: No, I cannot recall.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall what the arrangement was between yourself and Mr de Kock as to when it would be done?
MR SCHOON: No there was no arrangement made, not with me.
MR LAMEY: Did Mr de Kock not tell you something in that regard that: "There was a group of mine who would work in that area or who were busy working in that area" and we would be able to do it more or less during that period of time?
MR SCHOON: I think I would have recalled it, but it is probably possible, but I can really not recall.
MR LAMEY: As I understand your evidence, is it correct by means of retrospect, do you exclude the possibility that Mr de Kock would have directed this request to you telephonically? Do I understand your evidence correctly?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall such a call, because it is improbable because I don't believe one would discuss such a matter over the telephone.
MR LAMEY: Are you saying that it is more probable that Mr de Kock would have personally directed this at you at Josini?
MR SCHOON: I don't understand.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, he is the one who made the request to de Kock, so are you saying, is it possible that he might have conveyed his request to de Kock at Josini?
MR LAMEY: Yes, well I gathered that that was his evidence in chief. My follow-up question is, are you saying that it's probable that he made this request to you at Josini, directly?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he is the one who is making the request. Maybe you are not being clear with regard to who is requesting.
CHAIRPERSON: It's Mr Schoon who is requesting Mr de Kock.
MR LAMEY: Yes, yes, I apologise.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Lamey. I apologise for interrupting. Can you give us an indication as to why you asked this question? Are there any contradictories to your client's evidence in this regard?
MR LAMEY: I am investigating the possibility of Mr de Kock's presence at Josini in the light of my client's evidence in this regard.
MR MALAN: Then you can continue, but you must please arrive at it swifter than you are.
MR LAMEY: Would you please answer the question, or shall I repeat it, Mr Schoon? Are you saying that it is more probable that you had directed the request at Mr de Kock at Josini?
MR LAMEY: Did Mr de Kock from time to visit you at Josini?
MR LAMEY: Very well, I would just like to ask you then, during the interrogation at Josini, were you continually present there?
MR SCHOON: If you refer to the house at the dam.
MR SCHOON: I was not continually present there.
MR LAMEY: Therefore if there was a stage that Mr de Kock would have arrived there, is it possible that you were not there at that stage?
MR SCHOON: There could be such a possibility but I believe that he would certainly have waited for me to return to speak to me, but I have to speculate.
MR LAMEY: Are you speculating now if you say that?
MR LAMEY: Is it possible that he could have left the further proceedings to Mr van Dyk, but they had been there?
MR SCHOON: I did not see him there.
MR LAMEY: And then I would just like to understand your evidence correctly with regard to the interrogation that had taken place at Josini. Is it your evidence that the man was not severely assaulted there?
MR SCHOON: I did not say that. He was never assaulted in my presence.
MR LAMEY: But you accept that there was a serious assault on him during the interrogation at Josini?
MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, it was also his evidence that he had been severely assaulted and that he had endured tremendous punishment, but he was not assaulted while he interrogated him.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. I was not entirely certain in which context I had to see his evidence in the light of his statement on page 72. It was not clear to me, that it is why I wanted to determine with regard to this aspect whether there is a difference with the clients whom I represent. Mr Schoon, did any extraordinary interrogation method, for example the use of barbed wire, as you have heard the evidence of Mr de Kock here, I would not want to repeat it in graphic detail, you know what I am referring to, did anybody ever mention anything like this to you, did any of the members there apply such a method which was entirely unacceptable?
MR SCHOON: At no stage was I present when something to that effect was done. If something like that was done, nobody mentioned it to me but my healthy mind tells me that if something in that manner had happened, that there would have been much blood and I would have seen it, if it had taken place during that period of time.
MR LAMEY: You did not see any bleeding to such effect?
MR SCHOON: I did not see any bleeding because there was no profuse bleeding that one would encounter with such a deed.
MR LAMEY: You questioned Mr Mngomezulu in Zulu you have said and my instructions from Mr Mogoai is that he was given instructions to put questions and in a mixture of Zulu and the Nguni languages, he undertook the interrogation upon instructions, can you comment?
MR SCHOON: I am not able to say. I cannot even recall. In any case, I believe when I arrived there I took over the interrogation. I was the person who had the knowledge about the man's background. It was not necessary for me to work by means of an interpreter, indeed an interpreter who could not speak the language properly, so in my presence I did not see the man interrogating Mr Mngomezulu.
MR LAMEY: I would just like to confirm it with you, in your statement on page 72 you say that you did hear that the askaris there had questioned him as well, you heard this?
MR SCHOON: That is correct, but I don't know who did what because I was not present.
MR LAMEY: Do you know whether as subject of the interrogation, whether he was questioned about infiltration, about PAC, because Mr Mogoai's instructions to me are that he recalled that Mr Pienaar gave him those instructions to do an interrogation in that regard.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, at that stage the PAC was not really a factor, but what was of import regarding the PAC, and I put questions was persons who had received military training under the banner of the PAC, but whether anyone else questioned him about the PAC, I do not know, but it is possible.
