CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, I see that you've moved, I take it you are now going to lead a witness.

MR JANSEN: Yes, indeed. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I call Mr Ras to testify in his own application.

MR SIBANYONI: Afrikaans or English speaking?

MR RAS: Afrikaans.

MR SIBANYONI: For the purposes of the hearing, your full names?

MARTHINUS DAWID RAS: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: He has been sworn in, Chairperson.

EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Ras, in July 1989, you were a Warrant Officer stationed at the C1 Unit in Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: Now you are applying for accessory to the murder or the assault of Mr Moses Ntehelang, is that correct?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: And your application in this regard appears from page 168 and further in the documents which have been placed before the Committee, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct.

MR JANSEN: With regard to your personal background and your general political motives, is it correct that this is embodied within the first section of that application of yours and this leads up to page 173?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you confirm the correctness thereof.

MR RAS: Yes, I confirm this.

MR JANSEN: Furthermore, you are also aware that there was a special hearing during which Mr de Kock gave evidence regarding Vlakplaas in general.

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: And you wish that that evidence be incorporated with your application.

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: The incident of July 1989 was preceded by a deployment of Vlakplaas members at the Swaziland border.

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Were you a member of that deployment?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Did you travel back with the other members?

MR RAS: No, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you return before them?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson. I cannot recall specifically who I had to go and see at that point. If I recall correctly, I think it was someone in Middelburg and I would have arrived back at the farm at a later stage.

MR JANSEN: Were you at any stage with the other members when they consumed alcohol in Middelburg?

MR RAS: No.

MR JANSEN: Can you recall at what time you returned to the farm that evening?

MR RAS: Approximately 6 o'clock or 18H00 that evening, if I recall correctly.

MR JANSEN: Were you completely sober at that stage?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: What can you recall about that stage?

MR RAS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly, I stopped at the back of the canteen on the right-hand side and Mr de Kock was standing outside the canteen and when I stopped he walked over to me and told me that they had problems because one of the askaris had been killed during interrogation.

He simply told me that the person had lost his firearm, but that it was also about the fact that this person had been suspected for quite some time of performing a double role on the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry before you go on, it's a matter I should have raised yesterday. The canteen at Vlakplaas was a separate building wasn't it?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And my recollection is that it was a very comfortably furnished building, it had couches, easy chairs and I am told that there was a shelving at one stage where the liquor was stored, but that was not there when we had an inspection. Is that correct?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson. At a later stage the canteen was altered, but I cannot remember any easy chairs at that stage. There were bar stools, perhaps there were one or two ordinary chairs within the room, but the canteen was there.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was a completely separate building.

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: It would also appear from the previous evidence regarding Vlakplaas, that in 1989 Vlakplaas was quite a reasonably large set-up, there were approximately a hundred members or more who were stationed there.

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Did you know Mr Ntehelang?

MR RAS: Chairperson, I knew him because he was a member of the farm, but I didn't work with him and he didn't work with me. I didn't know him very well.

MR JANSEN: I think you have given evidence about this previously, but where did you and your group work primarily?

MR RAS: Primarily in the Western Transvaal Chairperson, Western Transvaal/Botswana area.

MR JANSEN: And he was not a member of your group?

MR RAS: No.

MR JANSEN: So when Mr de Kock told you that there were problems, that Mr Ntehelang had died during interrogation, was there any way in which you could verify whether that which Mr de Kock was telling you was correct or incorrect?

MR RAS: No.

MR JANSEN: What was Mr de Kock's request to you then, in what way were you supposed to assist?

MR RAS: We had to bury the person at a place.

MR JANSEN: And on page 175 of the documents, if you will just look at that, you provide a list of names of those persons who were apparently involved or who were present on the farm. There are certain amendments that you wish to make with regard to that, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Would you then submit these amendments to the Committee.

MR RAS: Chairperson, when I made the statement I was one of the first who made a statement with the investigating team and I cannot recall specifically. At that stage persons entered my memory and I may have been mistaken regarding Snor Vermeulen, Dawid Britz, Blackie Swart and Sakkie Morkel. The reason why they were in my memory at that stage could be because their names were mentioned at a certain point, but I cannot recall the exact reason.

MR JANSEN: Perhaps there were suggestions which were made to you at that stage.

MR RAS: That is possible.

MR JANSEN: But the names of the other persons running from I to VII, do you at this point have an independent recollection that they were present on the farm?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct, because some of those persons also accompanied me on the evening when we went to bury the person.

MR JANSEN: Very well. Now when the request came to you to assist with the disposal of the body, what were your suggestions in this regard?

MR RAS: Chairperson, that we should go and bury him on a farm in the Western Transvaal where I knew of another person who will appear before the Amnesty Committee ...(intervention)

MR JANSEN: That is another incident for which you have also requested amnesty?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: And that incident took place some time before this incident.

MR RAS: That is correct, it is also a person who was marked as a double-agent and who we had to eliminate and bury there.

MR JANSEN: Just to mention this briefly, the incident was also about an askari, but he was not connected to Vlakplaas, he worked for the Bophuthatswana Police.

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Just to ensure, at the stage when you were approached by Mr de Kock, Mr Ntehelang was already dead.

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: You had no knowledge of any of the events with regard to Mr Ntehelang, which preceded that moment.

MR RAS: Correct.

MR JANSEN: Then just furthermore, for the purposes of the Committee, in 1996, in mid-1996 you made contact ...(intervention)

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR JANSEN: Sorry, Mr Chairman, if I could just repeat.

Mr Ras, in mid-1996 you established contact with a Mr McAdam, Adv McAdam, who was at that stage connected to the TRC, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct, it was after the conviction at Motherwell.

MR JANSEN: And you then made all your statements which are the subject of your amnesty applications and you made these statements to him.

MR RAS: That is correct. I must just mention that at that stage when the Motherwell incident was taking place, the TRC was not yet established and after the conviction the TRC had been established, upon which I approached Mr McAdam for the sake of statements which I was to make in support of my amnesty applications.

MR JANSEN: But part of the process of making those statements was that you had to identify certain places or points for the Special Investigative Team of the Attorney-General at that stage.

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Now with specific reference to Mr Ntehelang's body, did you identify this place for that investigating team?

MR RAS: That is correct, he was buried with the other person, but as a result of the fact - and I'm inferring here, that Mr Ntehelang was buried in quite a shallow grave, animals may have dug his body up and I must just say that at the place where I pointed out his grave, the dogs registered and they lay down and this is another inference that I'm drawing, that the dogs as a result of body fluids which may still have remained in the soil, reacted to this place, but we didn't find any body. However I did find the body of the other person who had been buried there. He was identified and his body was exhumed.

MR JANSEN: In other words, what you are saying is that the body of the other victim was exhumed, but with regard to this particular incident it would appear that you pointed out the correct place but that the body was no longer there?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: And what you did, did you do this in order to cover up the concealment of Mr Ntehelang's body and the preceding events and did you regard this as an action which you executed under the order of Mr de Kock?

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Did you receive any money for this incident?

MR RAS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you go on, were you there when the body was buried?

MR RAS: Yes, Chairperson, I myself assisted in digging the grave.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we have been told that he was buried in a warthog's ...(intervention)

MR RAS: No, Chairperson, I know the place very well and I know that I myself helped with the digging of the grave. It was not in a warthog hole.

CHAIRPERSON: That's point one. The second point is we were told that after the body was buried a fire was lit on it, an attempt was made to burn it - well before it was buried an attempt was made to burn it.

MR RAS: Chairperson, this is quite a long time ago, I cannot say immediately that we did this or that we didn't do this. With my first body that I buried we did do so, but with this one I cannot recall that we did that.

CHAIRPERSON: But you did try to burn the first body?

