--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Yes, are we ready to begin? Mr Visser I've no doubt you appear for all three of the applicants.

MR VISSER: Two. Good morning, Mr Chairman, we appear for Wasserman and du Preez. There's appearance for the third applicant, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RORICH: Mr Chairman, I appear for Ben Mwelase in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR RORICH: It's Sean Rorich.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Ms Gabriel?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chairman, I appear on behalf of the Ninela family, that is the family of the victim.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Are we ready to proceed?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chairman, before we proceed, may I have leave to hand up documents? I believe that they have been made available to the applicants and to members of the Committee and these relate to an inquest.

CHAIRPERSON: They have not been made available to us.

MS GABRIEL: I apologise, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what documents are these that you're handing in?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chairman, I'm told that they will be brought to members of the Committee. These relate to an inquest concerning the death of a male in February in 1989 and it will form part of the evidence that will be led by the Ninela family.

CHAIRPERSON: The name of the male you don't have?

MS GABRIEL: Pardon me, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: The inquests relating to the death of a male, you don't have his name?

MS GABRIEL: Yes, I do. Zweletini Inshman Bhengu.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell the second name?

MS GABRIEL: I-N-S-H-M-A-N Bhengu, B-H-E-N-G-U.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright that document will go in as Exhibit A.

MR VISSER: We have an Exhibit A which is carried over, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What was that?

MR VISSER: That was the general background document. Could we perhaps retain that as Exhibit A also for purposes of reference in this hearing?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's just place that on record. Exhibit A will be?

MR VISSER: 'Algemene Agtergrond tot Amnestie Aansoeke', Chairperson. It's the same document which was previously handed, we've handed copies to the newcomers.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Ms Gabriel, you've handed in the inquest. What else?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chairman, may the inquest report be then Exhibit B?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: As well we request leave to hand up two further statements, the first being a statement from Sefiso Sempiwhe Kunene. May that be called Exhibit C then?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What is the date of that statement?

MS GABRIEL: It's dated the 12th August 1999.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that will be Exhibit C.

MS GABRIEL: And the final document is a further statement from Moketsi Kevin Chris Qhobosheane.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell that surname please?

MS GABRIEL: Yes. Q-H-O-B-O-S-H-E-A-N-E and the date of this statement is today, the 16th of August 1999.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Where are they?

MS GABRIEL: May I have a small indulgence, Mr Chairman, just to ensure that these documents...

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, I understand copies are being made of those documents. Yes. Yes, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, we have two bundles. There was the original bundle that we all got earlier on and a second bundle called an additional bundle, was handed to us when we started. I trust that you have those bundles before you?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we do.

MR VISSER: Perhaps for the sake of convenience, might we refer to them as bundles 1 and 2, Chairperson? The original one being bundle 1 and the additional one being bundle 2. It might make it easier for sake of reference.

Mr Chairman then in bundle 2 we would direct your attention to page 4 where you will find the statement of Mr du Preez in amplification of his amnesty application. Mr du Preez is present, ready to take the oath, he has no objection to taking the oath and he prefers to give his evidence in Afrikaans.

S G DU PREEZ: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr du Preez last week before this Committee you gave evidence, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you repeat the evidence that you gave before this Committee with special regard to the introduction and the contents thereof?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Your amnesty application appears in bundle 1 from page 11 to pages 23.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the contents of the said document, subject to elaborations and further evidence which you will give today?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: The application entails the abduction or kidnapping of Mr Blessing Ninela, his unlawful detention and his murder?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Will you please proceed to page 5, that is page 2 before you of bundle 2. You have already dealt last week with the introduction which appears on page 2 before you, namely your bad memory and the confusion of the incidents. Is that not so?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Will you please tell the Committee what you can recall of the current incident and what your role was therein?

MR DU PREEZ: I can recall that I was contacted by Col Taylor and received instruction to meet with him at a certain shooting range. I had to bring Wasserman with me.

MR VISSER: It does not say that in the statement. Can you recall what date it was when it happened?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I cannot recall the date.

MR VISSER: Can you give us a year?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I am not sure about the year. From other people's evidence I've seen it there, but it may be the correct date.

MR VISSER: Was that June 1988, the date which you saw?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Please continue.

MR DU PREEZ: Wasserman and I arrived at the place where we met Taylor and certain askaris. Taylor informed us that Ninela was an ANC terrorist who was trained in the handling of limpet mines and hand-grenades. According to Taylor he had been responsible in the past for explosions in the Durban vicinity.

MR VISSER: Where did this meeting between Wasserman and yourself and Taylor and the askaris take place?

MR DU PREEZ: We met at a shooting range on the South Coast.

MR VISSER: Close to which place?

MR DU PREEZ: I do not recall the name, it's on the other side of Amanzimtoti.

MR VISSER: Please continue.

MR DU PREEZ: I was told that Ninela had provided explosive devices to two other persons, which had to be detonated in the Durban area. One of the explosive devices was detonated and this caused the death of one person and had caused that one person had been killed and another seriously injured and had to be taken to a hospital. Col Taylor received information from last-named person that they had received explosive devices from Ninela. He then arranged that the askaris abduct Ninela and they had to...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Who was the person who arranged it? You said he arranged it?

MR DU PREEZ: The askaris.

MR VISSER: No, who arranged for the askaris to abduct Ninela?

MR DU PREEZ: Col Taylor.

MR VISSER: Very well.

MR DU PREEZ: And they had to present themselves as MK members who would help him escape from the police. Taylor told us that he was satisfied that Ninela could not be turned and that if he was to be released, he would continue with his acts of terror and that there was no evidence on which grounds he could be charged.

CHAIRPERSON: Why could he not have been charged?

MR DU PREEZ: That is what Taylor told me.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean, you heard from Taylor that this man had given explosives to two people, one explosive had in fact gone off and killed somebody and yet he tells you that the man can't be charged. Didn't it occur to you to find out now why he can't be charged?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, at that stage there were many such cases where people were charged and were freed on small technical points, so I realised that if Taylor said that he did not have enough evidence and that it was possible that this person could be released on technical points.

MR VISSER: On that point Mr du Preez, you in the Durban vicinity, did you also experience the effect of intimidation?

MR DU PREEZ: That is certainly so, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you don't know, but what would the chances be that the person who was injured and who had been taken up in hospital, could be used as a witness against Mr Ninela? What would you think in terms of the general background?

CHAIRPERSON: You know, I think that that's not a fair question.

MR VISSER: Perhaps it's a question for argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Because he doesn't even know the individual, unless he says he knows the individual and had a talk with him.

MR VISSER: Yes. Yes, perhaps you're right, Mr Chairman, it may be too argumentative.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Visser, may I just enter here? I don't know whether I lost the evidence somewhere. Mr du Preez, you said that you experienced intimidation here as well. To which intimidation do you refer?

MR DU PREEZ: I mean in general. The witnesses or the people or persons who would give evidence in court for us, were murdered or they just disappeared.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, that clears it up. So in other words, what you're trying to tell us is that matters could not continue because witnesses were intimidated.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Please continue Mr du Preez.

MR DU PREEZ: I had no personal knowledge with regard to Ninela's circumstances or his activities and I don't know where and when he was arrested?

MR VISSER: Can you please pause there for one moment? Documentation became available which included copies of certain letters which the same Mr Ninela had written to the Minister of Law and Order during his detention in 1987. You'll find that in bundle 2. There are quite a number of them Mr Chairman, but perhaps I should just refer you to page 77. What Mr Ninela says, Mr Ninela says on the 23rd January 1987 he was detained and then he was taken to CR Swart Square where he was severely assaulted and tortured by a group of white members of the Security Branch.

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Visser, there's just a technical problem with the translation and the sound system, if you can just hold on a few minutes while he sorts it out. Is it fixed up now Ian? Let's try again.

MR VISSER: I will repeat. Mr Ninela, in one of his letters to the Minister of Law and Order, wrote that on the 23rd of January 1987 he was arrested at his workplace, where he was employed by Shell Chemicals in Reunion and he was taken to CR Swart Square where he was severely assaulted and tortured by a group of white members of the Security Branch and that you were one of them, or he says a Mr du Preez was among them. Can you shed any light on this?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, after I had read these documents on Thursday and I recall that I was the person who arrested Mr Ninela at his workplace and had taken him to CR Swart. I was not involved with his interrogation.

MR VISSER: Did you have any further dealings with him, except for his arrest?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you thereafter have any dealings with him ever, before now that we know that the day that you met with Mr Taylor?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Chairperson, not that I can recall.

MR VISSER: Can you please tell the Committee, did you assault him or torture him that you can recall?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Very well, if we may then return to page 3, page 6 in the bundle. When you say that you had no personal knowledge with regard to Mr Ninela's activities and circumstances, to what have you referred here?

MR DU PREEZ: To this arrest or these events where he was involved, where the person was blown up.

MR VISSER: And you say that you did not deal with him in the past except for this arrest?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Can you recall what he was arrested for?

MR DU PREEZ: From the statement which I have read, it seemed that it was activities, union activities.

MR VISSER: And in 1987, would that have been in terms of the state of emergency?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Excuse me, may I just interpose here? I would just like some clarity. You have referred to statements which you have read. Are these statements which you have read recently, or are you referring to statements which you read back then?

MR DU PREEZ: No, these are statements which I had read on Thursday, which the Evidence Leader had given to us from his family and about circumstances in which he was arrested.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, you may continue.

MR VISSER: So the short of it all is you referred to the past Thursday, last week Thursday, the 12th, when you say these statements for the first time?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Please continue.

MR DU PREEZ: I accepted that Mr Ninela was unlawfully detained and on the - Col Taylor told me and Wasserman to eliminate Ninela. Col Taylor was senior to both Wasserman and I and we were obliged to carry out his instructions. I was satisfied that the elimination of Ninela was in regard to combating the onslaught of MK on the RSA and I had no reason to doubt the information which Taylor gave to me. During the discussion Taylor mentioned to us that Ninela was caught by the askaris while in possession of a limpet mine. Wasserman and I took over Ninela along with the limpet mine and we drove to Bulwer.

MR VISSER: So he gives you Ninela and the limpet mine?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And he tells you this is the limpet mine which they found in Ninela's possession when he was abducted?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

We got close to a place near a railway line, which I pointed out to the TRC. We then took Ninela from the vehicle and took him to the railway line.

MR VISSER: Was Mr Taylor there?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Mr Taylor was not present at this event.

MR VISSER: You are aware that in bundle 1 from page 1 the amnesty application of Mr Taylor is embodied and on page 4,

Mr Taylor says that he accompanied you to the railway line in the vicinity of Bulwer, that is along with you and Wasserman. What is your comment?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, I read it as such but it was not the case and I am certain that Mr Taylor must have confused this with another event.

MR VISSER: Was there any other incident which also took place at a railway line in the vicinity and where other persons were killed?

MR DU PREEZ: There was a similar incident at a railway line, but not in that vicinity, that was in Durban.

MR VISSER: So this was at Verulam?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you specifically referred to the incident which had been heard before the previous Amnesty Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice Wilson, the kwaMashu 3 incident, was heard?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And that included the person Sibusiso Ndlovo, Manzi Vilakazi and Elias Gift Mtjale, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was Col Taylor present at that event?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And was this also an instance where the remains of the persons were blown up?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Very well. Please continue.

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Wasserman shot Ninela in the head with his 9mm service pistol and he died instantly. I then placed Ninela's hands and head on the limpet mine and activated the limpet mine.

MR VISSER: Was this on the railway line, or close the railway line, or where was it?

MR DU PREEZ: It was next to the railway line.

MR VISSER: Very well.

MR DU PREEZ: We waited until we heard the explosion and then we departed.

MR VISSER: And we've already dealt with the next paragraph. Please continue with the paragraph after that.

MR DU PREEZ: The acts and omissions which I have committed, I committed in the execution of my official duties under instruction or from a higher officer whose instructions I was obliged to execute. I did it as part of the opposition of the struggle and my acts were aimed at the supporters of the liberation movements. What I had done, I did to protect the government and the interests of the National Party and to combat the revolutionary onslaught. As such I bona fide believed that what I had done fell within the ambit of my sworn or explicit instructions.

MR VISSER: And you then request amnesty in so far as you have associated yourself with the fact that Mr Ninela had been abducted, as Col Taylor told you, and you also accepted that he was kept in detention unlawfully and you associated yourself with that and the murder of Mr Ninela and the blowing up of his body or any other lesser offence including defeating the ends of justice by you not reporting the incident or any lesser offence or omission which might flow from the fact, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any questions to put to this applicant?

MR RORICH: Nothing, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Gabriel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GABRIEL: Mr Du Preez, is it okay if I ask you questions in English?

MR DU PREEZ: That's fine.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to ask his permission.

MS GABRIEL: Well, I'm doing the gentlewomanly thing. Mr du Preez, I want to summarise for you up front the problems that the family has with your evidence and with you application thus far. You've admitted to killing Mr Blessing Ninela and you've admitted to doing so under very gruesome circumstances. The process that you have followed to seek amnesty has been through 2 submissions, 2 written submissions. The first initial one being a statement that you signed on the 11th of December 1996 and the second, the one that is dated the 2nd of July 1999. Those appear respectively in bundles 1 and 2 and I will return to those.

On reading your submissions, members of the Ninela family realise that there were many unanswered questions concerning the death of the victim and so it's their contention that you, I want to summarise our arguments up front.

CHAIRPERSON: What about putting questions?

MS GABRIEL: I will, once Mr du Preez knows the angle that we are operating from and that is that there has not been a full disclosure in this case.

MR DU PREEZ: I deny that, Mr Chairperson.