MR LAMEY: I think Mr Pienaar also conceded in his evidence, I would just wanted to hear your comment to that.
Thank you Madam Chair, I have got no further questions. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. In any event Mr Schoon, it is your evidence that you conducted the interrogation all by yourself, you didn't need anyone to be there, though people did come in to peep and see what the interrogation was going like, the interrogation was done largely by yourself alone with the subject. Mr Schoon?
MR SCHOON: I mainly questioned the man with my arrival there, that is correct yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And you did not see any askari participating in any interrogation of whatsoever nature whilst you were at Leeuspoort?
MR SCHOON: Not that I can recall.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms van der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Just one singular aspect.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: I would just
like to put it to you, Mr van Dyk testified that he was a lieutenant during the time, that was the same rank that you occupied, is that correct?
MS VAN DER WALT: And may I put it to you that Mr van Dyk and yourself went together on an Officers' Course in 1985.
MS VAN DER WALT: So is it correct that the two of you had the same rank, that you had a lower rank than he did in that period of time?
MR SCHOON: I don't believe I said I occupied a lower rank, but I was under his authority because he worked under Head Office and I regarded myself subordinate to him, although we had the same rank.
MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
MR SCHOON: Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no questions for Mr Schoon.
MR RAMAWELE: Just a few questions, thank you.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Mr Schoon, you are the person who requested that Mr Mngomezulu be abducted, is that so?
MR RAMAWELE: Now after his abduction, what was your primary purpose? What were you supposed to get from Mr Mngomezulu?
MR RAMAWELE: Information about what?
MR SCHOON: There are many aspects, I don't know if you want to elaborate, but it was primarily about the presence of terrorists in the RSA for the purposes of tracing them and eliminating them. It was about the presence of cache points, weapons cache points in the RSA and tracing those cache points and the primary reason was to obtain information upon which one could act and it was also to obtain historical information, in other words persons who received training with him so as to act against them later. That was basically primarily what it was about.
MR RAMAWELE: I see. And you have already testified that Mr Mngomezulu was the link between the exile ANC operations and the internal operations in Swaziland.
MR SCHOON: I did testify to that effect because that was our information and it was also confirmed from the interrogation of terrorists that we had arrested in the area in 1984.
MR RAMAWELE: And because Mr Mngomezulu's operations were conducted, according to you, in an area where you had control, so it was of major importance to you, it was of major concern to you that he be abducted and be interrogated?
MR SCHOON: It was extremely important to me that we question the man. I did not say in which manner.
MR RAMAWELE: I see. And he was actually abducted and from the evidence you have given I gather that you have not, you did not assault him when you were questioning him.
MR RAMAWELE: And he was not providing any information to you, or was he?
MR SCHOON: I think I have said in my evidence that he did supply names. I would not call it information because it had to be verified.
MR RAMAWELE: But the information that he gave to you, was that information sufficient for the purpose for which you requested his abduction?
MR RAMAWELE: So in other words it's safe to say that during your interrogation you were not achieving the purpose for which his presence was sought?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR RAMAWELE: You did not think it was necessary to assault him a little bit for him to be able to give you the information?
MR SCHOON: I had indeed thought that the man had to rest and the longer he rests, the larger the possibility was that one could obtain something from him.
MR RAMAWELE: And the following day also, you had some period interrogation with Mr Mngomezulu and you also gave him an opportunity to rest, according to your evidence.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
MR RAMAWELE: Am I correct to say that the following day also the information, he did not supply you with the information that you were looking for, the information that was sufficient for why he was abducted?
MR SCHOON: That was indeed the following day that he supplied the names, but I agree with you, it was not sufficient.
MR RAMAWELE: Notwithstanding the fact that the information that he supplied to you was not sufficient, you then took a decision that he has to be taken back to Swaziland, is that so?
MR RAMAWELE: And here we're talking about a man who was, according to you, you know, a link between the ANC in Swaziland, or in exile and in the country, responsible for the operations and yet you decide he can go back and continue what he was doing, is that what you decided to do, or what you want the Committee to believe?
MR SCHOON: I am telling the Committee what had indeed happened. This man was no longer a child. He was reasonably mature. I judged him to be in his fifties. He had endured severe punishment. It would have served no purpose to interrogate the man any further. The alternative was to kill him and by taking him back to Swaziland was the most acceptable solution to our problem, because we had a problem.
MR RAMAWELE: Do you agree with me that if you had taken him back to Swaziland, he would probably have continued to do what he was doing, because he was never turned into an Askari?
MR SCHOON: No, he was never turned.
MR RAMAWELE: So he would probably have continued to do what he was doing?
MR RAMAWELE: And you, in that knowledge, decided that he could go back to Swaziland?
MR SCHOON: May I also add that if this man returned to Swaziland and he comes about with a story and says that the police have released him, I believe that, from experience, that the ANC would not have accepted him just like that. They would have known that this man had been planted and they would not have trusted him anymore.