MR RAS: No, we did burn the first one, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And we were also told, or it was said in one of the statements that thereafter stones were put on top of the body.

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson. The reason for that being to prevent that animals dig up the body, but I must say that there were quite a few hyenas in the environment and such a type of animal would still be able to find the body of a person or any other items which may be buried, even though they are covered by stones.

MR JANSEN: The reason for the burning of a body would be to complicate the identification of such a body, is that correct?

MR RAS: Yes, that would be one of the reasons and then of course the second reason is simply to assist with the speedy decomposition of the body.

MR JANSEN: You did not act out of any personal malice of revenge against Mr Ntehelang, with regard to the incident?

MR RAS: No.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's all questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record.

Mr Ras, just singular questions. How far is this farm situated away from Vlakplaas? What I mean by that is, how long did you travel? Just by approximation.

MR RAS: About 280/285 kilometres away from the farm.

MR HATTINGH: Three hours drive?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So it would have been quite late at night when you arrived there?

MR RAS: Well we arrived there - we arrived back when it was dawn, at approximately 7 o'clock.

MR HATTINGH: But when you arrived there it would have been in the early morning hours?

MR RAS: No, it was about 10 or 11 o'clock, because I cannot recall whether we woke the farmer up and told him that we were going camping, in order to formulate an excuse and that's why we needed a spade.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Mr de Kock did not give evidence about this because at that stage it was not under discussion, but his instructions to me are that it is his recollection that you placed dry wood on the body and attempted to set it alight, but that you could not kindle the fire and you didn't want to spend anymore time there and that is why you covered the body with soil and stones and so forth and departed.

MR RAS: I cannot recall that specifically, as I have just testified, it may be. I know with the first body specifically, I set the body alight because I spent time on doing that, but with the second body I cannot recall specifically what I did. I don't know, perhaps I'm thinking of the first body, I don't wish to make any expressed statements about it.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was with you when you burnt the first body?

MR RAS: Chairperson, it was me and Dave Baker.

CHAIRPERSON: So none of the other people who gave evidence to us were there when the first body was burnt?

MR RAS: Chairperson, with the first incident, as I will testify at a later stage, it was just me and Mr Baker who were involved and I was the only one who shot the person as well.

CHAIRPERSON: ... don't want details of the offence at this stage, it's merely that we have heard a lot of evidence as to how drunk most of the people were and it would be comparatively easy to imagine confusion if they had been there on some other occasion and done something else, but you say none of the others were there.

MR RAS: No, it was only me and Baker.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: No questions, Mr Chairman.

MR ROSSOUW: Rossouw, Mr Chairman, I have also no questions.

MR BOTHA: Botha, Mr Chairman, no questions.

MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius, Mr Chairman, no questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: If I remember well, someone said you were called to assist in finding the place where the body should be buried because you knew the farmer, is that so?

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson. I would just like to elaborate on this for you. I knew the farmers in the environment, I grew up in that vicinity and I knew that the farmer had two farms, one of which he did not live on. So I knew if I stopped at that time on his farm, he would not be on the other farm and he wouldn't know that I had gone there.

MR SIBANYONI: And did the farmer know that you were burying people on his farm?

MR RAS: No, Chairperson.

MR SIBANYONI: What excuse did you give for the first incident?

MR RAS: Chairperson, I didn't. On the previous occasion I simply told him, if I recall correctly, that we wanted to go hunting and he had very frequently offered me the opportunity to go hunting or just to go relaxing on his farm, and he didn't know about it. But at a later stage I will give evidence about the other incident. With this particular incident I knew that on that evening if he was at home he would not be on the other farm because they were quite far apart, reasonably far, such as 10 kilometres. It was quite a remote farm.

MR SIBANYONI: I learn you've applied for amnesty, what is the name of the victim in that first incident?

MR RAS: Chairperson, I don't know, I think it's a PAC member. I don't even recall the name of this person. It was a PAC member that they gave to me, they said he was a double-agent, that I was to eliminate him and get rid of the body, which I then did. But I will later elaborate on that matter.

MR SIBANYONI: No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: How far apart were the two bodies buried?

MR RAS: Chairperson, five metres, next to each other.

CHAIRPERSON: And how long before had the first body been buried?

MR RAS: A few months, it wasn't quite a long time before this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were able to take the Attorney-General's representatives to there, show them and they dug up the remains of the first body.

MR RAS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you show them - were you certain as to where the second body was buried?

MR RAS: Chairperson, I must just mention that among others, I fetched three trunks of weapons which had been buried in the veld there. I grew up in that area and I knew it very well, so I was able to take them to these points. I took the first person directly to the one body and directly to the next. The first one we dug up directly, but with the second the dogs responded, but we didn't find anything in the place where he was buried.

CHAIRPERSON: So somebody or something had removed the body completely?

MR RAS: Chairperson, that was the only inference that I could draw. I cannot think of any other reason, because we didn't only go to that point, we went in an area that was about a five metre radius from that point and we didn't find anything else.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't find bones and things that one would have thought would have been left by hyenas ...(indistinct)?

MR RAS: Chairperson, not very easily after 10 years. I must just say that this was on a river bank, the river would flow down once or twice a year. If there were bones in the river area ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No if it wasn't covered they would have been found, yes - they would have disappeared.

MR RAS: Disappeared.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Sorry, re-examination?

MR JANSEN: No re-examination, thanks, Mr Chairman.

MR RAS: Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, the next witness will be Mr Bosch.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Bosch, will you place your full names on record.

ISAK DANIEL BOSCH: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Sworn in, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairperson, you'll find the application of Mr Bosch on page 78 and further or the bundle. The relevant section dealing with this incident is on page 93 and further, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Before we go on. Going back to the previous applicant ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR JANSEN: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(no microphone)

MR JANSEN: Yes, sorry, I omitted to deal with that in evidence, Mr Chairman. That's the statement he made to the Special Investigative Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bosch, you are an applicant in these proceedings and your amnesty application appears on page 78 and following. Do you confirm that that is your application form?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And do you confirm the contents of it?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And it is your signature on page 84 thereof.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, you have also added an annexure to your amnesty application, which appears on pages 85 to 90, is that an extract which was made from the incidents which you were involved in, which is attached to your amnesty application?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And your amnesty application was supplemented, is that the supplementary section which appears from page 91 and following?

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: May I take you to page 93. You apply for amnesty as an accomplice, murder or culpable manslaughter of Moses Ntehelang.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: You have heard the evidence here that before this incident there had been an operation in the Eastern Transvaal. Were you involved there?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I was.

MR ROSSOUW: You returned with the other members of Vlakplaas back to Vlakplaas.

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you consume liquor on the way back?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR ROSSOUW: When you arrived at Vlakplaas, did you consume liquor in the canteen?

MR BOSCH: No, I did not.

MR ROSSOUW: You have heard evidence from the other applicants that you consumed less liquor than any of the other applicants. What do you say of that?

MR BOSCH: He may be mistaken because I do not drink at all.

MR ROSSOUW: Now Mr Bosch, that particular evening, will you please tell the Committee where were you with regard to the canteen, were you inside or outside when Mr Ntehelang arrived at the canteen?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I and other members stood outside and held conversations. There was a braai area and we were standing out there and Ntehelang and Steven, one of the camp guards came there and he said something to the effect that his firearm had been lost.

MR ROSSOUW: And did he say what he wanted to do?

MR BOSCH: He said he wanted to speak to the Major.

MR ROSSOUW: Did he go into the canteen then?

MR BOSCH: Yes, he did.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you accompany him inside?

MR BOSCH: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this Steven who came and said this?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, yes Sir.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, maybe we should go back to that. Did Ntehelang arrive with Steven at the canteen?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is where I was standing. I was standing outside the canteen and Steven and - they came there.

