CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today we are going to sit here and consider the applications of the following applicants; Mr Chenny William More, Mr Smuts Philemon Mathebula and Mr Kokela Jeremiah Matjeni. The Panel to sit and consider these applications comprises myself, Judge Sisi Khampepe, on my right-hand side, Mr Johnny Motata, on my left-hand side, Mr Wynand Malan. The Evidence Leader to assist us in these applications, is Mr Andre Steenkamp.

Will counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants kindly place their names on record.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair. My name is Jansen, I appear on the instructions of Mr Julian Night Attorneys, we appear for applicant Matjeni.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you. My surname is Joubert, I appear on behalf of Mr Mathebula and More in this matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. For the victims?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm Eric van den Berg from the firm Bell Dewar and Hall, I appear on behalf of the Morudi family.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Steenkamp, on reading the applications we note that several persons have been implicated in respect of this incident. Have we complied with Section 19.4 of the Act, by serving the notices as they are required in terms of the law?

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, Honourable Committee Members just for record purposes, I've just confirmed and spoken to the Evidence Analyst, Mr Joel Klaasen, he confirmed with me that each and every applicant was served with a notice, or otherwise reasonable steps were taken to inform or to locate them. Looking specifically at the implicated people, Mr Hendrik Prinsloo, Mr Dos Santos and Mr Ludick's lawyers, Ms van der Walt and Adv Prinsloo, have been duly notified as well. Now I've discussed personally the matter with them yesterday as well. They were fully informed about this hearing as well. They have supplied me this morning with sworn statements of Mr Prinsloo and Dos Santos, which I've duly distributed to all the representatives here as well as to the Panel.

Regarding Mr Bokaba, Hechter and Mr van Vuuren, I've spoken to Mr Swarts from Strydom Britz - sorry that's Mr C Swart, as well as Adv Roelof du Plessis. They were also fully aware and notified about this matter. I've just spoken again this morning twice with Mr Swart and Mr du Plessis. They informed me that although their clients are implicated in this matter, they did not apply for amnesty in this matter at all, but that they are considering their position in supply the Committee with sworn statements or affidavits.

Regarding the position of Mr Mamasela, I personally have spoken to our Evidence Analyst, who informed me that he was also notified. I spoke to the Amnesty Committee's Chief Investigator in Gauteng, Col Killian, informed him that he - and told me that he personally is aware that Mr Mamasela was informed by one of our Investigators some time back. But unfortunately we don't know what the whereabouts of Mr Mamasela is, but that was his statement and he asked me to convey to the Committee that he was also informed.

Regarding the rest of the people who were ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interrupt, Mr Steenkamp. Was he informed or was an attempt made to serve the Section 19.4 notice?

ADV STEENKAMP: Chairperson, I understand that he was actually served with a Section 19.4 notice.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: I've requested for a Return of Service, but according to Col Killian, that document was already served on him some time back, more than three weeks back already.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: But I'm not placed in the possession. Just for record purposes, Mr Klaasen indicated to me that if necessary, a letter from him can also be obtained and handed in as an exhibit, whereby exactly the details of whoever was informed and when they were informed exactly, can also be obtained if necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we'd appreciate to get an affidavit from him if we can't get a Return of Service.

ADV STEENKAMP: I'll do that, Madam Chair. That's what I can put on record so far. I can just maybe state that this morning I've tried to locate Mr Prinsloo, early morning, after receiving these statements. Unfortunately I was informed that both Ms van der Walt and Mr Prinsloo are not - I was not able to contact them at all, but I'll duly try and do so as quickly as I can. I'm in the process of trying to contact them, to get some clarity of the statements.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the position with regard to Mr P W Botha and Mr Putter? They are also implicated parties.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I was informed by the Evidence Analyst that everyone, each and every implicated party was informed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will be in a position during the course of the day, to get an affidavit from Mr Klaasen if we are unable to be given Returns of Service with regard to these notices?

ADV STEENKAMP: I've requested that already, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jansen and Mr Joubert, have you arranged with regard to who is going to kick-start the process by giving evidence? Is it your client, Mr Jansen, or Mr Joubert's?

MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, yes we have indeed and we've decided to have Mr Mathebula kick off, whereafter Mr More will and then Mr Matjeni, to have the process in a chronological sequence as it is at present.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so it will be Mr Mathebula, followed by Mr More ...(intervention)

MR JOUBERT: And thereafter Mr Matjeni.

CHAIRPERSON: ... Mr Matjeni.

Mr Mathebula, you'll be giving your evidence in what

language?

MR JOUBERT: He'll be giving evidence in Tswana, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: In Tswana.

ADV MOTATA: Will you please give us your full names.

SMUTS PHILEMON MATHEBULA: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Joubert.

EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Mathebula, you have lodged an application for amnesty which is contained on pages 117 to 122 of bundle 1 and then the annexure thereto, page 123 to 128, which is in regard to the incident pertaining to Mr Moses Morudi. Is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Do you confirm the content of these pages that I've just referred you to?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And will you now give further evidence in conjunction with the application as it is before the Committee at this stage?

MR MATHEBULA: I will do so.

MR JOUBERT: Now I just want to take you through a few aspects which I wish to clarify. Madam Chair, we will take the application as it is and I'm just going to clarify certain smaller issues and whereafter that will be the total application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: In your application on page 124, paragraph 2, you indicate, and I'll quote in Afrikaans from the third line -

When you say -

... are you referring to in Potchefstroom, or would this be outside the town itself? Where precisely would that be?

MR MATHEBULA: Outside Potchefstroom, Chairperson. Just outside Potchefstroom.

MR JOUBERT: And then if I may take you to paragraph 3 on the same page, the third last line, you say -

When you "lived", what do you mean by that, was he permanently resident there or was he merely visiting? What is the exact position?

MR MATHEBULA: It seems he was visiting there.

MR JOUBERT: And then on page ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Joubert.

Why do you say it seems he was visiting there, whereas in your affidavit the suggestion, the words used suggested that he was staying there?

MR MATHEBULA: According to the information from Capt Prinsloo, he left Mamelodi, then he was there, he was using that place as a hiding place.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Then on page 125 of your application, at the top of the page, do you recall - when you approached Mr Morudi and spoke to him to advise him that you had been sent to take him for training outside the country, can you recall what the name of the person was that was used?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember the name I used.

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall whether you used this name when you spoke to Mr Morudi? Did you say to him "Mr so and so has sent us", or can you not recall that?

MR MATHEBULA: It's possible that I used a particular name, but I don't remember.

MR JOUBERT: Okay, then furthermore on the same page ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Are you on the same page, Mr Joubert, with Mr Mathebula? I don't think - you don't seem to be on the same page with Mr Mathebula.

MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, yes we are. On the top of page 125, we're both on the same page there. He's looking at the same page with me. I'm pointing to him with the pen.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, in terms of understanding.

MR JOUBERT: Yes, in terms of understanding as well, Madam Chair. It refers to -

In short, if I may just address you on this. The evidence of Mr More at a later stage will be that when they approached Mr Morudi they said to him that, or they used the name of some person who had sent them. I'm just asking Mr Mathebula whether he can recall whether they did indeed say Mr so and so sent us, or not. I'm just clarifying very small issues and then we're going to be completed with his application.

MR MALAN: Mr Joubert, just following up on the Chair's remark, I heard Mr Mathebula saying he can't remember which name he used, 'cause he was using different names at stages. And I think that was the reason for the question. Could you just put it again, whether he can remember the name of the informant which he disclosed to Mr Morudi.

CHAIRPERSON: As having sent him to Mr Morudi.

MR MALAN: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: As it pleases the Chair.

Mr Mathebula, when you approached Mr Morudi, can you recall whether you used the name of somebody in telling him for example, that you were sent by this person, or can you not recall that?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember that particular name which I used on that particular day.

MR JOUBERT: Then at the end of that same paragraph, it's the first paragraph on page 125, you finish off where you say -

Did you in fact see him hand the liquor to this person, or is this merely an assumption which you are making?

MR MATHEBULA: I did not see him handing over because we were outside. So that was just a suggestion.

MR JOUBERT: Were you in fact waiting outside in the vehicle for Mr Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Then in paragraph 5, the fifth line from the top you say -

Was this within the town, Potchefstroom itself, or do you refer to the district of Potchefstroom? Was it outside the town but within the district?

MR MATHEBULA: It was just outside Potchefstroom. I'm referring to Potchefstroom district.

MR JOUBERT: Then further down on the same paragraph you say -

Now at this stage, when this incident occurred, when Dos Santos and them approached your vehicle and removed Mr Morudi, were you at the car or were you still a bit away from the car urinating in the veld?

MR MATHEBULA: I was at a distance from the car because I was helping myself.

MR JOUBERT: Did you see whether they spoke to Mr Morudi or tried to establish his identity at all?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember that, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Then on page 126, paragraph ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, Mr Joubert, this could be a rather important incident in the whole application, because of the implication of Dos Santos and the affidavit we've received from Prinsloo.

Mr Mathebula, did Mr Morudi get into that vehicle willingly, or was there any force used in transferring him into the vehicle of Dos Santos?

MR MATHEBULA: They opened the door and took him out and then they left and I was at a distance. There was no way he would not cooperate with them.

MR MALAN: But was he surprised?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, the way I saw him, he was surprised.

MR MALAN: I'll tell you why I'm asking this. If you look at the affidavit - I wonder, Chair, whether we could give these affidavits numbers at the moment, the one of Prinsloo, maybe Exhibit A and the one of Dos Santos B.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo's affidavit will be Exhibit A and Mr Dos Santos' affidavit will be Exhibit B. I take it that both counsel has already been handed these documents by Mr Steenkamp and you are in your possession thereof.

MR JANSEN: Yes, we are, Madam Chair, thank you. I just think I seem to have the original of the Prinsloo affidavit. We should maybe change it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you incorrectly have the original. Can I give you mine, which is a copy.

MR JANSEN: Yes.

MR MALAN: Mr Mathebula, if you could just refer to the first paragraph - well the first paragraph under 3 of Exhibit A. Mr Prinsloo says that the handlers of Morudi were Putter and Botha, which suggests that Morudi was an informer. Do you have any information about this? Can you shed any light on this?

MR MATHEBULA: If he was an informer, I did not know, but I did not have that knowledge.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Joubert.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Mr Malan. ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, I take it that you will be later coming to deal with the affidavits before us, but you are in the meantime just clearing up certain inconsistencies with regard to the affidavit of Mr Mathebula, as it stands.

MR JOUBERT: Yes, Madam Chair, I will indeed deal with those two short affidavits at the end of the evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR JOUBERT: Mr Mathebula, then the last incident, or the further thing I wish to refer you to is on page 126, paragraph 7, you indicate that you were approached by either Mr Prinsloo or Dos Santos, you're not quite sure, to go to a farm near Hammanskraal. Is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall why you were requested to go to the farm?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember well the purpose for me to be sent to Hammanskraal.

MR JOUBERT: If I understand your application correct, there was interrogation of Mr Morudi on the farm, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Did you partake in this interrogation? Can you recall whether you did?

MR MATHEBULA: I found him at the farm being interrogated by Hechter and van Vuuren and Hendrik Bokaba. They were asking him about various issues. I don't remember as to whether I did partake in the interrogation.

MR JOUBERT: And then in paragraph 8 on the same page, you say you returned after a few hours on the farm, two to three hours, you returned to Pretoria and approximately a week later you then again went to the farm, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And the purpose of that second visit to the farm, was that merely to go and remove the tents or was there any other purpose?

