CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. Today is the 9th November 1999. We shall be proceeding with the amnesty application of Mr Pienaar. We adjourned yesterday prior to Mr Pienaar being cross-examined. We shall now afford Mr Hattingh an opportunity to put any questions to Mr Pienaar. Mr Pienaar, you are reminded that you are still under your former oath.

FREDERICK JOHANNES PIENAAR: (s.u.o.)

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson, I have no questions for this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Before I come to Mr du Plessis, Mr du Plessis, can you indicate to the Committee whether you have been able to locate Mr Beeslaar?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Madam Chair, might I perhaps just initially hand up an affidavit of my attorney, Mr Swart, setting out exactly what steps were taken to locate Mr Beeslaar? That affidavit was done in the meantime during the course of last evening. Mr Koch of the Truth Commission managed to get hold of Mr Beeslaar. Mr Beeslaar spent the last two weeks with his father. His stepmother died two weeks ago and he was there in Potchefstroom and that's why it was very difficult for us to get hold of him. I consulted with him this morning and I haven't consulted - I wanted to consult with him but I have consulted with him to the extent that I am able to cross-examine and to proceed with the proceedings.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am glad we now have located Mr Beeslaar because if we hadn't it would have been very difficult for this Committee to proceed with Mr Beeslaar as an applicant on the basis that his affidavit would have formed part of the papers before us for us to be able to consider and dispose of his application. As you aware the Act is very specific with regard to an act, omission or offence which relates to a gross violation of human rights. In that situation a public hearing must be held and by a public hearing one interprets that an applicant must be available to be cross-examined by all the parties involved in that particular incident in particular by the implicated persons who would in this case be an equivalent of the other co-applicants as well as the victims.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. May I place on record, Madam Chair, yes I agree with you and that was my concern yesterday in respect of that, however I know of similar situations where applications were dealt in this in the way we spoke about yesterday but in any event the matter has been resolved. I will lead evidence of Mr Beeslaar about his whereabouts in the last six weeks. My attorney didn't state that in the affidavit but he informed me that approximately three weeks ago he started looking for Mr Beeslaar and you will see that he contacted various persons. Apparently Mr Beeslaar was located yesterday evening through the assistance of a neighbour of Mr Beeslaar who Mr Koch contacted, a neighbour apparently had knowledge of Mr Beeslaar's whereabouts and he contacted Mr Beeslaar.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And on that basis he was contacted.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Before proceeding with you, Mr du Plessis, whilst we are attending to these formal matters, yesterday we were informed that Mr Ramawele was going to take instructions from Mr Nofomela to establish whether Mr Nofomela intends to proceed with his application or to withdraw. What is the position, Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair indeed, Masa Ramawele yesterday didn't come back to me but Mr Ramawele was here early this morning. He left. The position is the following, according to our information it seems that Mr Nofomela did testify in this matter. Subsequent to confirmation apparently, with respect Madam Chair, apparently he testified while you were the Chairperson in one of the matters. The only information we have on the transcript and I'm waiting for the transcript, it's currently being faxed to me, he did make mention of a PAC member killed while under the command of Mr de Kock. According to Mr Ramawele he couldn't find any confirmation whether or not Mr Nofomela did testify or not on that matter. Mr Ramawele has asked me that what he is doing now, he is not here now, but what he will do is he is busy going through all his documents in his office. He will probably be here at 11 o'clock. So what I'm asking, Madam Chair, is that this might be decided at 11 o'clock while the transcript and the information is being copied to me right now, so that we can check the record and see exactly what happened that day and whether or not Mr Nofomela or not did testify that day. Our information indicates that he actually did testify on this matter but certain decisions were made on Mr Nofomela's amnesty application but according to my information only this specific matter is still standing down. There's no decision on this matter whatsoever, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Have we been able to establish this fact from our offices in Cape Town?

MR STEENKAMP: Yes Madam Chair, I've checked last night, on the internet, I've checked the transcripts and I've asked for transcripts to be faxed to me, it's only a few pages apparently and I've asked for those specific pages to be faxed to me. They're busy doing it now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Thanks, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: You will bring us up to speed after we adjourn for tea?

MR STEENKAMP: I will do so, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Du Plessis you may proceed.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr Pienaar, as I understand your evidence Mngomezulu was first questioned at Moolman at Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And thereafter you went to the farm Leeuspoort?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And that is the place at the Josini dam that Mr Beeslaar refers to?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: During the interrogation at both places was he assaulted?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall what Mr Beeslaar's involvement was in the assault?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I cannot specifically recall what every person did, whether every person hit him I cannot say that with certainty at this stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: You will agree with me that Mr Beeslaar was not part of the interrogation team.

MR PIENAAR: He did not question but he was present.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes but I mean he did not participate in the interrogation as such, he did not put questions to the person, he was not the person who was responsible for putting questions?

MR PIENAAR: As far as I know, no.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you will agree with me that Mr Beeslaar's function amongst others was to deal with all the paperwork and administrative work with regard to Mr Mngomezulu if he should become an askari?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know what his function was at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: If he testifies as such would you be able to dispute it?

MR PIENAAR: No I won't.

MR DU PLESSIS: And furthermore if he testifies that he was sometimes used when other persons were not available for operations would you be able to dispute that?

MR PIENAAR: No I cannot.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Pienaar, you then testified if I could have a look at your statement that you loaded Mngomezulu into a vehicle and covered it with a tarpaulin to take to Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: That was the initial speculation.

MR DU PLESSIS: What was his condition when he was loaded onto the vehicle and covered with the tarpaulin?

MR PIENAAR: I would say that at stage he was in a coma, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, can you recall whether you and anyone else discussed it with Mr Beeslaar, this plan to take him to Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar says in his statement and he will also testify that while he was questioned at the Josini dam on the farm you drove a patrol and you went to where the army tested missiles, do you know anything of that?

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

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall that?

MR PIENAAR: No I cannot.

MR DU PLESSIS: On page 138, the final paragraph he says:

What do you say of the missiles, was he present or what do you say?

MR PIENAAR: The place where we disposed of the body was in the vicinity of where the air missiles were launched.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether they drove around there in that area during the interrogation?

MR PIENAAR: No I cannot recall that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because that is what Mr Beeslaar will testify?

MR PIENAAR: No I cannot recall that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Are you saying you cannot recall it?

MR PIENAAR: No I was definitely not there.

MR DU PLESSIS: But are you saying that it is possible that it could be so?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I doubt it.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were not in contact with Mr Beeslaar when you drew up your statement?

MR PIENAAR: No I was not.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were in contact with Mr van Dyk and Mr Schoon?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your statements are about the same, word for word?

MR PIENAAR: That is so, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you will probably not have an explanation as to why Mr Beeslaar said that you went on a patrol in a no go area where missiles were tested?

MR PIENAAR: No I cannot explain that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because I will tell you that his testimony will be clear and specific that he can recall it because it had left a great impression with him?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know what impression he had, I cannot recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well and as I understood your evidence you went to Gert Schoon's house, is that correct?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, it was at the office, as we said it previously the house and the office were next to each other.

MR DU PLESSIS: And who opened the tarpaulin?

MR PIENAAR: I lifted it up as far as I can recall. The other members were present, Mr van Dyk and Lieutenant Schoon.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you then said that he had died?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Why did you lift up the tarpaulin there?

MR PIENAAR: To give the man air. As I have said, Josini is quite a hot place and he was covered under the tarpaulin.

MR DU PLESSIS: And how did you see he was dead?

MR PIENAAR: It was quite clear Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: But how?

MR PIENAAR: One could see if a person is dead.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you said he was unconscious, he was in a coma?

MR PIENAAR: Yes he was in a coma, that is correct according to me.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you just have a look at him and accept that he was dead?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, one stood next to the man, he was lying on the back of a bakkie, one could see clearly that he was dead, there was no doubt about it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, you did not feel any pulse or anything in that manner?

MR PIENAAR: No I did not.

MR DU PLESSIS: And not any of the other members?

MR PIENAAR: As far as I know, no.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see, why I ask you this, is because Mr Beeslaar says in his statement on page 139, on a day, the top paragraph, he says the terrorist was loaded on the back of what he suspected to be Gert Schoon's bakkie and he, you, Dow Willemse or Van Dyk and Gert Schoon went with two vehicles from the premises and then he said he knew that the terrorist would be eliminated. He will say that he cannot recall that you went by Gert Schoon's house but he will not dispute it and furthermore he says in his statement you went into Sodwana Bay and drove in a southerly direction to a point unknown to him. He will confirm this and he says he stayed behind in Paul van Dyk's vehicle and then he says in the fourth paragraph Paul van Dyk, Gert Schoon, Frick Pienaar later left with the terrorist. I don't know what they took with them. He says however that his inference was that the terrorist would be eliminated, his evidence would be Mr Pienaar, that Mr Mngomezulu was still alive at that stage and indeed that he was fully conscious at that stage?

MR PIENAAR: That is not so, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: So are you saying that Mr Beeslaar is lying?

MR PIENAAR: Definitely. He did not look at the corpse, we did not show it to him so he cannot say that the person was still alive.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well he says that as far as he can recall Mgomeluzu went along and walked along with yourself, Gert Schoon and Paul van Dyk?

MR PIENAAR: That is entirely not true Chairperson, the place where we went to, to destroy the corpse with explosives, we drove there, it was quite a way from there, we did not walk we drove with the vehicle with the body on the back of the vehicle still under the tarpaulin. We did not open it up until the point where we stopped at the point where we wanted to blow him up.

MR DU PLESSIS: There where you blew him up did you drive to the point where you blew him up?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And he was blown up there?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Beeslaar remained behind in Paul van Dyk's vehicle?

MR PIENAAR: Yes he remained behind. The actual idea why Beeslaar and the other person, as I said I thought it was Dow Willemse, was to remain behind was to see if any other vehicles from the Park's Board would approach and then they would let us know that vehicles were approaching.

MR DU PLESSIS: And how far away was the place where he was blown up and the vehicle that Beeslaar had remained behind, what was the distance?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson I would have to guess, it was quite a time ago, I would say not less than two kilometres.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, because you see Mr Beeslaar goes

And on page 140 he says:

MR PIENAAR: We did indeed go back to the place where the person was blown up. We did not walk there we drove there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes and? And what happened there, did you discuss it there?

MR PIENAAR: Yes we went and had a look there, if any remains had left behind and nothing was there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Are you saying that that it what Mr Beeslaar refers to there in the first paragraph on page 140?

MR PIENAAR: Possibly, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. You see, Mr Beeslaar will also testify that when he applied for amnesty he tried to contact Mr van Dyk.

MR PIENAAR: I am not aware of that.

MR DU PLESSIS: To try and speak to him and determine what Mr van Dyk can recall of the incident and the answer that he received was that Mr van Dyk would not apply for amnesty. Do you know anything of it, Mr van Dyk would not apply for amnesty?

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

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Pienaar, Mr Beeslaar will also testify that he contacted you as well when he drew up his amnesty application. Can you recall that?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: And he will testify that you told him that you cannot recall anything of this incident?

MR PIENAAR: No, definitely not, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, you see you have now heard what Mr Beeslaar will testify and what his situation is with regard to this incident. Can you give us any probable explanation why Mr Beeslaar who drew up this application would make up this whole episode at Sodwana?

MR PIENAAR: I don't think his memory is quite that strong there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you ascribe this to his memory?

MR PIENAAR: Possibly, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because what I find quite strange and what I would argue eventually is that Mr Beeslaar had independently from you and the others placed his version in writing and that it differs from the other three applications, yourself and the other two that is just about similar word for word.

MR PIENAAR: I cannot find it so strange because it is also mentioned in a statement that he never saw that Mr Mngomezulu was assaulted and it was quite clear that the man was severely assaulted.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I ask you about the Sodwana episode, I am specifically referring to that issue. You and the others say one thing and he says something else. You know you and the other two apparently spoke to each other and consulted to and fro with each other before you drew up your application?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, we spoke about the incident before our consultation.

MR DU PLESSIS: So Mr Beeslaar did not discuss this matter with you before he drew up his application and the only thing he did was he spoke to you and you said that you could not recall?

MR PIENAAR: He did not speak to me that I could recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, but I find it strange that Mr Beeslaar's version vehemently differs from yours?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is quite strange.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is it not possible that you and Mr van Dyk and Mr Schoon are trying to colour in the elimination of Mr Mngomezulu at Sodwana?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because as I read your statements it appears to me that you are saying that you don't know why Mr Mngomezulu died, why he had died?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Why did he die?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know what he died of.

MR DU PLESSIS: Correct, you don't know what he died of?

MR PIENAAR: I suspect it was possibly bleeding in the brain, internal injuries because of the assault, I would speculate about this.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you never had any intention to eliminate him?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, as I have already said in my evidence in chief I never agreed with Mr Schoon to release this man. It would have been futile, the man had been abducted from Swaziland, Mr Mngomezulu, because of his activities with the ANC. To release such an important link would have been futile, that link had to be removed.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, this brings me to the following point of the improbability of yourself and Mr van Dyk and the other's versions. Why would one want to release this person. There is so much evidence before this Committee indeed about the problems that would emanate if one would question such a person and release him and how many times have we heard evidence of persons who were eliminated in a situation as this, why would you want to release him?

MR PIENAAR: It was never my intention to release him, Mr Schoon proposed it, he wanted to do so, it was his area, that. He wanted to use the man as an informer and I did not agree with it.

MR DU PLESSIS: May I just ask you, Mr Pienaar, what do you apply for amnesty for, for which offences?