MR ROSSOUW: Which of the two said that he lost his firearm?

MR BOSCH: I think the camp guard first spoke about it and then Ntehelang said that he had lost his firearm.

MR ROSSOUW: So you say you did not go along with them into the canteen, but at a later stage you went there.

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And can you tell the Committee what you saw.

MR BOSCH: When I entered I saw Maj de Kock with the pool cue and he hit Simon, or Moses.

MR ROSSOUW: What did you do then?

MR BOSCH: I turned around.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you recall where you went to?

MR BOSCH: Probably outside to the braai area.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you see any other members from Vlakplaas coming out of the canteen?

MR BOSCH: Yes, there was some movement, people were walking in and out at that stage.

MR ROSSOUW: Except for - at that stage, except for the assault of Mr de Kock on Mr Ntehelang, did you see any other members from Vlakplaas who assaulted Mr Ntehelang?

MR BOSCH: I saw Piet Botha and Brood van Heerden were suffocating him with a rubber tube.

MR ROSSOUW: That is later when you returned again?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And what did you do when you saw them tubing Mr Ntehelang?

MR BOSCH: I cannot recall whether it was then or at a later stage, but Mr Hugh Lugg who was sitting there, who was also an askari, I took him outside so that he should not see what was going on.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you return at some stage?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you find certain persons outside the canteen?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I found Col de Kock outside.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you speak to him?

MR BOSCH: Yes, he told me to get the kettle boiling.

MR ROSSOUW: And what did you do then?

MR BOSCH: I went back to the kitchen and I switched on the kettle and waited for it to boil.

MR ROSSOUW: And what happened?

MR BOSCH: It didn't boil.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you report that to Mr de Kock?

MR BOSCH: I walked back to him and told him that the kettle was not boiling.

MR ROSSOUW: Was he outside?

MR BOSCH: Yes, he was.

MR ROSSOUW: Could you see what was going on inside at the canteen?

MR BOSCH: At that stage I saw Mr Ntehelang was wrapped up in a blanket with a rope as well.

MR ROSSOUW: You have heard the evidence of Mr Flores, that he said he asked you to collect the blanket and the rope, what is your recollection?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I cannot recall that. It may be so, but I cannot recall that at all.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. The reason why he asked you, he said that you were part of the Technical Division at Vlakplaas, what were your duties in this Technical Division?

MR BOSCH: Photography, bugging, video material.

MR ROSSOUW: You were not in control of the blankets or sheets?

MR BOSCH: There were many beds at Vlakplaas, Chairperson, so - "baie nagte het ons daar geslaap, so jy kon net 'n kombers van 'n bed afgehaal het as jy moes".

MR ROSSOUW: Did you see what happened further with the body that was wrapped up in the blanket?

MR BOSCH: At a later stage I saw them loading it into a vehicle's boot.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you participate in any assault of Ntehelang?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you see when he died, or did you see how it happened?

MR BOSCH: No, I did not see how he died.

MR ROSSOUW: So you cannot say who were the persons who were responsible for this?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: There was no plan that Mr Ntehelang would be killed.

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, this particular day when you were on Vlakplaas, under whose command were you?

MR BOSCH: Under Col de Kock's.

MR ROSSOUW: And what was your rank at that stage?

MR BOSCH: I was a Sergeant.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you have instructions to remain at Vlakplaas after you returned from the Eastern Transvaal?

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And where did that instruction come from?

MR BOSCH: From Maj de Kock.

MR ROSSOUW: So you could not go home?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. Mr Bosch, you then request amnesty and you mention in your statement on page 96, that the assault that had taken place on Vlakplaas on the person such as Mr Ntehelang, was to obtain information and in this instance, to find out where his firearm was. Do you confirm that?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I do, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you receive any reward?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR ROSSOUW: And in this incident, to remain silent?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you report to anyone that a person had died at Vlakplaas and that his body had been removed from there?

MR BOSCH: No, I did not, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And the fact that you remained silent about it, have you heard the evidence of Mr de Kock, that the reason why the body was disposed of was to protect the identity of Vlakplaas and that it not be exposed to investigations?

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you agree with that?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I agree.

MR ROSSOUW: And do you confirm it as such?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I do.

MR ROSSOUW: And the fact that you remain silent and did not report it to anyone, or did not stop the assaults, did you do this out of any malicious intent towards Mr Ntehelang?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Were you in a position to stop the assault on him?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you influenced in your decision not to report to anyone by what you thought Mr de Kock's reaction might be?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, at that stage I don't one thinks that far to make a plan to go and report it, what you saw was in by the one ear and out by the other ear.

CHAIRPERSON: The next day, the next week, the next month?

MR BOSCH: No, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you influenced by the fact that you were merely a Sergeant at Vlakplaas and that you might come into a great deal of trouble if you reported?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I would have become - there would have been a lot of trouble, I cannot do it, ja.

CHAIRPERSON: So you - ja, there was this feeling at Vlakplaas.

MR BOSCH: Ja.

CHAIRPERSON: You couldn't tell tales.

MR BOSCH: No, Sir.

ADV SANDI: Can you just explain something. After this incident those of you who were involved in it directly and indirectly, did you have any discussion amongst yourselves about

what had happened?

MR BOSCH: No, Sir, we will not discuss it.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record.

Mr Bosch, were you here yesterday when Maj de Kock gave evidence?

MR BOSCH: Not in the morning, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: His evidence was among others, to the effect that bugging took place of telephone discussions with which Vlakplaas members were involved.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The bugging devices were in your offices, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you were in control of it.

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And it was a small cement close to the other huts.

MR BOSCH: No, it was an old garage next to the cement hut.

MR HATTINGH: And is it correct that the telephone conversations which were listened in on were recorded on tape.

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that some of the other members of Vlakplaas later, more particular the members who were proficient in the black language were told to listen to it.

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was it because the askaris could not be entirely trusted?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, and I would like to add, Chairperson, we had two coin telephones installed and we limited them to those coin telephones because it was easier to tap those telephones.

MR HATTINGH: So it was at those two coin telephones that the tapping devices were attached, is that correct?

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in your office where tapping had taken place on other conversations? I'm thinking about the Dirk Coetzee incident now. Were there tapes ...(intervention)

MR BOSCH: Yes, there were tapes, but the tapping was not done from my office.

MR HATTINGH: And the people who had to listen to the tapes came there.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you and the members who were involved there report to Mr de Kock with regard to information which you had obtained by listening to these tapes?

MR BOSCH: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

ADV SANDI: Sorry, who were those of you who were proficient in the African languages?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, what happened was the tapes were made and then it was given to the black policemen on the farm. There was a certain group who listened to it, they would listen to it and transcribe it.

ADV SANDI: We heard yesterday that Mr van Heerden was known to be quite proficient in the languages that were being spoken by the askaris. Do you know about that?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Was it part of the arrangement that Mr van Heerden, being so proficient with some of the languages the askaris were speaking, was he one of the people who would go and convey whatever information he would gather on the conversations that they were having amongst themselves?

MR BOSCH: No, Chairperson, he did not listen at all.

MR BOOYENS: No questions, Mr Chairman.

MR BOTHA: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius for the record, no questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR JANSEN: Jansen, Mr Chairman, no questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: You said Steven came and then thereafter Ntehelang the deceased, went into the canteen. Did Steven accompany him into the canteen?

MR BOSCH: No, Sir he did not accompany him to the canteen.

MR SIBANYONI: And then you said you saw when de Kock assaulted Ntehelang with the snooker stick, were you inside the canteen or outside?

MR BOSCH: The canteen has got a very wide door, it's a sliding door, so when you stand on the stoep just before you go into the canteen, then you can see right inside the canteen, you can see everything that's going on in the canteen. So you don't have to enter, you can see it from the stoep outside.