MS GABRIEL: Let's then begin with bundle 1 and I want to refer you to page 4 of bundle 1 and that would be the written submission of Mr Taylor. At that point you submitted a contemporaneous submission and I refer you to page 19.

CHAIRPERSON: Of the same bundle?

MS GABRIEL: Of the same bundle. Can you explain to the family members why it is that you did not decide to distinguish Taylor's evidence at that point in time?

MR DU PREEZ: My Chairperson, at that stage I had not read Taylor's statement or discussed the matter with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: A few minutes please, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MS GABRIEL: So at that point you were basically applying for amnesty without fully understanding the reasons why you were applying for amnesty?

MR DU PREEZ: I'm not sure - we knew what the reasons were. Are you referring to this specific case?

MS GABRIEL: I'm referring to this specific submission and specifically to paragraph 9(a)(4). Incident 3.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct. At that stage I could not recall all the details of this incident.

MS GABRIEL: So subsequent to making this submission, you then went out and researched the death of Mr Ninela, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: After that I discussed it with Wasserman again and then long after this I read Taylor's statement.

MS GABRIEL: Did you discuss it with Taylor?

MR DU PREEZ: I did discuss it with Taylor.

MS GABRIEL: What kinds of research did you do to familiarise yourself with the elimination of Mr Ninela?

MR DU PREEZ: I only spoke to Wasserman and Taylor about this matter. That was the only work I had done. I did not go back any further, I did not have any documentary things to research.

MS GABRIEL: Can you explain why that was?

MR DU PREEZ: Well, there was no documentary evidence made about this.

MS GABRIEL: But you have just admitted that there are indeed documents available, implicating Mr Ninela, that were provided by members of Mr Ninela's family.

MR DU PREEZ: These documents, as I have already said, I saw for the first time last Thursday.

MS GABRIEL: Didn't you think it was necessary to conduct further investigation?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the fact of the matter is that all he did was he consulted the people with whom he had been involved, that was Wasserman and Taylor. That's as far as it went.

MS GABRIEL: Well, it's the family's belief that you deliberately withheld information from this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell them, what information did he withhold?

MS GABRIEL: I'm going to run through very quickly with you the evidence that will be led by the family.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about evidence that he withheld, isn't it? Not some general statement that members of the family are going to make. I think you are confining yourself to non-disclosure by him and you're going to put to him, this is what you failed to disclose, a, b, c, d, that he failed to disclose. I trust that's what you are about to do?

MS GABRIEL: I'm going to try to confine it to those specific points, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes please.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, there has been a large, a lengthy period of investigation that has been carried out by the deceased's family and it has come through in bits and pieces and we will present that evidence to show that there was a definite relationship between the Security Branch and Mr Ninela and that very specific events were of vital importance in the relationship that were not revealed in the amnesty applications.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MS GABRIEL: The first sets of evidence that we will lead, relate to statements from Sefiso Kunene, Sebelo Ngobese and Kevin Qhobosheane and these relate to Mr Ninela's union activities and specifically to a house in Inanda at which weapons were found.

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember the incident in this nature. At this stage Mr Chairperson, I was working in the terrorist section and the activities of the unions was not my business.

MS GABRIEL: You see Mr du Preez, it's as a result of those weapons that Mr Ninela was actually detained in terms of the Internal Security Act. May I refer you to bundle 2, and specifically to pages 71, 72, 74, 78(a), these documents refer to your involvement in the interrogation of Mr Ninela as a result of those events. Now is this something that you would likely forget or would have this Committee believe that you forgot?

MR VISSER: With respect Mr Chairman, the witness did say he did not interrogate Mr Ninela.

CHAIRPERSON: But it's now been put specifically.

MS GABRIEL: Can you offer any reason as to why Mr Ninela would want to implicate you falsely in a very lengthy series of documents? You don't deny that he is referring to you?

MR DU PREEZ: I did see that he was using my name and I was the person who arrested him.

MS GABRIEL: Well the family wants to know why it is that you forgot to put this in your application, why it is that you did not deem it important enough to research, for the purposes of your amnesty application?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, it did not relate to this matter. I did not remember it in the first place and in the second place, it did not relate at all to my amnesty application.

MS GABRIEL: Well, it's our argument that this was the beginning of Mr Ninela's relationship with the Security Branch, with Taylor and with yourself, and that you actually knew a lot more about his activities than you would have this Committee believe.

MR DU PREEZ: This is not the case, Mr Chairperson.

MS GABRIEL: The family will also lead evidence from a Mr Senzo Bhengu and this relates to a limpet mine explosion in or around the 8th June 1988 at which a young man was killed, details of which are set out in Exhibit D, and we will go through this when we lead the family's evidence, but Exhibit D clearly implicates Bheki Ninela as having given the brothers this limpet mine.

CHAIRPERSON: Blessing Ninela.

MS GABRIEL: Blessing Ninela.

MR DU PREEZ: This is what Taylor had also told me. This is what Taylor told me, I did not have any personal knowledge of this.

MS GABRIEL: And you did not deem these events important enough to be researched and included in your amnesty application?

CHAIRPERSON: Of what? Of what Taylor tells him?

MS GABRIEL: Well, relating to the eventual execution of Mr Ninela.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that we've got to confine ourselves. If he's to do research on all the things that Taylor did and didn't do, then the ambit of these inquiries can go on for many, many days.

MS GABRIEL: Understood.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: I will move on to a different line of questioning.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MS GABRIEL: Mr du Preez, Gratina Ninela will also lead evidence that, and Eric Ninela, that their investigations show that Mr Ninela was not in any way involved in military activities for the ANC. Will you be in a position to dispute that?

MR DU PREEZ: This is not what Taylor had told me and I believed what Taylor told me. I had no reason not to believe Taylor.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Gabriel, what do you - the word union activities has been mentioned, do you know what union they're talking about, just for the purposes of the record?

MS GABRIEL: Yes, I believe it was SAWU, the South African Workers' Union.

MR LAX: ...(indistinct- mike not on) Workers' Union.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do carry on.

MS GABRIEL: So it's the family's basic contention that there is a lot more in the history of Mr Ninela's killing than you have been willing to disclose in your amnesty application.

MR DU PREEZ: Not that I know of, Mr Chairperson.

MS GABRIEL: The problem that the family has is that if you haven't investigated this matter and that if, as you say, you acted purely on the instructions of Taylor, then you're not really in a position to dispute any of the evidence that they present before this Commission.

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, it wouldn't have surprised me after Ninela was murdered, to investigate the circumstances.

MS GABRIEL: But why, was this just another death, didn't you think that the family was entitled to the reasons and the details and given that Taylor had since died, aren't they entitled to the truth? Isn't that the purpose of amnesty?

MR DU PREEZ: That would be so, Mr Chairperson and it would appear as if they had done the investigation. My part in the death of Ninela was by taking him to the railway line and by blowing him up and this is what I'm leading evidence in.

MS GABRIEL: But you see, that presupposes that Taylor then was confused in his initial amnesty application and of course, him being dead, there is no way that anybody could dispute that.

MR DU PREEZ: I do not know.

MS GABRIEL: How is it possible, do you think, that Mr Taylor could have confused an event relating to the killing of three people with a very specific event at which he wasn't even present, on your version?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson at the time when Mr Taylor had made this statement, he had cancer and ...(intervention)

MS GABRIEL: So what you're saying is he wasn't ...(indistinct - mike not on) senses when he made his initial amnesty application?

MR DU PREEZ: I would not say this, but Mr Taylor had forgotten a lot of things at the time of his application for amnesty because he was sick and he could not remember things of the past.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just interrupt. Mr Visser, there was a gap in the hearing last time about Mr Taylor. Can you just look through the record, tell me when was it that Mr Taylor passed away, when did he die?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, normally my attorney's memory is far better than mine. He recalls it was in the second half of 1997. You will recall that I pointed out to you that he had made, Wagener had made an appointment to see Taylor in order to fill in missing gaps in his application where it related to applicants for whom he appeared and before that could come about, Mr Taylor had died and he says that was in the second half towards the end of the year, 1987, 1997.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I'm sorry, Ms Gabriel, I wanted to know this. Mention had been made about Taylor having died and we didn't know when it was.

MS GABRIEL: It's an important part of this case, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please carry on.

MS GABRIEL: So, Mr du Preez, what you are saying then is that, page 4 and specifically the paragraph that has not been blocked out of Taylor's initial amnesty application, is really quite suspect. Is that what you would have this Committee believe?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Mr Chairperson, I said that he was wrong in saying that he had accompanied us on this occasion.

MS GABRIEL: Was he wrong in saying that you had interrogated Ninela together, or rather questioned him?

MR DU PREEZ: That would be correct, Mr Chairperson, he was wrong there. We did not interrogate Ninela along with him.

MS GABRIEL: And he was wrong when he said there was no - that you collectively realised that there was no evidence on which he could be convicted in a court of law?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS GABRIEL: And he was wrong when he said that you drove to the railway line together?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS GABRIEL: So then presumably he was wrong also when he gave the instruction, when he says that he gave you the instruction to kill him and blow him up, given that everything else in Taylor's evidence so far is wrong?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Mr Chairperson, he did give us the order.

CHAIRPERSON: They're not doubting that Taylor gave you the order, it's being put to you that Taylor was wrong in giving such an order. Isn't that what you're trying to say?

MS GABRIEL: ...(indistinct - microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry. Well put your question then?

MS GABRIEL: My question is, you want us to believe selective bits of Mr Taylor's evidence and specifically the bits that qualify you for amnesty and you seek to distinguish everything else that you find undesirable in Taylor's evidence.

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson I said which parts of Taylor's statement I do not agree with.

MS GABRIEL: Well this is one of the reasons why the family believes that you have not made a full disclosure, Mr du Preez, it's because you seek to strategically distinguish bits of Taylor's evidence that you intend to rely on in your amnesty application and the bits that you seek to distinguish actually point, in their view and on the evidence that they will lead, to a much more complicated picture of the killing of Mr Ninela and his relationship with the Security Branch than you would have this Committee believe.

MR DU PREEZ: This is not the case, Mr Chairperson. I can just add that the family's knowledge and the long history along with the Security Branch might be one of the reasons which forced Taylor to make up his mind about this person but I cannot give evidence on behalf of Taylor.

MR LAX: If I might just interpose for a moment. What other involvements of this family with the Security Branch are you referring to?

MR DU PREEZ: I'm referring to the statements of the family that for long periods he was detained previously and he was involved in houses where weapons were found.

MR LAX: That's not his family, that's himself, the deceased. It's not his family who were involved with the Security Branch per se.

MR DU PREEZ: Pardon, I did not mean his family, I didn't mean the family was involved. I said the family said that he was involved with the Security Branch.

MS GABRIEL: Can you offer any explanation as to why Mr Ninela would have written about you? Do you suggest that he was similarly confused?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Mr Chairperson, he possibly used my name because I was the person who arrested him.

MS GABRIEL: He specifically mentions several times that you questioned him, that he was interrogated by you.

MR VISSER: No, I've got to object to that Mr Chairman, could my learned friend point out to you and to us where she gets that evidence from, on the papers before us? Because on the papers before us we gave the specific reference at page 77 from which it definitely does not appear that du Preez interrogated him. He may have, the allegation there is that du Preez tortured him.

MS GABRIEL: Well, excuse me, I will substitute interrogate for torture. But can you offer us any explanation as to why he would want to say these things about you if you didn't do those?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Mr Chairperson.

MS GABRIEL: Can you offer any explanation as to why it is that you couldn't remember this to include in your amnesty application?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, at the time, as I've already said, when I made the statement I remembered the incidents of the - I did not remember the earlier arrests of Mr Ninela but after I had read the statement, I recalled these incidents and also when he mentioned the names of other persons that had been arrested.

MS GABRIEL: So you can offer no satisfactory explanation as to why Ninela would have written about you?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS GABRIEL: Mr du Preez, is it your contention then that you remember absolutely nothing else about the killing of Mr Ninela?

MR DU PREEZ: Not that I can remember at the moment, Mr Chairperson. What I said in my statement is what I can remember.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Do you have any questions to put?

MS THABETHE: Just a few Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Mr du Preez, I want to understand what was the intention of you taking Mr Ninela to the railway line?

MR DU PREEZ: Sorry, Mr Chairman?

MS THABETHE: The intention of you taking Mr Ninela to the railway lines? What was your intention?

CHAIRPERSON: To the railway line?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

MR DU PREEZ: The intention was to eliminate him.

MS THABETHE: And after he was shot by Mr Wasserman, that was your evidence, isn't it?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: Yes. Why did you activate the limpet mine to blow off on him?

MR DU PREEZ: It was to obscure his identity.

MS THABETHE: Why was it necessary for you to do that, to obscure his identity?

MR DU PREEZ: So that nobody would know who the person was, who the deceased was.

MS THABETHE: I'm just trying to find out, why was it necessary that he not be identified, who he was, after he was killed?

MR DU PREEZ: I did not know the exact circumstances of how he was arrested and whether he could refer back to Taylor and the askaris, that they had apprehended him.

CHAIRPERSON: That answer doesn't convey anything to me. Maybe you're trying to say something, but I don't understand. Please just clear that up. The question is, having killed a man, why was it necessary to blow him up? And you said that it was perhaps because "we did not want the identity of the man to be known". The question is, why did you not want his identity to be known? Have you any explanation or reason why that was done?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, the reason why he was blown up was probably multiple and the reason why his face was blown off, so that people would not be able to identify him as Ninela and no inquiries would be made with regard to Ninela's disappearance.

MR LAX: How did you know no inquiries would be made about his disappearance?

MR DU PREEZ: How did I know? I did not know. I don't know whether any inquiries would be done.