MR PIENAAR: A copy that I have here, Honourable Chairperson, is vague, I cannot read it clearly. I will mention that I don't have the whole thing in front of me. It is abduction, the death of Mr Mngomezulu and the destruction of the corpse and perjury.

MR DU PLESSIS: What I would like to ask is, do you apply for murder?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see what I find strange from your version and that is my point, Mr Pienaar, is that it does not appear to me as if in your statement that you had the intention to kill him?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, if Mr Du Plessis had listened to the evidence yesterday, Mr Pienaar clearly stated that he foresaw that this assault could lead to this man's death and he associated himself with it and this is a legal argument with regard to what the cause of death was and what should be applied for in terms of amnesty, whether it be culpable homicide or whether it be murder.

MR MALAN: I think, Mr Prinsloo, you are correct but the question is something else, the question is if he had an intention to kill the person?

MR PIENAAR: Right from the start I never had the intention of killing the person.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the evidence of Mr van Dyk and Mr Schoon is the same, that they never had any intention of killing this person?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, shall I put it to you what it appears to me? It is as if you had to some extent tried to soften the elimination of Mr Mngomezulu, if I may say so and to try and explain it in such a manner as if it appears that this person, without you having the direct intention of killing him, that he had coincidentally died and in that manner you wanted to mitigate your evidence?

MR PIENAAR: No, Chairperson, I shall put it as follows. After the assault of Mr Mngomezulu and the condition he was in there was only one way for me and in my mind I am not saying what the others thought at that stage, is that this man had to be removed entirely, in other words he had to be killed, he could not be released or used as an informer or possible informer.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Du Plessis?

May I ask you, why did you not mention this in your application?

MR PIENAAR: I did not describe it as completely there Chairperson.

MR MALAN: But you write to the contrary there, you say that three of your decided to release the man on the border?

MR PIENAAR: That was the initial idea that Mr Schoon proposed.

MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar listen to me, you say in your statement that the three of you took a decision and you went according to your statement to release him?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MALAN: That was not so?

MR PIENAAR: No that was never my intention.

MR MALAN: And it was never a decision?

MR PIENAAR: It was Mr Schoon's decision and it was his proposal.

MR MALAN: It was his proposal but never a decision?

MR PIENAAR: No it was never a decision.

MR MALAN: It was an attempt to speak and you were against it?

MR PIENAAR: Yes I was entirely against it.

MR MALAN: And Mr van Dyk was also against it?

MR PIENAAR: As far as I know, yes he was.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr du Plessis. Mr Williams?

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Madam Chair, I've got no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Pienaar, from the moment that the Vlakplaas group came into your territory did you know that they were there for work?

MR PIENAAR: No, I did not.

MR LAMEY: Weren't you contacted as commander as it was practice that when Vlakplaas was in operation in that territory that you would have knowledge of it?

MR PIENAAR: Sometimes it happened that they only arrived there and then I was informed but usually they contacted at Middleburg the sectional office there.

MR LAMEY: Now when did you hear for the first time they were in the area?

MR PIENAAR: That was on the morning that Mr Dyk came into my office and informed me that they had a man that they were detaining.

MR LAMEY: In other words did you then go to Moolman?

MR PIENAAR: Yes I went with Van Dyk to him.

MR LAMEY: Was that in the morning?

MR PIENAAR: It was in the morning, I can't say exactly what time.

MR LAMEY: I want to put it to you that Mr Koole's recollection is that when they came from Swaziland that you were there with Van Dyk to get them at a specific point?

MR PIENAAR: No I think he's incorrect.

MR LAMEY: Are you sure?

MR PIENAAR: No, I wasn't there.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mogai says that after he arrived there - I will just put in context for you, he came there the afternoon and later Paul van Dyk and yourself also arrived there and then later the Black members also arrived with the man that he then determined was Mngomezulu.

MR PIENAAR: I don't know when Mr Mogai got there, whether he was there when I was there I'm not quite sure but Mr van Dyk informed me the morning in my office and then we left there together.

MR LAMEY: You were there when the interrogation started?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, not right at the start, I just want to correct that, I came there in the morning. Mr Mngomezulu was already at Moolman the evening, when I got there he had already been assaulted and I asked the members there that they had to question Mr Mngomezulu concerning ANC and PAC people in Swaziland who had infiltrated to the R.S.A.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mogai's recollection was that you had already been there when the man got there, that was at the place near Piet Retief when the interrogation started?

MR PIENAAR: No, that is not correct.

MR LAMEY: He says because he was informed by you that Mngomezulu was a PAC member who moved between Mamzini and Babaan and that he had contact with PAC members?

MR PIENAAR: I told them that after I got there that they had to question him concerning ANC and PAC members.

MR LAMEY: So concerning you that would be accurate but the time is not correct?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR LAMEY: According to Mogai, he says that you also wanted that Mngomezulu had to be questioned concerning his discussions with senior PAC members and whether PAC members were sent to his own home, who had to infiltrate to R.S.A?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, the PAC and ANC members.

MR LAMEY: I want to ask you something else. With regard to your amnesty application did you have contact with Mr de Kock? MR PIENAAR: No.

MR LAMEY: Didn't you talk to him concerning incidents where you were involved directly or by means of legal representatives?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I was in fact charged for a specific incident with Mr de Kock, I in fact was represented.

MR LAMEY: You were also a client at that stage?

MR PIENAAR: Yes I was.

MR LAMEY: So you were part of the same legal team, it was concerning one incident that has served before the Committee?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.

MR LAMEY: That is the Japie Maponya incident?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAMEY: But since then you and Mr de Kock had worked for a long time together, you were colleagues?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAMEY: In your time?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You did many operations together?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You were confidantes for one another?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You didn't find it necessary to refresh your memory or anything of this nature to contact Mr de Kock?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR LAMEY: For amnesty?

MR PIENAAR: No, I never contacted Mr de Kock or his legal representatives for amnesty, no.

MR LAMEY: Why didn't you find it necessary to do that?

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, could you just tell us why you're following this direction?

MR LAMEY: Do I have to give you the relevance of the questioning?

MR MALAN: What is the relevance of Mr de Kock and Mr Pienaar's relationship? Can you just get to the point?

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you.

You also testified that Mr de Kock wasn't there?

MR PIENAAR: No, I never say him, Chairperson, no.

MR LAMEY: Never? Were you there the whole time?

MR PIENAAR: Not always there but he was most definitely not there that I could see him, no never.

MR LAMEY: What was the length of period of times that you were away from the interrogation?

MR PIENAAR: I would say two and a half, three hours, sometimes shorter, perhaps longer sometimes.

MR LAMEY: That was at Piet Retief and Josini?

MR PIENAAR: Yes. But no one ever mentioned that I know of that Mr de Kock was ever there.

MR LAMEY: So he was definitely not there? Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, have you now advanced into your line of cross-examination with regard to the relationship Mr Pienaar had with Mr de Kock?

MR LAMEY: I've went to this point to indicate why I was asking these questions it's obviously against the background of my client's version in this regard that I took that line.

In this period you also didn't have a discussion with Mr de Kock?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR LAMEY: In all the other incidents where there were abductions from Swaziland performed by Vlakplaas members and you were also involved was Mr de Kock there?

MR PIENAAR: No not in all the incidents.

MR LAMEY: In the case of Mr Mosiane which is going to serve shortly Mr de Kock wasn't there, the case of Mr Sedebe, he was there but Mosiane was taken to Vlakplaas?

MR PIENAAR: Yes later on, yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I'm still trying to ascertain the import of this line of cross-examination, where are you heading to?

MR LAMEY: I must say I'm at a loss at that question also, Chairperson, I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand the relevance.

MR LAMEY: I thought that it's perfectly relevant in regard to the background of my client's version in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: What version, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: The version that Mr de Kock was present during interrogation on Mngomezulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what has that to do with other incidents before which we know very little about?

MR LAMEY: The relevance is that, Chairperson, that against the background of many previous operations of Vlakplaas and by members of Vlakplaas, Mr de Kock was the type of leader that exercised very much control over and was very well informed as to what transpired at all times by his colleagues and especially with serious operations he made it his task to supervise it himself and to take an active part in it. That has been the pattern throughout and that is actually the line of questioning here, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But in this case isn't it Mr de Kock’s evidence that he was not present, he didn't supervise?

MR LAMEY: Well it's my client's version that he was so it is unfortunately from that point of view I did not take it that that is necessarily correct and therefore I've got to, I feel duty bound to investigate this further.

CHAIRPERSON: Well I hope your investigation is not going to be a very protracted one because I don't find it completely material to the incident in question.

MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I respectfully submit at this stage that what Mr Lamey is embarking upon is matter for argument. As to the side issues with regard to other matters Mr Pienaar has already answered he was present at the interrogation, Mr de Kock was absent, he was not present so it's not going to take it any further by resorting to other issues how well he knows Mr de Kock or not. It's not being suggested unless at least that he's covering up for Mr de Kock but that's not the line of cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: I think, Mr Prinsloo, I've already dealt with this matter. Mr Lamey you may proceed.

MR LAMEY: I will move onto another question, thank you Chairperson.

Mr Pienaar, let's refer to Josini dam, did it come to your attention that Mr Mngomezulu, that there was a barbed wire that was used, you've heard the evidence of Mr de Kock in this regard?

MR PIENAAR: No, I have no knowledge of that.

MR LAMEY: At Josini specifically were you there throughout?

MR PIENAAR: As far as I can remember, yes.

MR LAMEY: If something like that had taken place you were in the immediate vicinity?

MR PIENAAR: Yes I would have known about it. I have no knowledge of that.

MR MALAN: I'm sorry to interrupt you. Mr Pienaar, wasn't the evidence that De Kock was never there, that was on a question of Mr Lamey that you were absent at times, two, three hours, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter at Piet Retief and Josini? As I said at times you were not there?

MR PIENAAR: It could be that I could have been away for some times but not for long period of time because I took my things from Piet Retief to Josini some distance from Piet Retief but at Piet Retief I was not present the whole time because as I've already said ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: But the question is, on previous question you answered that at Josini you were also not there at times, now you say at Josini that you were there continuously. I just want to know what is the position.

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, if I could just put it correctly, the question was pertaining to the missile patrol, I don't agree with that, I was never there, I didn't drive there with them.

MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, I'll leave it there but there were three, four questions ago you were asked whether Mr de Kock was never present and you said never, you said there were times that you were not there and you were asked for how long, you said for two to three hours, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter, both at Piet Retief and at Josini?

MR PIENAAR: It was actually at Piet Retief that I referred to.

MR MALAN: So Josini you were there the whole time?

MR PIENAAR: Yes as far as I can recall.

MR LAMEY: Was there any bleeding where one would expect it to be if something like that had occurred?

MR PIENAAR: Not that I can recall Chairperson, there could have been blood perhaps on other parts but I cannot recall.

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey. You could say there could be blood on other parts?

MR PIENAAR: I'm referring to other wounds.

MR MALAN: Where?

MR PIENAAR: Perhaps on his clothing but there wasn't a big specific pool of blood on his private parts.

MR LAMEY: Would you have observed that if it had been there?

MR PIENAAR: I believe so yes.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chair, I don't have any other questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Relating to the cross-examination on behalf of Mr Beeslaar, it was pertinently put to you that Mr Beeslaar's statement of your and Mr van Dyk's statements, well it differs from that specifically relating to driving patrol and you then said based on a question that it must most definitely be Mr Beeslaar's memory failing him, do you remember that?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you tell this Committee what was Mr

Beeslaar's state in terms of being sober at that point?

MR PIENAAR: At Sodwana, Mr Beeslaar and I think another person, Willemse, he was under the influence.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pienaar, what do you mean when you say Mr Beeslaar and Mr Willemse were under the influence?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson what I'm saying, I think it was Mr Beeslaar and Mr Willemse where we left them on the beach, at that point Mr Beeslaar had a lot to drink.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you witness him drinking?

MR PIENAAR: No, I suspect that it was during the part that we drove from Leeuspoort up to the point where we left them on the beach.

CHAIRPERSON: From what could you infer that he was under the influence, was it his speech? From what could you infer that he was under the influence?

MR PIENAAR: I know Mr Beeslaar, Chairperson, I could see that he had something to drink.

CHAIRPERSON: Just by looking at him?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, we talked that he had to stay there but I could clearly see that he had been drinking.

CHAIRPERSON: Was his speech slurred?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson. As I, who know him well, I could immediately see without any doubt that the man had been drinking.

MR MALAN: Did you say him and Willemse?

MR PIENAAR: No, not Mr Willemse, perhaps that he had taken something I won't dispute that but he wasn't drink.

MR MALAN: Mr Pienaar, didn't you say just now that you're not quite sure whether Willemse was present?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, I suspect that it was Willemse, I'm not quite sure.

MR MALAN: If you say a person that you can't remember that his drunk?

MR PIENAAR: I suspect that it was Willemse because he was driving but he was not drunk.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't your earlier evidence when you were question by Ms van der Walt that Beeslaar and Willemse were under the influence of?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, what I said was that where we left Mr Beeslaar and I suspect Willemse where we left them that Mr Beeslaar was under the influence, I did not say Mr Willemse had been drinking.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think the translation didn't come up that clear.

MR MALAN: My notes also indicate that you referred to Beeslaar and Willemse, that was where we left them. Could I perhaps just ask you, who drove the vehicle in which Beeslaar was in, didn't he drive it?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR MALAN: Are you sure?