MR SIBANYONI: So you were able to observe Ntehelang getting inside and de Kock assaulting him?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Sir. By the time I was standing outside and Ntehelang went into the canteen, then he disappeared out of my sight because I was standing far away, but when I moved towards the door of the canteen I could see Mr de Kock hitting him with the snooker cue.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it immediately after Ntehelang entered the canteen or it took some time?

MR BOSCH: No, Sir, it was a few minutes after that.

MR SIBANYONI: How long approximately?

MR BOSCH: Five minutes. - if five minutes, but I did not take the time, but it was not immediately.

MR SIBANYONI: Did Ntehelang directly go to Mr de Kock or he spoke to any other policemen who were inside there?

MR BOSCH: Sir, I did not see that, I just saw - when I went to the door of the canteen I just Mr de Kock with the snooker cue in his hand and hitting him.

CHAIRPERSON: Before then, when he came with Steven, did they talk to anybody else outside?

MR BOSCH: Ja, they talked to me and - I don't want to name names, but I think it was Bellingan who was standing with me outside. We were standing outside and then the two of them came to us and then Steven went back and Ntehelang went in.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you see Mr Flores talking to Ntehelang?

MR BOSCH: Not at that stage, no Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you observe, from the time Mr de Kock hit Ntehelang with the snooker stick until Ntehelang was on the floor and de Kock moved out?

MR BOSCH: No, Sir. When I saw Mr de Kock hitting him with the snooker cue, I turned around and I walked away. So there was blank pieces that I did not see.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that because you didn't want to have anything to do with this assault?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you see any money which was found in Ntehelang's possession?

MR BOSCH: No, Sir.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, no further questions, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Did you hear anything about money have been found in his possession?

MR BOSCH: I think somebody mentioned it yesterday, Sir, but up to now I haven't heard anything about that.

ADV SANDI: It was the first time that you heard yesterday?

MR BOSCH: Yesterday, ja.

ADV SANDI: Is it the position here that Mr de Kock is the only person you saw hitting the deceased?

MR BOSCH: No, Sir, I said in my ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Assaulting or hitting?

ADV SANDI: Assaulting.

MR BOSCH: No, I said Mr de Kock was hitting him with the pool cue and then afterwards when I went back to the canteen, I saw van Heerden and Botha busy strangling him, tubing him.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you at any stage notice blood on the deceased?

MR BOSCH: No, Sir, no I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------MR BOOYENS: Booyens on record, Mr Chairman, I call Mr Dave Baker.

MR SIBANYONI: Afrikaans or English speaking?

MR BAKER: English, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Can you put your names on record.

ADRIAN DAVID BAKER: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Sworn in, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I've got available - unfortunately at one stage my attorney has handed to the Members of the Amnesty Committee, the Witness Protection Unit, copies of Schedule 7 and the ones that the Committee has got has got a few typographical errors in it. The content is substantially the same, I've just got some improved copies of Schedule 7, which appears at page 254, available. May I ask leave to hand that up. We'll make them available to my colleagues as well.

Mr Baker, the body of your amnesty application, including the initial hand-written copy, starts at page 231 of the volume, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: And then subsequent to that, from page 238 it basically just sets out your history, your beliefs etc., etc., is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: And also at page 252, the broader political objectives etc., is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Do you confirm that as being correct?

MR BAKER: I do so, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Now take Schedule 7 of the improved document in front of you. We are dealing with the death of Mr Moses Ntehelang, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: In giving the details you tell the Committee about an operation in Swaziland where all the white members have been to and this operation did not succeed, you didn't get what you wanted, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: We have heard that the members then drove back, shall we call it "pub-crawling", stopping at various places and having some drinks, would you confirm that? It's not in the document here.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. And on your return to Vlakplaas, the members went into the canteen, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: At some stage when you were in the canteen, what did you observe, Mr Baker?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, I observed - the deceased came in and went to speak to Col de Kock inside the canteen, where he and some of the other members were. I then heard some raised voices and the assault on the deceased commenced. I was not aware of the reason for the assault at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: I see. And what did you do, Mr Baker?

MR BAKER: When the assault commenced I did not have anything to do with what was happening and I walked out of the canteen.

MR BOOYENS: Did you see anybody else outside?

MR BAKER: Outside I noticed Capt Bellingan, who had also been in the canteen earlier, outside the canteen.

MR BOOYENS: Now did you at all return to the canteen that evening?

MR BAKER: No, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Did you go home then? Mr Baker, I think you have said it already, but why did you walk out of the canteen at that stage?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, we'd all been drinking and I didn't feel that the canteen was the place ...(indistinct) the time to question people.

MR BOOYENS: I see. So you didn't want to have anything to do with what was going on?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: What you saw commencing was an assault, somebody was being hit, why didn't you interfere, why didn't you go and speak to the people?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, I don't think it was in my place to interfere at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: And at that stage obviously, you didn't know that this would result in the death of the man, is that correct? When you walked out.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Now subsequently you heard that the deceased had died, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: You also heard that Mr Ras had taken the body away.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Now this is not mentioned in your application, but during consultations with me, did I mention to you that Mr de Kock mentioned yesterday that he instructed you to open a missing persons file, something of that nature?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman, when it was mentioned to me it was my recollection that I had to do that.

MR BOOYENS: At the time when you were giving your attorney instructions about the drafting of this, or did that slip your memory?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: And now Mr Baker, you also had a duty as a policeman, at least theoretically, to (a) prevent crime and to (b) report crimes that came to your knowledge. In this instance you did not do so, why not?

MR BAKER: That's correct, Mr Chairman. There was a perceived fear amongst us that anybody who spoke of irregularities at the farm, might endanger their own life in the process.

MR BOOYENS: And in any case, if this matter was reported and so on - we heard from Mr de Kock yesterday, that even if reported, the probabilities were that it would have been covered up. Do you agree with that?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: And even if - but assuming the theoretical possibility that an investigation did get off the ground, what would the effect of that have been on the entire Vlakplaas operation? Let's say the Moses Ntehelang thing went through the regular channels like it was supposed to and it ended up in a court of law as a murder/culpable homicide case, what would the effect of that have been in your opinion?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, Vlakplaas operations would have come to an end and the role which we were playing in the furtherance of State security would have been terminated and we felt that this would have fell into the hands of the ANC, because this Counter-Insurgency Unit at that stage was one of the best in the country.

MR BOOYENS: Would it also be correct, Mr Baker, to say that this was a general attitude about not talking about what happens at Vlakplaas, it wasn't only pertaining to this incident. Vlakplaas - Mr de Kock said yesterday the tradition was, Vlakplaas members were simply not expected to talk about what happens at Vlakplaas, incidents that happened at Vlakplaas and so on. This was a sort of a general rule, you just don't talk and you don't report if any irregularities happen.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't it go a lot wider than that, Mr Baker? We have heard so much evidence about operations by Vlakplaas all over the country, totally illegal operations, assassinations, murders and Vlakplaas never talked, they thought this was their duty, they were performing their duty to safeguard the country and although they knew as policemen, that a lot of the things they were doing were illegal, it was part of their function and you didn't report anything. It wasn't just incidents at Vlakplaas you didn't report.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman, we didn't talk about anything that Vlakplaas Unit did as a whole.

MR BOOYENS: And do you confirm the balance of your amnesty application, the rest of your amnesty application?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible). Right.

ADV SANDI: Mr Baker had finished his evidence-in-chief, not so?

MR BOOYENS: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: I think I've got to commence cross-examination, Mr Chairman. Hattingh on record.

Mr Baker, you were second-in-command at Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And what was your rank at the time of this incident?

MR BAKER: I was a Captain, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Now you heard the evidence of Mr Bosch, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: That you had a counter-intelligence ability at Vlakplaas.