MR LAX: You see, you've just told us that one of your assumptions that if you blew up his face, no inquiries would be made about his disappearance. What I'm asking you

is why did you come to that assumption?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson what I mean is, if Ninela had only been shot there, he would have been identified and people would have inquired about the person, who he was seen with last.

MS THABETHE: Can I proceed, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MS THABETHE: Thank you. You've indicated in your evidence that Mr Taylor was not there when you went to the railway line, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: But he gave you the order that Mr Ninela should be killed, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: When he gave you the order, did he specify how he should be killed?

MR DU PREEZ: No, he did not.

MS THABETHE: Then who made a decision as to how he should be killed, or maybe let me be more specific.

MR DU PREEZ: I would say it was my decision.

MS THABETHE: That he should be blown up.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Okay. No further questions, Mr Chair. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, any re-examination?

MR VISSER: Just one question, Mr Chairman.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: When did you leave the service of the police, Mr du Preez?

MR DU PREEZ: In 1995.

MR VISSER: And afterwards, did you have access to documentation in the possession of the police?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

ADV BOSMAN: Mr du Preez, I recall that you mentioned the activities of the Security Police was such that you did not have knowledge of everything, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Could you please explain to us how this division came about and where you slotted in?

MR DU PREEZ: Since 1981 up to approximately 1990, I was attached to the terrorist division under Andy Taylor and after 1987 or 88 we established MK Intelligence Unit and I was part of that under Hentie Botha, who was directly under Taylor.

ADV BOSMAN: Am I correct to say that you, when you were involved with the elimination of Ninela, had been taken out of your normal work sphere?

MR DU PREEZ: I dealt with MK activities, Chairperson. My work was work dealing with the investigation into MK activities and MK members.

ADV BOSMAN: But that still does not answer my question. You were asked to go and eliminate somebody, to go and kill someone while you were attached to the Intelligence Division. Was that the normal course?

MR DU PREEZ: No, that was not normal.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you explain why it came about that you were actually in a work environment outside your usual work?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, we worked closely with Mr Taylor and he was the person who would give us our instructions. He was the person who gave us the instruction to do it.

ADV BOSMAN: I am not trying to trap you with my questions Mr du Preez, I am just trying to get clarity for myself. Did you think that it was beyond the norm that you were asked to do something actively with an elimination?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, the killing of any person is definitely beyond any normal instruction and I think it was because we were a small close group and it was in regard to trusted positions that we had amongst each other.

ADV BOSMAN: You still have not answered my question. My question is whether you regarded or you experienced it as out of the norm? Is your answer that you did not think it was extra ordinary because you were such a small group?

MR DU PREEZ: I would say definitely it is extra ordinary to execute such an act.

ADV BOSMAN: But Mr du Preez, you do not understand me properly. My question is not whether you thought the act was extra ordinary, my question is did you not think that it was extra ordinary that you were asked to participate so actively?

MR DU PREEZ: No, because I don't know of anybody else whom Taylor would have asked to do it.

ADV BOSMAN: Why do you say that Mr du Preez?

MR DU PREEZ: Because Taylor and I had a very long working relationship and he trusted us.

ADV BOSMAN: Do I understand correctly that your normal activities were within the Intelligence Unit?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: But that Mr Taylor applied you for the more illegal activities?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson, just one small aspect if I may. Mr du Preez, you've told us that the decision to blow up the deceased was your decision.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: And did you do that of your own initiative?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Now my only difficulty with the proposition is why did Taylor then give you the limpet mine to do that if it was your decision?

MR DU PREEZ: The fact that Taylor gave me the limpet mine, I think this brought the idea about.

MR LAX: Well you see, here was the very evidence you would use to charge the man, in your hand, isn't that so?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: And this limpet mine that had been taken off him was there for everybody to see. It's not as if it was reliant on someone else's evidence, there was the item itself right there in your own hands. Didn't that make a mockery of the assertion that there was no evidence to charge him with? The evidence was right there in front of you on that day, in your own hand.

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I did not know the circumstances and previous incidents, many persons were taken to go and point out explosives and I just assumed that Taylor had forced this person to expose his explosives, so I don't know what the circumstances were and how they found him with the limpet mine. In my statement I mentioned that he was found along with the limpet mine, but I am not aware of the specific circumstances as to how it took place and I am convinced that if Taylor found him with the explosives and with the limpet mine in his possession, he would have charged him.

MR LAX: You see from your own statement and I refer you to paragraph 11, you say,

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MR LAX: It's not any limpet mine, it's that limpet mine.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Now it's clear from that statement, that paragraph, that your information was that he was found in possession of that mine and that that mine was handed to him.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: It's not as if this happened in some other environment and that here's direct evidence, direct knowledge in your own hand. Are you with me?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I'm with you Chairperson, but I cannot comment as to what Taylor thought or what he knew and in reality I might be testifying incorrectly as to how Taylor came into possession of this limpet mine, I don't know. I don't know what the circumstances were when the person was apprehended. Was he caught first and he had to point out the limpet mine or was he caught with the limpet mine in his possession, I don't know.

MR LAX: Why did you take him so far away, to Bulwer.

MR DU PREEZ: Because it fell outside our immediately - or I was an explosive expert myself and it was not appropriate to investigate your own incident, so we took it out of our explosives jurisdiction.

MR LAX: You see it's clear from what Taylor says that this was meant to look like the man just blew himself up.

MR DU PREEZ: That was one of the considerations, that's correct and we also wanted it to serve as a deterrent for other persons who would want to place explosive devices or limpet mines.

MR LAX: You see that's precisely the next point I was coming to. If it was to be a deterrent to others, then the man's identity would have been quite important, because if it was just some unknown person, how would that be a deterrent to anybody? Whereas if it was known that Blessing Ninela blew himself up with a land mine, that would be a very good deterrent to everybody because he was a known quantity. Do you follow?

MR DU PREEZ: It didn't come to my attention at that stage.

MR LAX: Now the last aspect that I wanted to cover with you was, and it arises out of what you've just told me with regard to going to Bulwer. The fact is that for example in the kwaMashu matter, those people got blown up within your jurisdiction.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: So what was the big deal about having to take it out of your jurisdiction? That happened right there within your jurisdiction? It doesn't seem to make sense to me in the light of that.

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, in Ninela's instance it was the decision that was taken in the kwaMashu 3. In the kwaMashu 3 instance it was a target which they were planning to blow up anyway, in contrast to Ninela's position, it was never known that Ninela was going to use a specific target.

MR LAX: But you see the information, on of the reasons that grounds the whole basis upon which he was killed, is the fact that he was a highly trained person who had been involved in other explosions and whose job it was to place explosives. His direct target may not have been known, for sure, it doesn't change it though very much, does it?

MR DU PREEZ: I am not certain what the question is now.

MR LAX: What I'm saying to you is, in the kwaMashu matter I understand it looked like they blew themselves up.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MR LAX: Having gone to a particular place to place explosives.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MR LAX: This one in Bulwer would have looked exactly the same.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MR LAX: What's the difference?

CHAIRPERSON: It might have been just one of the many reasons why you killed this man.

MR DU PREEZ: I don't understand, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Alright. When you took this man to Bulwer, you knew beforehand that he was going to be blown up. You've given some explanation, one of the reasons was you were hoping that his identity would not be found out. If it were found out, there'd be inquiries as to who he was last seen with.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you were asked, why was he taken to Bulwer?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you said, it was outside your jurisdiction. If it were within your jurisdiction you would have been called upon to investigate the explosion yourself.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you were told by my colleague, there doesn't seem to be any logic in this because in the kwaMashu killing, that took place within your jurisdiction. How did you agree to that? Why did you allow that to happen? You would have had to investigate that yourself.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson, but it was more a question of what our plan was at that stage. Certainly I could have done it in the Durban area, but it was just a decision that was taken on that day, that it would be done outside.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you go to Bulwer?

MR DU PREEZ: In a vehicle, a Nissan Skyline.

CHAIRPERSON: Just you and Wasserman and Ninela?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Nobody else?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you become aware of Ninela's activities as a trade unionist, or did you never become aware of that?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I was never aware of it Chairperson. As I've already said, after reading these statements last Thursday, it was the first time I recalled that I had arrested him before this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: What was it that you had arrested him for?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I cannot recall exactly. I think it was for Trade Union activities. I am not certain. As far as I can recall it was in the Sibelo Ngobe matter.

May I just mention, during that time there were many arrests executed and persons who were detained and the reason why I would have arrested him was in many cases would be a whole series of arrests and everybody would be involved. A list of names would be given out and those people had to be arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know the people who had eventually arrested him and brought him to Taylor?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you never found out who did it?

MR DU PREEZ: I never asked. During consultation with the attorney and the advocate I read one of the statements and he said he was the person who had arrested him, I did not know this beforehand.

MR LAX: Sorry Chair, just one thing for the record. Mr Visser suggested to you, Mr du Preez, that this person was detained in terms of the emergency regulations. It is clear from the documents that he was detained in terms of Section 29. Now that would have placed him in a very different category of persons, had he been detained in terms of Section 29. You'd be very familiar with that section, I'm sure.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: And that Section pertains to activities in terms of the Internal Security Act, but activities which, to use the old terminology, would have been terrorism.

MR DU PREEZ: Not necessarily, Chairperson.

MR LAX: I defer to your better knowledge because my recollection is a bit vague of that specific section. Was that not the section that dealt with people involved in armed activities of one kind or another, of was it a general section?

MR DU PREEZ: It was not necessarily arms struggle. It could be usurpation of the government as well.

MR LAX: Yes, I'll leave it at that. I just thought for the record it's better to be clear that it was a Section 29 rather emergency detention.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, would you allow me, flowing from the questions by the Panel, to attempt to clarify two issues?

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR VISSER: But before I do so, may I just say, Mr Chairman, our understanding of the provisions of Section 29 of the Internal Security Act was that it was to arrest and detain a person, whom there was a reasonable suspicion that he had information, about

anything. It could have been terrorism, it could have been all sorts of things, as long as it fell within the ambit of the Internal Security Act.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr du Preez, the fact of the matter is, you testified that Mr Ninela was shot in the head by Wasserman.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: So he had a hole in his head?

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: The case with the kwaMashu 3, and I would not like to run through the whole thing again, but in the case of the kwaMashu 3, was this a case where the persons were sent to a specified place with an instruction to go and blow it up?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct. It is a place that they decided upon.

MR VISSER: Can you recall who was the person who sent them?

MR DU PREEZ: I am not certain.

MR VISSER: That's part of the record in the Ncwini case.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we don't want to burden this record with that.

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much, you are excused.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the next witness is Mr Wasserman. You will find his additional statement in bundle 1 from page 24 onwards. That is the original amnesty application and his additional evidence, Mr Chairman, in bundle 2, from page 4 onwards.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry, not 4, we've just dealt with 4, page 1 in bundle 2. Mr Wasserman is ready to take the oath, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

LAWRENCE G WASSERMAN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Wasserman, you also gave evidence before this Committee last week, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct.

MR VISSER: And do you incorporate the evidence which you gave before this Committee also today?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct.

MR VISSER: Can you tell the Committee what your recollection is in regard to the facts and your participation in this incident for which amnesty is sought?

MR WASSERMAN: I can Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please do.

MR WASSERMAN: I remember I went with Maj du Preez and we met Col Taylor at the Winkelspruit shooting range.

MR VISSER: Perhaps just for the sake of background, what was your rank at the time?

MR WASSERMAN: I was a Detective-Sergeant.

MR VISSER: A Detective-Sergeant. And du Preez?

MR WASSERMAN: I think he was a Major.

MR VISSER: Was he a Major?

MR WASSERMAN: A Captain or a Major.

MR VISSER: Alright, you went to the shooting range at Winkelspruit, you say?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes.

MR VISSER: Yes, go on.

MR WASSERMAN: Where we met Col Taylor and we had a discussion regarding a Mr Blessing Ninela who had been picked up by the askaris.

MR VISSER: Did you know Mr Blessing Ninela before that day?

MR WASSERMAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you know anything about his activities?

MR WASSERMAN: I knew nothing first hand. Mr Taylor told me.

MR VISSER: Right.

MR WASSERMAN: I'm unable to recall the full contents of Mr Taylor's briefing to us, Mr Chairman. However, I do remember that we were requested by Col Taylor to eliminate Ninela because of terrorist activities in Durban. He was apparently trained in the use of explosives, as limpets and was responsible for a previous explosion which had occurred in Durban.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what you were told?

MR WASSERMAN: That is what I was told Mr Chairman.

I also remember that he was apparently found in possession of a limpet mine which was handed over to us with Mr Ninela. Mr Taylor also explained why Ninela couldn't be charged, but I'm not, I don't recall all those details, Mr Chairman. However, what was made clear to myself, that Ninela would continue with terrorist activities if released.

MR VISSER: Did you have any reason to doubt the truthfulness or the accuracy of what Taylor told you on that day?

MR WASSERMAN: I would have no reason to do so, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you then take charge of Mr Ninela?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes, go on.

MR WASSERMAN: We took charge of Mr Ninela as well as the limpet mine explosive and proceeded to the Bulwer area.

MR VISSER: Yes. Mr du Preez was asked, why take him so far, can you shed any light on that?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I concur with Mr du Preez's evidence. It would have been out of our area and would have assisted in the anonymity of the deed.

MR VISSER: To cover your tracks, as it were? Alright.

MR WASSERMAN: We stopped the motor vehicle on the side of the road and went to the railway line. Alongside the railway line we stopped and I shot Mr Ninela from behind in the head and he died instantly. We then placed him upon the railway line itself and placed a limpet mine underneath him, underneath his head and his hands and this device was later detonated by Maj du Preez.