MR PIENAAR: I'm quite sure. I'm very sure.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr Pienaar, in brief, my client's version would be, that is Mr Mogade, that at no stage he was present during the assault and that he didn't assault Mr Mngomezulu and Mr van Dyk conceded that he possibly could have made an error when he said that Mr Mogade also assaulted the deceased. My question is, you said in your evidence in chief and you relied on Mr van Dyk's application, is it a possibility that you could also have made an error that Mogade had assaulted the man?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson, I can't recall all the other persons and then I also referred to Mr van Dyk who knew the people better than I did.

MR NEL: Thank you Madam Chair, I've got nothing.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that all Mr Nel?

MR NEL: That is all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kgasi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr Pienaar, at a time when you were asked to assist, did you know the deceased?

MR PIENAAR: From reports I knew of Mr Mngomezulu, Chairperson, but I never knew him personally.

MR KGASI: Alright and when you went to where he was is it your testimony that when you arrived he had already been assaulted?

MR PIENAAR: Yes he was assaulted, Chairperson.

MR KGASI: How severe were the assaults?

MR PIENAAR: I would say at that stage not so severe that he could not answer questions normally.

MR KGASI: How do you mean that he could not answer the questions normally?

MR PIENAAR: No, that he could answer it normally, he could still answer at that point. The questions that were put to him he did have answers for them.

MR KGASI: Okay but did he answer any of your questions?

MR PIENAAR: What I put to him, yes Chairperson. The others I left to the members who were there for further questioning.

MR KGASI: Did you get what you want from him?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR KGASI: And tell us your role in the assault?

MR PIENAAR: As I've already testified Chairperson, I also assaulted Mr Mngomezulu. I must have become angry because he did not want to answer the questions put to him and the urgency which made it necessary for me to assault him.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Kgasi. Was that both at Moolman and Josini?

MR PIENAAR: Actually at Moolman.

MR MALAN: You know that in your application you say you were not involved in the interrogation at Moolman?

MR PIENAAR: Not the whole time, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: No, in your application in paragraph 1 you say that you were not involved in the interrogation at all?

MR PIENAAR: That is not correct.

MR MALAN: No, that is entirely incorrect, Mr Pienaar.

MR PIENAAR: I was involved in the ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Okay, you can continue, Mr Kgasi.

MR KGASI: When did you stop with your assaults?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I can't say exactly when I ceased entirely, as I said I did assault the person several times, I cannot say exactly when I ceased everything. As far as I can recall it was actually only at Moolman where I actively participated in the assault.

MR KGASI: But now can you recall the reason why you stopped assaulting him?

MR PIENAAR: At Josini or at Leeuspoort the intention was that Mr Schoon would take over the interrogation because he had more knowledge of Mr Mngomezulu's activities since he was a person who came from his area and there at a Josini they had a complete file about him.

MR KGASI: Now when did you realise that he cannot break, he cannot divulge any information that you want from the interrogation?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I saw that at Piet Retief already. Mr Mngomezulu was a hardened man, he would not have broken down, I realised it and I think it was more pride that kept him, withheld him because he was being assaulted by younger men of his own race.

MR KGASI: Was it perhaps one of the reasons why you did not agree that he must be taken back to Swaziland?

MR PIENAAR: Yes because of the severe assaults and as I have said it would have served no purpose to place him back where one would have wanted to remove that link.

MR KGASI: Alright, during this assault was Mr Mngomezulu blindfolded?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I cannot really call this. I've listened to Mr van Dyk's evidence and I can really not recall it as such.

MR KGASI: But you've seen him, didn't you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes I did see.

MR KGASI: You really didn't see whether he was blindfolded or not?

MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot recall it as such.

MR KGASI: Alright Mr Pienaar, I find it very strange that you have seen Mr Mngomezulu and you took part in the assault, in your words you slapped him several times but you did not see whether the guy was blindfolded. Are you covering up something here?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I would have told you if he was blindfolded or if he was not blindfolded but I cannot recall it, I can really not recall it.

MR KGASI: And can you tell us why Gerhard did not agree with the idea of turning him in?

MR PIENAAR: In the first instance as I said he was severely assaulted and in the second instance this man did not tell us anything we didn't want to know. In other words we would return a person to Swaziland where he can continue with his activities so the whole operation would have served no purpose and it would have had international repercussions if he went and said that he had been abducted by the police or members of the police, that he had been abducted from Swaziland, had been interrogated, tortured and then returned.

MR KGASI: Mr Pienaar, it is the wish of the family of the victim to go to the scene of the assault and to the scene where his body was destroyed. If you would be asked to take them there, would you do so?

MR PIENAAR: I can understand their wishes there, I am not familiar with Sodwana. The person who would do it the best would be Mr Schoon and this because this was in his area.

MR KGASI: But Mr Pienaar, it was your testimony that the day after you destroyed the corpse you went back to the scene to check on whether there were any traces of explosives or remains, isn't it so?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson, I should just put it clearly, we arrived at Sodwana that evening, it was dark, we destroyed the corpse. We slept, we woke up, we went and had a look if everything was fine and then we returned home. It was not that we drove to and fro to Sodwana. We stayed there, as I have said I do not that area all that well. I can speculate, certainly, but I have no idea what the distance was, how far we drove and that is why I say the appointed person who would possibly be able to do this would be Mr Schoon, he knew the area there.

MR KGASI: Alright. You said that when the deceased was loaded in a van he was in a coma, is that so?

MR PIENAAR: That is what I can recall, yes.

MR KGASI: And that you personally lifted up the tarpaulin to give him air. As you said Josini was hot place, isn't it so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes I did lift up the tarpaulin.

MR KGASI: And at that stage is it the time when you realised that Mr Mngomezulu was dead?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

MR KGASI: And what did you do afterwards, what did you do?

MR PIENAAR: It was actually a shock to see that the man was already deceased and then we decided, Mr Schoon, van Dyk and I, that we had to dispose of the corpse and we took a joint decision there to go and blow it up next to the sea.

MR KGASI: Mr Pienaar, you have earlier testified that during the interrogation and the torture you had foreseen that Mr Mngomezulu might die and that you reconciled yourself with that eventuality?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR KGASI: Now what really shocked you when found him dead?

MR PIENAAR: Because the man was still alive when he was loaded onto the van and when we stopped he was dead.

MR KGASI: So that's where the shock came in?

MR PIENAAR: Yes it was a shock.

MR KGASI: Was it your testimony that you had never had an intention of killing Mr Mngomezulu from the beginning?

MR PIENAAR: I said my intention was never to kill him right from the start.

MR KGASI: But during the interrogation you'd foreseen that death may result and you reconciled yourself with that possibility?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.

MR KGASI: In your answer to a question by Mr Lamey you had testified that you only heard of a presence of the Vlakplaas operatives in your area in the morning that Mr Van Dyk came to your office, is that so?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.

MR KGASI: Was it the same morning when they asked you to come assist?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR KGASI: One last question, Mr Pienaar, were you present at all times during the assault except for the first occasion when you arrived the scene?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, as I have said at Piet Retief because I arrived there quite soon, I moved away from the scene at times, at Piet Retief to make the necessary arrangements at the office for my departure in my absence. I was not present there all the time, that is why I gave instruction to the people there to question Mr Mngomezulu with regard to his activities with the ANC and PAC's insurgency and his activities in Swaziland and so forth.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Kgasi? When you gave the Black members instructions to question Mr Mngomezulu and when you gave them instructions on how to question him, where was Mr van Dyk?

MR PIENAAR: I think he was present, Chairperson, I'm not entirely certain where he was, whether he was present with me, whether he was outside or whether he was away but I was there and I'm not entirely sure where he was. He could have been there with me, I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I'm asking this question is Mr van Dyk was in command of this operation?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And from your evidence you are also acting under his instructions. You come in, you are requested to conduct the interrogation, you then give instructions to people who would come with Mr van Dyk on what to question MR Mngomezulu and also giving them instructions to question him to start with?

MR PIENAAR: That is normal practice, Chairperson, because we had more information about Mr Mngomezulu that then Mr van Dyk had.

CHAIRPERSON: What information did you possess which Mr van Dyk did not have in his possession.

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, as I have said our office received reports from various branches about persons and Mr van Dyk had access to those files at head office but he will not check it there because there are just too much. The whole country's reports goes to head office. I had more information because our area reached over into Swaziland where I worked. I had more information about the movements of persons in Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: With regard to the interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu, what pertinent information did you possess?

MR PIENAAR: About his activities with the assistance of trained persons and infiltrating these persons and bringing weapons into the country.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr van Dyk say to you you didn't have possession of that information at the time when you were instructed to assist in Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation?

MR PIENAAR: That was not discussed as such Chairperson, he only asked me to assist in the interrogation of the person.

I did not ask him what information he had and he did not ask me what information I had. It is not done in that manner.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?

MR KGASI: Thank you Madam.

Mr Pienaar, in the light of the fact that when you first arrived at the scene Mr Mngomezulu was already assaulted and also in the light that at some point you left him with other members of the group. Would I be right in concluding that?

You did not witness any other gruesome methods of torture that may have been employed on Mr Mngomezulu?

MR PIENAAR: No, the usual assault, the kicking, striking, hitting, I did see that but specifically if you're referring to the incident with the wire, I do not have any knowledge about that.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Pienaar, a few questions. The Moolman facility where he was interrogated, this is a facility of Piet Retief's sub-branch?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson, it was usually used by Vlakplaas members. They found it themselves I did not arrange it for them.

MR MALAN: Who was in control there?

MR PIENAAR: It was an EVKOM old caravan, EVKOM's people who were parked at the sub-station, that is where they accommodated themselves.

MR MALAN: You have confused me now. Does Moolman only mean that there was a caravan there, is it not a farm or a place or a plot?

MR PIENAAR: May I explain, Moolman is about 20 kilometres from Piet Retief, there is an old garage that is no longer in use and there is a hotel with a bar and then there is a sub-station, the power station of EVKOM which diverts all the power from Transvaal to Natal, it's a very important sub-station and at this sub-station there is a caravan that is sometimes used by members of EVKOM. At that stage the security people of EVKOM sometimes came there and they did some inspections and other times Vlakplaas arranged for their members to stay at this place.

MR MALAN: This sub-station and caravan, is it visible to everyone when one passes there?

MR PIENAAR: No it's quite a way from the road.

MR MALAN: Is there controlled access to the place?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR MALAN: Who controls the access?

MR PIENAAR: Members of the guard duty of EVKOM.

MR MALAN: Did you arrange with them that the security branch could enter and exit as they pleased?

MR PIENAAR: Yes they knew us.

MR MALAN: And knew that you were busy with an action?

MR PIENAAR: I did not tell them of it, I don't know whether they knew.

MR MALAN: So what did you tell them why you were there?

MR PIENAAR: Many times we visited this place.

MR MALAN: Moolman, how big was it?

MR PIENAAR: Moolman was an area.

MR MALAN: No, the place where you rendezvoused, how large is this plot?

MR PIENAAR: The power station is very big, quite a few hectares.

MR MALAN: With trees?

MR PIENAAR: No there are trees in the area but surrounding the area there are trees.

MR MALAN: Did you meet there in the open?

MR PIENAAR: No, it was inside the sub-station itself.

MR MALAN: You cannot see the caravan from the road?

MR PIENAAR: No at all, you see the sub-station but not the caravan and the quarters there.

MR MALAN: Very well, was it not practice that you give notice before you enter the area by Vlakplaas?

MR PIENAAR: That was normal practice Chairperson as I have said, I don't know whether they contacted Middleburg where one had to get the actual permission. Not from myself, this was from head office, the regional office in Middleburg.

MR MALAN: Because it appears very strange that Mr van Dyk goes there and sleeps there the whole evening and only the following morning arrives at your office and you don't know the operation that he is busy with?

MR PIENAAR: No, he did not tell me about it.

MR MALAN: You say in the statement that you were not involved in the interrogation is incorrect?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is incorrect, I was involved in the assault.

MR MALAN: And furthermore you say in paragraph 3 that you had discussed the matter and the three of you decided not to question him further but to take him to Mac's farm to release him, is that incorrect?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is wrong.

MR MALAN: That was just a suggestion or proposal from Schoon?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR MALAN: But you never had any plans of releasing him, there was no decision taken?

MR PIENAAR: No, not my idea.

MR MALAN: You did not go along to release him?

MR PIENAAR: Mr Schoon had the idea but not I.

MR MALAN: But the question I am putting to you is when you drove with him from Josini, did you not drive to go and release him? No decision was taken?

MR PIENAAR: No, no decision was taken.

MR MALAN: You only loaded him into the van and drove with him?

MR PIENAAR: Mr Schoon still had the idea of releasing him and recruiting him as a source but I opposed the idea.

MR MALAN: You at that stage did not give him any reasons why you did not agree?

MR PIENAAR: I did, we spoke about it.

MR MALAN: That he was severely assaulted and we could not release him.

MR PIENAAR: Yes I knew that, that the person will continue his activities and we did not glean anything from this, that it would cause an international incident and I'm quoting you because members of the police had abducted, tortured and questioned him.

MR MALAN: So there was no possibility that you could return him?

MR PIENAAR: No there was no possibility.

MR MALAN: What was Schoon's reaction to this?

MR PIENAAR: He still had the idea of releasing and using him.

MR MALAN: Did he have the power to execute such a thing while you and Van Dyk were present?

MR PIENAAR: Yes Chairperson because it was his area, he probably could have done so.

MR MALAN: And you would have allowed him to?

MR PIENAAR: I did not have a say in the matter but I did oppose the idea.

MR MALAN: Did Van Dyk not have a say as a senior in rank?

MR PIENAAR: Still, Chairperson, he worked in the area of Mr Schoon, decisions that are taken there.