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And was he in charge of that?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Why in your opinion, was that necessary, Mr Baker?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, we were working with people who had turned from their previous ideologies, there's always the perceived and real problem of them turning again and we had to monitor their progress to see that they were not busy playing double roles, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Now did the information that was picked up - well we heard Mr Bosch's evidence that they installed listening devices at the two telephones that were used by the askaris, is that correct?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: And did you have access to those recordings, did you listen to them?

MR BAKER: No, Mr Chairman, I did not listen to them.

MR HATTINGH: And did you read the transcripts, the translated transcripts?

MR BAKER: On occasion, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. As far as Mr Ntehelang is concerned, had you received any information about the possibility that he might have been in the process of changing allegiance?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman, we were starting we disciplinary problems with him, at times he wouldn't turn up for work.

CHAIRPERSON: Did that indicate that he was changing or that he was just losing interest?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, I think at that stage his disciplinary problems - he was well disciplined initially and this was contrary to his normal behaviour, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Were you ever a group leader of groups of askaris that were sent out into various regions?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, I usually used to go and visit the groups, I was never myself a group leader.

MR HATTINGH: Right. So you didn't have as much personal contact with the askaris as the group leaders did?

MR BAKER: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

MR ROSSOUW: I have no questions, Mr Chairman.

MR BOTHA: Botha, Mr Chairman, I've got no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius, Mr Chairman, just two questions.

Mr Baker, when you drew this second supplement, was it just to make it easier or were there certain amendments made to your original amnesty application?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, there were just spelling errors and that type of thing.

MR CORNELIUS: Now I refer you to page 255 of your original amnesty application. In the second paragraph you say:

Do you see that?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: But I note on the application you handed in, on page 18 you omit saying:

MR BAKER: That's correct, Mr Chairman, that was just a ...

MR CORNELIUS: Did he go and fetch anything in his car or don't you know?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, I'm not sure, I think he left at that stage, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Because there's evidence earlier on that Mr Bellingan had fetched the tube which was used to tube Mr Ntehelang.

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, I don't know anything about that.

MR CORNELIUS: I see. Thank you, Mr Chair.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chair. Jansen on record, no questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: When did you eventually leave Vlakplaas on that night?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, my recollection is when I left the canteen. I think I had left just after that.

MR SIBANYONI: Approximately what was the time?

MR BAKER: I'm not sure, Mr Chairman, I have no recollection of the time that this incident happened.

MR SIBANYONI: Did you leave alone or were there any members of Vlakplaas who also left?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, I left in my own vehicle.

MR CORNELIUS: At what stage - where was the deceased by that time when you left the farm?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, when I left the canteen he was still in the canteen.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, no further questions.

ADV SANDI: Did you know anything about the family of the deceased?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, as far as I can recollect his family stayed somewhere in the Kuruman area.

ADV SANDI: Did you personally have any contact with them?

MR BAKER: No, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if anyone within the ranks of the Security Police was in contact with the family, the mother for example?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, as far as I can recall, the members stationed at Kuruman Security Branch had contact with the family.

ADV SANDI: Did you have contact with the Security Police at Kuruman?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any reason why you didn't go home earlier?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman, we were sitting drinking in the canteen at that stage and as far as I can recall, we'd all been told to stay on the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Who by?

MR BAKER: By Col de Kock, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: So as far as you can recall, Col de Kock had told you all to stay on the farm, that is after your return from a three day expedition to Swaziland and the Eastern Transvaal?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he give any reason?

MR BAKER: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why you didn't go home?

MR BAKER: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: When you - at the moment you left, did you tell him that you're now leaving?

MR BAKER: No, Mr Chairman, I went out of the canteen and then I went to my car and left.

MR SIBANYONI: How did you know that you could then leave?

MR BAKER: Could you please repeat that?

MR SIBANYONI: How did you know that it was then time for you, that you can then leave? Because previously you had been requested to be on the farm.

MR BAKER: No, I just decided then that I wanted to leave.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: You wanted to get away from this?

MR BAKER: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: As far as you were concerned, this was a totally unjustified incident?

MR BAKER: Mr Chairman yes, I didn't regard it as being the time or the place.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Oh sorry.

MR BOOYENS: No re-examination, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: I call as my next witness, Mr Bellingan.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do that, can I raise one point, which I was going to raise before this witness has now - I meant to ask to recall Mr Ras, because I understand from his statement that he also was told that he must stay at Vlakplaas. And also to recall the witness who gave evidence yesterday, and I'm afraid at the moment I haven't checked his name, who in the course of his evidence said he had a function at home that night and wanted to ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: It is Snyders in fact, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ... that he was told by Mr de Kock not to go. We've now had the third witness on that point. Is it necessary to recall those two applicants or do you gentlemen all accept that that is what they have said in their statements? Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: We're prepared to accept what they said in their statements, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well then, I don't think it will be ...(intervention)

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, if you could just refer me to the exact passage which you're referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: The top of page 265.

MR JANSEN: Ja, that's the statement of Snyders.

CHAIRPERSON: Snyders, yes. And Ras is at - perhaps it wasn't Ras. No, it's not Ras, sorry.

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman, if you were referring to a passage or something, an incident prior or during the assault of Ntehelang, you must remember that Ras was at that stage not there, he only arrived at the farm after the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: After the assault, yes.

MR JANSEN: So it could only have been at that stage and I don't think there's anything to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON: No, this wasn't Ras - well we'll leave it, we've got Snyders.

MR JANSEN: Yes.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Chairperson, was it not Mr Bosch who said he didn't return with the group, but he was told that he should join the group at Vlakplaas?

CHAIRPERSON: No, we'll leave it there.

MR BOOYENS: I call Mr Bellingan, Mr Chair.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Bellingan, English or Afrikaans?

MR BELLINGAN: Afrikaans please.

MR SIBANYONI: Your full names for the purposes of the record.

WILHELM RIAAN BELLINGAN: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you, you may be seated.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, my attorney has placed in front of the Committee, for the same reason as mentioned before, just an better schedule, Schedule 8, which may contain minor amendments and corrections of spelling mistakes.

CHAIRPERSON: Page what is it?

MR BOOYENS: That will be page ...

CHAIRPERSON: 226?

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: 226.

Mr Bellingan, your application commences on page 209 and runs up to and including page 226, or 225 at least. That contains your background which you have given evidence about on previous occasions. Do you request that this, or do you confirm this?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And do you request that this be incorporated with your evidence?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: With regard to this specific incident you have heard the evidence of your colleague, Mr Baker.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And let us begin with the canteen at Vlakplaas and what took place there. Did the deceased come to you?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct. I believe, if I recall correctly, that we stood outside the canteen and that Const Steven Nobela came to us and said that Moses or "Geeletjies" as we called him, had lost his firearm and if I recall correctly, I led him into the canteen and I told him we had to report this to the Major and I took him to Col de Kock, who was in the canteen.

MR BOOYENS: And were then part of the discussion which took place between him and Maj de Kock?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Chairperson, I stood aside. The guys in the bar were playing snooker and darts and they were having drinks, so I basically moved in and around there. I heard a blow and then I saw Mr de Kock hitting him with something, but I cannot recall.

MR BOOYENS: Can you specifically recall a snooker cue?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I can recall that Col de Kock had something in his hands which looked like a snooker cue.

MR BOOYENS: And then what did you do?

MR BELLINGAN: I went outside because I didn't agree with what was happening there, I didn't think that these were the appropriate circumstances. I went and stood outside under the cover near the braai area.

MR BOOYENS: I will put the versions of evidence that have been given by Mr van Heerden to you. He states that you went to fetch an inner tube, with the purpose of tubing the deceased, to use the general term. Is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, I did not fetch the inner tube, I did not participate in the assault, but I did observe that there was some form of assault taking place and I did not go and fetch the inner tube or participate in that assault.