MR VISSER: Now why, according to you, was this necessary?

MR WASSERMAN: What exactly?

MR VISSER: Blowing his hands and his head away?

MR WASSERMAN: The reason for that was so he would remain unidentified.

MR VISSER: Was that also in an attempt to cover your tracks?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: You also noticed, well, first of all you waited in the vicinity for the explosion to occur and then you left?

MR WASSERMAN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: You have also noted the contents of bundle 1 page 4 where Col Taylor stated what he recalled of this incident. Is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: According to your recollection, did Mr Taylor, I'm sorry, did you and du Preez, together with Col Taylor, interrogate Ninela?

MR WASSERMAN: That's not correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And did you together with du Preez and Taylor discover that there was no evidence against Mr Ninela?

MR WASSERMAN: I was informed of that by Mr Taylor, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes. And when he stated that he accompanied you to the railway line in the vicinity of Bulwer, what do you say about that evidence?

MR WASSERMAN: That evidence is incorrect, Mr Chairman. Mr Taylor didn't accompany us.

MR VISSER: Yes. Now he also says that they, that is referring to yourself and du Preez, were instructed to kill him, that refers to Mr Ninela, and blow up his body to make it appear as if he blew himself up in the process of placing the explosives on the railway line. Do you remember that that was part of your order, the blowing up?

MR WASSERMAN: No, that wasn't part of the order, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Who decided on that?

MR WASSERMAN: That was decided by Maj du Preez.

MR VISSER: And you followed all orders throughout the whole of this incident?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Can you go to paragraph 11? I'm sorry, perhaps I should just ask you, you say in your paragraph 10 that you think that Col Taylor might have been confused with another incident, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Which incident is that?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I believe he might have been confusing this incident with that concerning those killed in kwaMashu , three persons killed in kwaMashu under similar circumstances.

MR VISSER: Yes. Was he present at that occasion?

MR WASSERMAN: On that occasion he was present, yes Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Alright. Please go on.

MR WASSERMAN: In doing what I did I executed my duties as a policeman, the way I saw it and my obligation during the time of conflict and political violence. We were conditioned by speeches of politicians and directions by our senior officers to do everything that was in our power to confront the revolutionary onslaught at all costs. There were times when, in terms of the prevailing legislation of the time, it was not possible to solve all the problems that came one's way. The present case is perhaps an example of such an instance. In view of the above, I was of the bona fide belief that what I did in the present instance in order to combat or derail the revolutionary onslaught and to protect the government and National Party from political embarrassment fell within my express or implied authority. I did not participate in the event for any personal gain or was driven by any personal spite or malice an I received no reward.

I therefore humbly request that the Amnesty Committee will grant amnesty as prayed for.

MR VISSER: Yes, and that amnesty will include the abduction, because Mr Taylor told you he was abducted, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct, Sir.

MR VISSER: And your association with this unlawful detention, his murder and the desecration of the body of Mr Blessing Ninela and such lesser offence or delict as may be supported by the facts, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Including defeating the ends of justice in so far as you did not report what you had done to anyone, is that correct?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any questions to put to this witness?

MR RORICH: No questions, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Gabriel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GABRIEL: Mr Wasserman, Mr Taylor's evidence. When Mr Taylor submitted his first written submission, did you discuss it with him?

MR WASSERMAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MS GABRIEL: So at the time that you submitted your first written submission on the very same day, you had not discussed these matters?

MR WASSERMAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MS GABRIEL: Why then were you applying for amnesty for the death of Mr Ninela?

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't hear that.

MS GABRIEL: Why then were you applying for amnesty for the death of Mr Ninela?

MR WASSERMAN: Well, I applied for amnesty, it's in my original application, for the murder of Mr Ninela.

MS GABRIEL: Just give me a second please. Let me refer you to page 35 of bundle 1,

So at that point you knew that you had eliminated Mr Ninela and that was the basis on which you sought amnesty?

MR WASSERMAN: That was it and then I was going to do the research.

MS GABRIEL: yes, now what was the research that led you to make the statements that you have in bundle 2 and that appears from pages 2 and 3 in bundle 2? What is this research that you did?

MR WASSERMAN: I consulted with Major du Preez.

MS GABRIEL: Did you consult with Taylor?

MR WASSERMAN: He was deceased.

MS GABRIEL: So you had never spoken to Taylor about this incident?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, I had spoken to Mr Taylor about this incident.

MS GABRIEL: When was this?

MR WASSERMAN: I cannot recall the exact time.

MS GABRIEL: You see the problem I have with your evidence ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think let's just be fair, you want to know whether he had consulted with Taylor, are you talking about this particular incident, or general discussions with Taylor?

MS GABRIEL: This particular incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Alright. Did you discuss this particular incident with Taylor?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, I did, Mr Chairman

CHAIRPERSON: Tell us about it, we want to when it was, isn't it?

MS GABRIEL: Yes.

MR WASSERMAN: I cannot recall exactly when. It was shortly before making - maybe after the date of this, it was a long time ago, a lot of water has gone under the bridge, I can't recall exactly when it was.

MS GABRIEL: Shortly after making what exactly, Mr Wasserman?

MR WASSERMAN: Shortly after making my initial statement, my initial application.

MS GABRIEL: And at that point you discussed it with him?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct.

MS GABRIEL: And at that point did you point out to him that you disagreed with what was written in his initial application?

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, I did.

MS GABRIEL: The problem I have with your evidence is really this, you are basically telling us that what Taylor as your superior, said in his amnesty application, is incorrect except for the specific instruction that you were told to eliminate Ninela.

MR WASSERMAN: Most of what Col Taylor has said in his amnesty application ...(intervention)

MS GABRIEL: All of it, all of it.

MR WASSERMAN: Not all of it.

MS GABRIEL: Except for the instruction that you had to eliminate Taylor, pardon me, Ninela.

MR WASSERMAN: That is so in that application.

MS GABRIEL: I want to suggest to you, Mr Wasserman, that that's very convenient for your purposes, given that Taylor is dead.

MR WASSERMAN: Why would that be so?

MS GABRIEL: Well, we have no way then of determining whether the instruction really came from Taylor. If everything as you say is incorrect, how are we to know that the actual instruction came from Taylor? Why is it that on that point when he was incorrect about so much else, he would be correct on that specific point?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, the evidence I've given you is the truth of how this episode did come to pass. Col Taylor was ill, he had severe brain cancer at the time of this. His memory and his day to day affairs were very intermittent and I feel he's actually just made a mistake in this case.

MS GABRIEL: Subsequent to making your first amnesty application, the only other research that you did in support of your second written submission, your amplified application, was really to talk to du Preez, then?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct.

MS GABRIEL: And you didn't think it was necessary to investigate this matter any further?

MR WASSERMAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MS GABRIEL: Why not?

MR WASSERMAN: What I recalled, I had committed to paper.

MS GABRIEL: Well may I suggest to you that at that point you didn't need to because Taylor was dead and that was your loophole, all you have to say really is that Taylor gave you the instruction.

MR WASSERMAN: I have no comment on that.

MS GABRIEL: You have no comment?

MR WASSERMAN: I don't know how to answer it.

MS GABRIEL: So on your version and the basis of your amnesty application is really, you got this instruction, you don't know, there may have been other facets to the killing of Mr Ninela, but it doesn't really concern you?

MR WASSERMAN: I got the instruction, that's my evidence Mr Chairman.

MS GABRIEL: And it didn't occur to you in support of your amnesty application to research this matter any further?

MR WASSERMAN: No, Mr Chairman.

MS GABRIEL: It didn't occur to you at the time of your instruction, at a time at which he was handed over to you with a supposed limpet mine found in his possession, to question the instruction?

MR WASSERMAN: There was no reason to question the instruction.

MS GABRIEL: Du Preez mentioned in his evidence earlier on that one of the reasons for killing Ninela was to serve as a deterrent. Do you hold the same view?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, that must be Mr du Preez's opinion, I didn't, I have not come to that conclusion.

MS GABRIEL: So you were just merely carrying out your instruction to execute?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct.

MS GABRIEL: And it was Du Preez's evidence that it was his decision to blow up Mr Ninela's face and hands?

MR WASSERMAN: That's correct, Mr Chairman, I'm not an explosives expert.

MS GABRIEL: Did you question that? Did you question that decision?

MR WASSERMAN: No, Mr Chairman. I concurred with the decision.

MS GABRIEL: Why?

MR WASSERMAN: It made sense for the body to be incognito, or anonymous.

MS GABRIEL: But why? But why? Why did the body have to be obliterated so that nobody could recognise it? All you were told was to execute?

MR WASSERMAN: In my mind, in my conclusion, we could have got away with the fact that Ninela had left the country to join the forces in exile.

MS GABRIEL: Now why would you want that, why would you want that particular idea to emerge?

MR WASSERMAN: That was in my own mind.

MS GABRIEL: Oh, so this wasn't a belief that was shared?

MR WASSERMAN: I had it in my mind that ...(intervention)

MS GABRIEL: Why did you form that belief? You knew nothing about this man.

MR WASSERMAN: I had been informed, he had performed an explosion in Durban,...(intervention)

MS GABRIEL: And so then you hit upon this idea?

MR WASSERMAN: I had been informed that he might continue to do such, I concurred that he might continue to do such, as Mr Taylor had informed me and therefore I carried out the instructions.

MS GABRIEL: And you agreed that blowing up his hands and face would make it seem as if, you would then be able to say that he had left to Swaziland?

MR WASSERMAN: No, that doesn't make any sense, your question. Please say it again.

MS GABRIEL: Well you just said in your own mind...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It occurred to him that maybe he had gone overseas, out of the border, beyond the border.

MS GABRIEL: I'm afraid that's not how I understood Mr Wasserman's evidence. I understood him to say that if, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that if Mr Ninela was obliterated in ways that he wouldn't be able to be identified, that would help spread, or assist in having people believe that Ninela himself specifically had left the country.

MR WASSERMAN: It was as, that's much of ...(intervention)

MS GABRIEL: Now why did you form this belief? Why did you need to form this belief?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, may the learned lady please say it a little bit more concise?

MS GABRIEL: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: You know a thought occurs to you and the question is being asked, why did this thought occur to you? Whether this was a belief or a thought, we'll leave that out for the time being. In your mind you thought that if this man's body would not be identified, people might assume that Ninela was out of the country.

MR WASSERMAN: Correct, Mr Chairman. I presumed or assumed that the family wouldn't make inquiries about him and they might anticipate that he had left the country and the matter would be left at that.

MS GABRIEL: And so this was a belief that was particular to your own mind?

MR WASSERMAN: I had it.

MS GABRIEL: Please have a look at bundle 1 page 57. This, I understand, was the statement of the 4th applicant in this case, Mwelase. Have a look at the penultimate paragraph.

It seems then that this was a shared belief?

MR WASSERMAN: No, I don't know anything about that.

MS GABRIEL: Is there anything else about this case that you're not disclosing, Mr Wasserman?

MR WASSERMAN: I've disclosed everything that I, of my portion in this case, I have disclosed.

MS GABRIEL: So you've disclosed everything that you know about the execution of Mr Ninela?

MR WASSERMAN: To my recollection, yes I have.

MS GABRIEL: And you would not be in a position to dispute any of the evidence then that the family presents?

MR WASSERMAN: I don't know what that evidence is.

MS GABRIEL: Okay. Well you supposedly know nothing about the history of Mr Ninela, you were just following instructions.

MR WASSERMAN: Yes, Mr Ninela wasn't a subject that got my attention during the struggle days.

MS GABRIEL: Who's attention did he receive?

MR WASSERMAN: I have no idea.

MS GABRIEL: But not yours?

MR WASSERMAN: Definitely not mine.

MS GABRIEL: You mentioned earlier that in those days it was not possible to solve all of the problems that you encountered through legislative means, what did you mean by that?

MR WASSERMAN: The legal process and the arrest of Umkhonto personnel sometimes could not be cleared up via the court system and this is specially relevant when the war in Natal hotted up, sometimes it was deemed necessary that non-legal steps had to be taken by ourselves.

MS GABRIEL: And you noted that Mr Ninela was handed over to you with an explosive or is it a limpet mine was found in his possession?

MR WASSERMAN: I was informed so by Col Taylor, yes.

MS GABRIEL: And you received Mr Ninela and the limpet mine?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct.

MS GABRIEL: And at that point couldn't you question the instruction to execute because there you had the evidence to take him through the legislative channels? Did it occur to you to question?

MR WASSERMAN: I did not question, I presumed that this is, Mr Taylor had probably thought that the legislation process would not be efficient in this case, therefore he had made that decision.

MS GABRIEL: But it was something that didn't strike you. did it not strike you as odd?

MR WASSERMAN: No, it did not.

MS GABRIEL: Thank you, Mr Wasserman. I have no further questions Mr chair.

MS THABETHE: Just one Mr Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Mr Wasserman, what happened to the body of the deceased after he was executed?

MR WASSERMAN: Do you mean after I had shot him?

MS THABETHE: Yes. Did you leave it there or what happened to it, do you know?

MR WASSERMAN: Exactly where he died instantly, is where Col du Preez set the limpet mine and he was place on top of that limpet mine, all at the same place.

MS THABETHE: No, I mean after he was blown up, what happened to his remains?

MR WASSERMAN: No, after leaving the scene, I never returned back to the scene.

MS THABETHE: So you don't know what happened?

MR WASSERMAN: No, I don't know. I have no idea what happened thereafter at the scene, Mr Chairman.

MS THABETHE: No further questions Mr Chair.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Wasserman, where were your duties sort of, where did your duties lie? Was it within the terrorism or the intelligence part of the work of the Security Branch?