MR MALAN: So this could cause and international incident and you were opposing it entirely not whether Mr van Dyk had contacted your senior at Middleburg or Mr van Dyk's senior at Vlakplaas and tell them you'd have to do something, because in spite of our opposition Mr Schoon wanted to still release this man.

MR PIENAAR: I did not call anybody.

MR MALAN: You see the probability, according to your evidence and according to the whole incident, is that you had never taken any decision to release the man. You might have discussed it and considered it and eliminating him I never had any idea of releasing him, I was opposed to the idea. The standard idea that we received at eliminations and this is the pattern, it is told to us that we consider all options. We could not release him because he was too severely assaulted, we could not return him across the border because it would cause an international incident, we could not release him because he would continue with his activities, we could not recruit him as a source and he had seen people and those people were in danger, he would know all the informers. You know the pattern, that is how you went about your work and in spite of all these things that were present here you are telling me that Schoon wanted to release him and you and Van Dyk readily go along with your opposition on your way to release him?

MR PIENAAR: It was Schoon's proposal, I entirely opposed him from the time he said that he wanted to recruit the man as a source and release him, I opposed him.

MR MALAN: You are not listening to my question. My question is not whether you opposed it, I accept that you opposed it, indeed I accept that you probably more vehemently opposed it because there would be much trouble if he was released, according to your judgement? I am saying in spite of this you go along with all your vehement opposition to release him?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And Paul van Dyk in his senior rank goes along with all his opposition to release this man?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: Very well, the following question then, paragraph 4 you say:

that we suspect is now Willemse

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MALAN: That was a 4X4?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR MALAN: You told them we'll meet you at the turn off at the dam wall?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MALAN: While you go to Schoon's house?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Now that turn off to the dam wall, where is that located relative to the house of Mr Schoon or the offices at Josini and the eventual place which you stopped to dispose of the corpse?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say approximately 5 kilometres, roughly estimated. At this dam wall the one road crosses the dam wall it goes to the Umovuso area and the one that turns right goes to Sodwana and they had to wait for us there at that junction.

MR MALAN: Why did they have to wait there?

MR PIENAAR: It was the easiest place to find them again.

MR MALAN: And then you turned in the direction of Sodwana?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MALAN: This is not where Schoon wanted to release him?

MR PIENAAR: No it was not.

MR MALAN: Now is it not strange that they had to wait specifically at that point that it was more probable that the agreement was to eliminate him.

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I would say this turn off is out of town from Josini, it's right out of the town. It was on the one side of the town, there was not much movement there regularly.

MR MALAN: So are you saying that there is no better place on the way to Ngwavuma?

MR PIENAAR: No, there were too many kraals that way.

MR MALAN: And you are saying that the three of you decided to dispose of the corpse, this was after you saw he was dead?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

MR MALAN: I would like to quote two statements about this that you gave in your evidence. On one stage you say that right from the start you never had the intention to kill him?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: And at another stage you said:

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, after the severe assaults.

MR MALAN: From the time he was severely assaulted there was no chance of releasing him in your view point?

MR PIENAAR: In my mind, no.

MR MALAN: And according to your evidence when you saw him the first time the morning when you went out with Van Dyk to Moolman you immediately started assaulting him and you assaulted him severely?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I struck him hard.

MR MALAN: And that was the start of your involvement with Mngomezulu, you then knew that you would not release him?

MR PIENAAR: I am saying because of the severe assault at a later stage when he was severely assaulted there was no doubt that this man could not be released.

MR MALAN: Yes. No, you knew from Moolman you knew that this man could not be released at a certain stage at Moolman because this is specifically in your evidence where you seriously participated in this assault?

MR PIENAAR: Yes I did.

MR MALAN: So thereafter you knew he would be eliminated?

MR PIENAAR: That was my thoughts, yes.

MR MALAN: Your experience and that's the pattern that happened in other instances?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And then a final question, you say you have no recollection that he was blindfolded?

MR PIENAAR: No, I cannot recall that.

MR MALAN: So with regard to you he was there as usual?

MR PIENAAR: Yes, I cannot recall any blindfold.

MR MALAN: You would probably have recalled if you assaulted him and he could not see?

MR PIENAAR: Yes.

MR MALAN: Because if you can recall that he did not have any blood on his pants then you will indeed recall whether he had a blindfold over his eyes?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I shall put it as follows, if a wire was put up in Mr Mngomezulu's private parts and as Mr de Kock had said, a barbed wire, which in my eyes is entirely impossible, it would have caused tremendous bleeding and there would have been much blood in front there by his private parts and I cannot imagine that the man was blindfolded, I cannot really not recall.

MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: Just one, Madam Chair.

Mr Pienaar when you loaded Mr Mngomezulu on the bakkie or van, had he already lost consciousness or was he in a coma at that stage?

MR PIENAAR: I would say more of a coma, not entirely unconscious. I would say in a coma.

ADV MOTATA: Now because the evidence this far other than what you had in your mind was that to release the man, how could you when he was in a coma release him?

MR PIENAAR: Therefore Chairperson, still I was entirely opposed to the entire proposal of releasing him.

ADV MOTATA: And the other aspect which I'm not very clear on is that the man is now in a coma, you still want to tell him as a source, how would you achieve that?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, the man could have been revived. As I have said I never even had the idea to recruit Mr Mngomezulu as a source, I was entirely opposed to it and I was entirely opposed to his release and there was only one direction that Mr Mngomezulu had to be released.

ADV MOTATA: There's not discussion among the three of you where with the body that look, it is not feasible or plausible that we could do something with this man, rather turn him as a source in this state? There's no discussion of that nature but you all just take him and you listen to the people who were with, probably Van Dyk and say we would either release him or turn him as a source?

MR PIENAAR: That was the discussion in the vehicle on the way to Josini. That is why I say I was entirely opposed to the idea of releasing this man. There was no fixed decision taken according to me that we will drive from here and we will definitely release the man. It was discussed all the time and I opposed it and as far as I know Mr van Dyk as well, we could not allow it.

ADV MOTATA: Lastly, are you positive that as you said that this area is very hot, that it was hot on this day because Beeslaar, if I'm not mistaken, says it was a cold day, it was very cold?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, I cannot imagine that Josini can get cold. The climate at Josini next to the sea differs much because the sea brings the wind but Josini is a tremendously hot place but I think Mr Schoon would be able to shed more light on that issue because Mr Schoon lived there for quite some time.

ADV MOTATA: We could say take Durban or Pietermaritzburg, very hot there but there are days when it is cold?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall the climate that specific day.

ADV MOTATA: Are you just going by the idea that you know the climate of that area that it is hot? You cannot recall on this particular day whether it was hot or not?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, I'm not entirely certain whether it was hot or very hot.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Motata.

Mr Pienaar, the tarpaulin that was used on Mr Mngomezulu, can you just describe to us how it was used around him?

MR PIENAAR: The what Chairperson? The tarpaulin?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PIENAAR: The tarpaulin was thrown over him it was a large tent tarpaulin, it was thrown over him so that he could not be visible to other persons who saw into the open van.

CHAIRPERSON: The intention of using the tarpaulin was to make him not to be visible?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Listening to your evidence and noting that your assessment of Josini is that it's a very hot place. Why was a tarpaulin used in those circumstances?

MR PIENAAR: It was more a ground sheet where one sleeps, it was more of a ground sheet.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there nothing that could have been used other than that tarpaulin?

MR PIENAAR: Not at that time, Chairperson. Not where we came from and went back to Josini, no.

CHAIRPERSON: During the times that you were present when Mngomezulu was interrogated and I take it that you were actively involved in his interrogation in Piet Retief than you were when he was later moved to Leeuspoort?

MR PIENAAR: I was more actively involved in the interrogation at Piet Retief, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you present when Mr Schoon was interrogating him at Leeuspoort?

MR PIENAAR: Yes I was present.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall whether there were attempts made by him at that stage to turn him?

MR PIENAAR: There was an attempt yes but at that stage it was not successful.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know at whose instance such an attempt was made by Lieutenant Schoon to turn Mngomezulu?

MR PIENAAR: No Chairperson, I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know about this attempt?

MR PIENAAR: I know because I was present during interrogation and spoke to Mr Mngomezulu and I know that there was a proposal put to him to become a source by Mr Schoon but I think he directly refused there because of the presence of other persons. That was my viewpoint, I might be incorrect there.

CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence was that when you initiated the interrogation at Moolman he was a very difficult person to break?

MR PIENAAR: According to me, yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he pose the same difficulty for Mr Schoon in your presence?

MR PIENAAR: Chairperson, may I put it as follows, Mr Schoon had a good knowledge of the language and of the persons and this type of older persons, the older Zulus, one commands more respect from him by addressing him in his own language, speaking to him in his own manner as that the younger people would.

CHAIRPERSON: What language did Lieutenant Schoon speak?

MR PIENAAR: Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Mngomezulu Zulu speaking?

MR PIENAAR: As far as I know, yes. He was a Zulu, Chairperson, if I recall correctly.

CHAIRPERSON: When this proposal was made to him was it in Zulu?

MR PIENAAR: Mr Schoon's whole discussion and interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu was in Zulu.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were later informed by Mr Schoon that he made that proposal?

MR PIENAAR: I understand Zulu in my own manner but not as well as Mr Schoon.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were able to deduce from listening to the interrogation that a proposal had been made by Mr Schoon?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall what Mngomezulu said to turn down the proposal?

MR PIENAAR: Excuse me Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall Mr Mngomezulu's response to the proposal put to him by Mr Schoon?

MR PIENAAR: He denied all knowledge Chairperson. If I recall correctly many names of persons were mentioned but he never conceded any direct involvement in infiltrations or the stockpiling of firearms to us, he denied everything entirely but he did give a name to Mr Schoon that had to be followed up because I know at a later stage, I cannot recall how long afterwards, Mr Schoon told me that this name that he received from Mr Mngomezulu was of no use at all, in other words we did not reach anything with the whole interrogation in my eyes.

CHAIRPERSON: During the interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu by Lieutenant Schoon where was Mr van Dyk?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall where he was all the time Chairperson. As I have said we were at the house together, I don't know whether he was there all the time or whether he had departed for a short while. I cannot recall who were all present all the time. I don't even know whether Mr Beeslaar was present all the time.

CHAIRPERSON: When you left Leeuspoort for Mr Schoon's house was it your intention still to turn Mr Mngomezulu notwithstanding the fact that all these other interrogations had failed to extract useful information from Mr Mngomezulu?

MR PIENAAR: It was still discussed, Chairperson, as I have already said I suspect or it is a suspicion that the fact that Mr Mngomezulu refused any co-operation whatsoever and refused to become an informer was that he was humiliated by the interrogation and by the people there and as far as I can recall and this is under correction, Mr Schoon never assaulted Mr Mngomezulu that I can recall, not at all. I think there, Mr Schoon had the idea that taking him to one side and to try and turn the man.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that the idea of removing Mr Mngomezulu from Leeuspoort and putting him inside the bakkie heading for Josini via his house was intended by him to further interrogate Mr Mngomezulu in the absence of the Black members?

MR PIENAAR: That was Mr Schoon's proposal Chairperson. As I have said it was discussed, there was never a fixed, definite decision taken. I opposed it as I have said previously, several times, but Mr Schoon persevered. I believe that he had the background knowledge of Mr Mngomezulu, he had more knowledge than I had and he also had more knowledge because he lived there as a Zulu person himself than I had.

CHAIRPERSON: So this proposal was discussed amongst the three of you?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And the decision ultimately taken by the three of you to leave for Josini?

MR PIENAAR: That is correct, the three of us drove together.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pienaar had you had an occasion to discuss your reservation about having to release Mr Mngomezulu back to Swaziland with any of the White members who were there, in particular with Mr Beeslaar?

MR PIENAAR: No, not I.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Pienaar, I think if I heard your evidence or Mr van Dyk's correct, then Beeslaar and Willemse were never informed about the matter of releasing this person. You said the whole matter of releasing this person was discussed in the van?

MR PIENAAR: I never informed him.

MR MALAN: So why did Beeslaar and Willemse have to accompany you, what was their role?

MR PIENAAR: They were in the group there.

MR MALAN: No, I mean Schoon decides they will release him, he will pose it, you would load him onto the vehicle and you put this tarpaulin over him, I assume that it would be a heavy tarpaulin so that the wind would not blow it away, I assume it was heavy?

MR PIENAAR: Yes it was heavy.

MR MALAN: And there were other things on the van that you placed on top of it?

MR PIENAAR: No, on the sides so that the tarpaulin would not move.

MR MALAN: But my question is why did Willemse and Beeslaar take part from Leeuspoort to Josini?

MR PIENAAR: I don't know, I don't know what the purpose thereof was, we went and they drove with us.

MR MALAN: Because it would not have served any purpose that they drove along, if your only objective was to take him to the border post and release him there then they would not have played a role?

MR PIENAAR: As I have said I have no idea why they went along.

MR MALAN: Is the idea not possible that they had to go along so that they could wait and see if the Parks Board people arrived while you were busy blowing the body up?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR MALAN: Is that not a possible inference that one could draw, you cannot give me any reason why they went along?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot, they were members of Vlakplaas under Van Dyk's command, I don't know why they came along.

MR MALAN: And you have said that seeing that Willemse's evidence was that when they left from Leeuspoort to Josini he already said that he knew that this person would be eliminated?

MR PIENAAR: It was Beeslaar's evidence, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I apologise, Beeslaar.

MR PIENAAR: I don't know.

MR MALAN: But clearly according to his statement he had no idea whatsoever that Mngomezulu would be released?