MR MATHEBULA: We were instructed to move the tents.

MR JOUBERT: And can you recall whether Mr More was with you at that stage, or not?

MR MATHEBULA: It's possible that he was in my company, but I don't remember well.

MR JOUBERT: Now in the same paragraph you say -

When you say this, who are you referring to, are you referring to colleagues who were assisting you in removing the tents, or are you referring to Mr Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: When we arrived at the farm, Moses Morudi was not present. Where I left him for the last time, he was not there when I went there for the second time. It was not only us who went there to move the tents.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Joubert. I'm just trying to get clarity with regard to the period during which he was abducted, then held at the farm in Hammanskraal, when he, Mr Mathebula, was ultimately instructed to remove the tents at Hammanskraal farm.

Mr Mathebula, you say that two days after Mr Morudi had been abducted you visited the farm of Maj Smit, where you found amongst others, Mamasela and Capt Hechter interrogating him.

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you later on state that a week thereafter you were then ordered to remove the tents at the farm. Was it a week after Mr Morudi's abduction, or a week after you had first visited the farm when you saw him being interrogated by Hechter and Mamasela? Which of the two?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well it's a week after I saw him being interrogated at the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Joubert.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Mathebula, we received copies of statements by Mr Dos Santos and Mr Prinsloo, they're marked Exhibits A & B. We received them this morning. I have provided them to you for you to read through them, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: With reference to Annexure A, the statement by Mr Prinsloo, you will note that in paragraph 1 of paragraph 3, if I may refer to it as that, he refers to a W/O Putter and a Const Botha. Is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Do you know what the position is regarding Mr Putter and Mr Botha? Were they members of Unit C?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Do you know what their position is today, where they are or where they may be found?

MR MATHEBULA: They've all since died.

MR JOUBERT: Have they both passed away, as far as your knowledge is concerned?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now you'll note that Mr Prinsloo denies any involvement pertaining to the abduction of Moses Morudi. Do you have any comment on this?

MR MATHEBULA: I'm surprised today, because he's the one who sent us to Potchefstroom where Moses was staying. He's the one who gave us the address where Moses was staying. That is when we were able to reach that place where Morudi was staying. I'm surprised when he says he doesn't know anything about this.

MR JOUBERT: Did you at any stage deal with Mr Putter and Mr Botha in relation to Mr Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now in your application on page 124, paragraph 2, you refer to -

Can you recall who this other white male was?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember his identity.

MR JOUBERT: Can you recall whether this may have been Putter or Botha?

MR MATHEBULA: It may be Botha, not Putter.

CHAIRPERSON: Why could it not be Mr Putter?

MR MATHEBULA: Putter was not involved in the operations where we were involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert.

MR JOUBERT: Then with relation to Annexure B, the statement by Dos Santos, it's a very short statement and I will merely refer you to paragraph 3 thereof. He denies any involvement pertaining to the abduction of Moses Morudi. Do you have any comment on that?

MR MATHEBULA: That is not true which appears in his statement.

MR JOUBERT: Are you quite sure of the fact that Mr Dos Santos was present in the white Skyline that you refer to in your application?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, that is correct, he was present.

MR JOUBERT: Now Mr Mathebula, I'm not going to burden the record with references to the political situation at that stage and your political motivation, you have testified before this Committee prior to this and they are well aware of your situation in this regard. Is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Do you know what happened - sorry, I just want to come back to one issue. When you came to the farm to remove the tents and found that Mr Morudi was gone, do you know what happened to him? Do you know where he had left for or what had happened?

MR MATHEBULA: I'd be lying if I may tell you what happened to him.

MR JOUBERT: And is it then correct that you are now applying for amnesty for the abduction and any involvement that you may have had in this regard pertaining to Moses Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: As well as any other crime that may be related to this possible abduction.

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Are you also requesting amnesty for any civil claims which may result as a consequence to your involvement in the possible abduction of Mr Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: That will be all, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mathebula, you state that Mr Morudi was removed from your car by someone, do you recall whether it was Dos Santos or Mr Ludick who removed him from your car to load him onto the car they were driving in, that is the white Skyline?

MR MATHEBULA: I'm not able to say who among them took him out of my car, but one of them did.

CHAIRPERSON: Approximately what time of the day was it when he was so removed by one of them from your car along the Potchefstroom/Johannesburg road?

MR MATHEBULA: It was in the afternoon, I would not remember exactly what time.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it still daylight?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What kind of road is this one? Is this the main road from Potchefstroom to Johannesburg?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson, that is the main road from Johannesburg to Potchefstroom.

CHAIRPERSON: And what kind of traffic was there? Would you say there were many cars which were along that road?

MR MATHEBULA: The traffic was not that congested.

CHAIRPERSON: Did this occur during the week or over a weekend?

MR MATHEBULA: It was during the week, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, do you have any questions to put to Mr Mathebula?

MR JANSEN: None, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van den Berg, do you have any questions to put to Mr Mathebula?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair, I do have a few.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Mathebula, it's correct that you were a trained policeman, you'd been to Police College. At the time of this incident what was your rank?

MR MATHEBULA: I was a Constable, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The instruction that you received to go to Potchefstroom, is it correct that this was given to you by Prinsloo?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall the exact instruction, what was it that he told you to go and do?

MR MATHEBULA: He called us in the morning, it was myself and Chenny More, to his office. He informed us that he has an information that Moses Morudi he's staying at a particular place at Ikageng in Potchefstroom, then he gave us an address. He told us that when we arrived there we should tell him that we're going to pick him up. We should take him to exile.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now you said that Mr More was present when the instruction was given, was there anybody else present?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, we were three.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now you've already testified that the instruction was to go to Potchefstroom and to tell Mr Morudi that you would come to pick him up to take him to exile. Did I understand you correctly?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson, that's what I've said.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But you don't recall the name which you were instructed to use, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember, Chairperson, because we used to use many names. I don't remember the particular name which I used in this particular incident.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now there seems to be two names at issue here, if I understand you correctly. There was the name which you used, in other words an alias or a pseudonym for yourself, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't understand your question, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When you got to Mr Morudi, did you say I am Mathebula, I am here sent by this man from Botswana, to take for military training? Did you use your name or did you not identify yourself to Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember as to whether I used my true identity.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it customary for you to use your real name in a situation such as this one?

MR MATHEBULA: I would not use my true identity in this kind of incident. We were not using our true identity.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so the question being put to you by Mr van den Berg is that to your recollection, did you use a name other than your name when you introduced yourself to Mr Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I used a particular name, but I don't remember that name today.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair.

And then the second name which is at issue is the name which you used to say so and so has sent me, and you say that you don't recall that name either, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, that is correct that I don't remember the name I used for myself and the name I used for the person who has instructed me to come and pick him up.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I make some suggestions to you as to what that name might have been, the second name, not the name that you used for yourself? Do you understand what I'm going to put to you?

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to try and jolt his memory?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I am, Madam Chair.

MR MATHEBULA: Please mention the name, maybe it will refresh my memory.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Might you have used the name Masina -M-a-s-i-n-a?

MR MATHEBULA: It is possible that I used that name, but I don't remember.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know a person called Obet Masina?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I do.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So you say it's possible that you might have used his name?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, there is that possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van den Berg. Now that we know that he knows Obet Masina, can we just find out how and where he knows Obet Masina from.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Is correct, Mr Mathebula, that Obet Masina was an MK Commander, in charge of a unit which was operational in the Mamelodi area and also in the Soshanguve area? Do you know that?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But how do you know Obet Masina, Mr Mathebula?

MR MATHEBULA: I knew Obet Masina at the time when he was in detention in the police cells.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So you met Mr Masina for the first time after he had been arrested and detained? Do I understand you correctly?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And when was this, can you recall the year when he was detained?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember the year, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: This incident happened around 1987/1988, had you known him for much longer by the time Mr Morudi was abducted and if so, would you say it was longer than six months or longer than a year?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember that at the time when we were going to abduct Morudi, at that particular time Masina and his company were in detention or not, or is it before or after.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't say whether you knew him quite well at the time when Morudi was abducted?

MR MATHEBULA: Do you mean Masina?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MATHEBULA: I would not say I knew him well at that time.

ADV MOTATA: Was it before Justice Mbizana was abducted?

MR MATHEBULA: They didn't happen far apart, but I don't remember which one happened first between the two.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now you said it's possible that you might have used the name of Masina. Can I put another name to you? Might you have used the name of Masango - M-a-s-a-n-g-o?

MR MATHEBULA: As I've already stated before this Committee, it's possible that I used a particular name, but I don't remember. Is it possible that I used those names.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you know Mr Ting-Ting Masango?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I know. He was arrested together with Mr Masango.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Together with Mr Masina.

INTERPRETER: Together with Mr Masina.

MR MATHEBULA: They were arrested at the same time.

MR VAN DEN BERG: They were arrested together with Neo Potsane and Elias Makura. That was the unit which Mr Masina was the commander of.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: These four MK operatives were arrested and were in detention prior to Mr Morudi's disappearance. Can you confirm or deny that?

MR MATHEBULA: I would not dispute that because I've already stated that I don't remember as to whether which one came first.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now you said that part of your instructions were to go and find Mr Morudi in Ikageng because as you understood it, he was in hiding there. Did I understand your evidence correctly?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You see because at a certain time Mr Masango was brought to the Morudi home. He was handcuffed and brought by the police. They were looking for Moses Morudi. Do you know about that?

MR MATHEBULA: It's possible that it was a certain group, but I was not party to that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And it was just yourself and Mr More that went down to Potchefstroom in the, you described it as a Peugeot 404, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And Dos Santos, Ludick and another person were in a separate vehicle, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson, they were driving a white Skyline.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When you arrived at Ikageng, as I understand from your application, Mr Morudi was not present at the address that you had been given and you left a message. Do you recall what the message was?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well, when they told us that he's not present, we told them that we'll be back after a while.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When you returned and Mr Morudi was present, can you enlighten the Committee as to what was discussed? Can you recall?

MR MATHEBULA: When we returned we told him that we were coming to pick him up, we want him to go to exile, then he requested us that he wanted to buy Mainstay at the bottle store.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he surprised and you made the suggestion to him that he should into exile? Or that you were there to collect him to go into exile.

MR MATHEBULA: He was excited, he was not surprised.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And was he in any way suspicious about you and Mr More?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You say you can't recall whether he offered any resistance when he was transferred from your vehicle to the vehicle of Mr Dos Santos, you say that you weren't close enough to see.

CHAIRPERSON: His evidence was quite clear, Mr van den Berg, he did not offer any resistance. He recalls that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Was Dos Santos and Ludick and the other person, were they armed?

INTERPRETER: May you please repeat your question.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were either of Dos Santos, Ludick and the third white person, were they armed?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember as to whether they were armed or not, but usually because of the police practice we used to carry our firearms.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The next time that you saw Mr Morudi was at this farm, you say it belongs to a Maj Smit ...(intervention)

MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, if I may come in. The next time he saw Mr Morudi was at the Compol building.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Joubert, I'm indebted.

CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 6, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair.

When you saw Mr Morudi at Compol, is it correct that he was then in the presence of Dos Santos, Ludick and also Capt Prinsloo?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And did they tell you what they were going to do with Mr Morudi, where he was going?

MR MATHEBULA: They only informed us that we can go back home.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What did you anticipate would happen with Mr Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: I thought he would be interrogated about the various issues.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then moving on to this farm, you say in your application that he was shackled with both handcuffs and foot-cuffs, leg-irons.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you present when he was interrogated?