MR WASSERMAN: I was in the MK Intelligence Unit, but it still formed, fell under the terrorist desk.

ADV BOSMAN: And perhaps it's not fair to ask you this, but why did Mr Taylor, in your mind, summon du Preez to this operation, which fell outside of his normal activities?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I can only conclude that had, with Taylor's involvement with Ninela, then perhaps there had been a transition from Ninela's other activities into MK activities somehow and that's how come Taylor got involved, because otherwise he normally would not have been involved with persons that weren't involved in MK activities in some form or another.

ADV BOSMAN: A question which arises in my mind is that in Taylor's application it is said that he suggested that the body be blown up and Mr du Preez happened to be an explosives expert, would it be unfair to draw the conclusion that he was summoned because of his expertise in explosives?

MR WASSERMAN: That might also be a valid conclusion.

ADV BOSMAN: Were there any indications, as far as you can remember, that du Preez was asked to assist on account of him expertise in explosives?

MR WASSERMAN: I cannot recall that specific aspect, but with the handing over of Mr Ninela's limpet mine, he must have been there because Mr Taylor would never have given me the limpet mine because I'm not a trained expert.

ADV BOSMAN: And then just one more question, it's also something that I'm rather puzzled about, is in the first application both you and Mr du Preez say that you are vague and you cannot recollect exactly what the details were and then you consult with him and he consults with you and then all of a sudden you know, so what jolted your memories? How did it come about that you then remembered?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, this man, Mr Ninela, never came to my knowledge via our infiltrations into the Natal machinery and MK structures which I personally had infiltrated, therefore he was never a key figure in my entire career, I couldn't recall where Mr Ninela came in in the whole onslaught of our amnesty applications all the names. Once the facts were given to me, then I recalled that he had come from, he was never a known, a big fish, like other persons that I'd been dealing with.

ADV BOSMAN: Which facts are you referring to? Which facts were given to you?

MR WASSERMAN: When we consulted.

ADV BOSMAN: Who?

MR WASSERMAN: Du Preez and Mr Taylor.

ADV BOSMAN: But this is what I don't understand. Mr du Preez said that he couldn't remember, as a matter of fact he testified that only last week did he establish that he had arrested him in connection with his trade union activities and this puzzles me, who jolted whose memory? Did you jolt Mr du Preez's memory, or did he jolt your memory? How did this come about?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, the Bulwer railway line, the elimination of him at the Bulwer railway line, jolted the memory and during the composition of our statements then Mr du Preez didn't mention anything about arresting, so I presume he had forgotten that portion, but we did recall eliminating Ninela on the railway line.

ADV BOSMAN: In what respect did you jolt Mr du Preez's memory? Can you tell us?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I was the person who shot Mr Ninela.

ADV BOSMAN: One would expect you to have remembered that, but was there as far as the other detail which we have heard about this morning is concerned, what did you remember that Mr du Preez had forgotten?

MR WASSERMAN: Between the two of us we recalled going to the shooting range to collect Mr Ninela and then transporting him out to a likely site in Bulwer.

ADV BOSMAN: And who recalled what Taylor had told you?

MR WASSERMAN: Mr du Preez recalled the limpet mine, then I recalled that episode taking place and between us we recalled what Mr Taylor basically said. I can't remember who remembered what sentence where, but it's a long time ago and he was not really a subject of mine. He wasn't under my attention, Mr Ninela.

ADV BOSMAN: And was it between the two of you that you remembered sufficient to say that Mr Taylor's application is a confused version of what had happened there?

MR WASSERMAN: It's definitely a confused version, especially the fact that he accompanied us.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR VISSER: Yes, sorry Mr Chairman, with your leave.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Wasserman, did you, were you instrumental at pointing out the precise point where Ninela was killed and blown up to the investigation unit of the TRC?

MR WASSERMAN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Did you also- this happened during approximately January 1997, I'm told.

MR WASSERMAN: That must be correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And did you then accompany members of the investigation unit to the scene?

MR WASSERMAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And thereafter here in Durban in I believe July that year, 1997, did you make yourself available for questioning by the investigation unit?

MR WASSERMAN: That's correct, Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: And in this process during that period of time, were you able to recall aspects of this incident and refresh your memory along what you have seen at the scene of the crime as well as in preparing for the questioning?

MR WASSERMAN: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: And did it occur to you that the investigation team was busy with a pretty thorough investigation?

MR WASSERMAN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I see I've gone a minute, two minutes over the time. I do apologise for that Mr Chairman.

MS THABETHE: Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to put questions?

MS THABETHE: No, Mr Chair, can I make a request?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: I realise it's 1 o'clock and with the permission of the Committee and my colleagues, I would have suggested that we continue the other applicant's evidence, I don't think it will take that long, so that after lunch we start with the victim's case. I don't know whether that's acceptable to you?

CHAIRPERSON: I have no idea how long the evidence of this other applicant is going to be.

MS THABETHE: I don't know whether my learned colleague can give us an indication?

MR RORICH: I have no objection to that Mr Chair, but the evidence may be in the vicinity of half an hour.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we'll take the adjournment now and resume in 45 minutes.

MS THABETHE: As it pleases you, Mr Chair.

MR RORICH: As it pleases.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR RORICH: Yes, Mr Chairperson, the next applicant in this matter is Bernard Mwelase. His initial application and founding and supporting affidavits are found in bundle 1 page 41 to 62. From the affidavit it is noted that it's quite a lengthy affidavit. I will attempt to restrict myself to the matters relevant at hand. The applicant will give evidence in Zulu. He is ready to take the oath.

BERNARD MWELASE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

EXAMINATION BY MR RORICH: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Mr Mwelase, what was your occupation prior to 1994?

MR MWELASE: I was employed as an askari up until January 1991, employed by the Security Branch.

MR RORICH: Can you please inform this Committee how you became an askari?

MR MWELASE: I went into exile where I joined the ANC, from there I joined the MK in Botswana which was the military wing of the ANC. After that I returned into the country. Unfortunately after a few days after I'd returned, some people informed on me that I had returned and I was then arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: What year was it that you returned to the country?

MR MWELASE: It was in December 1987. I was arrested on the 18th January 1988.

MR RORICH: Mr Mwelase, can you inform us please, why were you arrested?

MR MWELASE: On my return I had firearms in my possession which I was going to use in the struggle to topple the then government.

MR RORICH: And why did you become an Askari?

MR MWELASE: From the events that transpired, I was unable to fulfil my mission because when I was arrested, my mother was also arrested as well as for the fact that I was subjected to extreme torture. I was then forced and ultimately agreed to becoming an askari because my mother was also arrested when I returned and this put me in a bad light amongst family and friends.

MR RORICH: Mr Mwelase, do you remember an abduction round about the 15th June 1988?

MR MWELASE: I learned about that when I went to the TRC and they inquired about operations that I'd been involved in. That was when I stated to them that I'd been involved in an operation where a person was abducted in Durban. I did not remember the specific date but from the people who took down my statement, they told me about the dates and they even informed me of that person's name.

MR RORICH: Mr Mwelase can you please inform this Commission how it is that you became involved in this abduction?

CHAIRPERSON: What about the name of the person he's talking about?

MR RORICH: Mr Chairperson, I'll establish that at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR RORICH: Mr Mwelase please explain to this Commission how it is that you became involved in the abduction.

MR MWELASE: When I was released from prison I was taken to Pretoria where I joined Mr de Kock's unit at Vlakplaas. Normally we would leave Pretoria for Durban to assist in their operations, that is in identifying people whom we knew from exile. It was not only MK cadres who became askaris but also PAC members.

MR RORICH: Mr Mwelase, the question I posed to you was, how did you become involved in this abduction?

MR MWELASE: With regards to that abduction, we had come to the area to identify people that we might encounter and as we were still around in this area, we heard that there had been an explosion that had taken place in either Pinetown or Bothashill and we were supposed, in fact we were patrolling around the Durban area and we had been there and we were then called by Col Taylor in Verulam and informed that a person had died in an explosion. Thereafter we got into a vehicle and proceeded to that scene. On arrival we did see that person and there were police in uniform who had cordoned off the area. That person was maimed, his lower jaw was missing, his stomach, intestines everything was all over the place and we were asked if we knew this person and we could not identify the person. We were asked to identify the kind of weapon used in the explosion and Stanley picked up a metal piece and on examining this piece we concluded that it was a mini limpet mine.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is this Stanley?

MR MWELASE: It was Stanley Moni from Soweto.

CHAIRPERSON: Give me that name again, Stanley what?

MR MWELASE: Moni.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you spell that?

MR MWELASE: M-O-N-I.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he also am askari?

MR MWELASE: Yes.

MR RORICH: Mr Mwelase, after you had identified the explosive device, could you please informed the Commission what happened thereafter?

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold on.

MR MWELASE: Col Taylor was present at that scene, but we left him there and we got into the kombi and went about our business and were still discussing this matter. When we returned to the base in Verulam, we met Larry, Sgt Larry Hattingh as well as Warrant Myeza and Mr Brown. Mr Brown was a South African Police member, a black member, whose nickname was Mr Brown and he would normally drive us from Pretoria to Durban. We had a discussion about someone who had survived this explosion who was apparently the brother to the deceased. It was planned that we were to meet this person. In fact we first went to the hospital to see this young man and we discovered that he had shrapnel all over his face, his face was swollen and he was seriously injured and Col Taylor asked this young man who had given him the limpet mine and the boy indicated that it had been given to them by Mr Ninela. From what I could surmise, it appeared that Mr Myeza was not sure of how to get hold of this person and we had to come up with a plan of how to abduct this person and it was at that point planned that we would pretend to be MK cadres because if he was approached by the police, he might divulge everything and that is why we decided that we would go to him, explain to him that we are going to take him out of the country. The plan was that he was going to be told that he was going to be taken out of the country because of the weapon that he had given to these other boys.

We then went to his place and it was Myeza who drove the vehicle and I was with Stanley as well. Stanley and myself went into the house, we found him with his girlfriend. I cannot identify this person. We introduced...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Mwelase, if you can just go a little bit slower you might make more progress, because you're going a lit bit quickly and the interpreters are having to backtrack and ask you more questions to explain. If you could just slow down a little bit, it will help everybody. Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: People have to be told. They must get the chance to understand what is being said. Carry on. You went to a house and he was there with his girlfriend. Where was this house?

MR MWELASE: I do not know the Durban area well and on our trips we will just patrol around the city but this place was around Pinetown on the outskirts of Pinetown. It was, it looked more like a rural area ...(indistinct) I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: I can't hear the interpreter.

Yes.

INTERPRETER: The applicant said the area was rural in nature and it could have been Dengezi or ...(indistinct). We then found this man with his girlfriend and we talked to him and he then believed our story, because Taylor had given me a hand-grenade to use in our discussion, so I removed this grenade, I showed it to him and asked him if he had given that boy something similar and he said no it wasn't and he explained how that weapon looked like and I therefore concluded that it was indeed a limpet mine. I returned that grenade to my pocket and we discussed that we should arrange for a later meeting and he should stay put at home, we will return for him. We then left and reported that we had fulfilled our mission. We had found the person and he had believed our story that we were MK guerrillas and later on we returned to his house but could not find him, but we found a certain woman and we were not sure whether he had suspected something and became afraid, decided to run away. We then discussed with Stanley and decided to leave a note telling him to meet us at the Pinetown post office. Col Taylor's aim was that we should take him out of his home on the very same day, but unfortunately we did not find him, therefore we left that note. We had left a note telling him of the date of when we would meet. We then went for that appointment. We arrived there 13 minutes prior the appointment time and he arrived on the scheduled time and I asked him how safe he was and he said we should not worry about that. We then thought that maybe he is being escorted by someone or some persons. We had arranged that we would take him to a pre-arranged spot where he would be arrested. Stanley then bought two cooldrinks. He bought three, one for each of us and then we just went around talking and we went down the road and as we approached a certain vehicle, Myeza and others, Mr Myeza and Vusondala ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, spell that.

MR MWELASE: V-U-S-O-N-D-A-L-A. They jumped out of that vehicle and they pointed their firearms at us. Mr Myeza showed us his appointment card, identifying himself as a policeman and we were all taken into this vehicle. It was a VW bakkie. Whilst we were inside, we explained to this young man that we should tell the truth, in fact he should tell the truth and he was disappointed that we had betrayed him. He was searched and they did not find anything on him. I do not know whether Myeza had pre-arranged with Col Taylor to meet him somewhere, but we drove to a certain spot where we met Col Taylor. It was somewhere along the South Coast near Umgababa. I do not know the specific area in which we were but as we arrived there we all got out of the vehicle. I do not remember whether Mr Taylor and other while people rode in the same vehicle as we did. I remember a Sgt Larry Hattingh who was present, he was from Pretoria and there were a couple of beers that we drank and at that particular point this person was being assaulted. We had fulfilled our mission to hand him over to them and he was being interrogated on who had trained him on the use of this device. At that time we were busy drinking our beer and then the three of us left that scene and we left him with those white officers and we returned to Verulam.

After a few days we returned to Pretoria. When we returned on another day, I inquired from the Colonel and the people who worked in Durban as to how that incident had gone and they informed me that yes, he agreed to become an askari and he was sent to Swaziland and I did not question this.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was it that told you this? You said some time later when you came back from Pretoria you inquired about this man. From who did you inquire?

MR MWELASE: Col Taylor was very free in responding to our questions so I asked him as well as Mr Myeza and I did not question what he told me because even I who had been trained to fight the same government, I had agreed because of various reasons, had ultimately agreed to becoming an askari, so I thought that there was no reason for him to refuse. Thereafter I did not make any other inquiries about him. I worked in Pretoria until I requested him a transfer to Durban because of the assaults I suffered under Mr de Kock.