MR RAMAWELE: Just one last aspect relating to the arrangement between yourself and Eugene de Kock. You say that it was never arranged between yourself when the abduction was supposed to take place?
MR SCHOON: I never made any arrangements with him.
MR RAMAWELE: In other words, the abduction was not supposed to be undertaken on a date that was suitable to you? That was not the arrangement?
MR RAMAWELE: And yet you were the person who was supposed to interrogate this person, is that so? And yet you don't have to arrange a suitable date for him, or a time when he's supposed to be abducted, so that you could be able to be available and interrogate him?
MR SCHOON: I also did not say that I was the person that had to interrogate him, but I believed that I was in the best position to be able to interrogate this man. This would not exclude that anybody else could also interrogate him. If other persons had knowledge about him they could do so.
MR RAMAWELE: But Mr Schoon, the fact of the matter is you testified that you had the background about this person. you knew this person. You knew his operations. You were interested in this person, so you had to be there to interrogate him, don't you think so?
MR SCHOON: I will emphasise, I was not the only person who had the background knowledge. There was a file from which any other person who would go to the trouble to find this information, there are other persons who had the background knowledge of the whole area. I did not make any arrangement with Mr de Kock. I was informed after the abduction had taken place and I was glad that I could interrogate the man because I was looking for the man because I knew he had knowledge of much information, but the operation did not work as I wanted it to.
MR RAMAWELE: And I correct to ...(intervention).
MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, may I just ascertain at this stage, this line of cross-examination, is Mr Nofomela going to testify anything to the contrary as what Mr Schoon has testified about in this with regard to the abduction, as to the reason for the abduction and the interrogation and availability or non-availability and arrangements, otherwise I do not understand the line of cross-examination. Maybe Mr Ramawele could enlighten the Committee with regard to the line of interrogation.
MR RAMAWELE: Chair, Mr Nofomela is not going to testify anything contrary to what Mr Schoon is saying, but he is troubled by certain things that Mr Schoon is saying because this Committee wants to hear the truth, that's the reason why I was putting these questions, because we have to hear the truth. Just because it doesn't affect the testimony of Mr Nofomela doesn't mean that then we cannot put a question
even if it is a fair question.
CHAIRPERSON: You are testing his credibility?
MR RAMAWELE: Yes. I just want to lay certain matters to rest which are very troublesome in his testimony.
CHAIRPERSON: Are they troubling Mr Nofomela in particular?
CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Nofomela privy to information which is contrary to what Mr Schoon has testified?
CHAIRPERSON: How is he troubled?
MR RAMAWELE: Madam Chair, as I put it to you that if, as a participant in this amnesty hearing, if Madam Chair feels that even though we are of the opinion that certain issues that he has raised are far from the truth should not be raised because it does not affect Mr Nofomela, I would gladly not pursue the matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'm not saying you shouldn't if you have information to the contrary because we are here to make sure that we are placed in possession of all the facts from which we can make a proper and judicious decision whether to grant amnesty or not but obviously we will not allow you to go on a fishing expedition.
MR RAMAWELE: I would - I think it is proper for me then to say that I don't have to put any further questions to Mr Schoon, under the circumstances.
CHAIRPERSON: Was it your intention to explore the matter further?
MR RAMAWELE: Yes, it was but I had only the last question.
CHAIRPERSON: You may put the last question only.
MR RAMAWELE: Thank you. My last submission to you was, you knew the background of this particular Mr Mngomezulu. you had a file on him. He was troublesome in that area where you were in control and therefore to me you were supposed to be there when he was interrogated. Now my only concern is, why would you have then arranged with Mr de Kock for the abduction to take place at a particular time which was available to you or suitable to you?
CHAIRPERSON: You've explored that Mr Ramawele.
MR RAMAWELE: That's all. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RAMAWELE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may not respond to that Mr Schoon, that question has already been put to you.
MR KGASI: Thank you Madam Chairperson. I'm not going to be long, as my colleagues have already done most of the job for me, but I however have some few questions Madam.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Mr Schoon, as the person who ordered that Mr Mngomezulu be abducted and brought back into the RSA, would I be correct if I say you were the Chief Commander of this operation or that this operation was yours?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the decision did not abide by me to give an instruction that an act be committed in Swaziland. I did not have the power to do this. I was a junior lieutenant. It would have had to happen with the approval of Head Office because I could not give such an instruction. I directed a request yes, but I could not give such an order.
CHAIRPERSON: So this operation was pursuant to the request that you directed at Mr de Kock?
MR SCHOON: Mr de Kock did testify to that effect.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know Mr Schoon.
MR SCHOON: I can actually not answer as to what Mr de Kock's motivation was, but according to his evidence he says it was because of the request that I directed to him.
CHAIRPERSON: But wouldn't you know whether you directed such a request to Mr de Kock? If you don't know, who would?