MR MATHEBULA: At that particular time when I testified that I was there for plus minus three hours, yes he was interrogated, but I don't remember on which subject or subjects.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And who was responsible for his interrogation? Who was asking him the questions?

MR MATHEBULA: If I remember well it was Capt Hechter.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And did Mr Mamasela participate in the interrogation?

MR MATHEBULA: He was present in that interrogation team, but I don't as to whether he took part.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You talk about a team. We've heard about Capt Hechter, we've heard about Mamasela, who else?

MR MATHEBULA: Vermeulen was present. His name appears on my statement.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Would you just point that out to me.

MR MATHEBULA: Paul van Vuuren was present, not Vermeulen.

MR VAN DEN BERG: We have Hechter, van Vuuren and Mamasela, anybody else?

MR MATHEBULA: Hendrik Bokaba was present and Dennis Dladla.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Capt Prinsloo, was he present?

MR MATHEBULA: At the farm Prinsloo was not present.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And Dos Santos?

MR MATHEBULA: He was not present at the farm.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now if I understand your evidence correctly, you were there for, you say for a short period, some three hours or so, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: I would say I was there for approximately three hours.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the next time that you returned to the farm, Mr Morudi was not there, is that correct?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, he was not present when I went there for the second time.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Had you met Mr Morudi before this incident?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, I did not know him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you shown a photograph of him before you went to Potchefstroom?

MR MATHEBULA: I don't remember. It's possible that I was shown a photograph of him.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van den Berg. Maybe this would be an appropriate time for me to just put this question which is worrying me in my mind, with regard to whether Mr Mathebula knew Mr Morudi prior to this incident or not.

Mr Mathebula, you see on page 123 of your affidavit, and that's the first paragraph, you state that at the time when you received instructions from Capt Prinsloo to go and abduct Mr Morudi, you had been looking for him. Do you see that? It's the third line of paragraph 1.

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, I see that.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean when you say you had been looking for him?

MR MATHEBULA: I knew that he was looked after because he was involved in the landmine which blasted in Mamelodi, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how were you looking for him, were you initially shown a photograph by Capt Prinsloo and then ordered to go around the township to search for Morudi? How would you have been able to look for a person whose face you did not know?

MR MATHEBULA: At the time when we were looking for him, we were using informers around Mamelodi.

CHAIRPERSON: So what was your role? If informers were being used, what role did you particularly play in searching for Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: I gave my informers instructions that if they can find him they should tell me because I did not know him at that time, facially.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he known to your informers?

MR MATHEBULA: I had only one informer which knew him, but others did not.

CHAIRPERSON: For how long had you been searching for Morudi, prior to his abduction?

MR MATHEBULA: I'm not able to specify, it might be a month or two or three, but I'm not able to specify.

CHAIRPERSON: But it wasn't something that happened like two days before you were searching for him, then you received instructions from Prinsloo, you had been searching for him for approximately a few weeks before given this instruction to go to Ikageng to abduct him.

MR MATHEBULA: It is possible that we were looking for him for two to three weeks, but I'm not able to specify the duration.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Arising from those questions, Madam Chair, I'm instructed to ask Mr Mathebula who the informer was.

MR MATHEBULA: I'm not prepared to disclose the identity of that particular informer, because the South African Police are still using informers even today, so I'll be putting his life in danger.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Is this person whose identity you refuse to disclose, still an informer at present?

MR MATHEBULA: I'm not prepared to answer that question, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this informer, Mr Mathebula, an askari?

MR MATHEBULA: No, he was not an askari, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he a student?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And how did he know Mr Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: They attended the same school together.

CHAIRPERSON: And was this informer based in Pretoria?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, he was staying in Mamelodi.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Morudi originally from Mamelodi?

MR MATHEBULA: According to my knowledge, that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg, you may proceed.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair.

You were asked when you were giving evidence-in-chief, if you knew what had become of Mr Morudi and you said that you didn't. Can you speculate as to what became of him? Can I put it to you in this fashion, that the family anticipated that Mr Morudi would leave the country, they expected that that was what was going to happen and so when they didn't see him they were not overly worried that they didn't see him, but in 1990 when he didn't come back, they began to make enquiries and they've not been able to find him. Now you were one of the last people who saw him, do you have any idea what became of him?

MR MALAN: Mr van den Berg, he says in his application, the last paragraph 8, that he has a suspicion that Morudi had been murdered.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Honourable Member.

If we look at that, and that's really what I was trying to get to, the suspicion that he was murdered, on what do you base that?

MR MATHEBULA: It is based on when the person is detained through Security legislation that person would be detained within the law of the country, so he was not detained according to the law.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do I understand you correctly, you're saying that because it was an unlawful arrest, an unlawful detention, it was not in terms of either the Criminal Procedure Act, or the Internal Security Act, that therefore he might have been murdered?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson, that is what I'm saying.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if you were to speculate, and I accept that it's speculation, who do you think might have been responsible?

MR MATHEBULA: I'll be lying. Maybe Capt Hechter and van Vuuren and Mamasela and Bokaba would know, because those were the last people I left him with for the last time. My own responsibility is that I kidnapped him from Potchefstroom and that is all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I understand your position at that time as a black person in the Security Police, did you make any enquiries, either to Capt Prinsloo or to your colleagues, as to what might have happened to Mr Morudi, did you discuss it?

MR MATHEBULA: As you have already stated that I was a black members, I would not be able to make enquiries about the whereabouts of any other person who was involved in that kind of incident.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you discuss it with Mr More or Mr Matjeni?

MR MATHEBULA: As I've already stated that I suspected that he was murdered, so I didn't know who was responsible because I was just suspecting or speculating.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, I see that it's eleven thirty. I would like to take an instruction. Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to - I haven't been in these hearings all of the past weeks, but I presume that there would be a short adjournment for tea.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr van den Berg, you definitely haven't been around from some time. We no longer now have a short adjournment, we prefer proceeding until lunch time, unless a request is made either by yourself, with good reasons, or by the witness to have a short adjournment.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Might I then, Madam Chair, request a short adjournment of five minutes, just to take an instruction from the family as to whether I've covered all the aspects that they require me to cover?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And I undertake that no more than five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Will that be convenient, Mr Jansen and Mr Joubert, if we were to take a five minute adjournment? Thank you. We'll have a five minute adjournment.

SMUTS PHILEMON MATHEBULA: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. We adjourned to enable you to take instructions from the victims, no from the relatives of Mr Morudi, whether you should put further questions to Mr Mathebula.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: (cont)

Thank you, Madam Chair, I'm indebted for the indulgence.

Mr Mathebula, just a number of other aspects. You say that when you went to Potchefstroom - well, let's just clarify this. When you went to Potchefstroom, were you armed? - you personally.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And did you display the weapon to Mr Morudi?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson, it was concealed.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Insofar as the informer is concerned, are you prepared to reveal the gender of the informer, whether it was male of female?

MR MATHEBULA: I've already stated that I'm not prepared to say anything in regard to the informer, but he was a male person.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, I'm hoping you are taking the question of an informer only up to this stage.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I was just about to say, Madam Chair, that I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Because his informer was not relevant to the ultimate abduction of Mr Morudi.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, there is one last question.

The name that you used as the person who sent you, was that the name of the informer?

MR MATHEBULA: No, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp, do you have any questions to put to Mr Mathebula?

ADV STEENKAMP: Nothing thank you, Chairlady.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Steenkamp. Any re-examination, Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, no re-examination. There's one issue that I neglected to put to Mr Mathebula. With permission of the Committee I would like to put ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You may re-open and put that question.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: It's one singular issue. This pertains to Mr Matjeni's application on page 78 thereof.

Mr Mathebula, Mr Matjeni states on page 78, paragraph 9(a)(1) of his application, in line 3 from the bottom - I can start a bit earlier. He says -

Up to there that is correct, is that so?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And then the sentence continues -

Now insofar as this may indicate or be interpreted to indicate that you and Mr More took Mr Morudi to the farm or to the Compol building, would that be correct or not?

MR MATHEBULA: He's referring to Compol building, not the farm.

MR JOUBERT: Yes, but does it indicate that you brought him anywhere apart from where you handed him over to the people in the white Skyline?

MR MATHEBULA: That is the only time when we handed him over, to the people at the Skyline.

MR JOUBERT: So insofar as it can be interpreted, this specific wording that you brought him anywhere else, that would not be correct.

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: I have no further questions, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr Malan, do you have any questions to put to Mr Mathebula?

MR MALAN: I have no questions, thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata, do you have any questions to put to Mr Mathebula?

ADV MOTATA: Just probably one, Madam Chair, emanating from a question asked by you earlier.

On page 123, where you say -

And then the sentence thereafter says -

And you say now you had suspected that the man was going to be interrogated. Was it in relation to these incidents which it was suspected?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

ADV MOTATA: Now lastly, on paragraph 8 you say you suspected that he was killed. And on a question emanating from Mr van den Berg, that he was not arrested lawfully, should I infer that if people are not arrested lawfully, those people would be killed?

MR MATHEBULA: That is correct, that is a suspicion I had because he could have been taken to the cells. So he was killed, because he was not taken to the cells.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Mathebula, would I be correct in encapsulating your affidavit as appearing on page 123, paragraph 1, as stating that you were advised by Capt Prinsloo about Mr Morudi's particular involvement with regard to the landmine incident which had taken place in Mamelodi?

MR MATHEBULA: Yes, that is correct, he is the person who informed me.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was as a result of his request that you initiated the search for Mr Morudi, thereby using your informer?

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You were advised of Morudi's involvement by Mr Prinsloo and nobody else.

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Just for clarity. These were at separate occasions. You were advised by Prinsloo earlier that you were looking for Morudi and then when you were summonsed to his office at a different occasion, he gave you the address.

MR MATHEBULA: Correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mathebula, you are excused as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: The next person to give evidence, as advised by counsel, will be Mr Chenny William More.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, what language is Mr More going to use?

MR JOUBERT: He'll be testifying in Tswana.

CHENNY WILLIAM MORE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr More, this is your first application that you are bringing to the Amnesty Committee, is that correct?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now I have canvassed this with the Committee earlier today, and the indication is that your application is before the Committee in a proper manner, in that an initial application was filed at that stage when you were a witness at the Attorney-General's office, is that correct?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Thereafter a further application to amplify the initial one, was prepared, is that correct?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: This application is contained in bundle 1, on page 93 to 111 and the specific incident to which we will be referring today is on pages 98 to 101. Do you confirm the content of this?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, as it has happened before, the application, Form 1, as it appears from page 93 to page 97, we take it that this is another application, that there was an initial application that was submitted in 1996 by Mr More.

MR JOUBERT: Madam Chair, that's indeed the case, as was the matter of Mathebula and these. You will recall last week, my learned friend handed in some documentation as well from the firm and Mr More's name also features in that list.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Jansen did that last week.

MR JOUBERT: That is correct, Madam Chair. Unfortunately, in this bundle that I have at my disposal there is no copy of the initial one, but it was filed with all the other parties at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed.

MR JOUBERT: May I assume it is then ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed and you take it for granted that you are properly before us.

MR JOUBERT: I do, thank you, Madam Chair.

Now Mr More, the Committee has full knowledge of what the political situation was during the earlier years or during this period, I'm not going to take you through that evidence now. We have had a consultation, and do you confirm inasfar as evidence was provided to the Committee earlier on, pertaining to the political situation and the situation more specifically between the Police Force and then the ANC at that stage, that it was a situation basically of war? Do you confirm that?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now pertaining to your own political motives as such, were you a member of any political organisation at that stage?