MR RORICH: Mr Mwelase, at the time of the abduction, who was your Commanding Officer?

MR MWELASE: It was Mr de Kock. I was coming from Pretoria.

MR RORICH: And why do you think the abduction of Blessing Ninela was arranged?

CHAIRPERSON: Did he know that that man was Blessing Ninela?

MR RORICH: Mr Chairperson, at that stage no.

MR MWELASE: We as askaris had to protect ourselves against MK who were intent on getting us because of our betrayal but I was following an order that I should go and abduct that person, but I did not know that he was going to be ultimately killed and when this person arrived at the car, Mr Myeza said, "Yes, this is the day that I finally get you, because I've been telling you for a long time that I'm going to catch you."

CHAIRPERSON: By what name did you know this man when you went to see him the first time at that house and you spoke to him?

MR MWELASE: I did not know his name. I had never ever seen him before.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you not asked him his name?

MR MWELASE: We were informed on who to ask for when we arrived there, but I cannot recall that now because there are too many names that I came across, but yes, we were informed on who to approach at that house, but it wasn't a thing that I kept in my mind, there was no need to do that.

MR LAX: Mr Mwelase, the person that you abducted, do you now know him as Blessing Ninela?

MR MWELASE: Yes, I do. I got that information from the TRC. Yes, as we are speaking about him now, I do remember the name.

MR LAX: During your time of working as an askari, how did you survive financially?

MR MWELASE: After about 3 months, I received a police appointment card and I received a salary. I would receive a monthly salary.

CHAIRPERSON: This as an askari?

MR MWELASE: Yes, because I had already begun serving. Some askaris had become sergeants by the time I arrived and those received a better salary than we did.

CHAIRPERSON: No, my question to you was, what did you as an askari receive? What salary did you get as an askari?

MR MWELASE: I received about R1 200 after deductions and we would also receive an allowance for travelling. For instance if we leave Pretoria for Durban, we will receive about R500 and my salary for that month would be more.

MR RORICH: Mr Mwelase did you receive any reward for the abduction of Mr Ninela?

MR MWELASE: No. After you've been appointed as an askari you do not receive any other money except for your salary and allowances. I did not receive any reward except for those few cans of beer that we had, that was the only thing that we received, but if I were to, if I did buy alcohol for myself, I was beaten up.

MR RORICH: Mr Mwelase, is it correct that you apply for amnesty for any criminal prosecution that may lead from this abduction or any delictual action?

MR MWELASE: Yes, I do sincerely request amnesty. I'm not sure if I can be given a chance to explain just what I seek amnesty for?

Firstly, I would like to seek forgiveness from my former comrades who sent me into this country to fight the regime, which I did not do.

Secondly, I would also like to request forgiveness from the deceased's family. I did not know that they were going to kill him. When I abducted him, I thought that they were going to follow the legal proceedings of the land. Yes I did play a role when I pretended to be an MK guerrilla and in that way I handed him over for them to kill him. I am not a murderer, I have never killed a person but I did work with murderers, therefore indirectly I did kill. I am not very different from Judas Iscariot who betrayed the Lord Jesus.

CHAIRPERSON: After you met him at the Pinetown post office, you said you took him to a pre-arranged spot. What does that mean? With whom was this arrangement? Who was this person with whom you had pre-arranged?

MR MWELASE: It was Col Taylor. He is the person who was in charge of everyone, therefore the decision came from him and the person on the ground cannot defy the decision of the person in charge. Col Taylor was the person in charge and every decision came from him. We were under de Kock who had given us over to his friend, Col Taylor.

CHAIRPERSON: Now then, when you saw this man for the first time at a house, he was with his girlfriend, at that stage you pretended that you were an MK cadre?

MR MWELASE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he appear to be satisfied or believe what you said?

MR MWELASE: Yes, he did believe it. We even asked him if he is the person who handed that explosive device to these two persons, one of whom was deceased and he admitted that yes, he did and we asked him where he had got it from and he said he had been, he had received it from some guerrillas who had left and never returned. He said that he had not used this device for a long time and we concluded that maybe it had become rusted, that is why it exploded when it did and he gave this device during the Inkatha/ANC war. That is what he told us and he admitted to us that yes, it had been him who had handed over the device but that was the only one that he had had in his possession.

CHAIRPERSON: From that I conclude that he had no other weapons?

MR MWELASE: I do not know with regards to his home, whether he had any stored there, but when we met him at the post office, he did not have any on him. I do not know whether he had any of these around his home.

MR RORICH: Chairperson, that's the evidence for the applicant.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, are there any questions you wish to put to him?

MR VISSER: Two matters, with your permission, Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Mwelase, is my understanding correct that when the askaris and their handlers went from Vlakplaas to different areas in the country to attempt to trace terrorists and to identify and arrest them, that you would fall under the command of the Commanding Officer in the area in which you worked, would that be correct?

MR MWELASE: Yes, that is correct. We were under the command of Mr de Kock in Pretoria, but when we came to Durban we would be under Col Taylor's command, who was responsible for the Natal region.

MR VISSER: And that would explain why Col de Kock really didn't feature in this incident at all, you got your orders from Col Taylor?

MR MWELASE: That's correct. Col Taylor had his own unit and he was recruiting others as well.

MR VISSER: Now another matter which you mentioned, you said that you thought that Taylor would follow the normal legal procedures, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Just enlarge on that because by itself that question...

MR VISSER: Yes, well towards the end of your evidence you said that you handed the man over to Taylor and you then added you thought that they would follow the normal legal procedures, I take it, with him. Is that correct?

MR MWELASE: I was certain, it's not something that I thought. I was certain that they will investigate and know because they did the same with us. They investigated and they interrogated us and they got the truth, I thought they were going to do the same with him.

MR VISSER: So, normally in your experience, when somebody was arrested, he would be interrogated, is that correct?

MR MWELASE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Taking your own example, there would be an attempt to recruit him to work for the Security Police, is that correct?

MR MWELASE: Yes, that person will be recruited and if they cannot recruit the person, then the person will be prosecuted.

MR VISSER: That was my next question. Now so knowing what you know now, according to your experience this was an exception, the fact that as we know now Mr Ninela was in fact murdered, that was an exception to what you were used to?

MR MWELASE: When I was in exile as an MK, I knew that, that the Security Branch will sometimes kill you after they have arrested you, more especially when they arrest you when there is no witness to witness that arrest, then they will kill you.

MR VISSER: The point is that would be the exception, in your experience?

CHAIRPERSON: What does it matter?

MR MWELASE: I wouldn't know because there are different units. Some units may have done things like that but I didn't know. My work was just to identify the people.

MR VISSER: Let's leave that then. But normally if you had identified a person, that person was arrested, would he not be normally taken to a police station where he would be booked in and kept and charged later?

MR MWELASE: Yes, the person was arrested and interrogated at the police station.

MR VISSER: That didn't happen in the case of Mr Ninela, did it?

MR MWELASE: No, it didn't happen that way. We left him in a certain forest, in an old house.

MR VISSER: And you yourself say that you're applying for amnesty for his abduction, so you knew he was being abducted?

MR MWELASE: Yes, because we told him something which was false. We told him that we were helping him to escape and that's why I'm saying, I'm asking amnesty for getting involved in the abduction of Mr Ninela.

MR VISSER: Yes. So right from the word go, normal legal procedures were not followed, that's all I want to ask you. Do you agree? In the case of Mr Ninela.

MR MWELASE: Yes, we didn't follow the normal procedures.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Gabriel.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS GABRIEL: Mr Mwelase, I just want to go back to something you told us earlier on, when you went to the hospital. Do you remember that area? You went to the hospital to look at the brother of one boy who had been blown up.

MR MWELASE: Yes, I do remember.

MS GABRIEL: Okay. You said,

MR MWELASE: Yes, Taylor was asking him. We were at the corridor of the hospital and he and Taylor were inside the ward and it was closed but we could hear what they were talking about, even though we could not follow the whole conversation, because we were also talking about how injured he was, therefore I could not tell everything Taylor had spoken to the man, but I did remember hearing Taylor asking him who gave him the limpet mine.

MS GABRIEL: Right then after you told the Committee that, you said next,

What did you mean by that?

MR MWELASE: You mean in hospital?

MS GABRIEL: Oh, you meant the man in the hospital?

MR MWELASE: We didn't discuss about this in hospital.

Would you please address your question? I need to understand your question clearly.

MS GABRIEL: Okay, what I'm trying to understand, if I heard your evidence correctly, will you please help me understand what you said earlier on?

MR MWELASE: I am saying what happened in hospital is that Taylor was the one who was questioning the man and we also took a look at this man and we realised that we didn't know the person. Taylor questioned him as to who gave him the limpet mine. The man said to Taylor it was Ninela who gave him the limpet mine and Myeza there and then said to us he knew Mr Ninela and he was a troublesome man. He said so in hospital. This is the only thing which happened in hospital because Taylor couldn't assault the man who was in hospital, he was going to be arrested himself if he could have done that.

MS GABRIEL: But you mentioned somebody and you said,

You said that if somebody was approached by the police this person would divulge everything. What did you mean by that? Who were you talking about?

MR MWELASE: Are you referring to the person who was in hospital, or the person who was at home? Which one are you talking about?

MS GABRIEL: I'm referring, Mr Mwelase, to what you said. Now it may be that I was mistaken, but I made notes of you saying that the abduction had to happen because if Ninela was approached by the police, he might divulge everything.

CHAIRPERSON: So the abduction obviously did not relate to the man who was in hospital.

MR MWELASE: I understand.

MS GABRIEL: Will you please tell me what that meant?

MR MWELASE: Yes, I do understand now. When we were planning, Myeza and Taylor, they said if Ninela was going to be approached by police, things were not going to go according to the plan, therefore ...(intervention.

MS GABRIEL: What plan was this?

MR MWELASE: We were askaris, we were just taking instructions from the senior men and what we were told was that Stanley and myself were supposed to go and approach Ninela.

MS GABRIEL: So all you heard then was them refer to a plan? Do you have any idea what plan this was? When they said things would not go according to plan, what did they mean?

MR MWELASE: Yes, they actually said so, that police should not be involved in abducting him and I don't know their reasons why. I don't know why they came to this conclusion. Maybe they were scared that people will know, maybe the people from the area are ANC people and they will know that the police are involved. This is what I'm just thinking, I'm just speculating their reasons, but I don't know and I didn't know at the time why they wanted to use askaris.

MS GABRIEL: The people in the are would know that the police were involved, what do you mean by that? Involved in what? In the death of the boy?

MR MWELASE: In killing him. This is what I'm thinking, I'm not talking about his death because at the time I didn't even know that there was a plan of killing him.

CHAIRPERSON: Sometimes the whole problems arise as a result of interpretation. Do you understand?

MS GABRIEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: The gist of it, as I understand it is, they'd already got the information that Ninela was the man who had supplied the explosive. The question now was, should that be referred to the police to go and arrest Ninela or should we devise a plan and abduct Ninela, so it was decided that the police should not have anything to do with arresting Ninela and charging him with whatever they want to charge him.

MS GABRIEL: My concern, Mr Chair, is that I distinctly heard Mr Mwelase saying that he had to be abducted because if he was approached by the police he might divulge everything.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words, they didn't want the police to go and arrest Ninela, that might lead to complications which the police did not want.

MS GABRIEL: I see. Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: So then they decided they'd make use of askaris and abduct Ninela. That's a sense of the evidence as I understand it.

MS GABRIEL: Well, Mr Mwelase, let me as you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that right?

MS GABRIEL: Is that correct?

ANSWER: ...(indistinct)

MS GABRIEL: Okay. Mr Mwelase, just one final question, you said when Mr Ninela was - when you took Mr Ninela to this pre-arranged spot, the point at which he was arrested, he was searched and they did not find anything on him. I just want to confirm that with you.

MR MWELASE: Yes, nothing was found in his possession. Nothing at all. I don't know about money, but there was no weapon at all.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Mwelase, one final question, when you went to the hospital, how did you introduce yourselves to this boy on the bed?

MR MWELASE: Col Taylor and Myeza, they are well-known police in Durban. The only thing which we did was just to look at him and Taylor was the one who was talking to him and Taylor and Myeza were well-known policemen.

MS GABRIEL: Okay, thank you very much, Mr Mwelase. I have no more questions Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Who in fact arrested Ninela? Which policeman?

MR MWELASE: We abducted him and we didn't force him to come with us, but when we arrived at the car, guns were pointed at us, all of us, they pretended as if they're arresting all three of us.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the question was, who was it? Was it the army or was it the police in uniform, was it the police in private clothes?

MR MWELASE: Security Branch, Myeza and the askaris who were under Col Taylor and other askaris who were also from Pretoria and they were just wearing their clothes, their personal clothes.

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MS THABETHE: Just a few, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MS THABETHE: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Mr Mwelase, you said in your evidence, you did not know that when Mr Ninela was abducted, he was going to be killed. You thought that he was going to be arrested.

MR MWELASE: Yes, I didn't know that. That's exactly what I thought.

MS THABETHE: Right, I've got two questions arising out of your evidence. The first question is, why do you think he was abducted?

MR MWELASE: I wasn't in a position to dispute anything which was suggested by the police or the SB, I was just a cheap askari. My duties were just to follow the instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: The question that is put to you is did you know why he was abducted?

MR MWELASE: Myeza had already indicated that this man was a troublesome man and he said so after the explosion of the bomb, therefore we were not going to dispute it because we were also scared. De Kock was torturing us and if we didn't follow their instructions, we were going to be hit by Mr de Kock going back to Pretoria.