MR SCHOON: I did direct a request at him, I do not deny it.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it was the "yes" I wanted. Mr Kgasi?
MR KGASI: Thank you. Mr Schoon, I want to take you a little bit further to the scene of your first interrogation. Was it your testimony that you interrogated him and that failing to solicit the information that you wanted, then you let Mr Mngomezulu rest for a day, is that so?
MR SCHOON: No. I had him rest for the night.
MR KGASI: Alright. And the following day you proceeded with the interrogation?
MR KGASI: That is when he supplied you with names. Did you bother to verify the information that he supplied to you?
CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean, Mr Kgasi?
MR KGASI: Madam Chairperson ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: He's in charge. He knows what kind of information is useful to him.
MR KGASI: Mr Schoon has earlier testified that on the second day when he wanted to interrogate Mr Mngomezulu, he supplied him with names.
CHAIRPERSON: Which he found useful because they were familiar to him and they would have assisted him to conduct further investigations with regard to the infiltration which was his primary investigation and for which he wanted Mr Mngomezulu to be questioned about.
MR KGASI: Alright. Now Mr Schoon ...(intervention).
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I would just like to correct something. I never said that the names were known to me as is now being interpreted to me.
CHAIRPERSON: The names that were furnished to you, was it not your evidence that he gave you names which were useful to you?
MR SCHOON: What he did - I believe in my evidence I said that he supplied names to me that I noted down and that I later had to investigate.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kgasi?
MR KGASI: Now Mr Schoon, would I be right if I say the purpose of Mr Mngomezulu's abduction and his interrogation was fulfilled in that you got names for which you can further act on?
MR SCHOON: The names that he supplied were not sufficient. It was more about the whole truth, as to extracting the truth from him as you are extracting it from me now.
MR MALAN: Would you not like to give it to us without us having to extract it from you?
MR SCHOON: I am trying, Chairperson.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR KGASI: Mr Schoon, is it your testimony further that you had always wanted to turn Mr Mngomezulu in?
MR SCHOON: That was my purpose, to try it, yes.
MR KGASI: Okay. And that you decided that you should take him to Swaziland.
MR KGASI: And then it is clear from your testimony that your resolve to take him back to Swaziland was in contrast with your colleagues. Did you do anything to persuade them that it's in their best interests that the man go back to Swaziland?
MR SCHOON: Up to the point when we found out that the man had died, we still argued about it.
MR KGASI: Are you saying you argued about it, even when you went to Josini, at your place, to check messages?
MR SCHOON: On our way to Josini I took a decision but we still argued in the vehicle about the viability of the decision that I had taken.
MR KGASI: But was it your resolve that notwithstanding their protest, the man is going back to Swaziland?
MR SCHOON: That is correct yes, Chairperson.
MR KGASI: Now Mr Schoon, let me take you a little bit backwards. Was it your testimony that you cannot recall who loaded Mr Mngomezulu into the van or whether he climbed the bakkie himself?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall exactly.
MR KGASI: So as you cannot recall exactly, would you say it is a possibility that he climbed the bakkie himself?
MR SCHOON: I don't know. It is probably possible.
MR KGASI: When you got to Josini at your place you said one of you lifted the tarpaulin and realised that Mr Mngomezulu is dead. Is that so?
MR KGASI: Can you recall who that member was?
MR KGASI: Did you check Mr Mngomezulu, just to ascertain whether he is dead?
MR SCHOON: The appointed thing to do was to feel his pulse, but as far as I can recall, none of us did so. The man was motionless and he appeared as if he was dead and I am convinced that he was although we did not feel for a pulse.
MR KGASI: So there is a possibility that he might have been in a coma or unconscious?
MR SCHOON: If it had the consequence of him not breathing, then it would be possible, but we accepted that he was dead.
MR KGASI: Yet you did not ascertain it, Mr Schoon?
MR KGASI: Would I be wrong if I come to a conclusion, or just to make an assumption, that the man might have been alive when you took him to Sodwana?
MR SCHOON: He was already dead, according to my opinion.
MR KGASI: And that is your unverified opinion?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that was my opinion.
MR KGASI: Thank you Madam, I have no further questions for the witness.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KGASI
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?
MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madam Chair, no questions.
MR MALAN: Mr Schoon, please help me with my geography, with the location of Ngwavuma. I did not look at the chart, but if I recall correctly it is in the furthermost northern point of Natal, as part of the Natal Province, right adjacent to Swaziland and Mozambique, is it in that area?
MR SCHOON: No, that's correct except that it is quite a way from Mozambique, it is quite close to the Swaziland border.
MR MALAN: Yes, but it is a small area that is not Ngwavuma before one reaches Mozambique.
MR SCHOON: If you refer to the Ngwavuma District, it reaches right up to Mozambique, that is correct.
MR MALAN: Very well. Then can you indicate to us where Mr Mngomezulu's, what you refer to as the Swaziland kraal, can you tell us where that was located?