MR BOOYENS: Then the other version is that while Piet Snyders tubed the man, you interrogated him.

MR BELLINGAN: No.

MR BOOYENS: Did you have anything to do with this assault?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I did not have anything to do with the assault of the death.

MR BOOYENS: And at a stage during the assault, you left the room, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: Can you recall whether or not you saw this tubing at all?

MR BELLINGAN: I may have seen it, but I cannot recall today who sat on him or who held the tube over his face, all I know is that they were busy with him there, these members who were involved.

MR BOOYENS: And that is when you left the room.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR BOOYENS: And did you also leave later on?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I didn't leave immediately, but a short while later I moved away on my own.

MR BOOYENS: And Mr Bellingan tell me, did you know that evening whether the man had died and that his body would be taken away or did you only come to hear of this the following morning?

MR BELLINGAN: It may have been that someone told us there that evening that Moses was dead, but I didn't know what they were going to do with the body. The next day there were mutterings among the members and that is when I heard that he had died and that they had gone to bury the body somewhere in the Western Transvaal.

MR BOOYENS: You did not interfere with the assault, you did not attempt to put an end to the assault?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: What was your rank?

MR BELLINGAN: In 1989 I think I was a Warrant Officer.

MR BOOYENS: And you did not report this incident afterwards?

MR BELLINGAN: No.

MR BOOYENS: You have heard your colleague, Mr Baker's answer on a question which was put by the Honourable Chairperson about the tradition that existed at Vlakplaas, this tradition of silence and not saying anything about these incidents?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Do you agree with this?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: So very simply, the attitude was not to talk about anything that took place at Vlakplaas, because this could be detrimental to an operation?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Or even to elaborate, that which Vlakplaas' people were doing.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, there was a policy of in the one ear and out the other, no-one ever spoke about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there another reason? The fact that anyone who spoke about activities at Vlakplaas, their life would be in danger?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson, it was a policy, no-one would speak about it because if you were a member of a unit and you spoke out about it, something could happen to you. But we were all so firmly entrenched in our membership of these groups that no-one spoke about it, we were protecting State interests. It was almost like an oath.

MR BOOYENS: And do you confirm the rest of your application?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct?

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson, that is all.

MR SIBANYONI: Isn't it so that you would not speak about the cross-border operations, the attack on liberation movements and the like, but about an incident like this one, in which you said you had to move out because you didn't think it was justified, was it not possible to tell the Head, Engelbrecht, Brig Schoon or anyone of them?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, it was just a policy, one would never be insubordinate to one's superior. One would see what happened and one might not have agreed or condoned what took place, but it was like a movie that had finished. That was just the way things happened, that was how we were, we would never speak out about it, we would never run to the commander and tell stories, it was finished, it was a closed chapter.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it not possible for you if you felt that this was not justified, to approach Mr de Kock and try to stop him from assaulting the deceased?

MR BELLINGAN: Mr de Kock and I got along very well, although - we spent quite a few years living together and I may have said to him outside "Gee, can't we just relax about this". I may have said something to him, but it was a very emotional moment. This may have happened, but the deed was already done. But I would never have gone to a senior and said "Col Eugene is involved in this and that and he did this and that", that's just the way it was, I was just one of those people who didn't speak about it, when it was over it was over.

MR SIBANYONI: Was it possible for you to intervene on the spot when he was assaulting ...(intervention)

MR BELLINGAN: No, Chairperson, I think that anyone in his right mind would not stick his nose into this kind of business, one would just leave it at that and let nature take its course.

MR SIBANYONI: What was the reason, why not?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot say with clarity. I just never would have interfered in that. Perhaps one was afraid that something might happen to oneself, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: We got the picture here that Mr de Kock apparently lost his temper and hit this man a few times with a cue and then stormed out of the canteen himself and there were no junior officers participating in what appears to have been a prolonged assault on the deceased. Surely you could have interfered in that and told these chaps to cool it?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, I did not interfere. I think at that stage I was already outside as well.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Hattingh on record.

Mr Bellingan, you were a founder-member of Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: In 1981 when the unit was established there for the very first time, you were connected to it.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you served under various commanders at Vlakplaas.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you were closely involved with the askaris who from the very beginning formed part of Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now you have heard the evidence indicating that there was a counter-insurgency capacity which was established at Vlakplaas.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did you know about it?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, because I was a group leader in Col de Kock's time, we group leaders would have been called in by Col de Kock and he would have told us that we would have to monitor some of the members of the liberation movements who had defected to us, or the askaris, because it may happen that seeing as he had turned on his former liberation colleagues, he may turn on us and we were all tasked to monitor our respective groups and to ensure that there weren't any possible double-agents. And also furthermore, double-agents' names were mentioned to me.

MR HATTINGH: You were connected with Vlakplaas from 1981, but you were not there all the time.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, from 1985, for eight months to a year I was at the International Desk.

MR HATTINGH: And while you were there did you experience any such problems that you just mentioned now, with the askaris?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Chairperson, we had a member who left Vlakplaas in the early 80s and went back to the ANC. After that there were more of them who defected, so we had such experiences.

MR HATTINGH: And was that the reason why they were monitored?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: As a group leader you had direct liaison with the askaris.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And just to clarify the point once more, the askaris were divided into groups and placed under the command of a permanent Police Force member of Vlakplaas and as such they were deployed to identify terrorists in certain areas.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you were one such a group leader?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You were not necessarily the only police member who worked in such a fashion, there may have been others who served with you in a group?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in this manner you had very close co-operation with the askaris.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Now can you give us examples of how the askaris may have appeared not to be completely loyal towards Vlakplaas?

MR BELLINGAN: Chairperson, once there was a case at the Research Desk, which was brought to us, indicating that there were two askaris who were in Mafikeng who were supposed to be monitoring infiltration of MK members and they did not do their jobs properly and that was an indication to us of a lack of loyalty or perhaps that they were looking the other way.

It happened from time to time, that when they arrived in Nelspruit there was a certain Warrant Officer in the Security Branch there, who immediately would invite them for a braai and there was alcohol involved and then they would say where everybody was working, were all the groups had been deployed to.

Later on we would also pick up much of the information telephonically and what we would do is tell them that we were going to Nelspruit and then the following morning when they reported there, we would rather go to Zeerust. Because then they would already have informed their girlfriends and friends in that area by telephone. So we wanted to know who was handling them on behalf of the ANC or the PAC. So we had such cases.

MR HATTINGH: The police officer in Nelspruit, did you later determine that he was connected to the ANC?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is correct, he defected to the ANC in Swaziland and joined them.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now with regard to Mr Ntehelang, in the course of action did you collect any information about him?

MR BELLINGAN: No, I didn't, but Mr de Kock told me that some of the people were under suspicion because they were allowing liberation fighters to move past without any identification and that placed them under suspicion. And the situation deteriorated because there was a lot of uncertainty in his mind about what exactly was going on.

MR HATTINGH: And for that reason, did you watch him a bit more closely?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I would have told a black Warrant Officer to keep an eye on him and to take him under his wing perhaps, and to monitor him. That was a possibility.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now just with regard to the incident itself, Mr Bellingan. You heard that some of the witnesses said that Mr de Kock told them to be there that evening. Did you also hear such an order?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, usually after an operation, Mr de Kock - well this operation had actually gone all awry, so we were there earlier and we thought we would take the time to have a braai and have a few drinks and relax. So that may have been the order for him to tell us to stay there. I didn't think it strange, although after the time I left and he did not admonish me for it at all.