MS THABETHE: Why I'm asking you this, it's because of your evidence. I don't think you understand my question. You see, in your evidence you said you're not sure why he was abducted but you thought - okay, you didn't think that they were going to kill him, but you thought that he was going to be arrested. Do you remember saying that?

MR MWELASE: I did mention that I was certain that he was going to arrested and interrogated, but I was not sure, or I didn't think that he was going to be killed. I, as a guerrilla, I was also arrested and interrogated and turned to be an askari.

MS THABETHE: Okay, so you're saying you were sure that they were going to interrogate him?

MR MWELASE: Yes.

MS THABETHE: And then interrogate him to do what? What do you think the purpose was for interrogating him? That's what I want to get to. Why was he abducted and interrogated? What was the purpose behind doing that? Why do you think they needed to do that, for what purpose?

MR MWELASE: The reason is simple. There was a person who just died from an explosive which he was given by him, that was the reason why they should interrogate him because the person who was in hospital had already revealed that they've taken or they got that explosive from him. This was the reason why they should arrest him and interrogate him or maybe even to turn him into an askari like us.

MS THABETHE: Okay. You see, according to the evidence of the other applicants and according to your evidence as well, there was no limpet mine that was found in Mr Ninela, is that correct?

CHAIRPERSON: Nothing was found on him.

MS THABETHE: Nothing was found on him.

MR MWELASE: No, I didn't see any limpet mine and we were the ones who were with him inside the car and he didn't have a limpet mine.

MR LAX: Sorry, you're asking the question before the translation's finished. Can you just repeat the answer please Ms Interpreter? I could hear the question on one ear and the answer in the other.

CHAIRPERSON: We were in the car with him and he had no limpet mine.

MR LAX: Thank you.

MS THABETHE: You see, according to Mr Taylor's application, because there was nothing on him, or as he puts it, there was no evidence against him, they could not take him to court and as a result they decided to kill him because there was no evidence. Now would you dispute the fact that maybe he was interrogated so that they could turn him to work for them as an informer? Would you dispute that?

MR MWELASE: What I can say is that I cannot read Col Taylor's thoughts. I'm coming here for the first time because I'm requesting amnesty because of the role that I played in the killing of Mr Ninela, even though I don't know how they killed him. In fact, I didn't even know if he was killed. I don't know how they killed him, but I played a role by abducting him. I don't know a lot about this.

MS THABETHE: You see, why I'm asking you this question, it's because of the evidence you gave earlier on. In your evidence you said you thought they would do what they normally do, for example with yourself, you were interrogated and you eventually agreed to work for the policemen, so you thought they were going to do the same thing with him. Do you remember saying that?

MR MWELASE: Yes, I do remember.

MS THABETHE: Just hold it there. I don't want you to explain any further.

MR MWELASE: When I mentioned my being an askari, I did come back to them and ask them about what happened to Mr Ninela and they told me that they had sent him to Swaziland to work for them. I did ask them as to what happened eventually about Mr Ninela and they told me that he was in Swaziland and he was working for them.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is they? Who are the ones that told you that?

MR MWELASE: I did mention before that it was Col Taylor and Myeza because these two we used to ask them anything everything, and they will tell us.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS THABETHE: Okay, so you are saying you didn't know what was going to happen to him after he was abducted. You didn't know why he was abducted. You can't even say whether he was abducted to be recruited or not, but you think he was going to be interrogated about the bomb, the explosion that had happened earlier on. My question is, what do you think would have happened to him if he was interrogated and he did not co-operate, taking into consideration that there was nothing found on him?

MR MWELASE: It is difficult to speak on speculation, more especially to say something that what I thought those years and I am not sure, I've never recorded my thoughts, even now if someone can ask me about what I thought, I wouldn't say, really I wouldn't say exactly. I was scared at this man because they tortured me a lot, but they didn't kill me.

MS THABETHE: Well I thought as an, you said you were an experienced askari, I thought you could know from your experience what happens to a person who fails to co-operate with interrogation, but seemingly you say you wouldn't know, so I leave it at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, otherwise it will be speculation.

MS THABETHE: Yes, thank you Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Any re-examination?

MR RORICH: No, Mr Chairman, not at all.

MR LAX: Just one question. It's really an ancillary issue. Who, besides Myeza, who were the others that arrested this man and yourself, that's yourself and Sidney, Stanley, I beg your pardon?

MR MWELASE: It was Vusondala, David - I've forgotten his last name, Philemon Kululegu.

MR LAX: It doesn't matter if you can't remember the rest. The one other aspect is that you actually arrested this man. You took out your appointment card - they took out their appointment cards and they arrested you. They said "We are police officers and we are arresting you". Is that right?

MR MWELASE: As we were approaching the car, they came out and they took their appointment cards and they said they were arresting us and they had arranged that this thing should happen quick so that other people don't see or there are no witnesses and we were not searched outside, because we thought that maybe there was an escort, or his own escort whom we didn't see.

MR LAX: The fact of the matter is that this was an arrest in a public place, isn't that so?

MR MWELASE: Yes, it was in a public area.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you very much. You are excused.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, are you calling any other witnesses?

MR VISSER: No, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rorich?

MR RORICH: No, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Gabriel?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, the first witness on behalf of the victim's family will be Mrs Gratina Ninela and her evidence is found in bundle 2 pages 56 to 58.

GRATINA NINELA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MS GABRIEL: Mrs Ninela will speak in both English and Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: How are we going to do that?

MS GABRIEL: Well, I believe it's going to be primarily in English.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, let's do the best we can.

MS GABRIEL: Right. Mrs Ninela, do you remember making a statement in this matter to TRC investigators and that is the statement that appears on pages 56 to 58 of bundle 2. Is that correct?

MRS NINELA: ...(inaudible)

CHAIRPERSON: We can't hear what she said.

MRS NINELA: I wish I had the paper here.

MS GABRIEL: Do you want the paper?

MRS NINELA: Yes, please.

MS GABRIEL: Mrs Ninela, do you live in kwaNcolosi, under Chief Bhekisisa Bhengu, in Mahlabatini?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: And you have heard evidence today about the killing of Blessing Ninela?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: Describe his relationship to you.

MRS NINELA: Blessing Ninela is my fifth born out of 6 children. He was born in 1960, August 8. At the age of 3 he got ill and the doctors found out he was a cardiac case, he had some trouble with his heart, so he took treatments monthly and this treatment went on until he was 20 when the doctors decided to stop it, but check him periodically.

MS GABRIEL: Mrs Ninela, can I just interrupt you for a minute? Did your son live with you?

MRS NINELA: He lived with me while he was still schooling, sometimes he was at my house, my mother's house, but not very long, but most of his life he lived at our house and I used to work the 5 days of the week, except when I had a holiday and I used to have a weekend off fortnightly, when I was working.

MS GABRIEL: Can you describe to us about Mr Ninela, Blessing Ninela's activities after school? After he finished school? Was he still living with you then?

MRS NINELA: He was employed by Basaf. I don't quite remember the exact time he worked with Basaf, but after some time the job was finished at Basaf and he was involved with the SAWU Union. He partly worked as a, what do you call it? He was partly an organiser in that union until he started working with Shell's company.

MS GABRIEL: When was this?

MRS NINELA: I don't quite remember the year.

CHAIRPERSON: You can lead her on that.

MS GABRIEL: Okay. How long did he work at Shell, Mrs Ninela?

MRS NINELA: That also I can't really remember because there is time when he worked as a part-time worker but finally he was registered and worked full-time. I don't remember the exact time he worked with Shell's company.

MS GABRIEL: What did he do after working with Shell?

MRS NINELA: Whilst he was still working, he was taken by police to be detained.

MS GABRIEL: Do you know why this was?

MRS NINELA: There is a time when I went to CR Swart to find out from him what was really the cause of his detention. I wasn't allowed to see him. The white police that I cam across there told me that he was a member of Umkhonto weSizwe. He asked me if I knew anything about Umkhonto weSizwe. I said no, because I didn't know anything about that. So from him I didn't hear why he was detained. That policeman refused me to see him. He took a few pairs of underpants for changing and gave the rest of the clothes that I had for him to change, back to me.

MS GABRIEL: When was Blessing Ninela detained by the police?

MRS NINELA: It was in 1987, I think it was January, if I can remember well.

MS GABRIEL: And how long did he spend in detention?

MRS NINELA: More than 6 months. I think he was, I think he was discharged in August, I don't remember the exact date, if I'm not mistaken.

MS GABRIEL: So around August 1987 he was released from detention and did he come to live with you again?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: Yes. And describe his activities then, what was he doing? Was he working?

MRS NINELA: He had tried to look for a job, but he couldn't get a job.

MS GABRIEL: So he just stayed at home with you?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: Right. Now there was evidence led earlier on today about an explosion in the area involving two boys. Do you remember anything about this?

MRS NINELA: I heard the explosion sound, although I didn't know what was happening.

MS GABRIEL: When was this?

MRS NINELA: It was in June. I don't remember the exact date. What I remember is that I was at home because there was a strike. Nobody was allowed to go to work, so I was at home those days. I think that strike was to carry on for three days. I don't quite remember now, but what I remember is that I had to go back to work not knowing what had happened, but I heard the noise of the explosion.

CHAIRPERSON: What year are we talking about?

MS GABRIEL: Can you remember the year? Was this around June?

MRS NINELA: 1988.

MS GABRIEL: What else do you remember about this incident?

MRS NINELA: The night of the explosion there is a young boy who came at home. It was at night. There's something I wanted to do outside the house. When I opened the door, I realised that there was somebody coming round the corner. I went back to the house as fast as I could and locked the door because the situation was scarring at that time in the place. In the house we had my sister-in-law's son, who is far older than my children. So I told him as a man, that there is somebody I saw outside, I'm scared, I don't know what he is up to.

So he went to the door and opened the door. He realised that that boy was hurt. He opened the door and let him in. He told me that that boy was very, very, was badly hurt. Now, when I see a big sore or hear about somebody damaged or badly hurt, there is a feeling that comes inwards, in me, it seems as if there is some cold water just running in my tummy or down the leg, and down the legs. I had that feeling. I didn't go to see that boy. I gave whatever I could to help that boy, Detol, cottonwool and warm water and when I was told that he was shivering, I told them to take some disprins from my bag.

MS GABRIEL: Yes, do you know the name of this boy?

MRS NINELA: I was told the name, but I didn't know him by then, at that time. I was told the name was Senzo Bhengu, a member of the community, but I didn't know him.

MS GABRIEL: Yes.

MRS NINELA: And so the next morning when our nephew was going to work, he took him along towards his home. The taxis were taking on a little bit, not very far from his house, that is where the taxi stop was, so he took him and he asked him to go to his house and he waited for the taxi to go to work.

And another weekend after that I heard that the son of Mfanafuti Bhengu is the one that was exploded the day of the explosion. So I went with the other mourners to the house because we were very close, or friendly with the grandmother of that boy. Just because of that, I accompanied the other people to mourn, for the family. That is all about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Bhengu, was that the name of the father of the boy that was injured?

MRS NINELA: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON: The name Bhengu that you mentioned just now, was that the father of the boy who had been injured?

MRS NINELA: He was the father.

MS GABRIEL: Did you find out anything else about Bhengu's sons? You didn't?

MRS NINELA: I don't remember.

MS GABRIEL: Okay, let me move on. Mrs Ninela, why did Senzo Bhengu come to your house that evening, do you know?

MRS NINELA: I don't know. I didn't know and I didn't ask.

MS GABRIEL: Okay. Where was Blessing at this time?

MRS NINELA: He wasn't at home. I don't know where he was. Senzo told us that, I heard what he said, I didn't see him because he was in the dining room, I was in the other room. I couldn't go and see him because I was told he was badly hurt, so I didn't want to see him how hurt he was, except that when there is anything to help him, it could be done. He told me that they were walking with his brother, somebody shot them and he said he didn't know where his brother was by that time because they ran to different directions, as according to what he said. So he didn't know what had happened with his brother.

MS GABRIEL: And was he looking for Blessing?

MRS NINELA: He asked for Blessing.

MS GABRIEL: And Blessing wasn't there?

MRS NINELA: No.

MS GABRIEL: Right. Let's continue. Tell us more about Blessing. What happened after this incident? Did he continue to live with you?

MRS NINELA: One weekend when I was off, when I came home, there was nobody except the two boys who wanted to get a little job of cutting grass in the yard, which they usually do to get a little bit of money. Because I had a key, I opened the door, but there is a car that passed down towards the Inanda dam. I don't think it went as far as Inanda dam, but that is the way the car took. In a short time the car was back. It stopped on the road. The occupants went out to the shop, which is opposite my house and from there they came straight to my house. I was standing in front of the door. Actually I wanted to speak to those children that I found there. Before I could speak to them, those people were there and they asked for Blessing. I told them there was nobody at home, I opened the door because I had a key. It seemed they didn't believe me.

MS GABRIEL: Yes and then what happened?

MRS NINELA: It seemed they had a wish of going through the house to find out whether he was hiding or not, but when I thought that they wanted to do that I told them, he is really not at home and no-one else was at home. I found the doors locked and I opened the door because I had a key and then the person who was talking spoke to the two children. "Hey you boys, where are the occupants of this house?" They said they didn't know. And I asked them, "What are your surnames?" The way he laughed at me, the one who was talking, made me see that I was being fooled, though he gave me those surnames, but I realised that they were fooling me.

MS GABRIEL: What surnames did they give you, can you remember?

MRS NINELA: I don't quite remember.