MR PIENAAR: As I understand it, yes. He said that he that he had an idea that this person would not be released, that he would be eliminated. I don't know whether somebody told him, I cannot tell you how we came to this idea.

MR MALAN: Were you present when he was told that meet us at this turn off there at the dam wall?

MR PIENAAR: I must have been there.

MR MALAN: Did you not tell him where you were on your way to?

MR PIENAAR: I cannot recall Chairperson, I cannot imagine so.

MR MALAN: Thank you. Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. Mr Prinsloo, do you wish to re-examine?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Pienaar, Mr Beeslaar refers on page 138, he says that:

He doesn't say who the white members were. Was there any reason for you in that area which was not yours to have a patrol there?

MR PIENAAR: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you in any way involved with the patrol?

MR JAMIE: No, not at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Now at this point where the road makes a fork or at the crossing where Beeslaar and Willemse were waiting, I'm referring to Willemse, now does the road there go to Induna which is also the road to Mac's Pass?

MR PIENAAR: Yes that is correct, that is the road that crosses the dam wall that goes to Induna, that is to the Ingwavuma and the road to the right, next to the river that goes to Sodwana and Kosi Bay.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenkamp and Ms van der Walt, do you wish to be excused in order to conduct your conversation?

MR STEENKAMP: I apologise Madam Chair, I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't take kindly to such an interruption taking place during these proceedings.

MR STEENKAMP: I do apologise, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you through, Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair.

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

MR PRINSLOO: May he be excused, Madam Chair, as I discussed with you yesterday? Would it be possible?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair.

MR PIENAAR: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll have a tea adjournment for ten minutes.

MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, if I may be allowed to interrupt just quickly? Madam Chair, Mr Ramawele is present here, he is representing Mr Nofomela. Just for the record purposes Madam Chair, I've handed the full set of the documents in relation to this hearing to Mr Ramawele for preparation. I've also handed him a transcript of the evidence that was led where there was reference to this matter by the testimony of Mr Nofomela. That's as far as I can take it. Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele, is it correct that you'll be representing Mr Nofomela in relation to this incident being the killing of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR RAMAWELE: Thanks Chair, yes I confirm that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WILLIAMS: Madam Chair, I can just state that I've been requested to lead Mr Mbelo next.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WILLIAMS: I think the idea would have been for Mr Schoon's evidence to be led and thereafter Mr Beeslaar but I think both the counsel requested that someone else be led before the two of them?

CHAIRPERSON: And you've acceded to their request?

MR WILLIAMS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to lead Mr Mbelo.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What language would he be testifying in?

MR WILLIAMS: Tswana.

THAPELO JOHANNES MBELO: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair, before I start I just want to point out to the Committee that the wrong affidavit was inserted in this bundle of documents. I believe it was inadvertently put in here by the evidence leader. I've pointed that out to the evidence analyst and I believe that everyone here is sitting with the correct supplementary affidavit.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes we do have the correct affidavit.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr Mbelo, do you confirm that you apply for amnesty with regard to this Mngomezulu incident?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Do you confirm your application contained on pages 51 to page 59 as well as the supplementary affidavit?

MR MBELO: I do Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Now Mr Mbelo, I want to ask you, before you filled in your application for amnesty did you discuss this particular incident with any of the people that were involved in this incident?

MR MBELO: No Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Do you know of anyone that was charged with the murder of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MBELO: No Chairperson, I know nobody who was charged.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you ever testify about this particular incident before any committee or before any court?

MR MBELO: No Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Now Mr Mbelo, do you have a very clear recollection of the events pertaining to this matter?

CHAIRPERSON: They have a problem.

MR MBELO: My recollection is not that clear Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Now Mr Mbelo, I see in your supplementary affidavit you state that Warrant Officer Nortje was also involved in this incident but it seems from the statements and the testimony of the other applicants here that he was in fact not involved. Would you accept that he was not involved in this incident?

MR MBELO: I do, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you explain to the Committee why you included his name in your statement?

MR MBELO: I was not able to remember at this instant correctly and the first name that came to my mind was this person because I worked with him for many years.

MR WILLIAMS: But do you accept that you are wrong with regard to him?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: You also state in your supplementary statement that this incident occurred during the course of 1985 but you've seen the application of someone else who said that this couldn't have occurred in 1985 and in fact it occurred in 1986. Would you concede that you could be making a mistake with regard to the date as well?

MR MBELO: Correct Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Now Mr Mbelo, from your application it is clear that after Mr Mngomezulu was abducted that he was only taken to one house or to one base and he was interrogated and assaulted there but it seems from the testimony of the other applicants and also from their statements that he was in fact taken to two houses or to two places where he was interrogated and assaulted. What did your response be with regard to that?

MR MBELO: I would not dispute the statement of other applicants as I've already stated that my recollection was not clear in this regard.

MR WILLIAMS: So would you then concede that it is possible or in fact that Mr Mngomezulu was in fact taken to two places where he was interrogated?

MR MBELO: I would not dispute that, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you personally participate in the kidnapping of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MBELO: I did Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: In paragraph 15 of your affidavit you state that yourself, Mr Nofomela, Warrant Officer Koole, Moses Nsimande travelled with a kombi to Swaziland. Would you accept that other people were also with when you went to Swaziland to capture Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MBELO: I would agree Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: In fact in paragraph 12 of your statement you say that these gentlemen and some other members whose names escape you were with but it isn't very clear that these other people were also with when the actual abduction took place but you confirm that they could have been with?

MR MBELO: I do Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you personally participate in the assaults on Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MBELO: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you explain to the Honourable Committee what was the nature of your participation?

MR MBELO: I slapped him with an open hand on the chest and at the back.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you also explain to the Committee where did you assault him, not relative to his body but in which vicinity, in which place did you assault him?

MR MBELO: We started assaulting him when we abducted him at his house because he didn't want to go with us and then again at the house where he was interrogated.

MR WILLIAMS: It seems also that it is clear that you don't have a recollection that he was in fact assaulted at two different places, the one being the house at Piet Retief and the other one being a farm, Leeuspoort I think. Is it possible that you could have participated in the assaults at both houses or at both places?

MR MBELO: That is possible, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Now did you use any weapons to assault Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MBELO: No Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: We've heard testimony that inter alia a wet bag was used, a stick was used and a baton was used to assault Mr Mngomezulu. Do you have any recollection of this?

MR MBELO: Yes I know about the wet bag but I don't about the stick and the baton, I'm not able to remember the two.

MR WILLIAMS: But is it possible that he could have been assaulted with these weapons but that you simply can't remember or recall this?

MR MBELO: It is possible that those things were used but not in my presence.

MR WILLIAMS: Was Mr Mngomezulu ever blindfolded in your presence?

MR MBELO: We blindfolded him at the time when we abducted him at his house in Swaziland.

MR WILLIAMS: And at the places where he was assaulted did Mr de Kock ever arrive there according to you, or according to your recollection?

MR MBELO: Not in my recollection, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you tell the Committee how did you get involved in this particular mission?

MR MBELO: I was one of the members who were deployed together with the group which went to Eastern Transvaal, that is in Mpumalanga area. I was one of the co-workers.

MR WILLIAMS: Did anyone give you this instruction to go and abduct Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MBELO: Our commander is the one who instructed us to do that.

MR WILLIAMS: And you accept that your immediate commander wasn't Warrant Officer Nortje but in fact Mr Paul van Dyk?

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you allow him to, without putting words into his mouth, ask him who is commander was? That's not common cause.

MR WILLIAMS: Sorry, sorry. Yes, can you just tell - thank you Madam Chair.

Can you tell the Committee who your commander was, who your immediate commander was?

MR MBELO: According to the testimony I heard this morning, it is Paul van Dyk.

CHAIRPERSON: We don't want you to answer a question on the basis of the evidence you've heard this morning, we want to know who was your commander, that's something within your personal knowledge, it resides with you it's not dependant on the evidence you've heard?

MR MBELO: As I've already stated I forgot who was my commander.

MR WILLIAMS: If someone testified here before this Committee that he in fact gave the order that you should participate in this mission would you deny or dispute that?

MR MBELO: I would not dispute that fact, Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: In your statement you also said that and I think you seem to be the only one who states that Mr Mngomezulu was placed in cast iron chains. Can you enlighten the Committee more about this?

MR MBELO: From the house where we found him or at the place where he was interrogated he was leg cuffed with the chains which are used to ordinarily used when prisoners are taken to court.

MR WILLIAMS: Could Mr Mngomezulu move freely from one place to another place or even to the toilet for that matter?

MR MBELO: No person was able to do that, he could only do that with an assistance from another person.

MR WILLIAMS: And according to your recollection how many days did you spend in the presence of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MBELO: According to my recollection it may be two to three days.

MR WILLIAMS: Were you present when he was eventually killed?

MR MBELO: No Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you know that there were plans or was it ever discussed in your presence that there were plans to kill Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MBELO: No Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Now Mr Mbelo, you've been before this incident, you've been based at Vlakplaas for a few years and based on your experience did you subjective foresee the possibility that if a captured person did not co-operate to the satisfaction of the handlers or the people who were in charge of the scene, then under those circumstances he could be killed?

MR MBELO: Correct Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: And did you in fact foresee the possibility that that could not be excluded in this particular instance?

MR MBELO: Correct Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: And is it correct that you're then also amending application to apply for murder for this particular incident?

MR MBELO: I make an application for abduction and for assault.

MR WILLIAMS: Now Mr Mbelo, the Committee understand that you were not present when Mr Mngomezulu was killed or that you had no part in the discussions when the plans to kill him, the Committee understand that and maybe it's purely a matter or technical legal argument at the end of the day but is it correct that you're also applying for murder just to cover you in the event of future or things which can happen in future?

MR MBELO: Correct Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Did you ever receive any money for this particular incident or any reward?

MR MBELO: No Chairperson.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Williams. Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Mbelo, you gave evidence against Mr de Kock at his criminal trial, is that correct?

MR MBELO: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: That was in connection with the Maponya incident, correct?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now at the time of the abduction of Mr Mngomezulu, Mr de Kock was your commander at Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR MBELO: Correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: He was a very dynamic and strict commander, is that correct?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now when you were sent to the Piet Retief area was that one of your normal deployments? You went there for a period of about three weeks together with other Black members including askaris of Vlakplaas and under the command of a White policeman, is that correct?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And your recollection is a bit faulty as to whom your commander for that specific period was, you seemed to think at one stage that it was Mr Nortje but you now accept that it must have been Mr van Dyk, is that correct?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: If Mr de Kock had been present at the time when Mr Mngomezulu was abducted and interrogated no doubt he would have taken charge of the operation, not so?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you would have recalled the fact that he had been there and that he had taken charge of the operation?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You have no recollection whatsoever of Mr de Kock ever being present during the time that you were in Piet Retief in connection with the abduction of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson, I don't remember.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Mbelo, I would just like to read to you a passage from the affidavit of Mr Mgadi at page 19 of his supplementary affidavit. Perhaps I should start at the foot of page 18, paragraph 35. He states there that the arrested person was interrogated by Van Dyk and others:

Was that your impression as well?

MR MBELO: I don't remember clearly, Chairperson, but I would not dispute what he is saying.

MR HATTINGH: Now the interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu took place over a period of some days, is that correct? Two to three days it would seem?

MR MBELO: In terms of my recollection, Chairperson, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you present throughout or did you at some stage leave the room or the area where he was being interrogated?

MR MBELO: There are times we would leave to town and go and buy things because we were many there.

MR HATTINGH: When you talk about town are you referring to Piet Retief or to Josini or both?

MR MBELO: I'm talking about Piet Retief, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes and did you travel to Piet Retief by car?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: If you were told the place where Mr Mngomezulu was re-interrogated was some 20 kilometres away from Piet Retief would you agree with that?

MR MBELO: It is possible, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, so you were away for quite a long time on occasion?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I've got no questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: I've got no questions thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?

MR NEL: Thank you Chair, I've got no questions

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele?

MR RAMAWELE: I've got no questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr Mbelo, I'm only interested in the time when you were told to leave. When you last saw Mr Mngomezulu what was his state?

MR MBELO: I don't know his state of his health but we left him alive.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to know the extent of injuries if there were any?

MR KGASI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: That he had sustained?

MR KGASI: Yes Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: When you left Mr Mbelo, was Mr Mngomezulu in a condition which you could describe as having been severely beaten?

MR MBELO: I did not observe the injuries when we left for the last time.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?

MR KGASI: So you could not say with certainty whether he suffered severe injuries as a result of the torture that was inflicted on him?

MR MBELO: That is correct, Chairperson, I'm not able to explain.

MR KGASI: And during - you have testified that you personally took part in the assault, that you slapped him with an open hand on his chest and back, is that so?

MR MBELO: Correct Chairperson.

MR KGASI: And what about the other members?

MR MBELO: I don't remember who did what to him during the assault, I don't remember well who did what to him.

MR KGASI: Now tell me Mr Mbelo, who ordered you to leave the scene where Mr Mngomezulu was interrogated?

MR MBELO: That is our immediate commander who was responsible at that particular time.

MR KGASI: And it's your testimony that you do not recall who that commander was?

MR MBELO: Correct, Chairperson.

MR KGASI: And at that time when you were ordered to leave you did not observe the state of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MBELO: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi, isn't it his evidence that he could not see any obvious injuries?

MR KGASI: It is your honour.

Out of curiosity, Mr Mbelo, was he alive, conscious or unconscious?

MR MBELO: We left him alive the last time when we left him.

MR KGASI: Thank you Mr Mbelo. Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: No questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: No questions Madam Chair, thank you.

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

MR MBELO: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, I didn't come back to you, there was nothing for you to re-examine on.