MR MALAN: Can you place Msoko on that chart for us, more or less in terms of wind directions within Swaziland?
MR SCHOON: Ngwavuma is right on top of the Lebombo mountains. The mountain forms at times, the border between Swaziland and South Africa. There are no border fences. If one stands on Ngwavuma and one looks and I will actually speculate now.
MR MALAN: No, if you have to speculate, then I will not continue. To fetch him, you knew where his kraal was, you knew the physical location of his kraal in Swaziland. That is just a question.
MR SCHOON: I knew the area, but I didn't know exactly which kraal was his.
MR MALAN: If I was at Piet Retief and I have to drive there, how do I drive to get there? Can you give me the road?
MR SCHOON: You would have to drive to Golela and go through the border post or close to the border, go through the fence and then from there one would go from Golela about 30 kilometres, right up to Msoko, I am guesstimating now.
MR MALAN: And if I drove from Josini?
MR SCHOON: You would also have to drive through Golela.
MR MALAN: So in other words you still have to move south in the direction of Golela?
MR SCHOON: Otherwise from Ngwavuma to Mac's pass, which was an uncontrolled point, where I could also go through the border.
MR MALAN: Do you know which road they arrived at after they had abducted him?
MR SCHOON: I think in their evidence they said they came through Golela border post.
MR MALAN: Why did you decide to leave him at Mac's Pass if that wasn't where his kraal was?
MR SCHOON: Mac's Pass was an uncontrolled area and one could do something there without being seen quite easily and I knew that area quite well.
MR MALAN: How would he have returned to his kraal, or did you not care?
MR SCHOON: The fact is that on the other side, I think in my evidence in chief I said the tribal area of the Mngomezulus was divided into two, so he could have gone in either direction to either kraal and he would have arrived at the Mngomezulu tribe and they would have helped him.
MR MALAN: But you would have left him there in a condition where he actually was not in control of himself because you are saying, I think the general evidence is that when he was loaded up on the back of the van he was in a coma or unconscious, or whatever the case may be.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson I cannot recall that he was indeed in a coma, but that he was not in a good condition, I do concede that that is true and he, with great difficulty, would have arrived at a place where they would be able to assist him.
MR MALAN: And just another thing that I would like to ask you and this is about your decision, that you would take him back, this was the continual evidence. The evidence was that you were under the authority of van Dyk with regard to this operation.
MR MALAN: van Dyk was in command.
MR SCHOON: Yes, he was in control.
MR MALAN: And here you oppose his authority and you take a decision and he does not reprimand you about it,
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, we argued about it, but he could not force me to follow his viewpoint. I believe I would have been able to force them to do my bidding because it would have had the least repercussions afterwards, so I believed.
MR MALAN: Were you ever involved in any assault where a person was eliminated, other than this one?
MR SCHOON: No. I have another amnesty application that I had attended.
MR MALAN: Was this the Scorpion matter?
MR MALAN: Was this the only other incident for which you have applied for amnesty for?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct and in my presence there was no assault and I do not know that any of the other members assaulted the person.
MR SCHOON: Two persons, Des Carr shot at the man, I'm not clear whether he hit the person, but according to the evidence it was Sakkie van Zyl.
MR MALAN: Did you know he would be shot? What was your evidence there? We can check it.
MR SCHOON: I was not present. I knew that the man would be killed, I assisted in the transport of the corpse to the point where it was destroyed.
MR MALAN: Why didn't you stop it there? Why didn't you go against orders there and say one could not do this, "Let us just run the risk and release him"?
MR SCHOON: There was a brigadier present there, I believe he was a colonel at that stage, but it was a senior police officer who was present. I was not responsible for the action, I assisted and I have said what my role was there and I don't believe I could have stopped it.
MR MALAN: But I heard you saying that you opposed Mr van Dyk and Pienaar in spite of the fact that van Dyk was senior, but let us say that you subjected yourself to his control, you opposed it because you could not be forced to follow an illegal operation, but a brigadier can force you?
MR SCHOON: No, he can't force me.
MR MALAN: But you accepted it there.
MR SCHOON: Yes. There I was not directly involved in the killing.
MR MALAN: But here you also were not and you would not have been.
MR SCHOON: I would have been because I was one of the three who had to sort out this problem.
MR MALAN: But you could have told them: "You can kill this man if you want to, I will walk away, I do not want to be involved here".
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I think things had gone already too far for me to withdraw myself from this.
MR MALAN: No, I just wanted to understand this version. Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. Adv Motata?
ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Schoon, I heard you to say you had no grievance or malice against Mngomezulu. Did I hear you correctly?
ADV MOTATA: Wouldn't we, at that stage when we had this onslaught, regarded the MK or the ANC as our enemy?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct, he was my enemy. We were in a state of war, but personally I had no grievance against this man.
ADV MOTATA: And it would go against the tenor of your affidavit if we have regard to pages 74 and 75, that they were disturbing the culture of your forefathers in this land and you wanted to stamp that out despite you being employed by the South African Police, so I cannot understand suddenly you have no grievance against this man. Could you please explain to me what you want to say about that?