MR MORE: No, Chairperson, I was not a member of any political party.

MR JOUBERT: Is it correct that you were indeed a member of the South African Police Force?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Is it correct that you joined the South African Police in 1973?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: You underwent training at the college, thereafter you had counter-insurgency training at Maleeuskop and during 1984 you were transferred to the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, at that stage with the rank of Sergeant, is that correct?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And then during 1996, you were discharged due to a medical disability.

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now at the stage when you were in the service of the Security Branch, and more specifically in this case, during 1987/'88, your job description or the job that you to perform, was that in relation to Security matters?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And from whom did you receive instructions or orders?

MR MORE: From Capt Prinsloo.

MR JOUBERT: Capt Prinsloo was your Commanding Officer.

MR MORE: That is correct, he was my commander, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And the actions that you took, and more specifically this incident today, was that done in accordance with instructions provided to you from your Commanding Officer?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And insofar as you were involved in certain actions, did you receive any remuneration therefore, financially or any other way?

MR MORE: No, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And the actions that you took, were they taken on the understanding that you were acting on the instructions of your superiors, and in order to maintain the government of the day?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Now Mr More, I will now turn to page 98, annexure A to your application, pertaining to the matter of Mr Moses Morudi. You have heard the evidence that Mr Mathebula gave previously, is that correct?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: I'm just going to point out certain minor issues, whereafter your evidence will be completed. If I refer you to page 99 of your application, paragraph 4, in the second line you -

When the word "kuier" is used, what are you referring to here? Was he a resident there or was he merely visiting there for a period of time, or what precisely was the situation?

MR MORE: He was staying there only temporarily.

MR JOUBERT: And then on page 100, paragraph 6 of your application, in more-or-less the middle of the paragraph you say -

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Did you witness this incident as such, the fact that they were checking whether this was the correct person?

MR MORE: That is correct, I witnessed that, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And at that stage Mr Mathebula, was he present at the motor vehicle, or was he urinating in the veld?

MR MORE: He was at a distance, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: The Committee has questioned Mr Mathebula on whether any force was used and he was quite clear that there was no force used in the taking of Mr Morudi from the Peugeot to the Skyline. Do you confirm that?

MR MORE: He was taken by one person from the Peugeot to the Skyline and he did not resist.

MR JOUBERT: Then in paragraph 8 on the same page, this is now after you had returned to the Compol building, it's the following day, you say that you were conducting other duties and that you did not participate in the interrogation of Moses Morudi, is that correct?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: You furthermore then make the statement -

Did you in fact witness this or is this merely an assumption which you are making?

MR MORE: I took it that he was the one responsible because he's the one who instructed us to go and fetch him from Potchefstroom, and then when we arrived at Compol building, Capt Prinsloo was present at the place where they worked, Compol, then he told us to leave. So I thought he was the one responsible for the interrogation.

MR JOUBERT: So this is in fact an assumption which you make, correct?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson, I don't have the full facts.

MR JOUBERT: Then on paragraph 9 on page 101, you state from the second sentence onwards -

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And at this stage you were there to remove the tents, is that correct?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Am I then correct in saying that the last time that you had any contact with Mr Morudi was when you saw him at the Compol building on the same day of the abduction?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Do you have any idea what became of Mr Morudi?

MR MORE: I've no knowledge, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Did you have any personal conflict or problems with Mr Morudi?

MR MORE: No, Chairperson, I did not know him, I only began to know him on the day when we fetched him from Potchefstroom.

MR JOUBERT: And then, you are here today to apply for amnesty pertaining to any possible abduction or any crime that may result from the abduction of Mr Moses Morudi, is that correct?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: You furthermore also request amnesty for any civil proceeding which may be instituted in this regard, is that correct?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: I have no further questions, thank you - sorry, Madam Chair, I may just also raise the question that I did at the end with my re-examination of Mr Mathebula.

Mr Matjeni states in his application on page 78 of the bundle, paragraph 9(a)(1), more-or-less the third/fourth sentence from the bottom -

Now up to there, do you concede that that is ...(indistinct)

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: And the sentence then further continues -

Insofar as that may be interpreted as meaning that you and Mr Mathebula transported Mr Morudi to Compol or to the farm, that interpretation would not be correct.

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson, we last saw Mr Morudi, we handed him over from between Potchefstroom and Johannesburg, then after we met him at Compol building.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: For the sake of just completing his evidence-in-chief, won't you just canvass shortly the contents of Exhibit A and B with Mr More as well.

MR JOUBERT: I will do so, thank you, Madam Chair.

Now Sir, you confirm that you saw Annexure A and B earlier this morning, that is the statement of Mr Prinsloo and Mr Dos Santos.

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson, I saw them.

MR JOUBERT: With reference to Annexure A, in paragraph 1 of paragraph 3 thereof, you will note that Mr Prinsloo indicates that he does accept any involvement in the abduction of Moses Morudi and that this person was handled by W/O Putter and Const Botha. Do you have any comments to this?

MR MORE: Prinsloo is the one who instructed us to go and fetch Mr Morudi. We were three, it was myself and Smuts and him in his office.

MR JOUBERT: In your application you also refer to Dos Santos and Ludick, as well as a further white male person, is that correct?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JOUBERT: Do you recall whether W/O Putter or Const Botha was present in this white Skyline?

MR MORE: I don't remember the third person, but Putter was not present.

MR JOUBERT: Okay. And with reference to Annexure B, that's the affidavit of Dos Santos, you will note in paragraph 3 thereof he denies any involvement with the abduction of Moses Morudi. Do you have any comment on that?

MR MORE: He was the one who fetched him from our car.

MR JOUBERT: I have no further questions, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you refer to Dos Santos, Mr More? Are you saying Dos Santos is the one who fetched Morudi out of your car to put him into the white Skyline?

MR MORE: I'm referring to Dos Santos and the other two. Those are the people responsible for taking Morudi out of our car to their car.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. In your earlier evidence you said only one person took him out of your car and put him into the white Skyline. Now what I want to know is, who exactly took Mr Morudi out of your car?

MR MORE: The three of them were surrounding our car and one of them took him out of our car, but I don't remember which among the three.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you also stated that Dos Santos is the one who approached you and he's the one who identified him from the photograph. Am I correct?

MR MORE: One of them said "it's him". I don't know which one among the three.

CHAIRPERSON: So you don't know who confirmed Morudi's identity, you can't say whether it's Dos Santos, Ludick or another white man?

MR MORE: I'm not able to certify that, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: For how long have you known Dos Santos?

MR MORE: When I started working at Security Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Which is when?

MR MORE: '84.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you been working closely with Dos Santos from 1985, until about '87/'88?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jansen, do you have any questions to put to Mr More?

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr van den Berg, do you have any questions to put to Mr More?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair, I do.

Mr More, the instruction that was given to you by Capt Prinsloo, I understood you and if I understood Mr Mathebula correctly, it was just the three of you who were present at that time, is that correct?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What exactly was the instruction?

MR MORE: He told me that the person who they are looking for is Moses Morudi, he's hiding in Potchefstroom, then he gave us an address, then he told us "When you arrive there you use a certain name", but I don't remember that name. He told us that "You should tell him that that person instructed us to come and take you to exile, so that you will undergo military training".

MR VAN DEN BERG: Now we've heard from Mr Mathebula that there's a possibility that he might have used a name other than his name to introduce himself. Do you have a recollection of that?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So is it correct then that you would have used a false name or an alias to introduce yourself to Mr Morudi?

MR MORE: Yes, it was not our practice to use our true identity in this kind of particular mission.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you recall the name that you used to introduce yourself?

MR MORE: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the name that you used as the person who had sent you, you say you don't recall that name.

MR MORE: Yes, I don't remember that either, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I've put certain suggestions to Mr Mathebula, you were present when I put to those suggestions to him. Is it possible that you might have used one of those names, Masina, Masango?

MR MORE: I don't remember, Chairperson, at all. I don't remember the name we used.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you armed when you went to fetch Mr Morudi?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you display the weapon to Mr Morudi?

MR MORE: No, Chairperson, he did not see them.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What was his response when you told him, when you told Mr Morudi that you were to collect him to go for military training?

MR MORE: He seemed prepared.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Had you been looking for Mr Morudi previously? Had you had instructions to see if you could find Mr Morudi, previously?

MR MORE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And had you been looking for him in Mamelodi?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson, we were looking for him in Mamelodi.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The name that you were told to use, that name was given to you by Prinsloo, is that correct?

MR MORE: You mean the name used in Potchefstroom or where?

MR VAN DEN BERG: That's correct. Prinsloo said "Go to Potchefstroom, use this name, say this person has sent you".

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you know that Dos Santos and Ludick would accompany you or would be following you?

MR MORE: Yes, we were informed that they would follow us.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Before you departed for Potchefstroom, did you discuss how this matter would take place with Dos Santos and Ludick?

MR MORE: Yes, we discussed that immediately we leave town they would wait for us there, then they would take him from us.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you travel down together in a convoy?

MR MORE: No, they were at a distance from us, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van den Berg.

When this arrangement about how you were to travel to Potchefstroom and back was made, was Mr Prinsloo present?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson, he was the one who was giving instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he the one who was responsible for arranging that you would go ahead and Dos Santos would follow you to Potchefstroom?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So at all times, Mr Prinsloo was aware that Dos Santos would be accompanying you, though not until Ikageng, but shortly before Ikageng, outside Potchefstroom.

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson, he was responsible for the arrangements.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Thank you, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair.

When did Mr Morudi realise that you were in fact not from the ANC, that you were in fact not there to take him for military training?

MR MORE: At the point when they took him at Potchefstroom.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I understand this correctly, did you stop when you saw Dos Santos or did it happen the other way round, that you had stopped and Dos Santos arrived?

MR MORE: I did not see them. I saw Smuts going beside the road, then he told me that they are coming.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So they arrived at the rendezvous point after you.

MR MORE: They came behind us. I saw only at the time when they were flicking their lights, but Smuts saw them before they passed, or when they slowed down. Then they parked their car behind my car, then that's where Smuts stopped the car.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you know what Mr Morudi looked like, had you seen a photograph of him previously?

MR MORE: No, Chairperson, I did not.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What did you know about Mr Morudi, what had you been told about him?

MR MORE: What I knew is that he was involved in the explosion incidents in Mamelodi and then again that he was military trained internally by MK.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And what did you think would happen to him once he had been handed over to Dos Santos?

MR MORE: I don't understand your question, Sir.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What did you think would happen to Mr Morudi once he was in the detention of Mr Dos Santos?

MR MORE: I thought they were taking him to Compol for interrogation.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the last time that you saw Mr Morudi was at Compol, was it that day or the next day?

MR MORE: On the same day, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: On the same day. And you never saw Mr Morudi after that?

MR MORE: That is correct, that was the last time.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the last time that you saw Mr Morudi, he was in the company of Capt Prinsloo, is that correct?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Dos Santos?

MR MORE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Ludick?

MR MORE: And together with Ludick.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Anybody else?

MR MORE: Yes, there were others, but I don't remember their identity.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you present when Mr Morudi was interrogated?

MR MORE: No, Chairperson, I was not present.

MR VAN DEN BERG: So the last time you saw this man he was in the custody of three policemen at Compol, is that correct?

MR MORE: That's correct, Chairperson, there were three together with others who were just at a distance, at the cars. They would be with something.

MR MALAN: Mr van den Berg, is this leading somewhere? This is the fourth time you've asked him this question.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I apologise, Chairperson, I'll move on.