MR WILLIAMS: That is correct, Madam Chair.

______________________________________________________CHAIRPERSON: Who is the next applicant?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I'm ready to start with the next applicant, Mr Koole.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what language will Mr Koole be using, Mr Lamey?

CHAIRPERSON: Chairperson, his mother language I understand is Tswana.

JOHANNES KOOLE: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Lamey.

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair, there's a further supplementary statement which has been placed before you, I just want to make sure whether you have it. I have the original signed with me and I'll hand it up after I've had it confirmed by the applicant. I have distributed copies thereof also to I think almost all the legal representatives except perhaps Mr Ramawele. I beg leave to hand a copy to him?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Koole, you have applied for amnesty inter alia also for your involvement in the abduction, interrogation and assault on Mr Mngomezulu, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The particulars of your amnesty application we find on page 16 up to, regarding this incident on page 22, 23 up to 25 of the bundle before the Committee. Could you just have a look at it, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And these particulars you have given after you have obtained legal representation, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Initially there was amnesty application, submitted to the Truth and Reconciliation dated 9 December 1996 which we find on page 11 up to 15, is that correct, and that was submitted by the Attorney General, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Mr Koole, then prior to this hearing and after also having had an opportunity that the other aspects and certain versions of applicants were discussed with you, there was a supplementary statement drafted which is now before you, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson

MR LAMEY: And which you have signed, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm that your amnesty application regarding the particulars of the Mngomezulu incident in your initial application as amplified by your further statement are to the best of your knowledge correct and do you confirm that?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: I beg leave to hand up the original document of this further supplementary statement? Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When was this statement signed, Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I think it was signed yesterday by Mr Koole. Yesterday was Monday before the commencement in the morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, was this statement signed by you on the 8th of this month?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, was this attested to before any attorney?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, the approach was as I experienced previously with other applicants that he confirm it under oath before the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I'm just asking whether this was attested to or it was merely a statement?

MR LAMEY: It was made a statement with the intention to be confirmed under oath here before the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay. It has been confirmed, you may proceed.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. Chairperson, I've just received a note from the interpreters that they require the copies of this incident, are they referring to the further supplementary statement?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes they are referring to the statement as appearing particularly on page 22 to page 25.

MR LAMEY: Unfortunately, I've run out of copies, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll give them our copy. How many statements do they need? Only one? You may now proceed, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Koole, before - could you just explain, were you part of a group of Vlakplaas who was in the area of the previous Eastern Transvaal prior to the abduction of Mngomezulu?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: What were you doing there?

MR KOOLE: We were doing our normal duty of patrolling around South Africa and Swaziland.

MR LAMEY: Alright. During that time did you receive - during that time who was the leader of your group?

MR KOOLE: Mr Paul van Dyk, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Did you receive while working there any specific instruction relating to Mr Mngomezulu?

MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And what was that?

MR KOOLE: We were instructed to go to Swaziland to a particular place to abduct a certain person called Mr Mngomezulu and bring in the Republic of South Africa for him to be interrogated here.

MR LAMEY: Okay. Now on page 23, could you just have a look at that, the names which you have stated you recall, is that correct and do you confirm it, the names of Moses Nzimande, Nofomela, Mbelo and then Mogadi - I think is that wrongly spelt? It must read M-G-A-D-I, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is Mogadi.

MR LAMEY: Okay and was he the driver of the mini-bus?

MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson, he was the driver of the mini-bus.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall which border post you entered Swaziland?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, if I remember well, it was the Golele border post.

MR LAMEY: Okay. You've also stated here that you had a false passport in the name of Jackson Chidise which you used to enter Swaziland, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Koole, Chairperson. I was using that name in my passport.

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, sorry to interrupt you. Did he not confirm the correctness of everything right at the beginning? Do you have to lead him through everything? If there's anything material or additional please lead that but don't lead him through all what has been written and confirmed. Thank you.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases the Chair, Chairperson.

Chairperson, with your leave, may I switch? I've started in English, I don't know why. Just for a matter of convenience, the statement is in Afrikaans, could I just?

CHAIRPERSON: You may switch in whatever language you feel like at any time Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

Mr Koole, did you initially arrive at the right place and how did you arrive at this place where Mr Mngomezulu was overpowered?

MR KOOLE: There was somebody that I was not sure of their name but it seems like he was an informer that was based in Piet Retief or Swaziland. He took us to a room house initially but we went to the right place finally.

MR LAMEY: And who pointed out the person that you abducted?

MR KOOLE: If I can recall clearly it seems to be that man who seemed to be an informer. I'm not sure whose informer was he but he's the one who pointed out the man.

MR LAMEY: I accept that you then grabbed the man, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir.

MR LAMEY: And during this abduction in Swaziland, was he assaulted?

MR KOOLE: When we abducted him he was fighting back, he was resisting and therefore he had to be beaten to bring him under control.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Did you also participate when he resisted?

MR KOOLE: Yes I participated in beating him up and abducting him.

MR LAMEY: In your statement in paragraph 4 you say amongst others you strangled him when he tried to scream, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir.

MR LAMEY: And then I would just like to ask you in paragraph 4 you have mentioned, if you could just have a look. You say:

and this is one of the aspects in your supplementary affidavit and which is explained by you and that you wanted to explain further on and describe further on. You further describe it in paragraph 6 in your supplementary affidavit that it was not a matter that he was not conscious but he was overpowered to such an extent and assaulted to such an extent that he became passive and he no longer resisted, is that correct, so that you could handle him?

MR KOOLE: Your Honour, I cannot distinguish but the thing is he was not fighting back but he was still breathing, alive et that time.

MR LAMEY: Very well and furthermore you then transported him from there and you went on foot through the border fence where you met with the mini-bus that Mogadi was driving later on, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir.

MR LAMEY: And your recollection from there is that somewhere Paul van Dyk met with you, Steve Bosch and Fred Pienaar according to your initial affidavit and in your supplementary affidavit you say that you mentioned Steve Bosch in paragraph 7 but you cannot say with certainty whether he was present there, is that correct?

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, from the time I spoke to you initially there is nothing that he has confirmed?

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you.

Mr Koole, your recollection with regard to the lapse of time, from your statement it appears that he was abducted that evening and taken to the house on the following day, you say Mr de Kock arrived and Beeslaar and Mogai was there and there was an assault on Mr Mngomezulu and you spent the night at that house and the following morning you departed. Are you entirely certain in your memory with regard to the lapse of time as to how long he was detained or are you not entirely certain?

MR KOOLE: Your Honour, I cannot clearly be precise about the time whether it was two to three days.

MR LAMEY: Very well. The place that you do recall is the house at Josini dam, is that correct, where he was interrogated and assaulted?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did you also participate in the assault there?

MR KOOLE: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Can you tell us in which manner you participated there?

MR KOOLE: I cannot clearly explain but I do know that I participated. I kicked and I also slapped him.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall what the physical condition was of Mr Mngomezulu when you received instruction to return to Piet Retief?

MR KOOLE: I cannot explain clearly because since from the time we picked him up he was not talking much, he was not responding even when he was asked. He was silent most of the time therefore I cannot actually tell the difference in his physical status.

MR LAMEY: What I mean is how would you describe the assault with the lapse of time was he severely assaulted? Can you recall any injuries?

MR KOOLE: Not with what I saw or I witnessed other than when he was beaten on his eye which was swollen, but that was the only thing I could see, the swollen eye.

MR LAMEY: Very well and then on page 25 you then request amnesty for your participance in the abduction and assault as well as any other offence or unlawful act which might emanate from this incident, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir.

MR LAMEY: And with regard to the political objective, it is set out from page 25 to 26, do you confirm that?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, I confirm that.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr Hattingh, do you have any questions to put to Mr Koole?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Yes thank you Chairperson.

Mr Koole, how good is your memory about these incidents?

MR KOOLE: I cannot recall all the incidents clearly.

MR HATTINGH: In your evidence in chief you said that the versions of other applications was discussed with you and because of that your memory was refreshed and this led to your supplementary statement.

MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir, in some incidents that I could not recall that might be possible or true but it's not applicable to all the versions.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, you erred by saying that Mr Bosch was present, do you accept that?

MR KOOLE: Yes I accept that because I knew him well, that is how I recall that he was present.

MR HATTINGH: Was he present or was he not present?

MR KOOLE: I only realised there after that he was actually not present.

MR HATTINGH: If you knew him so well why did you make a mistake with his presence?

MR KOOLE: It's because I knew him that well, I used to see him more often and you know, like this was just a mistake, it was just because the fact that I used to work with him more frequently, that is why I mentioned his name, it was just a mistake.

MR HATTINGH: How often did you work with Mr de Kock?

MR KOOLE: I wouldn't work with Mr de Kock frequently but he would visit us wherever we were deployed but we were not dealing with him frequently.

MR HATTINGH: But you knew him quite well?

MR KOOLE: Yes I knew him well.

MR HATTINGH: In your initial statement you also state that after you took Mr Mngomezulu through the border fence you then met Mr van Dyk, Bosch and Mr Freek Pienaar. Are you certain that Mr Pienaar was present?

MR KOOLE: I cannot recall quite clearly whether it was Pienaar but Van Dyk was not alone.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know Mr Pienaar.

MR KOOLE: Yes I know him but not that well.

MR HATTINGH: And you positively stated in your statement that it was he?

MR KOOLE: I have said that some of the things I can recall clearly because this has happened a long time ago, this could have been a mistake.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Pienaar's version is that the day after Mr Mngomezulu was abducted and that he was informed about it by Mr Van Dyk and was requested to assist in the interrogation. Was that version of his also not discussed with you?

MR KOOLE: Nobody told me who called him and why.

MR HATTINGH: But was it not told to you that his version is that he was not involved in the abduction?

MR KOOLE: Nobody told me whether he was present when Mr Mngomezulu was being abducted.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, maybe I'm not stating myself correctly. That his version is not that he was present when you came through the border fence with Mr Mngomezulu, was that not told to you?

MR KOOLE: That I was not told, I said that this might be a mistake on my side.

MR HATTINGH: What is possibly a fault?

MR KOOLE: Mentioning him that he was one of the people who were present and yet he might not have been there.

MR HATTINGH: And then you also have no recollection that after you had apprehended Mr Mngomezulu that you first went to a place close to Piet Retief where there was a caravan?

MR KOOLE: That is not correct, I cannot recall going to a place in Piet Retief where there was a caravan nearby.

MR HATTINGH: That is what I put to you, you have no recollection thereof?

MR KOOLE: I cannot recall that, going to a place in Piet Retief where there was a caravan nearby.

MR HATTINGH: And where Mr Mngomezulu was interrogated and tortured, you don't have a recollection thereof?

MR KOOLE: Even that I do not recall, sir.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall why do you not remember the place where you went firstly where Mr Mngomezulu was first assaulted and interrogated but you recall the place where he was taken afterwards and assaulted?

MR MALAN: Mr Hattingh, is that a fair question? If he says he has no recollection of the first place, he cannot confirm it?

MR HATTINGH: I don't know if it's a fair question, but my submission is it is a question I can put to him and he should be able to answer it, Chairperson. I am testing his memory, Chairperson.

Can you explain why you do not have a recollection thereof?

MR KOOLE: I have clearly stated your Honour that there are incidents that I recall and some that I do not recall and therefore I cannot be able to explain as to why can I recall other details and omit others.

MR HATTINGH: I would not like to put it to you that you are deliberately telling lies, that is why I'm trying to give you an opportunity. Is it possible that you could be mistaken when you say Mr de Kock arrived there at some stage?

MR KOOLE: There was a time that I recall that Mr Mogai and Mr Beeslaar did not come with us but Mr de Kock did arrive at that place in transit but I cannot recall exactly which day it was.

MR HATTINGH: But was it while you were questioning Mr Mngomezulu?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir.

MR HATTINGH: Are you entirely certain about that?

MR KOOLE: That is one of the things I clearly recall, sir.

MR HATTINGH: And when Mr de Kock arrived, did he arrive alone or was he accompanied by anyone?

MR KOOLE: When he arrived there he was alone, I did not see if he was in the company of anyone else.

MR HATTINGH: And did anybody else arrive there at the same time when he arrived there?

MR KOOLE: No sir.

MR HATTINGH: And then I would like to refer you to paragraph 8 of your original application on page 24 where you say:

Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Your Honour, I had explained that Piet Mogai arrived with Beeslaar and De Kock arrived alone. I assume that that is exactly how I explained it.

MR HATTINGH: Who arrived first?

MR KOOLE: Mr Mogai and Mr Beeslaar arrived first and Mr de Kock found them there.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr de Kock arrive alone in a vehicle there?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir, he was alone.

MR HATTINGH: And this was while you were at the house at Josini, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, sir, we were not inside the house but it was at Josini dam.

MR HATTINGH: Did you spend the previous evening there?

MR KOOLE: Yes we spent the evening there.

MR HATTINGH: When Mr de Kock arrived what other White members of the police were still present?

MR KOOLE: I recall Mr van Dyk and Mr Beeslaar but I'm not sure whether Mr Pienaar was there or not but I'm certain about Van Dyk and Beeslaar.

MR HATTINGH: What about Mr Schoon?

MR KOOLE: It's the first time I hear of Mr Schoon's name here, I don't know where he was but I do not know him.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Schoon is the person who sits next to Mr Mogai with the light cream coloured or white shirt, I'm not entirely certain what the colour is. Did you see him there?

MR KOOLE: I've seen him at some stage driving in a van, time has lapsed but I think I have seen him before.