MR SCHOON: I am trying to say that the man was an enemy of mine because we were in a state of war but against him as a person I had no grievance and my greatest interest with him was to obtain information from him.
ADV MOTATA: Despite him infiltrating the people or the ANC MKs into the country to destabilise the country, you still looked at him as a good man to you, or you had no grievance against him.
MR SCHOON: No, I did not regard him as a good man, I regarded him as an enemy because he acted against my country.
ADV MOTATA: Let's go to another area. I heard you to say that you came, you interrogated the man and you wanted him to have a good night's rest and you did so again periodically the next day until he furnished you with some names.
MR SCHOON: Are you asking why I did this?
ADV MOTATA: No, no, I'm asking you, did I hear you correctly.
MR SCHOON: I did question the man, I did have him rest and the following day periodically I did question him again, that is correct, yes.
ADV MOTATA: What I want to know from you because the impression I gained is that you were just there on the farm at Leeuspoort for two days. How long were you at Leeuspoort?
MR SCHOON: Two days that I was present.
ADV MOTATA: And you say the man was assaulted prior to your arrival?
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.
ADV MOTATA: And severely assaulted.
MR SCHOON: That is the inference I drew from the condition I saw the man in.
ADV MOTATA: Was he blindfolded?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that he was blindfolded at any stage.
ADV MOTATA: You know what worries me is that I think it's either Mr Pienaar or Mr van Dyk who said that when they met the man was taken from the farm, or the place where he was interrogated, he was in a coma and I have asked this from them that if there was an intention to turn this man, how could you want to turn a man who was in a coma, to work for you? I find it very difficult. Or you did not see that the man was in a coma when you loaded him on the back of the 4 x 4?
MR SCHOON: I heard that Pienaar said in his evidence that the man was in a coma. I believe he was not in a coma. I did not see this in any event and I can really not recall the physical condition that the man was in but I don't believe it was a coma, otherwise I would have taken another decision, but as far as I can recall, he was not in a coma.
ADV MOTATA: Now you wanted to turn the man and that you would conduct further interrogations at Josini. When the man is in that bad shape, after the severe assault and you could not achieve it at Leeuspoort, what magic wand would you wave for the man to turn to work for you, at Josini now?
MR SCHOON: There is more than one way to approach a man with an interrogation, the one is aggressive and the one is in a nice manner and my manner was to try and extract something in a nice manner because I saw that violence did not assist, that the man was just opposed to us much more and the fact that we had taken him away to where I could speak to the man alone, where the other persons were not in another vicinity, I though this would assist me.
ADV MOTATA: Just lastly. You were questioned that you said you did not recall who actually loaded the man onto the van. I think your papers say you, Pienaar and van Dyk loaded him onto the van, or are you not certain at this stage that that could be so?
MR SCHOON: I think I also said that I cannot recall exactly how he got onto the bakkie or who loaded him up. I was present and the other members were present, but I cannot recall exactly how he was loaded onto the bakkie. I don't know whether someone assisted him or whether he climbed up himself, of whether he was loaded on to the bakkie.
ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Why I'm saying that Mr Pienaar, your papers do not make any hesitation as to who loaded him. If you could bear with me I would just point out where precisely you're saying so. Page 72, paragraph 4.
"I, Capt van Dyk and Freek Pienaar loaded Mngomezulu onto a vehicle and covered him with a canvass."
Quite precise and pointed, not that it shows any doubt whilst reading these papers.
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I do not deny it at all, but I cannot recall exactly who did what and in which manner we loaded up the man. I can really not recall, but that we loaded him up, that is so and from there we took him further, so it had to have been us who had loaded him up. Who else could it have been?
ADV MOTATA: Did Beeslaar for instance assist or Mr Willemse, who had remained behind, other than the askaris who had been sent away, would they have assisted in loading the man onto the bakkie, because you're not remembering at this stage?
MR SCHOON: It is improbable, but I can really not recall how exactly he was loaded onto the bakkie.
ADV MOTATA: Why is it improbable? I mean, the men remained behind and you told them: "Wait for us where the road forks" and they're with you on the farm. You say it's improbable, only van Dyk, myself and Pienaar could have done it. What makes it improbable that whilst he's on the farm and he's in the same mission as you are, that they wouldn't have loaded the man. I cannot understand this, it's beyond me, really.
MR SCHOON: Beeslaar and the other member were passengers, I don't know what they were doing there.
ADV MOTATA: Thank you Madam Chair, I think I cannot take it any further.
CHAIRPERSON: If Beeslaar and Mr Willemse were passengers, why did you give them instructions to go to the intersection as you have already stated in your evidence?
MR SCHOON: They had to take the second vehicle so that there was transport back for Pienaar and van Dyk. I cannot give any other explanation or any other necessity for their presence there.
CHAIRPERSON: Why was it necessary for van Dyk and Mr Pienaar to have another transport?