MR HATTINGH: I have just lost my place. Mr Snyders who testified about this, states in his affidavit on page 265, or rather at the bottom of 264:

And then in the following paragraph he states:

Something that I just want to clarify. The fact that you had to be present there didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the incident which was to take place later.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: In fact, the order which was issued for you to be there was issued before you even knew that such an incident would take place.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, it was earlier that afternoon or late during the afternoon.

MR HATTINGH: And when you say that you did not agree that these were the appropriate circumstances, do you mean that the time was not right? The time for an interrogation was not right.

MR BELLINGAN: That, Chairperson, and furthermore it was not the usual procedure in handling someone who stated that he had lost his firearm and who could possibly still be working for the liberation movements, it wasn't the right way to go about it because we had a policy, Mr de Kock condoned this police, that if alcohol was involved one couldn't really get much work done.

MR HATTINGH: Do you mean to say that action would have been taken against Mr Ntehelang, but in your opinion it should have taken place the following day under more sober circumstances?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that is how it should have been.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see Mr de Kock exit the canteen after you saw him hit Mr Ntehelang with something?

MR BELLINGAN: I cannot recall that, all I know is that I did see him outside later on.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it if somebody had - if an askari had reverted and had then come back to try to infiltrate you, it would be important to find out as much as you could about what he had told anybody, who he had associated with and matters of that nature.

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Chairperson, that is why Sgt Bosch was the key point along with Maj de Kock. All the information we received would have gone to them and they would form a picture as to who was involved where and why.

CHAIRPERSON: And questioning should be done in a calm methodical manner to obtain all that information and that's what you felt.

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Not in the middle of a drunken party?

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Rossouw.

Mr Bellingan, may I just ask a few questions of you with regard to the evidence that you had give that persons who were at Vlakplaas would let incidents like this enter in the one ear and exit from the other ear. Evidence was led yesterday that persons who worked at Vlakplaas were sought out by hand as such, do you know of that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Chairperson, but we also looked at some of the whites, it was not that we only looked at the askaris. There may have been eyes on me to see if I was up to something, because Col de Kock was an excellent Intelligence officer, he would not have only looked at the askaris, he would have looked at everybody. One could be a very good policeman and when he comes to us he might take the wrong path, so there was looked at some of the whites as well.

MR ROSSOUW: What I want to know from you, Mr Bellingan is, let us look at the white members, the officers and the junior officers, let us call it the group who were present in the canteen or around the canteen. Is it not so that those people sought out by hand and selected and were background checks on them done?

MR BELLINGAN: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot comment on that. I differed with some of the people there and I would not want to launch personal attacks on those people, but it was not my prerogative to decide who was to be there and who was not to be there.

MR ROSSOUW: but the point that I want to know from you is the person who went to Vlakplaas were persons who could be trusted, who were chosen specifically because they could protect the identity of the clandestine units at Vlakplaas, they had to live up to that expectation.

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I think so, Chairperson. I don't think - the State did not do much to look at these types of investigations, the black and white members on the farm, we were just left to our own devices. It ended up that good work fell flat in a short period of time and people did things there that they would not have done normally. T

here were many good policemen at Vlakplaas and the State did not look at us properly, the group leaders and Col de Kock, we were just left to our devices, we will go on and as the English man will say "the men are okay". Some of them were really good people. I think afterwards some of them went bad and it was tragic to see it.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you feel that the persons who were there with you would at the least maintain secrecy about the clandestine operations at Vlakplaas?

MR BELLINGAN: That's true, at Vlakplaas you kept quiet, it was an ethical code. Whoever recruited you, when you got there you had to keep quiet about it. But I cannot say what went on in another person's mind and how this incident affected him that evening.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: What people were selected for to go to Vlakplaas for was not to keep quiet about operations, but to conduct operations, weren't they?

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct.

MR BOTHA: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Botha, I've got no questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Cornelius on behalf of van Heerden and Flores.

Mr Bellingan, I would just like to point out important aspects in your application. I will take you to page 2 and 3 of your original application. At the end of the first paragraph, it's the last long paragraph:

Nou dit was in ...(tussenbeide)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what page?

MR CORNELIUS: I'm sorry, Mr Chairman, it's page 213. You will note there's a lengthy paragraph, at the end of the first lengthy paragraph, the last five sentences, Mr Chair.

This was in 1980, with the SWAPO war, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: No, that was just my introduction, where I gave a general overview and that was the whole picture that I gave there. It was to say how the politicians visited us at the border and at Vlakplaas. We were so motivated, it did not matter what happened. If a suspected died in detention or on the way to police office or in the office, we did not speak about it. And this was just the background that I gave here.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but what is important is important for your application as well, these were your subjective thoughts, that one had to obtain information at all costs?

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And I refer you to page 216, the second paragraph. Mr Chair, folio 215, the second paragraph. You mention that:

Can you recall that?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, unnecessary shooting incidents, unnecessary policing functions in the public, but sometimes the Research Desk came to the farm and said, I have said previously, we need person X to testify in a matter in Newcastle, and then they would have him testify in camera and as you know "in camera" he may as well testify in public. So we tried to keep the askaris out of these matters, so that we do not expose them to the normal public and police.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, and a worse situation was if an askari laid any charges?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, that's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And if you look at the same page, the second last paragraph, you tell the history of the Mnisi brothers and what is important is that these were two askaris who turned around and went back to the ANC, is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And according to your recollection, both the Mnisi brothers were involved in controversial matters.

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And you say that the one Mnisi brother joined the Special Operations Division of the ANC.

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And that he was involved in the Church Street bomb.

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And the other Mnisi brother was involved with regard to the murder of W/O Philip Selepe.

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: But the passage which is important to me, on page 217 you say:

Is that correct?

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Chairperson. Let us say W/O Selepe was in Security Branch Northern Transvaal, he lived in Mamelodi and Chris knew him well because at that time we closely liaised with the local Security Branch there.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. So if an askari would turn and with this intimate knowledge, go to the Special Operations Division of the ANC, it would have fatal consequences for members of Vlakplaas.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct, Chairperson, you could not keep them away from the normal policeman at all, that was one of the things which we never wanted to allow, that some of them visited some other members' house, but we could not entirely prevent it. We could not prevent members visiting other members houses.

MR CORNELIUS: Yes, but the point is that he had valuable information.

MR BELLINGAN: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: When you were a group leader during this time, did you know Moses Ntehelang?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes. I cannot say with certainty whether he always worked in my group, but I knew him, I can still picture his face before me.

MR CORNELIUS: And when you trained him in the handling of firearms - and to cut the question short, if he had lost his firearm like in this particular incident, was this a serious offence?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, if he went to the classes I would have mentioned it to him along with the other members, and it's a serious offence.

MR CORNELIUS: So the evening when he reported to you, you saw it as a very serious matter?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, I saw it as a very serious matter, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now we have been told that after the last operation he was on, his firearm should have been handed in and that the officer responsible was negligent in not taking it.

MR BELLINGAN: That may be so, Chairperson. The group leader as myself for example, and he was in my group, there would be instructions in the service register and it would be said there I have to take his firearm and put it in my container, so I cannot say who was the person he worked with but that was an instruction until he can prove that he is reliable with a firearm.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. So he shouldn't have been walking around with a gun, it wasn't that he had illegally taken it from somewhere. In fact it had negligently been left with him.

MR BELLINGAN: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And I refer you to page 221 of the amnesty application, it is also an important aspect with regard to your subjective thought. You say:

MR BELLINGAN: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So you were looking for askaris who wanted to turn?

MR BELLINGAN: Yes, Chairperson, there was a stage when we were very concerned because no landmines were placed on the farm and there were no attacks on the farm and we were just asking ourselves, don't they have any moles amongst our members? And that is why Col de Kock was adamant that we have to know what was going on, we have to think up methods to prevent this and have compartmentalisation, and if you say you are going to Zeerust, then you go to Nelspruit, to prevent them from saying where you went. It was at the stage that we experienced problems to find any of the liberation movement members who had infiltrated the country.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. And with the incident that particular evening, what was your rank?