MR HATTINGH: Are you able to say whether he participated in the interrogation?

MR KOOLE: I cannot tell exactly who was interrogating because I was at a distance because they were talking in Zulu and Tswati but most of the time I was not there during the interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: Where were you?

MR KOOLE: One could go outside or even keep a distance where Mr Mngomezulu was being asked, one was not standing at the same place all the time, one was moving around.

MR HATTINGH: But the times when you were there did you see Mr Schoon there?

MR KOOLE: I think he's the man that I saw there, he looks like the man that I saw there.

MR HATTINGH: And the man that you think you saw there did he participate in the assault?

MR KOOLE: I cannot give evidence to that.

MR HATTINGH: What about Mr Pienaar, did he participate in the questioning and assaults?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to testify as to whether who were responsible or who played which role but he was present during the interrogation but I'm not able to verify as to whether who played a particular role.

MR HATTINGH: So Mr Pienaar was present during his interrogation?

MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson, he was present.

MR HATTINGH: And Beeslaar, did he participate in the interrogation and the assaults?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember seeing him taking part in the interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: What about Mr Mogai?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to place a particular person for a particular role because the person who was interrogating directly is who I have the problem in distinguishing who played which role.

MR HATTINGH: I'm not entirely certain that I understand your answer. May I ask you unambiguously, did Mr Piet Mogai participate in the assault and the interrogation that you observed?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I saw him that he was present during the interrogation but I'm not able to testify that he took part or which part during the interrogation but he was present in the interrogation team even in the assault.

How can you say now that you cannot say whether they participated in the assault and interrogation?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, you were asking which part did he play in the interrogation and in the assault but I'm stating that all of us who were present there took place in the assault and a person would just ask a question so you were not able to distinguish who took part in the interrogation and what question did he ask or what part did he play in the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, I think several questions were put to you whose purpose was quite clear and that was to elicit information from you about who had participated in both the interrogation and the assault of Mr Mngomezulu. Several questions were put to you about whether Mr Mogai participated in the assault and interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu and you were also questioned about the same thing with regard to Mr Beeslaar. With regard to all those questions your response has been quite direct and your response was that you couldn't remember if any of them had participated in both the assault and the interrogation?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just come in here? But he also said he recalls that they were present during the interrogation and assault, it is just that he cannot recall which part they played.

CHAIRPERSON: He then went on when he was questioned ultimately, the last question he said Mr Mogai and this was in relation to Mr Mogai, he said Mr Mogai was present in the interrogation team and the assault. Those are my notes. But that does not mean that he was very vivid with regard to Mr Mogai's participation in the assault as obviously alleged in his written application.

MR LAMEY: Yes Chairperson, my impression just of the evidence was he cannot say which role they played in the assault but I'll leave in for argument, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, my question was put in Afrikaans. And I ask you unambiguously whether Mr Piet Mogai participated in the interrogation and the assault, I did not ask what role he played.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, those are not my notes, Mr Hattingh, I think you have put several questions to Mr Koole and his response has also been direct with regard to the question put, that is with regard to the participation of both Mr Beeslaar and Mr Mogai in both the assault and interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu.

MR HATTINGH: And he was unable to state, his answer to my recollection is that he could not say whether they participated in the assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, he can't remember.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you again, Mr Hattingh, put your question as you say in an unambiguous fashion?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it has been unambiguous but you may put it again.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, thank you Chairperson.

Mr Koole, I ask you once again. Did you see whether Mr Beeslaar or Mr Mogai participated in the interrogation and the assault on Mr Mngomezulu?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, I saw them.

MR HATTINGH: So you say they assaulted?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And the interrogation?

MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson, I observed.

MR HATTINGH: And how did Mr Beeslaar assault him?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it was the use of hands and kicking. I saw him taking part with his hands but I saw him taking part in the assault.

MR HATTINGH: And did he kick him?

MR KOOLE: I did not see him kick him.

MR HATTINGH: But you said that what you refer to hands and kicks?

MR KOOLE: You're asking about Beeslaar, as to whether did he take part and which role did he play in the assault? I saw him taking part in the assault with the hands but I'm not sure as to whether he kicked Mr Mngomezulu.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Mogai, how did he assault him?

MR KOOLE: He used his hands, I don't remember as to whether he was kicking but some people are taking part in the kicking but I did not observe who took which part or who kicked Mr Mngomezulu.

MR HATTINGH: How is it possible that you can remember who hit but you can't remember who kicked?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it is possible that you'd be able to see a person being assaulted and you would see a person using hands in the assault and then you'd never know whether he used his hands or his feet. You'd be able to observe some other incidents during the assault but you would not be able to remember all of them.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr de Kock participate in the assault?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember seeing him take part in the assault.

MR HATTINGH: Did he participate in the interrogation?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, there was some instance where he asked some questions and then somebody interpreted for him. Yes he took part in the interrogation, thereafter he left.

MR HATTINGH: For how long was Mr de Kock on the scene?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to specify the duration of his stay during the assault and during the interrogation but he did not stay long, then after that he left.

MR HATTINGH: If you say that he left, do you mean that he departed the place where Mr Mngomezulu was assaulted or interrogated?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he get into his vehicle and drive away?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see him after that again?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So you only saw him there for a short period during the assault?

MR KOOLE: Yes I saw him when he came near the interrogation scene, then during the interrogation, then from there he left.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see him leaving? Sorry Mr Hattingh.

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you saw him getting into his car?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I saw him leaving but I did not see him entering the car but I saw the car moving.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say you saw him leaving, what do you mean, do you mean the situation where you see him moving away from where the interrogation had taken place or you mean you saw him leaving the place, the house, moving away completely?

MR KOOLE: I saw him leaving completely, that area.

CHAIRPERSON: In his car?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you.

And after Mr de Kock departed, did the interrogation continue?

MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson, it continued.

MR HATTINGH: And the day afterwards as well?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to recollect as to whether the following day the interrogation continued but that is the day when we departed that area.

MR HATTINGH: When Mr de Kock arrived there was in the morning or the afternoon?

MR KOOLE: I was during the day, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But can't you say whether it was in the morning or the afternoon?

MR KOOLE: It is possible that it was in the middle of the day.

MR HATTINGH: And did the interrogation continue till that evening?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, it did not continue until during the night.

MR HATTINGH: At what time did you stop with the interrogation?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it was somewhere in the afternoon. Somebody would ask a question then sometime we would rest and then after if would continue again but I think it stopped somewhere in the afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, I'm going to request that we stop for the lunch adjournment for forty five minutes. As Mr du Plessis would say the cafeteria will close before we've been able to have something.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed with your cross-examination.

JOHANNES KOOLE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont)

Thank you Chairperson. Mr Koole, perhaps I have to ask this question first, was Mr Mbelo present when Mr de Kock arrived?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember that Mr Mbelo was present at that time.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Mogadi?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember all those people who were present at the time De Kock arrived.

MR HATTINGH: You made a statement to the Attorney General's investigating team, that is the team who investigated the crimes for which Mr de Kock had been charged, is that correct Mr Koole?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And was it said to you by the people who took down the statement that if you then state clearly and fully what you knew that you would begin indemnity against prosecution?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then you made a statement?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The statement that you made in connection with this application of yours, the one that was signed on page 15, it was signed on the 9th December 1996 and it was taken down by one De Lange, who was a member of the special investigating team of the Attorney General, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: In this statement you say on more than one occasion on page 12 for example, paragraph 9(a)(ii) and under (i) you also say as per my statement in the position of the Attorney General at the moment. Can you remember when you made that statement? The statement to the Attorney General?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember the date Chairperson, when I made that statement.

MR HATTINGH: That must have been a long time before you made or signed this application for amnesty?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to verify about the duration but it's not before or after a long time, but I don't remember well.

MR HATTINGH: You knew that the investigating team was looking for evidence against Mr de Kock? Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: They did not inform about the reason behind the investigation, they only informed me that I should report about incidents I knew.

MR HATTINGH: Did you mention in that statement the fact that Mr de Kock arrived and participated in the interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, did you also say that Mr de Kock only arrived, asked a question or two and then departed?

MR KOOLE: That is my recollection, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: While you were present he then left again?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Koole, did anyone decide that the interrogation and the assault had to stop?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember anybody giving that instruction, as when it was given, again.

MR HATTINGH: Sorry, I don't know whether I understand you correctly, could you recollect whether such an instruction was given?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember as to whether there was a person who gave the instruction that the assault and interrogation should cease.

MR HATTINGH: Was it ever said in your presence what had to happen to Mr Mngomezulu after the interrogation had been stopped?

MR KOOLE: Nothing was said as to whether what would happen to him after the interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: You were then told the next day to do what?

MR KOOLE: We were instructed to go back to our base where we were staying.

MR HATTINGH: Was that in Piet Retief?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then depart?

MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Only the Black members or some of the White members as well?

MR KOOLE: The Black members left and then I think White members were left behind.

MR HATTINGH: You say in your statement that the assault on Mr Mngomezulu was a very serious assault, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And the only injury you saw was a swollen eye?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: What do you mean with a heavy or a serious assault?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it is because of he was assaulted by many people at the same time.

MR HATTINGH: Did any of the person who assaulted him, did they use any object during the assault?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't remember any instrument except fists, open hands and feet.

MR HATTINGH: I want to put it to you, Mr Koole, that your testimony that Mr de Kock was present is not true. Mr de Kock testified that he wasn't present at all at Piet Retief when the person was abducted, interrogated and assaulted? What do you say to that?

MR KOOLE: Mr de Kock wasn't during the abduction but he was present during the interrogation for a short period then thereafter he left.

MR HATTINGH: Did anyone of the persons who participated in the assault kick Mr Mngomezulu in his private parts?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to say that because I did not observe that incident.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr du Plessis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr Koole, in your application it is stated that after you abducted Mr Mngomezulu you took him to the specific house in Piet Retief and that the next morning with the interrogation, the interrogation started, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your evidence was that as I understood it that Mr Beeslaar at the interrogation and assault that took place that he was present, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Your question doesn't explain who was present or not, can you clarify that Chairperson?

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm going to ask it in another way. Let me leave the question there, I'll return to it. On a particular day your evidence is that the interrogation started the next morning. Could I perhaps ask you, Mr Beeslaar says in his statement that the interrogation started the same evening, that was the evening that Mngomezulu was brought to the house, is it possible?

MR KOOLE: It's possible Chairperson that it happened that way.

MR DU PLESSIS: Okay and then Mr Beeslaar also states that in his statement that the man was not tortured or seriously assaulted but he was slapped, do you agree with that or do you disagree?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I would not dispute or I knew that he was slapped but I'm not that even feet were used.

MR DU PLESSIS: And how long did this assault take place?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it took around ten to fifteen minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, are you referring to the assault on the evening of the arrival of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I'm referring to the first assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: That was either that night or the next morning but he conceded that it could have been the same night. Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr Koole, could I just get this right, were you present when Mr Mngomezulu was taken to the farm near Josini?

MR KOOLE: Which farm, Chairperson?

MR DU PLESSIS: The man was interrogated at the house in Piet Retief and shortly afterwards, a day afterwards, he was taken to a farm with the name of Leeuspoort near Josini dam. Were you present when he was taken there?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I was present when he was taken to the farm. I don't remember about the house in Piet Retief but I know that was present when he was taken near the dam.

MR DU PLESSIS: At the dam, at the farm, were you present there?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you say that you weren't at all involved during an interrogation that took place in Piet Retief?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I've already explained that I do not remember as to whether we interrogated Mngomezulu in any farm in Piet Retief. It is possible but I don't remember.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you say that it is possible that he was interrogated in Piet Retief, it was not a farm, the places name was Moolman and it was at an Eskom Power Station. Can you remember that he was interrogated there, that you were present during that interrogation?

MR KOOLE: I would not dispute that but I don't remember that he was interrogated at that place.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the last time you saw Mr Mngomezulu in what kind of condition was he?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to explain, I stated that from the beginning, he was not responding to questions and again I observed his eye, that it was swollen. Those are the things which I'm able to remember.

MR DU PLESSIS: Could he still walk at that stage?

MR KOOLE: When we left at that scene, he was not standing or walking, he was sitting. So I'm not able to state as whether he would be able to walk or what.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you say that the only injury that you could observe was a swollen eye?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: I just want to put it to you that Mr Beeslaar's evidence with regard to Colonel de Kock was that Colonel de Kock was not present during the time that Beeslaar was present, that was at Piet Retief or at the farm near the Josini dam. Your comments?

MR KOOLE: I don't understand your question, Chairperson, will you please repeat?

MR DU PLESSIS: What I'm saying is that what Mr Beeslaar will testify is that Mr de Kock was not present either in Piet Retief where Mngomezulu was interrogated or by the house next to the Josini dam?

MR KOOLE: I don't know what Mr Beeslaar will testify but i know that he was present.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you say that Mr de Kock was present?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams?

MR WILLIAMS: I've got no questions Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr Koole, did you see when the deceased was taken away from the dam, that is the last place where he had been interrogated at the house in the dam as you refer to it?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, we left him there, I did not notice whether he was taken or not taken. We left him there.

MR PRINSLOO: My colleague, Mr Hattingh, has already put certain questions to you concerning Mr Fred Pienaar and you conceded that Mr Pienaar was not met by you along the road by other people but that only at Moolman the next day he was only present there. That was how he testified, can you comment on that?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to remember all things that happened, it is possible that he was present or he was absent.

MR PRINSLOO: You heard that Mr Pienaar testified that he was not met along the road by Mr van Dyk and yourself and others. Thank you Chair, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: What is your response to that Mr Koole?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember as to whether we met him or not.