MR SCHOON: Pienaar had to go back to Piet Retief and van Dyk probably had to go back to Pretoria. If there was no vehicle for them there, then I had to transport them which was unnecessary.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm getting a little confused. At what stage did you decide that Mr Beeslaar and Willemse had to go to that intersection in order to provide this transport that was necessary to be provided to Willemse and Mr Beeslaar? Was this the decision you took?
MR SCHOON: No I would not say that it was decided that they had to wait there for that purpose or that it was discussed that that was the reason, they were members of the group and I don't think it was spelled out that this is the reason why they had to go and wait there.
CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get the last part.
MR SCHOON: There was no direct instruction, if I can recall correctly, to them to say that you are needed here to have the vehicle available so that van Dyk and Pienaar could go back, but the fact is they were part of the group who had remained behind and the group stayed together, but there was no necessity for those people to drive all over behind us, but that is how it happened.
CHAIRPERSON: When were they instructed to drive to the point as you have described as an intersection or where the road forks? Was this before you decided that Mr Mngomezulu had to be returned to the border for purposes of releasing him, or was it before you decided that Mr Mngomezulu had to be turned as an askari or as an informer? At which stage was this decision made to send Beeslaar and Willemse to the intersection?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall exactly, but I would want it with our departure from Leeuspoort, the people were given instruction by van Dyk to wait for us there, in other words it was after I had decided that the man had to be placed back through the border. But there is a possibility that when we turned off that van Dyk spoke to the people then, but I cannot recall. It was either at the house or at the point where we turned off. One of the two places, I cannot recall exactly, but I knew that I already decided that the man had to be placed back across the border.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes and you say that the decision to attempt to turn him was taken notwithstanding that you had already decided that the man was to be returned to Swaziland?
MR SCHOON: I decided to take the man back to Swaziland. If I could turn him, which was highly improbable, it would have happened. If I could not turn him, he would have still returned back to Swaziland.
CHAIRPERSON: And you have stated that the manner used by yourselves in conducting these interrogations was a nicer one, you did not use force. Did I understand your evidence correctly?
MR SCHOON: I believe so. It would have been less severe, I think those were my words.
CHAIRPERSON: And the reason why you thought he could be turned at Josini was because you would then have been able to conduct an interrogation on your own, without the presence of the other members of Vlakplaas as well as the likes of Mr Willemse.
MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct and that he would be away from the environment where he was assaulted.
CHAIRPERSON: At that stage, how severely assaulted was Mr Mngomezulu?
MR SCHOON: I was not present during any assault but from the man's appearance, I could see that he had been severely assaulted. I cannot recall any specific marks on him, but I could see from his physical condition that he had been severely assaulted.
CHAIRPERSON: What marks did you observe?
MR SCHOON: I cannot recall any marks that I saw. I heard the other persons saying that his eye was swollen, but I cannot recall it.
CHAIRPERSON: You did not observe any swelling of the eye?
MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I cannot recall that I saw it, but I will not deny that there was any swelling.
CHAIRPERSON: Evidence has already been led that you were a chief interrogator of Mr Mngomezulu whilst he was at Leeuspoort. Is that correct?
MR SCHOON: After my arrival there, I believe I took over the interrogation, I think that is the function that I fulfilled there and I cannot think that anyone else questioned him after I had arrived there. It could be for brief periods but you may put it as such, I was the chief interrogator.
CHAIRPERSON: And had he, if he had a swollen eye, as a chief interrogator you would have remembered that, if that injury was sustained prior to your interrogation of him?
MR SCHOON: A person with a good memory could recall it, but not necessarily, I cannot recall it.
CHAIRPERSON: You've also earlier on stated that Mr Willemse and Mr Beeslaar had to provide transport to Mr Pienaar and Mr van Dyk and that's why they had to go and wait at the intersection described in your earlier evidence.
MR SCHOON: I don't believe I made myself clear there. The second vehicle was necessary to take Pienaar and van Dyk back to respectively Piet Retief and Pretoria. If he was not available then I had to do it but there was certainly not a reason as to why the members could not wait at Leeuspoort or where they could have waited at Josini or any other place. I cannot explain why they specifically had to come along except to say that they were part of the group and the group stayed together, except the person who had already been sent away.
CHAIRPERSON: Well you've actually come to my problem because I would have wanted to know why it was not ordered of them to remain behind whilst you proceeded to give effect to your objective of returning to Mngomezulu to Swaziland and then later on returning to Leeuspoort in order to provide the necessary transport to Mr van Dyk and Mr Pienaar and what is also not clear to me is why Mr van Dyk could not drive the other vehicle instead of having useless passengers like Mr Beeslaar and Willemse accompanying you all the way to a place when they were not going to do anything of importance as part of the operation.
MR SCHOON: I think that during the interchange I may have lost a few aspects, the interchange between the interpreters.