Was anything said to you as to where Mr Morudi was going to go?

MR MORE: I was not informed, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you anticipate that he would stay at Compol, or did you think he would be taken somewhere else?

MR MORE: I did not know because immediately we arrived, Capt Prinsloo released us to go home. I did not know their plans at that particular time.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You say you didn't know their plans at that particular time, did you find out what their plans were later?

MR MORE: Yes, I learnt later, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What did you ...(intervention)

MR MORE: I learnt from Smuts that he saw him at the farm and then he was interrogated there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And did Mr Mathebula tell you what he was interrogated about?

MR MORE: He only informed me that he saw him at Smit's farm, he did not tell me about the subject of the interrogation, but he told me that he was interrogated there.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did he tell you who was responsible for the interrogation?

MR MORE: He did not tell me, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You heard when I explained to Mr Mathebula that the family expected Mr Morudi to go into exile and so that when they didn't see him they were not overly concerned. Did you hear that?

MR MORE: I was not attentive at that particular time, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: But that when Mr Morudi did not return in the 1990s, when things changed in South Africa, they began to search for him. You obviously don't know that, but I'm telling you now. What do you think became of Mr Morudi?

MR MORE: I don't know what happened to him, but during our discussions, myself and Mr Smuts and Mr Matjeni, we suspected that he was murdered. Because he was not detained in the cells as was the procedure, he was taken to the tents and then the way he informed me that he was handcuffed and leg-cuffed, so we suspected that he was killed.

MR VAN DEN BERG: No further questions, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Steenkamp.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Chairlady, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Sorry, Chair, if Mr Motata could go please, I've got to check something.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: I've got none, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr More, ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: There's only one question, Chair.

On page 101, Mr More, paragraph 9, your last sentence you say -

Now this seems to refer to a time after he had been seen on the farm. What are you saying with this sentence?

MR MORE: I was referring to his file, that the file was present even before he was abducted. So we were busy with his file before he was abducted.

MR MALAN: Well if you could read the whole paragraph, or maybe from the end of the fourth line. You say you went to take down the tents, you saw nobody else on the farm, you don't know what happened to Morudi, but you remember that you were still working on his file.

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson. After this incident his file was not closed, so we were given his file after.

MR MALAN: Now can you tell what kind of work did you do on his file, can you tell us that?

MR MORE: That file was supposed to be taken to the activist's families to find out his whereabouts.

MR MALAN: Even after he had been abducted?

MR MORE: That is correct, his file was not closed after the abduction.

MR MALAN: So you had knowledge that he had been abducted, but you were still enquiring about his whereabouts with the family, is that what you're telling us?

MR MORE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: To what end or purpose?

MR MORE: We were not able to enquire from Capt Prinsloo, we did not know his intention when he gave us this file.

MR MALAN: Would my suspicion be correct that this was simply to confirm with the family the idea that he had gone into exile and that he was not in the hands of the police and therefore people were still looking for him?

MR MORE: That may be possible, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: In other words, a kind of cover-up.

MR MORE: That may be possible, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did you report back to anyone specifically on these activities?

MR MORE: We would report back to Capt Prinsloo, that would be the one who would give us further instructions after that, after reporting.

MR MALAN: Did you not tell Capt Prinsloo, but why are we asking these questions because we had already brought him to you, he was taken by Dos Santos and delivered at Compol and then taken to the farm?

MR MORE: At that time we did not have the prerogative to ask such questions because we were trying to save our lives. If you continue asking questions something may happen to you.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Just on a follow-up on what has already been put to you by my colleague. Who instructed you to conduct these enquiries to Mr Morudi's family about his whereabouts, was it Mr Prinsloo directly?

MR MORE: They would write those instructions from the file, then they would book that file, then you'd get it on your pigeonhole, then from there you would read the instructions that you should go to a particular place to look for the whereabouts of a particular person. Then at times he would give those files to his juniors and those would refer those instructions to us. So I don't remember well as to whether it was himself or his assistants.

CHAIRPERSON: Would he have been aware of such instructions or enquiries having been made to Mr Morudi's family? Would you expect Prinsloo to have known that such enquiries were being made to Morudi's family?

MR MORE: He had full knowledge, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that?

MR MORE: Because if the file is supposed to be close it passed through him, it would be referred to him before it is closed.

CHAIRPERSON: You also stated that you had also received instructions from Capt Prinsloo to look for Mr Morudi prior to his abduction. Do you recall saying that?

MR MORE: I remember, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you estimate how long prior to his abduction you had to look for Mr Morudi?

MR MORE: It would be months. It would not be many months, it may be approximately three to four months. I don't remember well about the duration, but it was after some time.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you instructed by Capt Prinsloo to do the search on your own as Mr More, or were you instructed to conduct this search in the company of Mr Mathebula? Do you recall?

MR MORE: We were instructed together with Mr Mathebula.

CHAIRPERSON: Was anyone else also instructed to conduct the search of Mr Morudi?

MR MORE: I don't know, Chairperson, maybe he could have instructed others without my knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mathebula has already given evidence that to his recollection such instructions were given two to three weeks prior to the abduction of Mr Morudi, and you are saying that such instructions were given to you about three to four months prior to his abduction.

MR MORE: Because it's a long time I'm just making an estimation. It may be three to four months, but I'm not sure about that.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do to conduct a search for Mr Morudi, subsequent to instructions and in compliance with the instructions of Capt Prinsloo? What did you do to effect such a search?

MR MORE: We used to go his house to look for him, then we'd find him not present.

CHAIRPERSON: Now where was his home where you conducted the search?

MR MORE: In Mamelodi, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware that Mr Mathebula was also using an informer to assist him in locating Mr Morudi?

MR MORE: I did not know, Chairperson, because if one uses an informer that would be his secret between him and his informer.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have sight - you've already given evidence that you did not know Mr Morudi, you didn't know what he looked like.

MR MORE: Yes, I did not know him, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now how did you conduct a search on someone you didn't know what he looked like?

MR MORE: Even when we'll go to his place we would not identify ourselves as members of the police, but we would identify ourselves as friends to Moss Morudi.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not given a photo of Mr Morudi by Capt Prinsloo?

MR MORE: I don't recollect being given a photograph, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So if you went to his home and even if he would have been there and he said Mr Morudi is not in, you wouldn't have known.

MR MORE: I would not know, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert, do you wish to re-examine Mr More?

MR JOUBERT: I have no re-examination, thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr More, you are excused as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: The next applicant to give evidence is Mr Matjeni.

MR JANSEN: Correct, Madam Chair. Jansen on record. With your permission I call Mr Matjeni as a witness.

ADV MOTATA: Which language are you going to use?

MR MATJENI: seTswana, Chairperson.

ADV MOTATA: May you give us your full names.

KOKELA JEREMIAH MATJENI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Motata. Mr Matjeni, you may take a seat. Thank you Mr Jansen, you may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Matjeni, you testified about your personal background and your background in the South African Police last week before this very same Committee, in the Mbizana matter, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: You want that evidence also to be considered by this Committee for this application, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And you also want the Committee to consider the evidence led and the documents handed up in respect of your application, more specifically which portions of your application were submitted before the cut-off date.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now your application in respect of the abduction of Mr Morudi is found on pages 76 to page 80 of the bundle, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: You have had the opportunity to go through this again, do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now it's correct your rank at the time was that of a Constable.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And your commanding officer was Capt Prinsloo.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And also in this incident you received your orders from him.

MR MATJENI: Correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: What is your comment about his statement that he was not involved in this incident?

MR MATJENI: I don't know much, I only saw him at the camp, so I don't know what was happening.

MR JANSEN: But you say that - if he says he did not give you the order to go and look after Mr Morudi and if he says he was not at the camp, you disagree with that?

MR MATJENI: I would not agree with that because I went there two to three times at the camp then I found him there.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose.

Did you go there at Mr Prinsloo's instructions, that's what your counsel wants to find out from you.

MR MATJENI: I was instructed by him because I was working under him. For me to go to the camp it was because he authorised or sent me there.

MR JANSEN: Was Mr Prinsloo the kind of person that would have accepted the fact that some his subordinates got themselves involved in kidnapping and unlawful detentions without him knowing about it?

MR MATJENI: In many instances according to my knowledge, he would the one who would give instructions.

MR JANSEN: Will you be able to leave town in other words, be able to leave the place of work in Pretoria without Mr Prinsloo's knowledge?

MR MATJENI: That was not possible, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Now ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Just on this question.

Could Mr Dos Santos not give you instructions to go away from the office?

MR MATJENI: That would be possible, but if you were assigned that you would work with him, that would be then that he would give you instructions and then with the knowledge of a senior.

MR MALAN: Which you would simply assume, you would not necessarily have known it.

MR MATJENI: I would not know, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just explore this further, Mr Jansen, so that I can understand whether I'm on the same page with you.

You would not leave Pretoria where you were based, at the Northern Transvaal Division, to go to a farm for a day or more without Prinsloo's knowledge. Do you understand my question?

MR MATJENI: Yes, I understand your question. It was not possible that you would leave to any camp without Prinsloo's knowledge.

CHAIRPERSON: So he had to give his approval before you could go to any place like a farm?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And such instructions you wouldn't have taken from a junior officer like Dos Santos?

MR MATJENI: I will take that instruction from Dos Santos, because Dos Santos would just relay an instruction.

CHAIRPERSON: But in his relaying of such an instruction, would he say that such instructions had been approved by Mr Prinsloo?

MR MATJENI: At times he would not tell you, but you'd have that belief that he has been sent by Mr Prinsloo to come and instruct you.

CHAIRPERSON: But in this particular incident you were directly instructed by Prinsloo to go to the farm.

MR MATJENI: I don't remember well who instructed me, but what I remember is that I was instructed to go to the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair.

Now this place where Mr Morudi was kept, that is not a place where you would normally keep somebody who was properly arrested in terms of the Security legislation or the emergency regulations?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, he was not arrested lawfully.

MR JANSEN: Now you knew that at that time, you knew that it was strictly speaking against the law.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, I knew, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: But as you testified previously, you believed that that was part of your work from time to time, to do unlawful things.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: Did you receive any extra or special remuneration for your involvement in this incident other than your normal salary?

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson.

MR JANSEN: And according to you Mr Morudi was, although you didn't have detailed information about his activities, but you were under the impression that he was either a member of the ANC or a supporter of the ANC.

MR MATJENI: I believed that he was working together with the ANC, but I didn't know his background.

MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden - oh, Mr van den Berg. I'm sorry, I'm now playing the tapes of the Mbizana matter. Thanks to Mr Jansen reminding me of that. Mr van den Berg.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair, I do have a few questions.

Was there any other person being held at the camp other than Mr Morudi?

MR MATJENI: It was him alone, Chairperson, at that particular time.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And did any other, let's use the word detainee, did anybody else arrive during the time that Mr Morudi was there?

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Sorry, I didn't get that question, Mr van den Berg. Could you repeat the question.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I asked whether any other, for want of a better word, detainee arrived during the time that Mr Morudi was held at the camp.

MR MALAN: Oh I thought he had answered that already to your first question, that at the particular time nobody was there when he was kept. Thank you.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you present when Mr Morudi was interrogated?

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you see who interrogated him?

MR MATJENI: I saw him there, I did not know as to whether he was interrogated or not.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You say in your application for amnesty on page 77, in the first paragraph the very last line -

You didn't see that happen?

MR MATJENI: I'm stating that because when you go there you'd find people from various sections together with him and then when you go again you'd find other members of the certain section with him.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is, did you see him being interrogated by various persons as you have alleged in your affidavit on page 77, the last sentence?