MR BELLINGAN: I believe I was a Warrant Officer, Chairperson. I think I became a Warrant Officer in 1989.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you think of any reason why van Heerden is adamant that you fetched the tube?

MR BELLINGAN: I do not want to be embroiled in some dispute here, Chairperson, I don't think there's much love lost between the two of us and I don't think this is the forum to try and solve personal vendettas here, but if he says so, then he must believe it.

MR CORNELIUS: You say that you may have seen the tubing?

MR BELLINGAN: I cannot say with certainty, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you not recall, what is the problem?

MR BELLINGAN: I may have seen a blanket, I may have seen a red or black inner tube - not tyre, an inner tube. I cannot say with certainty, but I didn't do anything about and I did not assault him either, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And you did not deem it necessary to report to Eugene de Kock or to take the matter any further?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Chairperson. Col de Kock knew what happened there, so it was not necessary to report to him.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chair.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Jansen, no questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Bellingan, just on a collateral issue. I'm referring you to the Johannes Mabotha incident, who was interrogated at Marble Hall. You and Mr de Kock went there to interrogate him, you took part in the torturing, is that so?

MR BELLINGAN: No, Chairperson, I did not participate there. I didn't apply there because I did not participate there. I know my legal representative told me that somebody implicated me, but I was not a participant there. We spoke to him, but I did not question him or interrogate as the allegation was, with the ice and those types of things.

MR SIBANYONI: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, I don't have a question, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, just arising from Mr Sibanyoni's question to Mr Bellingan about the Mabotha incident. You may recall, Mr Chairman, that as far as the Mabotha incident is concerned, there was nothing on the papers beforehand and I think it came from the evidence of Chappies Klopper, and we read about it in the newspapers and Mr van der Merwe and I - I did appear and specifically indicate that Mr Bellingan denied his involvement. But that was - the first time he heard about it was when he read about it in the newspaper. So ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't an implicated party?

MR BOOYENS: He wasn't an implicated party on the papers ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: In that he was given - he wasn't given notice as an implicated party.

MR BOOYENS: He wasn't given notice, he read it in the papers, being the reliable papers. I've got no re-examination, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: I call Mr John Tait. His evidence appears at page 100.

MR SIBANYONI: Your full names for purposes of the record please?

JOHAN HENDRIK TAIT: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: Sworn in, Mr Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: I will repeat the question. You have your amnesty application before you, is that correct?

MR TAIT: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: From page 100 up to the top of page 103 you give a brief summary of yourself, is that correct?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: The evening when the assault took place on the deceased you were in the canteen at Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: What did you see there?

MR TAIT: I saw Maj de Kock strike the person with a pool cue and that the other persons knocked him about and hit him, but I cannot say who the other persons were.

MR BOOYENS: The other persons?

MR TAIT: Yes, I cannot say who the other persons were.

MR BOOYENS: And what did you do then?

MR TAIT: I was enjoying a drink in the canteen and at that stage when the hitting and assault was ongoing I walked out. I am not certain who I sat outside and spoke to, it may have been Bellingan.

MR BOOYENS: On page 104, the first paragraph at the bottom you mention the name of Mr Willie Nortje, and I think it has been put by one of my colleagues that insofar as - that Mr Willie Nortje was not there. Will you concede that you may be mistaken there?

MR TAIT: Yes, I may be mistaken there.

MR BOOYENS: Why did you walk out?

MR TAIT: I did not agree with what was happening in the canteen.

MR BOOYENS: And you were then outside the canteen, did you see the further assaults which we now have heard of from the other sources?

MR TAIT: No.

MR BOOYENS: Did you then later once again go back into the canteen?

MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And at that stage the man was wrapped up in a blanket, is that correct?

MR TAIT: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And did you assume that it was Mr Ntehelang?

MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You did not have much to do with him, and I see you mention his name and I see you refer to him as "Geeletjie", his nickname.

MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: When the assault had taken place there by Mr de Kock and the other people, did you interfere in any manner and if not, why not?

MR TAIT: No, Chairperson, I did not interfere because I personally felt that I was not empowered to interfere and how can I put it, it was not expected of me to interfere.

MR BOOYENS: Oh, it would not be suitable for you to interfere?

MR TAIT: Yes, that's correct.

MR BOOYENS: And it is also correct that you never attempted to report the incident?

MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You have heard the answer that Mr Baker who at that stage was second-in-command and it was conveyed to you what Mr de Kock's evidence was about the tradition on Vlakplaas. What Mr Baker said on a question from the Chairperson, that there was a tradition of silence at Vlakplaas with regard to things that had happened at Vlakplaas and about Vlakplaas, one does not report such things, is that correct?

MR TAIT: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Was there a perception ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: And there ... sorry, carry on.

MR BOOYENS: Was there a perception at Vlakplaas that if one would tell tales of Vlakplaas it would lead to your own detriment?

MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: So one just did not speak about these things?

MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: And as far as you are concerned, if the Vlakplaas operation was disclosed it would be an effective piece of machinery, according to you perception, possibly it would have rendered it useless and so on, is that correct? ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions. Or I beg your pardon, a further aspect.

Do you confirm the balance of your amnesty application?

MR TAIT: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You just said that there was a perception that if you told tales it would lead to your own determent. In fact it did go a little further than that, as we have heard and as we have seen elsewhere in these applications, there was a perception that if you told tales it might lead to your own death or to the death of members of your family.

MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, we have no questions.

MR ROSSOUW: Rossouw, Mr Chairman, no questions.

MR BOTHA: Botha, Mr Chairman, no questions.

MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius on behalf of Flores and van Heerden, no questions.

MR JANSEN: Jansen, Mr Chairman, no questions.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR SIBANYONI: No questions from me, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Just one question from me.

Mr Tait, you say you walked out of the canteen because you did not agree with what was happening there. Did you have any reason for not agreeing and even joining in with your colleagues in what they were doing?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, as I have said, I did not associate myself with it, it was not the applicable place or time for such an incident.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: By that I take it you mean that the majority of the people there were drunk, it was getting on in the evening, I don't know if you noticed that the deceased was also under the influence of liquor and it was certainly not the way to question people, or the place in which to conduct an inquiry.

MR TAIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Ja, but can you - did you notice that the deceased, Mr Ntehelang, was also drunk?

MR TAIT: Chairperson, I cannot comment to that.

ADV SANDI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that concludes the evidence on behalf of the applicants that I represent.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that concludes the evidence on behalf of the applicants altogether doesn't it, unless other witnesses are to be called. Are you calling ...?

ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I do not intend calling any witnesses. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Right gentlemen, what do you propose we do now?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I think in certain instances the political motive in this matter may require a bit of thought before one addresses you.

CHAIRPERSON: I would certainly - we've discussed this already, we would welcome a carefully thought out address rather than something that you have to do on the spur of the moment. Not only on the political aspect, but on the possible conflicts of versions between certain - how long would that take you gentlemen? As you know, we have the rest of the week.

MR BOOYENS: Yes. Mr Chairman, I would - subject to what my colleagues say, I would suggest tomorrow morning 10 o'clock.

MR HATTINGH: That would suit us too, thank you, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: We agree, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well we'll adjourn then till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, on the basis that if any of the representatives feel they require further time, then they may apply then. I'm not - in the light of the fact that arrangements have been made to allow ample time for this hearing, I don't want any of you to feel that you are under undue pressure and it may be that when you start going through this you come upon somewhere where there's some other evidence available as to intent and things which you think may be desirable and you will certainly be allowed to apply.

So we adjourn tentatively till 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, but on the basis that if you feel you do require further time, you can let us know then.