CHAIRPERSON: What I want to know is why could Mr van Dyk not drive the other vehicle because we have evidence that the other vehicle that was driven by Mr Beeslaar was Mr van Dyk's car. Why could he not have driven his own car?
MR SCHOON: As I have already stated, we were in a group and the group stuck together but in actuality there was no reason why it could not have been exercised as such. There is no reason that I can determine.
CHAIRPERSON: When you made a request to Mr de Kock to assist with the abduction of Mr Mngomezulu, one presumes that such a request was made because Mr Mngomezulu was in your opinion an important subject from whom you could extract the information concerning his infiltration activities in the RSA.
CHAIRPERSON: And that the abduction was as a result of your request. What I do not understand is why after this abduction had been done at your instance, your status suddenly becomes reduced to that of a person who is merely instructed by Mr van Dyk to conduct an interrogation and you work under his command. Can you explain to me how does that come into being?
MR SCHOON: I lodged a request to Mr de Kock. I could not give him an order. de Kock had to obtain authorisation from Head Office to carry out something like that. It was carried out and he sent a man who fell directly under his command. He sent this man to me and I subjected myself to that man who was under the command of Head Office and we did continue with the operation, that is what took place.
CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't this man abducted for purposes of enabling you to conduct an interrogation?
MR SCHOON: The purpose of the interrogation of this man was to be interrogated but to say that I personally had to interrogate him, that was not necessary although I was probably in the best position to do this. However, any other person could also have done it. I think we may be talking past each other.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we may be. The reason why we may be talking past each other is because the evidence of Mr de Kock was that Mr Mngomezulu was abducted to enable some kind of interrogation to be conducted by you, not by any other person. That was his evidence in chief.
MR SCHOON: Well if he said that then it is as he has stated but the reason for the request was not for me personally to interrogate the man, it wasn't of the utmost necessity that I interrogate him, any other person could have done it, if he had executed it because I had requested it with the purpose of obtaining the man, I would not dispute it, then it is as such.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any re-examination?
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, this case of Scorpion, for which you have applied for amnesty and have already testified about, that case, just to put it clearly before the Committee, you were not at all involved with the arrest and handling of that person which took place in the former Western Transvaal, is that correct?
MR SCHOON: I was not involved in it and I had the minimum background information about the whole matter.
MR PRINSLOO: For you this was solely a person who was brought to your area upon the arrangements with another officer of which you were the subordinate and this person was eliminated there and later blown up there.
MR PRINSLOO: But the murder did not take place in your presence, however, the explosion took place in your presence.
MR PRINSLOO: So that case can be distinguished from this case in which you are involved with the person that you were interested in?
MR PRINSLOO: Upon a question which was put by Mr du Plessis on behalf of Mr Beeslaar, it was put that the case could be investigated in the Security Branch, given the facts of this case, that Mr Mngomezulu was a trained member of the PAC as well as the ANC. Would such a person have been able to testify here in the Republic against you? Have you ever heard of a case of a person from the ANC which was banned during that time, who testified at that stage?
MR SCHOON: Nothing is impossible, but it is highly improbable.
MR PRINSLOO: Now when you placed the explosives on the deceased, Mr Mngomezulu, at that stage was there any sign of life that you could observe?
MR PRINSLOO: In your years of experience in the police, did you work with corpses or deceased persons or not?
MR PRINSLOO: Now this specific point where Mr Willemse and Mr Beeslaar would have waited, if they had simply driven ahead would the roads have been clearly marked, would one be able to find one's way with relative ease, or would one need to know the environment?
MR SCHOON: At that point where they had to wait, the indications were still clear, but further on there would have been problems, whether it was Sodwana side or Ngwavuma side.
MR PRINSLOO: Now according to the evidence here, this operation was primarily carried out by Mr van Dyk and the deceased was in your vehicle and according to the question as to why Mr van Dyk had not driven his vehicle and had been separated from you and he was someone who was directly involved, would it have been viable for him to drive a different vehicle and you to drive with this person, regarding which there was still a dispute as to what to do with this person? Would that have been viable?
MR SCHOON: Now that I think of that it was probably one of the reasons why van Dyk drove with us because we still discussed the matter, Pienaar and I and him. We were the persons who had to take the final decision. I had to convince these people.
MR PRINSLOO: What would have happened if you, after the abduction of the person from Swaziland, were ill or had left the force, would you have expected the police to leave it at that and not to abduct the person because you could no longer be the interrogator?
MR SCHOON: No then anyone else with relative background would have been able to relieve me.
MR PRINSLOO: But it would have been necessary to bring this person in for interrogation?
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. Nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr Schoon, you are excused as a witness.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the batting order?
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, I believe my client, Mr Beeslaar will testify next, but I see it's 1 o'clock.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Would you like to have a 45 minute lunch adjournment, or less than that?
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, ...
MR DU PLESSIS: Please. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll be back at quarter to two.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, are you in a position to commence with Mr Beeslaar’s application?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. May it please you Madam Chair, I am. I call Mr Beeslaar.