MR MATJENI: Maybe I put it wrongly, because what was happening is that at a particular time you would see various members of a particular unit, because there was Section B and Section C who were involved with him in discussions.

CHAIRPERSON: You simply assumed that they were there to interrogate him.

MR MATJENI: Yes, I believed that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And who did you believe was interrogating him? Can you give us names? You mention here Hechter, but you say you're not sure. Also on page 77 in that first paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: And the second paragraph, Mr van den Berg. Won't you just put those names to him, maybe it will be faster. Joe Mamasela, Slang Selatle, Hendrik Bokaba.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Did you see the following persons at the camp and were they to your mind participating in the interrogation? Mr Mamasela.

MR MATJENI: If I remember well, at a particular time when I went there he was present together with Selatle and Hechter. A few of them from a particular section were present.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you've mentioned also Slang Selatle and Hendrik Bokaba.

MR MATJENI: Slang is Selatle. Selatle, not Slang.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes. Did you see him there?

MR MALAN: He said so.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And did you see Paul van Vuuren there?

MR MATJENI: It's possible because those you are talking about they are from a certain section and then we are from another section.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Capt Prinsloo, was he present?

MR MATJENI: It's possible because he was in our section. I believe he was present.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And it's also possible that Dos Santos was present?

MR MATJENI: That's possible, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Matjeni, you say that it was possible that Capt Prinsloo was present when Mr Morudi was to your mind interrogated.

MR MATJENI: I believe he was present.

CHAIRPERSON: You see what I would find strange is for you not to be sure whether Capt Prinsloo was present because he was your senior and he was in command of the unit, and you call recall people like Mamasela, Mr Bokaba and Slang Selatle. Surely you would be in a position to say during the two weeks of your guarding Mr Morudi, whether Mr Prinsloo did attend the farm during Morudi's detention or not.

MR MATJENI: I believe that he was present there.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it correct that you were there for almost two weeks guarding Mr Morudi?

MR MATJENI: We were working in shifts, others would come and then others would leave.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were there for an approximate period of a week to two weeks.

MR MATJENI: I would say at times I would come once or twice. I don't remember as to whether I came once or twice because we were working in shifts.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't remember whether you came one or twice to do what? I'm not with you, I'm trying to understand what you are saying.

MR MATJENI: At times I would go there in the afternoon to guard him and then again to give him food, then tomorrow another group would come to do the same job.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now how many days would you say you were there guarding him, accumulatively? I know you were working in shifts. Can you approximate whether you were guarding him for three days, for four days?

MR MATJENI: I can't remember, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But you looked after him for more than a day.

MR MATJENI: That is why I'm saying I'm not sure as to whether it's two or three days.

CHAIRPERSON: Now during the time when you were there, were you with Mr Morudi in the tent, during the two to three days that you were there guarding him?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, I was with him in the tent. That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there no time during your looking after Mr Morudi when somebody, either Mr Mamasela or many other people that you've mentioned in your affidavit, was there not a singular occasion when one of them came and requested you to release Morudi for interrogation?

MR MATJENI: I would say at the particular time when they want to talk to him or somebody comes to talk to him and they found him there, I would leave, I would leave them alone, then I would not know as to what was the subject of their communication.

CHAIRPERSON: So you'd be requested to leave the tent in order for that person to conduct an interrogation on Mr Morudi?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And to your recollection, how many times did that happen?

MR MATJENI: I would say it may be two times, but I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: And to the best of your recollection, who requested you to leave the tent in order for him to conduct such an interrogation?

MR MATJENI: I don't remember, Chairperson, but I remember that people from Section B, on a particular day I was with them, then they asked me to leave because they wanted to talk to Mr Morudi. That's what I remember. That is where I mentioned various names, but I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: And the people who belonged to Section B are people like Mr Mamasela, Slang Selatle, Hendrik Bokaba?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know recall Mr Prinsloo having requested you to leave for him to conduct such an interrogation?

MR MATJENI: It seems it happened if I remember well.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you were asked a question by Mr van den Berg as to how you received instructions - I don't know whether it's Mr van den Berg or your counsel, but I made a mental note, how you received instructions to guard Mr Morudi. Now is it correct that you were contacted by means of a radio by Capt Prinsloo and requested to meet him at the Pietersburg and Pretoria highway? Is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did as you had been instructed and you met Capt Prinsloo at that highway.

MR MATJENI: In Hammanskraal, Chairperson, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that when you were instructed by him to guard Mr Morudi?

MR MATJENI: That was the particular time, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Were these instructions given to you along the highway and not at Hammanskraal farm?

MR MATJENI: He gave me instructions at the farm, from there then I followed him to the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: So you had to meet him along the highway? MR MATJENI: That is correct, I met him on the way on the road, then from there we went to the farm.

CHAIRPERSON: Instructions were only given to you once you reached the farm, to guard Mr Morudi.

MR MATJENI: According to my recollection that is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you been to this farm before, prior to the Morudi incident?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were familiar with this farm.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Chair, you've covered most of my questions, but just a few.

If I understand you correctly, in response to the Chair's question you were saying that you followed Capt Prinsloo to the farm, did you travel with your own transport?

MR MATJENI: Yes, I had my own transport, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So you didn't get into his car? After having met him, he instructed you to get to the farm and you followed him to the farm but you travelled in your own car?

MR MATJENI: Let me try to explain the way we used to work. If you are a particular place you would have a radio communication with that particular person, then you'd receive instructions through the radio, then they would tell you where to meet them or him.

MR MALAN: Yes, and I understood that he contacted you by radio, instructed you to meet along the highway at Hammanskraal, which you did.

MR MATJENI: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Did you drive to that meeting point in your car?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And he drove in his car to that meeting point. This is now Capt Prinsloo.

MR MATJENI: Yes, he had his own transport and then I had my own transport.

MR MALAN: Yes. And then he instructed you to follow him to the farm and you went in two cars to the farm.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And at the farm you got instructions to guard Morudi.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Now those instructions, and this is really my interest, your evidence was that you guarded Morudi in shifts, now how did you - did you get a roster? How did you know when was your shift? Was it every time new instructions for you to get there? Were you contacted by radio? Tell us how did you know when was your shift to guard Moses Morudi.

MR MATJENI: Let me say you'd be there, then whilst you are there you would be instructed to go back to the office, then whilst you're at the office you'd be instructed to go to the farm.

MR MALAN: Now who would be giving these instructions?

MR MATJENI: ...(no English interpretation)

MR MALAN: We don't have an interpretation, shall I put the question again.

INTERPRETER; Please repeat the question.

MR MALAN: Who gave you the instructions at the farm to go back to the office and who gave you the instructions at the office to get back to the farm?

MR MATJENI: I don't know how to put it because at a particular time you'd be instructed by a certain person, then at times you'd be instructed by another person and Capt Prinsloo may relay instructions to another person.

CHAIRPERSON: We want you to tell us who informed you. If you can remember the name of a particular person who instructed you from the office to go to the camp. We want you to give us the particular name of the person.

MR MATJENI: At times it would be Capt Prinsloo, at times it would be Dos Santos. Those were the people mainly who used to give me instructions, particularly in regard to the Morudi incident.

MR MALAN: At times Putter?

MR MATJENI: He was a white person, he would do that because he had the prerogative to do so.

MR MALAN: At times PW Botha?

MR MATJENI: Yes, that is possible, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So you could have had your instructions from anyone to go back to the farm to do guarding?

MR MATJENI: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And at the farm, who would there give you instructions if Prinsloo wasn't there?

MR MATJENI: Any white person who was in charge at that particular moment.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Chair.

And then one last question. At no stage did you see any signs of assault on Morudi.

MR MATJENI: No, Chairperson, there was no time when I saw signs of assault.

MR MALAN: Did you ever speak to Morudi while you were guarding him?

MR MATJENI: When they are not present, we noticed that they are outside, then you would ask questions like "Where do you stay". You would just ask but not with authority.

MR MALAN: But he never gave you other information or expressed any fears that he might be killed, can you recall any such discussions?

MR MATJENI: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't trust you did he? He knew you were part of the system.

MR MATJENI: Yes, he knew that I was part of the system, but we were trying to be cautious to them.

CHAIRPERSON: But you knew you to be a security policeman nevertheless.

MR MATJENI: That's correct, he knew.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: While mainly he was interrogated by white members?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV MOTATA: At the farm there were members of the B-Section and members of the C-Section, is that correct?

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV MOTATA: People like Mamasela and Bokaba and Selatle were members of the B-Section.

MR MATJENI: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were they interrogated him in your presence?

MR MATJENI: I did not know if they were among white members, because I didn't know their trend of work. If you were together with Mr Morudi, you'd be instructed to leave, then they would continue with their interrogation.

MR MATJENI: When I read your statement you say black members were the ones who were guarding those people who were detained at the farms. So people like Mamasela were black members. So were they guarding this person?

MR MATJENI: Mamasela was feared by white members.

ADV MOTATA: You're saying you were working under Prinsloo.

MR MATJENI: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV MOTATA: If any white person would come and give you instructions, anyone who arrives at the farm, you'd take those instructions?

MR MATJENI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, do you wish to re-examine?

MR JANSEN: No re-examination, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Jansen. Mr Matjeni, you are excused as a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I note that it is now 1 o'clock, maybe it is an appropriate time to adjourn for lunch. Will it be convenient if we resumed at quarter to two? Will that be convenient, Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Yes, we could convene earlier if you don't mind, depending. I assume it's only the argument and that would short.

CHAIRPERSON: We could even sit and hear your oral submissions before adjourning for lunch, is it possible?

MR JANSEN: Yes, again that may be a good idea, to see how far we get with the argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Joubert, what is your position? Are we in a position to listen to your oral submissions?

MR JOUBERT: Yes, indeed Madam Chair, I think it won't take much time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van den Berg, I'm sure you can't oppose that suggestion coming from Mr Jansen and Mr Joubert.

MR VAN DEN BERG: No, Madam Chair, I can't. The only thing that I still have instructions in respect of is that a member of the family wanted very briefly to make a statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That would be done under oath, just to give some background and then just to give the family's perceptions of this process.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but do you have any objection in us just finalising the whole application, including argument without having to take an adjournment?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I have no difficulty, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No difficulty, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. We'd prefer that we don't adjourn. We'll then proceed to call a member of the Morudi family.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, I call Thomas Morudi. Mr Morudi has indicated that he will testify in English. He is aware that there are interpretation facilities, but he's chosen to testify in English.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Morudi, will you please stand to take an oath. What are your full names?

THOMAS MKOKA MORUDI: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may take a seat, you've been duly sworn in.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, I understand that an arrangement needs to be made with the microphone, just so that we don't have a situation where it gets turned and off. If we could possibly do that.

CHAIRPERSON: We can do that immediately.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you ready to commence?

MR VAN DEN BERG: It would appear so, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Morudi, for the benefit of the Panel and perhaps also for the applicants, you tell us a little bit about your brother, Moses Morudi, when was he born, where was he born, where did he attend school.

MR MORUDI: Moses Morudi, I'm not sure whether I should say he's my brother or he was my brother. That is one thing that I should put ...(indistinct). Secondly, he was born in 1965 at Mamelodi. He attended school at Mangolwane(?). From Mangolwane he proceeded to Mamelodi Higher Primary. From Mamelodi he proceeded to Rethabile High School.