MS GABRIEL: And after that the other, there were two men, one of them had very dark sunglasses and the other one, the one who had dark glasses, said, "How can a man do such a thing? We had an appointment with him and he has broken it." I couldn't say a thing about that or answer or anything and the other one said, "Will you please give us a paper and a pen?" So I went to the house, I took a pen and a paper and he wrote the message and he said, "There's nothing to be hidden there, you can read the message. Give that letter to him."

MS GABRIEL: To Blessing?

MRS NINELA: To Blessing. Okay, when Blessing came late, I gave him the letter. Of course, I had read it. And I asked him ...(intervention)

MS GABRIEL: What was on that letter?

MRS NINELA: The letter had a message to Blessing, asking him to meet those people by the post office in Pinetown at 1 o'clock on a Monday. That was on Saturday.

MS GABRIEL: Yes, and then you gave Blessing the note?

MRS NINELA: I gave Blessing the note, he read it and I asked him, "Who are those people and what were they after?"

He said, "Oh those people were investigators." I can say investigators or detectives, one of those things, then wanted to know what was happening with the boy in the hospital, that was Senzo. Well it stopped there. On Sunday I had to go back to work, but the next weekend off when I got home, Blessing was not there. His sister, who was staying at home, told me that when on Monday, when she was going to Pinetown he asked her to stop the taxi for him, he was also going, but before that he told his sister that sometimes people who are suspects of the Special Branch are taken to be killed somewhere and after they are killed there will be means of confusing the members of the family or convincing them that he is still alive. There will be people with reports that he is somewhere, mentioning any place, knowing that they have killed him, he will never ever be seen. That was before he parted. They took the same taxi as far as Durban. When they parted, he told his sister that he would be going as far as , I don't remember whether it's Swansbury or Swainsburg, but via Pinetown, as he was ordered to see those two men in Pinetown on Monday at 1 o'clock. So that is the last time he was seen alive.

MS GABRIEL: Is that the last time you saw your son?

MRS NINELA: The last time I saw my son was the time when I left home to work. My daughter who was staying at home, was the last person to see my son.

MS GABRIEL: When was the next time you heard about Blessing?

MRS NINELA: I heard that there is a young man who got home, who at the first asked where Blessing was, or whether he wanted to see Blessing, something of that sort. At the same time, he had a so to say, Blessing was somewhere, I don't remember the place. Blessing was somewhere. When I heard this, this confused me. How can a person first for Blessing and quickly he knows where Blessing is, but I couldn't ask anybody, I couldn't say anything about that, but that confused me and another one, a member of the community by the name of Mduduzi Ngedi, he was working at Checkers, Checkers that is in Game Centre, Game City I mean, he told me that Blessing came to the shop and they spoke with him and he said "what a handsome man" but he quickly went out and left. This worried me. One of the days I asked him, "By the way, you said you saw Blessing at Checkers", he said "yes". "What did he say? Where does he stay?" He said, "He said he was around".

MS GABRIEL: And when did you discover the truth about what happened to Blessing?

MRS NINELA: Early in 1987.

CHAIRPERSON: 1997.

MRS NINELA: I mean 1997, sorry. In 1997.

MS GABRIEL: Yes, tell us how you discovered this.

MRS NINELA: One of my daughters asked me to go with the other two daughters. They were staying in one place. Three of us were to go to Durban to meet somebody call Mr Mhlodi. When we got to Durban, one of the daughters had a number, phone number, to phone Mr Mhlodi to tell him that we have arrived and she did it. And when she had phoned she told us that he said, Mr Mhlodi said we must wait, he will be coming with a car. He gave her a description of the car. In a few minutes time that car drove near us and she said, my daughter said "That is the car". So we went to that car. Off we went. We were on Smith Street. We stopped by the ...(indistinct) Park, out of the car we went and we sat down. It was the first time I heard the news that my son was no more alive.

MS GABRIEL: Who gave you this news?

MRS NINELA: Mr Mhlodi. And he told us that people of the TRC are looking for Ninela's family, they can't find Ninela's family, but some people have come out, come forward asking for amnesty, but they didn't know where to find us. They told us what happened and finally told us to go to TRC offices when they were still in Durban. They said Blessing was taken to - I mean when the sister brought the news of what Blessing said the last time, he asked the sister, "Do your know where Swainsbury is?" No, she didn't know. And he said that place is round about Amanzimtoti, that is where he was killed and moved to Bulwer. A bomb was placed on him to make anybody who hears the bomb exploding or anybody coming after that, seeing his body was exploded, the impression will be that he had a bomb to put on the railway.

So after that we went straight to the TRC people where we got a piece of paper with the information which Andy Taylor gave to TRC people.

MS GABRIEL: Did you read this piece of paper?

MRS NINELA: Yes I did, though I cannot say all the details there, but there are two things that appear on the paper that confuse me, like the boy who came to my house and asked for Blessing and all of a sudden he knew where Blessing was. There is a place on that paper which says there was no evidence to send him to court.

MS GABRIEL: So why does this confuse you, Mrs Ninela?

MRS NINELA: What confuses me is that after that there is a part where, though they say there was no evidence to send him to court, though he had himself admitted that he was on mission of the bombs. What confuses me is that if at all there was no evidence to take him to court, why wasn't he released alive? If at all he had admitted that he was on a bomb mission, why wasn't he taken to court?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, it would appear that Mrs Ninela is referring to the first, well the only amnesty application of Mr Taylor and that's at page 4. Yes, please continue, Mrs Ninela.

MRS NINELA: That is really confusing me, because as residents we, on most cases, put our rely on the police. If at all there's anything wrong, I have a full hope that the police will take legal actions to help me there or if I am wrong, the police will take legal actions and take the person who is wrong to court to be prosecuted by either the magistrate or a judge. It is amazing and surprising and killing me, to find out that the people who are the handlers of the law, instead of taking the lawful actions, they decided to kill him. If there was nothing else to be done except killing him, why was his identity destroyed? What wrong has the family done to the law of South Africa? If Blessing was wrong or had done anything wrong to the law of South Africa, he should have been arrested. If they decided to kill him was the only solution, why did they hide the body and his identity from the family?

MS GABRIEL: We heard evidence earlier today from two people, the first a Mr du Preez and the second a Mr Wasserman. Now, you were here and present throughout that and you heard the evidence and you heard their stories of how they killed your son. Are you satisfied with their stories?

MRS NINELA: No.

MS GABRIEL: Why not?

MRS NINELA: I'm still not answered. I still haven't got the answer, why they did it. If Blessing was wrong, he should have been arrested. What did his family do that was so wrong that the body should be hidden far away and his identity to be destroyed? I still haven't had the answer.

MS GABRIEL: Prior to today, were you ever contacted, apart from the TRC people, were you contacted by du Preez and Wasserman? Have they ever spoken to you about your son?

MRS NINELA: Till today, till this present second, they have never approached anybody of the family, any member of the family, till this second.

MS GABRIEL: Do you have any message for them?

MRS NINELA: There's something I would like to ask from them. What is it that they did that makes them to ask for amnesty? What is it that they did that makes them to ask for amnesty, because according to what they said, what they did is not wrong, was not wrong. What is it that they did that makes them to ask for an amnesty?

MS GABRIEL: Mrs Ninela, at the time of his death, did Blessing have any dependants?

MRS NINELA: Blessing had a son who was born in 1985, October 19th, who can never identify his father. Who's father was never sick, but was killed. Whenever he hears about his father's death, he cries and that is why he is not in this house today. We had a fear of what would happen, might happen to him if he hears all the details of what was done to his father.

MS GABRIEL: So having sat here today and having heard the explanation of your son's death, are you happy with what you have learned today?

MRS NINELA: I am not happy because I don't feel what I have been told is true and I don't feel that everything that happened to my son has been revealed. What makes me not feel that way? Still today, because he is no more alive and the Andy Taylor who is to carry all the blame because he is no more alive, those who are alive are so innocent. They tell us that they found a limpet mine with him, telling clear lies. How can I believe what they're saying is true? How can anybody believe what they are telling is true? It's very hard. I know they had all the powers to do what they can, because even now they still have those powers to do what they like to anybody and after that they just take it easy and choose nice words to put on the table, knowing what is deep inside is far different from what they are telling. Why should they tell untruth stories if at all they are sorry for what they did, if at all it was Andy Taylor who asked them to do what they did?

Why don't they tell the whole truth?

MS GABRIEL: Part of the evidence led today was that Blessing was involved in terrorist activities. Blessing was involved in planting bombs and in planting explosives. Can you share with the Committee anything about that?

MRS NINELA: I heard that. I have never known it and I have no proof because I didn't see him doing it.

MS GABRIEL: And since the death of Blessing have you discovered more about his life that may lend support to what these men say, to support this belief that he was MK, that he was involved in terrorist activities?

MRS NINELA: No.

MS GABRIEL: Have you spoken to people since then?

MRS NINELA: Even before I discovered that he was no more alive, there is a man who has passed away who, after the ANC people were released, came home. He is a member of the community. I asked him about Blessing. He said he has never seen Blessing. Actually it's two people. I wanted to know the whereabouts of Blessing. I had a hope that Blessing was still alive as somebody told me that he was around and he said he never saw him, so how can I say he was involved, because I wasn't told that he was involved.

MS GABRIEL: So the first time you really hear about everything is today?

MRS NINELA: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: Mrs Ninela, do you have anything to say to the Committee that will be considering these amnesty applications? Do you have any final message for anybody?

MRS NINELA: To my foolish thoughts, I think it's always fair to think for somebody as you would like him or her to think for you, or do a thing that you would like to be done to you and I think no matter who you are, everybody is in an image of God and I don't think even by the law there is anybody who is given power, besides a magistrate and a judge, to kill a person. And I would remind the killers that they did what they wanted to do to their satisfaction and they are still able to do more to satisfy themselves, but after everything has been done, there is a final judgment. There will be a final judgment which cannot be dodged or forged anyhow, which will be standing in front of each and every person who did it. It's disappointing to find out that people who are so reliable to the community can act this way, knowing very well what the law is and what steps to take for anybody who has done anything wrong, we are not told by anybody, but still there should be a proof and a lawful proof. Though I don't know all the details of the law, I have never heard that there is a time when there is somebody told or allowed to kill a person. There are people who kill people because they have killed anyone, but those people have been caught and sentenced for killing people who have done wrong because anybody, it's not anybody that is allowed to take those actions, except the law. I wonder why the killers took this decision, while there was a magistrate and a judge who could deal with Blessing lawfully. On top of that, I wonder why, what has the family done to those killers because it's the first day or time for them to see the family, they don't even know us, but what they did is surprising and hurtful. I'm sure they wouldn't like it done to them, or to anybody who is related to them, but it was so easy and fine to be done to us. Why? Why? Is there a mother who can clap hands and dance about what these killers did to a son? If Blessing was their son, would they like what they did to Blessing to be done to their sons? If any unlawful thing he had done, the law was there to judge him, not to be killed and hidden from the family. While they tell a statement, they don't tell the truth. They tell fibs. The back of the scull was there.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I'm going to object to this. We have given this witness...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You have done nothing. You have done nothing. You have given her nothing. She is allowed to say what she wishes to say.

MRS NINELA: The hands were blown so that the fingerprints could not be available. He couldn't be identified and the face and the ID. and some of his clothing were not there but because God is great there is nothing hidden that will never be exposed by God in His own private ways. Today we know that he was killed and we know the killers, though we don't know all of them, because there are some facts that are hidden here.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all, Ms Gabriel?

MS GABRIEL: Mrs Ninela, do you have anything else?

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished?

MRS NINELA: I'm trying to think.

CHAIRPERSON: Take your time.

MRS NINELA: What I think is, if the law could take the lawful steps, the law must take its steps lawfully to the killers and if there was a way, I wish they could tell more truth, not the lies they have been telling.

CHAIRPERSON: They have told you the truth that they've killed your son. That's the ultimate truth, isn't it?

MRS NINELA: Is it true for them to say that when they got him he had a limpet mine?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we've dealt with that part of the evidence.

MRS NINELA: But is it true?

CHAIRPERSON: There has been some evidence that there was no limpet mine on him.

MRS NINELA: But is it true?

CHAIRPERSON: That is, the Committee will decide that when it's heard all the evidence.

MS GABRIEL: Some say that there was and some say that there wasn't, they will decide that.

MRS NINELA: Is it true that his hands were put at the back of his head? Is that true? Most unfortunately they did all what they did and thought to hide the body away but because God is there they didn't know that we will finally come across the remains of his body. If the hands were at his back of the head, they would be there, we would find some fingers of the hands, still there. The hands were blown off. They were in front with the face.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we must try and concentrate on the essentials. Try and avoid repeating what has been said. I understand you agony and your pain, but we have to try and hear this application in accordance with the law as we understand it. Now, I don't want to stop you, but I would like to appeal to you not to repeat the same points in a different way.

MRS NINELA: If you could be me you'd be bursting in tears now. I'm trying to hold them back.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MRS NINELA: Nothing is coming to my mind.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chairman, that is the end of Mrs Ninela's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Gabriel, the Committee is of the view that questioning of the mother of the deceased by the applicants, if there is going to be any, will take place tomorrow morning. Will she be available?

MS GABRIEL: Mrs Ninela, will you be here tomorrow?

Yes, she will be available.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser I think because of the hour of the day, it might be appropriate not to start at this stage for various reasons.

MR VISSER: Just so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you likely to call other evidence Ms Gabriel?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair the adjournment will give me an opportunity to reassess our situation. We had initially planned to call a fairly large number of witnesses. This is something I would need to take instructions from the family.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, very well and we will adjourn now and resume at half past nine tomorrow morning. Will you convey that to those that you wish to call, that we will commence at half past nine tomorrow morning? The Committee will adjourn.

MS GABRIEL: Thank you Mr Chair.