He was a member of Cosas, that is the student movement that existed at that time. And from there he was involved in ANC activities. I'm not aware of the issues that he was involved in, in MK operations. As far as I'm concerned, he was a very young man and a very small boy, or he is a small boy, I don't know, but he was very small, he was a very young man.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When was the last time that you saw Moses?

MR MORUDI: The last time I saw Moses was a day before the police came to my home searching for him. They came in cars and then some of them have testified in this hearing. I saw them during the period when they were searching for Moses. That was after Ting-Ting and Jabu were arrested. They came in many cars. They broke the gates, they broke everything at home.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When you refer to Ting-Ting and to Obet, you refer to Mr Masango and Mr Masina.

MR MORUDI: That's right.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you know that Moses was in Potchefstroom?

MR MORUDI: Ja, I was aware that he was in Potchefstroom, I used to visit him at Potchefstroom.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And for how long had he been there?

MR MORUDI: He was there for a period of a year.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And what was he doing there?

MR MORUDI: I would assume he was there hiding from the Security Police.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Had he expressed an interest in leaving the country?

MR MORUDI: Ja, he did actually express a feeling that he wants to leave the country, primarily on our instance because there were these guys who were looking for him. It was frightening, we were afraid that when he was going to be caught they were going to kill him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When was the last time that your family had contact with him?

MR MORUDI: The last time we got a telephone call from Potchefstroom, indicating that Moses has left and he has gone where he wanted to go. Until after 1990, when we started searching for him, when all the exiles were coming back, but we searched without any, without arriving at any situation where we would know where he is, until this TRC process started. That's where we started knowing that maybe he was killed.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I know that this is very difficult for you Mr Morudi, so take your time. When were you aware that an application for amnesty which pertained to Moses, had been made?

MR MORUDI: The position is such that during 1992/'93, we got information from the Attorney-General's office that there was an investigation that was going on pertaining to the situation around my brother.

The information was that there was, the Attorney-General was about to make arrests and that there were people who were prepared to testify on behalf of the State. And furthermore, the information we got was that these people have now turned to the TRC for amnesty. It's now that we are going through the process of the TRC. We only started knowing that there are actually people who have applied for amnesty about last year.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the TRC process is a process which your family has followed quite closely.

MR MORUDI: I can remember my mother used to go to every, nearly every sitting that was conducted by the TRC around Pretoria, even in Johannesburg, even in kwaNdebele. She never missed even one single TRC hearing, with the hope that during those processes maybe the name of her child would come up and she would ultimately know what happened to her son.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What is your family's attitude to these applications which are before this Panel today?

MR MORUDI: Now I must say that we are going through a very difficult period in that we are of the opinion that the TRC, the purpose of the TRC is to reconcile two parties, that is the perpetrators and the victims, that is the position we know.

Now it is difficult for us to accept the situation where we would be expected by the applicants not to oppose their applications because we don't have the final detail or the closure to the whole situation. And it's difficult for us to say fine, we are not going to oppose the applications, based on the fact that the primary purpose like we understand is the fact that we should know who killed him and where was he buried, so that we should adhere to our African culture that we should get the remains, bury them like we do with all our dead.

Now I'm not sure as to whether my brother is still alive or he's dead. So I am actually requesting that the applicants should give us a way, should actually tell us, or rather we are requesting the assistance of the TRC to get to the closure. It's open and we cannot go on with an open-ended situation. We are requesting closure, we should know that he's dead and we have buried him, then we would be in a position to see there's finality to the whole situation. But as it is now there's no finality.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Is there anything additional that you want to add to what you've already said, Mr Morudi?

MR MORUDI: I think I've said enough.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair. It might be an appropriate time to have a short adjournment, the family are quite distressed.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a five minute adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, Mr Morudi was under oath, I'm not sure whether there is anybody who wishes to cross-examine him, or if he might ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Maybe let's make enquiries from Mr Jansen. Mr Jansen, would you like to put any questions to Mr Morudi?

MR JANSEN: No questions, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I think he can be excused as a witness, Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair, I will convey that to him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: We don't intend to call anybody else, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You close your case.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Between Mr Joubert and Mr Jansen, who is going to commence?

MR JANSEN: I'll start.

CHAIRPERSON: Don't you want me to throw a coin?

MR JANSEN IN ARGUMENT: No, no, I'll take it upon me to start. Thank you Chair, Honourable Members of the Committee. I've going to be very brief mainly because amnesty is only sought in respect of the kidnapping. I've been wondering since the last few weeks just about the definition of kidnapping and abduction, because I see the words are used interchangeably and I see that the Act defines abduction as being part of a gross human rights violation, but the general meaning is different. It's just a puritan's argument, so whether you call it kidnapping or abduction, I'm in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, for purposes of the Act.

MR JANSEN: Ja, for purposes of the Act.

CHAIRPERSON: The Act refers to ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR JANSEN: Ja. Anyway, in Afrikaans it would be "menseroof", if I understand it correctly.

In any event, I respectfully submit that the main reason why you should give amnesty here is that as far as the seriousness of the offence that the applicants before you seek amnesty for, it is not comparable to for instance, cases where there is a murder. It would of course have been different if there had been a slight inkling that the applicants before you knew or were involved in what consequently happened to Mr Morudi, but there's simply no such evidence. We don't know what has happened to Mr Morudi. And considering the process as a whole, that element, the seriousness of it cannot be held against the applicants.

Furthermore, it's clear that this operation has many of the characteristics of other instances where there were people abducted, taken to isolated farms, there they were either interrogated or whatever and eventually killed. It's clearly operations that must have taken place on the instructions of somebody fairly senior.

It is true that in this application as we sit here, there is no senior person taking responsibility for that order. We can speculate as to the reason why, we don't know, but it's simply not, I would put it as strongly as possible, to even suggest that fairly low-ranking juniors who would not normally have that implied authority of setting up a camp outside and arranging for somebody's abduction and his interrogation there, would have done something on their own. It was clearly - there must have been one of the people in either Section B or in Section C of the Pretoria or the Northern Transvaal Security Branch, who must have given that order. And once one accepts that, even though one cannot identify that specific individual - well one can on the evidence in front of you, although that person isn't here, on the evidence before you it's Prinsloo. And it makes sense, it's inherently probable that it was him and at the very least that he must have known about it. His members would simply not be out there two weeks long without him knowing. So one can accept that there is that order. In any event there's no evidence to contradict that.

Therefore I submit respectfully, Madam Chair, subsections, that sub-sub(a) and (b) of 20(1) has been met and then as I stated (c), or as far as the full disclosure is concerned, Madam Chair, I respectfully submit that there is nothing to suggest why these gentlemen who have in other instances made themselves part of more serious offence, somehow would stop in the middle of this story. There's nothing to suggest the contrary. The hard and fast evidence before you is that they are telling what they know and that they have been frank and have made a full disclosure.

Madam Chair, I don't think there's any - unless you want to hear me on a specific aspect, I would just simply ask that amnesty be granted for the abduction then of Mr Moses Morudi. It would seem as if the date was probably in the middle of 1987 sometime. It seems that he was - if you will recall from the other instances where we dealt with the Masina and Masango group, in the Law Report it states that they were arrested sometime in June 1986. Now if Morudi was hiding in Potchefstroom for more-or-less a year from the Security Police, as was testified by his brother, it does place this incident in the middle of 1987, as would seem to correlate with the recollection of the applicants. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you think we should do with the disclaimer as it is before us by Mr Prinsloo, who on the evidence of the applicants was their senior?

MR JANSEN: Yes. One can obviously take note thereof, but in the absence of cross-examination of that evidence it would be wrong to use that to overthrow any of their evidence. At the very best one can make a finding that there may be some confusion as to the identity of who gave the orders, so one must accept and leave some room for the fact that because somebody would ordinarily or routinely receive orders from person A, that it would be easy for him in a specific instance, to reconstruct person A also giving that order. So for purposes of this application and for purposes of making factual findings in this application, there is no need or there's no basis to reject any part of any of the applicants' versions. Thanks.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV MOTATA: You are saying that on the basis that we have heard evidence earlier that they belonged to Section C, which the commander thereof was either Prinsloo or Crafford, but Prinsloo being the person who has been with the Security Branch for a longer time than Crafford, so obviously it would be Prinsloo.

MR JANSEN: Yes, Mr Motata, I heard that evidence previously. I think if I recall it correct, Prinsloo was the head, then Crafford and then Prinsloo again. We don't know in which period it fell, but ja.

CHAIRPERSON: But the version before us is that Prinsloo was in command of the applicants before us.

MR JANSEN: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There's no indication that anyone else other than him was in command.

MR JANSEN: Yes, and they worked with him. So whether he was actually in command of the section of not, he was in command of them.

CHAIRPERSON: I've heard you, Mr Jansen, with regard to the weight to be attached to the affidavit by Mr Prinsloo, in which he disclaims any knowledge about this incident as a commander. There is nothing in which he seeks to suggest that he was not in command of the unit, or suggesting that he was not at the least in command of the applicants before us.

MR JANSEN: Yes, no absolutely, there's no such suggestion to the contrary. And in any event another point of criticism which is maybe important to make in respect of that affidavit is he is extremely terse and very, well I think we normally use the words of "bald, bald and vague". Certainly, there's no attempt to look at the applicants' amnesty applications and to say in respect of this, or what does he say about the farm, does he ever know whether the person was taken to the farm, does he know of the people camping at that farm, etc. So it's a - yes, it's not very satisfactory in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well we also take note of the fact that Mr Prinsloo drew this affidavit being assisted by a legal representative according to Mr Steenkamp.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair indeed. I discussed this yesterday, unfortunately Adv van der Walt is not present now, but I discussed the position regarding these specific ...(indistinct) implicate people yesterday and she then indicated to me that she will take responsibility for statements being handed to the Committee, and those are the two statements.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

ADV STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair. I share the sentiments of my learned friend, Mr Jansen, and I will restrict myself to addressing you merely with regard to the question of full disclosure. I'm respectfully of the opinion that Section 20(1)(a) and (b) has been complied with.

With regard to the full disclosure I will respectfully submit that both applicants have given as much detail as possible within their memory, that is available to them within their memory. The necessary corroboration is found in all three applicants' versions and I submit that this also induces or contributes to their credibility in this issue.

The evidence before the Committee at this stage is that Capt Prinsloo was the Commanding Officer and he was in indeed the person who gave the answers. As my learned friend has pointed out, in his affidavit which has been handed in, he does not deal with all the various aspects of their application, but merely makes a mere denial and refers to two other people, W/O Putter and Const Botha.

I respectfully submit that Mr Prinsloo did have the opportunity to attend today's hearing and he was advised and assisted by legal practitioners and if he was here to give evidence, then more weight could possibly have been attached to this. I would respectfully submit that this should not be taken into account as a disclaimer indicating that the applicants did not have the necessary instructions from their Commanding Officer to proceed with these acts.

Furthermore, Madam Chair, I wish to point out with regard to Mr Mathebula's evidence, and he was cross-examined by my learned friend, Mr van den Berg in this regard pertaining to the informer that was used, Mr Mathebula refused to make this name available. I respectfully submit, and I have now taken this up with my learned friend who has indicated that there have been numerous decisions in this regard, that the fact that the name of the informer has not been made available does not mean that there has not been full disclosure.

CHAIRPERSON: That informer, we gave an indication to Mr van den Berg that his identity was of no relevance to us. He is not important to the link that ultimately led to Mr Morudi being abducted.

MR JOUBERT: Yes, Madam Chair, I would have come - my further sense would have been then, and in any it would be irrelevant. So I would argue that that is not relevant or indicative of not giving full disclosure. In the light thereof, Madam Chair, both the applicants will then request amnesty for the abduction or be it then kidnapping as Mr Jansen has pointed out, or any other crimes that may be associated therewith, as well as for any civil liability that my result from the abduction of Mr Morudi.

I don't know if there are any specific issues which you would like me to address you on, otherwise that would be the gist of my argument.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Joubert. Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

My address to you is not limited to legal issues, and my instructions are to pick up on the evidence which was presented to you by Mr Thomas Morudi. As he indicated to this Learned Panel, the family came seeking the truth, they came seeking reconciliation. They came with the hope that they would be able to close this chapter in their lives. They are of the view that a full picture has not emerged and that whilst people have been implicated, those people are not present and the family is unable to take the matter further. But they are of the view that this Committee should exercise its powers as set out in Section 3 and Section 4 and then Chapter 6, and that those people who are implicated be compelled to be present.

The affidavits which have been supplied by two of the implicated persons, Prinsloo and Dos Santos, really takes the matter no further. They are bland, bald denials.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, does this Committee, the Amnesty Committee have powers to compel implicated persons who have been duly notified of the extent of their implication, to appear before us?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can I refer you, Madam Chair, to Chapter 6, which commences at Section 28 and particularly with reference to Section 29, particularly 29(1)(c) -

That, Madam Chair, flows from the provisions of, I think it's Section 19.4, Madam Chair -

So I would submit that you are entitled if the Committee was of the view that it would assist and would facilitate these proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: In your opinion the affidavits before us, wouldn't they assist us in coming to a decision insofar as the amnesty applications of the applicants are concerned? Pertinently the affidavit of Mr Prinsloo. On whose instructions all the applicants acted.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, if one has a look at the single paragraph which really deals with the substance of this application, Prinsloo says -

And it's in the content of that, that one would be able to take this matter further. What was it that they got from Moses Morudi? Why was it that he was particularly singled out for this kind of treatment? I think that it's common cause, Madam Chair, that Morudi was involved with the unit comprising Masina, Masango, Potsane, Makura, all persons who were charged, all persons who served a period of imprisonment. Why was he different?

CHAIRPERSON: Does he say he was different? He says he was an informer being handled by Mr Pieter and Mr Botha, that he couldn't have been a person to have been targeted for an abduction or any kind of an illegal arrest.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Well Madam Chair, that flies in the face of the evidence which the applicants here have led, that in fact and certainly on Mr More's version, they had been looking for Mr Morudi for some period of time. He thinks it might have been three or four months.

CHAIRPERSON: And then so did Mr Mathebula. They had been looking for him for two to three weeks.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Mathebula was also seeking him. It goes further in that Morudi was kept on this farm, shackled hand and foot and that from what I can gather from the applicants, he was subjected to some form of interrogation. And so there seems to be more to this entire operation than that which is before this Committee.

MR MALAN: Sorry. Mr van den Berg, was that not clear from the start, that the applicants on their disclosure before us, really had limited involvement and limited knowledge. And if indeed you wanted this Committee, and I'm talking about the Amnesty Committee who has the charge of facilitating the amnesty, the giving of amnesty or not, if you wanted them to get the implicated person, shouldn't you have approached us at least earlier, not at the stage of argument, to subpoena these people? And then - my last question, isn't the question of the Chair still relevant? To what extent is there any indication or any argument that whatever further information would be brought before us, would change the positions of these applicants?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Malan, if I can respond in this way. We have seen the papers and it was the family's intention that these people be subpoenaed. We approached it slightly differently in that we had had, I had had discussions with Prinsloo and Dos Santos' legal representatives in an attempt to facilitate that sort of thing. Whether their evidence would impact on these applicants I cannot say. And really, it is on the broader approach, on the not strictly legal approach, that the family have sought closure to this chapter of their lives. It doesn't impact, well it may, but it doesn't necessarily impact directly on these applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It doesn't really impact on the Sections that you've referred to us, Section 29, because if we are of the opinion that the requesting of Capt Prinsloo for purposes of being questioned is relevant, surely we must limit that to the offence or the act or omission for which the applicants are seeking amnesty. I can understand that the families are more interested in a broader picture than the offences for which we are seized with for purposes of deciding whether to grant or deny amnesty.

I can understand the problems of the family, they're interested in knowing what has happened to their loved ones and these applicants unfortunately are in no way able to bring them into a better picture than they have been for the past nine years, since 1990. But how far can we go with the implicated parties in having to subpoena them to appear before us for purposes of covering the ground that is being sought by the family? Can we legally do that?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, I missed the last ...

CHAIRPERSON: Can we legally subpoena Mr Prinsloo with a view of enabling you to get some kind of disclosure with regard to what has happened to Mr Morudi? And I think something that will actually go beyond the application that we presently are seized with, bearing in mind that the offences for which amnesty is being sought by the three applicants is limited to one of abduction.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Madam Chair, I take the point. And presumably one can take - sorry, Madam Chair ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, while you're thinking. Is the course of action not to be suggested that the Attorney-General be approached again, seeing that it was certainly the involvement of his office that led to the three applications before us, as was testified and on the paper of the applications, asking him having reviewed the record, to perhaps make follow-up investigations? He may have further evidence already because clearly he had some information which led him to approach the three applicants before us and he might have approached also the implicated parties. Shouldn't they approach his office? Isn't that the course of action, Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: The family have had discussions with the Attorney-General and we certainly will pursue those. The point that I wanted to make was just in terms of the facilitating of reconciliation. And I opened my address by saying that it goes broader than the narrow legal principles here.

The real difficulty that one might well face in the subpoena of, and this really undermines my own argument, but the real difficulty that one faces in the issue of the subpoena in these circumstances, where implicated parties have not made application for amnesty in respect of this particular incident, that they might exercise their constitutional rights. Even though, I suppose strictly speaking, whatever is said here cannot be used against them.

Madam Chair, those are my instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And obviously Section 19.4 gives them the right to be present or not to be present at a hearing. What is important for us is to make sure that they have been properly notified of these hearings, so as to protect themselves. Because what happens after this hearing is that they will be exposed to possible prosecutions in terms of the Act, in terms of our very founding Act.

MR VAN DEN BERG: That is so, Madam Chair. The approach of the family has been on the basis, as you heard Mr Morudi, that they sought the truth and that they sought reconciliation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I can understand and I really can feel the pain that they are going through at this very moment, in having to be here hoping that this single and very unique process will ultimately answer their prayers of having to know what has happened to their son and to come here, having attended the many hearings as we have heard Mr Morudi say they've been attending, and still to go out of that door without that question having been answered. That should be extremely painful to any member of a family who has lost a loved one in the circumstances as we thing they have, as described and where one can speculate that Mr Morudi might indeed be dead.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, it can be the only conclusion that one can draw. He was last seen in the presence of several security policemen.

In terms of legal aspects, Madam Chair, I'm perturbed by the lack of clarity and the lack of detail provided by these applicants. Whilst we have certain aspects which are fairly detailed, there are other aspects in which there is no detail and no clarity. And that relates particularly to the name that was used as the inducement to Mr Morudi. That I would have thought was something extraordinary, something that would have stuck in the applicants' minds. How it was that they could approach a person like Morudi, an internal member of the ANC, supporter of the ANC, a person who had worked with Masina and Masango, and by the simple use of a name, to draw him out without any resistance. I would have thought that that particular detail would have remained embedded in their minds.

You've heard Mr Morudi and he has said that it's difficult for the family to say that they don't oppose. And unless there are other aspects, Madam Chair, you would have me address you on, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP IN ARGUMENT: Madam Chair, thank you, just maybe one or two things. Maybe for lack of a better word, it's unfortunate that only the three, if you may call them, foot-soldiers have applied for amnesty in this matter. I can just maybe add that in an effort to clear up some of the, not inconsistencies, but factual contents of the applications that were placed before you, we did indeed ask the Attorney-General who is currently pending the investigation, for any further information in an effort to put the Committee in a better position to come to a decision. But unfortunately my information was that although the case is pending, no information whatsoever was coming forward or was placed before us in any event. As I understand it, Madam Chair, the investigation is pending, with a view to prosecute. That is my firm factual information. We also, in an effort to get more information, asked the Nodal Point of the police whether or not any of the security files are still in existence, specifically because one of the applicants was referring to a so-called security file. Unfortunately there once again the information was negative, we couldn't get or couldn't trace any other information regarding either the informer of Mr Morudi himself.

Unfortunately, if you look at the applications there is no clear indication exactly who the informer was or whether or not he was a paid informer or what was his actual status. Similarly to Mr Morudi, unfortunately nothing was coming forward as well. I can't actually take it any further than that and that's very unfortunate, but circumstances like this we couldn't get or trace that could be of assistance to the Committee. Unless if some of the other implicated parties were willing to come forward. And after further discussion with all the attorneys, all the legal representatives who are appearing for these implicated people in other matters, nothing was coming forward.

I can maybe just add that in the case of Mr Prinsloo, the case that my learned colleague, Mr van den Berg was referring to, in that specific case if you remember, Madam Chair, Mr Prinsloo was actually the chief investigating officer. So clearly on that basis he must have had certain information on Mr Morudi and his status as well. But that's just for your information. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Jansen, do you wish to reply?

MR JANSEN: No reply, thanks Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert?

MR JOUBERT: I have no reply, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Well this remark is really meant for the members of the Morudi family. You must be going through a very painful period in your lives when you have had to attend these hearings with the hope of at last discovering the truth about what really happened to your son, brother or relative, but you have to come out of these hearings still in complete darkness as to what ultimately or what really happened to your son or brother. You don't know whether your beloved son or brother is alive or not. Unfortunately we as a Committee, have not been able to shed any light whatsoever with regard to this important question which has been lingering in your minds for all these many years.

The applicants before us have also not been able to answer this very fundamental question as to what has become of your son. When he left in or about 1987, you thought he had left for military training. How these proceedings have been able to assist is that you now know that he never left for military training, that you were wrong in assuming that he had left for such training. We hope that this little disclosure, or this little revelation will at least go a long way in assisting you to deal with what must be a very painful experience that you are going through.

We can now only speculate, based on the evidence led before us by the three applicants, as to what might ultimately have happened to your son. And the speculation, based on the evidence tendered by the applicants today, is that your son may no longer be alive and that it might be a very difficult thing you may have to begin to accept. We unfortunately have not been able to shed as much light as we ourselves would have hoped that the process would have been able to, but the Amnesty Committee can only do so much. We can only assist members of the victims who have been party to the conflict of the past insofar as the applicants themselves take the initiative to approach this Committee and confess, I must stress, and confess to having committed the offences for which they seek amnesty. Where people do not confess to having committed offences, the Committee cannot come to the assistance of the relatives whose members have been part of the conflict of the past.

I hope I have at least to this point, made this important contribution the amnesty process is making into the disclosure and piecing together of the pieces in order to come with a bigger picture, much clearer than it might have been when you first came here. We sympathise with what you are going through.

On behalf of the Amnesty Committee, I again would like to express my gratitude to the legal representatives who, even though they are paid to render their legal services to the applicants, must still nevertheless be commended for at times a very good job they do in representing the applicants. It is precisely because of the important contribution that we get from the applicants, that we must value the contribution being made by the legal representatives in ensuring that a bigger picture can finally be drawn about the conflict of the past in our country. We express again our gratitude to the translators who are forever doing a very difficult job of ensuring that everyone who is in this room is abreast with the proceedings as they progress. My gratitude to everyone who has attended. Thank you.

We shall reserve our judgment in respect of these applications. The hearing is now closed.