CHAIRPERSON: And you can't therefore dispute what Mr Pienaar's version is with regard to how he made contact with Mr van Dyk?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I would not testify in that regard because this happened a long time ago, I'm not able to remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chair.

Mr Koole, on page 23 of your application, paragraph 6, you make mention that:

Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you didn't go in the direction of Josini, that is in a total different direction, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: It's not correct Chairperson, when we go from Golele, you pass Josini dam. The dam is between Golele and Piet Retief, the dam is in between the two places.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a moment? I put it to you because I want to take this further, I just wanted your comment. The dam that you're referring to is not between Golele and Piet Retief it is on a different road, would you like to comment?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, there are different roads going there but the road we used, that from Golele to Piet Retief, you'd pass the dam first before you arrived at Piet Retief.

MS VAN DER WALT: I put it to you that you are not correct but I want to take you further. You say that:

Is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, that's what I've corrected on my statement because that is a mistake there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, I want to take you to your statement, your supplementary statement, that is on page 2, paragraph 3 and there you state that applicants Mbelo and Paul van Dyk mentions that Paul van Dyk also went into Swaziland when Mngomezulu was abducted.

and all that you are leaving out here is the name of Steve Bosch, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: I've stated that Steve Bosch was not present and I did not remember who we met at the road. I remember that we met Paul van Dyk but I don't remember who was in his company.

MS VAN DER WALT: In your supplementary statement it is then also incorrect to state that you also saw Fred Pienaar there, that is the new statement that you signed on the 8th, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to find the page, so I'm trying to look for the page, can you tell me which page?

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you assist, Mr Lamey? It's page 2, supplementary affidavit - of the supplementary statement, page 2, paragraph 4.

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't remember as to whether I saw Paul van Dyk there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Koole, when Mr Hattingh took you under cross-examination you said that you cannot recall if you saw Mr Pienaar there. Now I'm putting it to you that the statement that you made on the 8th is then also incorrect, that is your supplementary statement, because there you say that you saw Freek Pienaar, is that correct? I'm referring to your answer, what I stating to you that your supplementary statement regarding Mr Pienaar is also incorrect?

MR KOOLE: I don't dispute that fact, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now you say that you cannot recall whether you saw Mr Paul van Dyk there?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember that I saw him in Swaziland.

MS VAN DER WALT: In other words you're not referring to the road, the point on the road where you met him on the way to Piet Retief because that is what this paragraph is all about?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, that is why I'm saying I'm not able to state as to whether I saw him in Swaziland. I saw him within the republic of South Africa.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could I just understand your testimony correct, can you not recall or is there a possibility that he was there or do you say that he was definitely not in Swaziland?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, it is possible that he was present in Swaziland but I don't deny that he was there in Swaziland but I'm saying I don't remember when I saw him there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Koole, Mr van Dyk was in command of this operation and he would never have allowed a group of people to enter to execute an operation if he as commander did not accompany them. Do you have any comment?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, in other places we would not be able to enter, that is why I'm saying I don't remember as to whether I saw him there or not.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is it correct, Mr Koole, that there was the bus in which Mr Mngomezulu was put after you took him from his house and another vehicle?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember as whether there was another car, I only remember the mini-bus which was driven by Mr Mogadi which we used.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that you drove with this mini-bus up to a certain point and then Mr Mngomezulu was taken by foot across the border, you didn't pass the border post?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson, we didn't cross the border post, we jumped the fence.

MS VAN DER WALT: That was on foot?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: I then want to put it to you that as Mr van Dyk testified that the mini-bus and his vehicle which was an ordinary sedan vehicle was through Golele's border post and on the road to Piet Retief Mr Mngomezulu was loaded into the vehicle or into the bus once again. Could you comment on that?

MR KOOLE: It's possible Chairperson, after we alighted the car then we jumped the border on foot then across the border within South Africa we found our mini-bus then we went into it.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were questioned about this by Mr Hattingh, I just want to ask you what do you mean by a severe assault, paragraph 7, page 24?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, a severe assault, I meant that if people were four or more than four then they assaulted together, that is a severe assault because each and every person would use anything to assault that person, that's why I'm saying it was a severe assault.

MS VAN DER WALT: And that is what happened, they did anything they could to hurt him, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I did not know the intention of each and every person who played a role in the assault.

MS VAN DER WALT: It is you who mentions the serious assault. I would like to know, you say the persons wanted to hurt him there and that is what happened? That is what I ask you.

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I agree that if people are many then attack a person, that is a severe assault because each and every one would use anything to assault that person that is why I stated that it is a severe assault. We were not attacking him individually, we'll assault him at the same time.

MS VAN DER WALT: How many days were you on the farm there at Josini?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to remember the duration and I'm not able to say how many we were.

MS VAN DER WALT: In that same sentence you mention that the interrogation was accompanied by a serious assault by everyone including yourself, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your participance, what did you do? How did you assault him?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, that is where I kicked him, then I used open hands. I'm not able to state as to whether what I used but I remember that I used fists and open hands and then I kicked him, I mean that's my role.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you kick him on his body?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I'm not able to state as to whether which part of the body I kicked him but I know that I kicked him but I'm not able to state a spot on his body where I kicked him.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you state furthermore with this serious assault by everyone who was present he only had one mark and you say his eye was swollen, is that correct?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: But if everybody assaulted this person so seriously, that could not be possible Mr Koole.

MR KOOLE: That is possible Chairperson, because it depends on where he was assaulted. We'd kick him as many or assault him as many but one would kick him on the eyes he would be injured but on the other parts he won't be injured, that is possible.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was he sitting, standing or lying down when this assault took place?

MR KOOLE: He was lying on the ground, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And while he was lying on the ground everybody present kicked and hit him?

MR KOOLE: Correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: You have heard what Mr van Dyk said, that he struck the person on the back and on the head with a baton, what do you say about that?

MR KOOLE: I didn't observe any instrument used, I did not observe that, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Were you present all the time?

MR KOOLE: I would not say that I was present at all times. It is possible that you would go out and do something which would not put you on the scene and to observe anything which was happening there. I was not there at all times.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NEL: Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr Koole, I want to refer you to that very same page and paragraph, page 24 and paragraph 27 where you say :

Was Mogadi in the "everybody present" or can you not remember whether he was there?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to testify as to who was present and who was not present but I know that we all assaulted him but I don't know who did what or who was present at what time.

MR NEL: So you cannot say whether Mr Mogadi assaulted him while you were there because you cannot remember, or you are not able to say?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to explain the role in that place but I know that all of us attacked him at the same time. I was not able to observe as to whether he took part, I just think that he took part in the assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, was Mogadi present at the assault you have referred to in paragraph 7?

MR KOOLE: Yes he was present Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So it means he participated in the assault because your version is that every person who was present there participated in that assault?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR NEL: Well my instructions are Mr Koole, that Mr Mogadi was not present during the interrogation and he was also not present during the assault and did not assault Mr Mngomezulu. What do you say about that?

MR KOOLE: I dispute that Chairperson, he was present and there was no one whom I saw him being an observer during the assault, all of us took part in the assault.

MR NEL: I've got nothing further Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Koole, I just want to follow up on a question of clarity. Are you able to say who was present? You've just mentioned Mr Mogadi as having been present during that assault. Who else was also present?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, all of us who were there, there was no one who was observer during the assault. The whole group which was present on the scene of the assault took part in the assault itself. I'm not able to state how many we were and who was present and who was not present.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm interested in the constitution of the group. You are making an allegation that all those who were present participated in the assault. You must know who constituted that group for you to be able to say they all participated otherwise I have a difficulty in you remembering that everybody who participated in the assault, yet you are unable to remember who constituted that group that participated in the assault? Do you get my difficulty?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, those I know that they were present is Armand Nofomela, Johannes Mbelo, Mogadi, myself and Mr Paul van Dyk. Those are the names I'm able to remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Did this assault take place prior to the alleged arrival of Mr Beeslaar and Mogai?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, the assault happened before they arrived, they came later after the first assault, they came during the second assault.

CHAIRPERSON: And where was Mr Pienaar at this stage, had he not yet joined the group?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, I don't remember as to whether he had already arrived or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Ramawele?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Just a few questions.

Mr Koole, after the kidnapping, where precisely was Mr Mngomezulu taken?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember about Piet Retief, I remember that he was taken near the dam.

MR RAMAWELE: No, what I mean is immediately after the kidnapping, where was he taken, if you know?

MR KOOLE: According to my recollection we took him to the house near the dam.

MR RAMAWELE: Was it at a deserted house?

MR KOOLE: Correct, Chairperson.

MR RAMAWELE: And you say it was in Piet Retief?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, it's near Josini.

MR RAMAWELE: Are you familiar with the surroundings there?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, I'm not familiar with those surroundings.

MR RAMAWELE: Because Mr Nofomela will say that he was taken after the kidnapping to the house in Pongola, what do you say to that?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember, Chairperson, I don't remember that incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you correct Mr Ramawele?

MR RAMAWELE: Chair, this is what my client has indicated in his application and this is what he will testify about where after the kidnapping where Mr Mngomezulu was taken.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. But doesn't he say he was taken to a house between Pongola and Piet Retief?

MR RAMAWELE: Chair, I'm trying to be very specific to say that it was in Pongola.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not specific, that's what we have before us. What we have before us is that Mr Nofomela says that after his abduction Mr Mngomezulu was taken to a house which was a farm between Pongola and Piet Retief, you are saying it was Pongola as if it was in Pongola whereas he's saying it was a house between Pongola and Piet Retief?

MR RAMAWELE: My instruction now after recollection is that he was taken to Pongola, not actually between Pongola and Piet Retief.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, these are your later instructions?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because I am now reading from what appears from his application on page 170.

MR RAMAWELE: I've noted that.

CHAIRPERSON: My apologies.

MR RAMAWELE: Thank you.

What is your answer to my question?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't know that area, I know that we were near the house, we were in a house near the dam.

MR RAMAWELE: So you wouldn't dispute that?

MR KOOLE: I would not dispute that, Chairperson.

MR RAMAWELE: Where were you, if I can put it this way, where were you stationed or where were you supposed to go sleep, you know, after this incident. Is it Piet Retief or is it Pongola?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, we were sleeping in Piet Retief.

MR RAMAWELE: And according to your recollection, the place where Mr Mngomezulu was taken, is it very far from the place where you were supposed to go and spend the night?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR RAMAWELE: So it's very far from the place?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson. It's a distance from where we left him.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just make a follow up with your permission Mr Ramawele?

Mr Koole, I'm trying to understand your evidence the best way I can. I thought during cross-examination by Ms van der Walt you were almost firm in that you were familiar with the place where the interrogation took place when it was put to you that the interrogation was conducted in a particular place, you actually were firm that the place where this interrogation took place was between Golele and Piet Retief, do you remember saying that? And you were very firm because Ms van der Walt wanted to put the version given by her clients then you went on to explain why you were insisting that your recollection had to be accepted, you said there could have been different routes used to go to a particular place. I'm trying to recollect your evidence. I can't do that verbatim but I seem to recollect your evidence to this aspect being that the interrogation happened between Golele and Piet Retief. Now if you concede that it could have been in Pongola, I'm a little troubled by that concession. Have I understood your evidence correctly so far?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't remember as to where we were, whether it's Golele, what I know is that the house near the dam is between Golele and Piet Retief. I don't know that place well.

CHAIRPERSON: So you concede you don't know the place well?

MR KOOLE: I don't know that place Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And do you know whether Golele is part of Pongola?

MR KOOLE: I don't know as to whether Golele is part of Pongola, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But it is your recollection that the first interrogation was conducted next to Josini farm, is it not so?

MR KOOLE: That's what I stated Chairperson, that's what I recollect. The second interrogation was made near the dam. I stated that I don't remember where was the first interrogation conducted.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there a first interrogation, other than the Josini dam interrogation, was there any other interrogation prior to the Josini dam interrogation?

MR KOOLE: That's what I said that I don't remember about where the place in Piet Retief, where the interrogation was done firstly.

CHAIRPERSON: Was such an interrogation conducted at any place other than the house next to Josini dam?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember that, Chairperson. I don't know anything about the interrogation near Piet Retief as to whether there was an interrogation at a particular place except the one near the dam.

CHAIRPERSON: So to your recollection there was only one interrogation and that's the one that was conducted at Josini dam?

MR KOOLE: That is correct Chairperson, that's the one I remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Ramawele?

MR RAMAWELE: Thanks Chair, I've got no further questions. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Thank you Madam Chair.

Mr Koole, I'm trying to understand your idea of a severe assault. When asked whether every times when you were there was the victim severely assaulted, you replied by saying that he was severely assaulted because many people were assaulting him. Now I'm trying to understand it in the light of the injuries he had. Except for a swollen eye would you say Mr Mngomezulu was severely injured?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I regarded it that way because we attacked him, that does not mean that if he is attacked in that fashion he would die but I know that he was attacked by kicking and being assaulted by fists. That is my understanding.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi, the one I understand his definition of the severity of assault, is that that is constituted by the number of persons who participated in assaulting Mr Mngomezulu. I doubt if you can take it further than that?

MR KGASI: I just wanted to understand that.

And it's your testimony that you were never present at all the time of interrogation?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KGASI: Now the last time when you saw the deceased, you still remember his state?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, he was lying on the ground, he was still alive at that time because we could see that his lips were moving. I would not know that he was in pain but what I know that he was lying there and still alive. I saw him with my eyes, I did not do anything to him physically further.

MR KGASI: If I understand you correctly he was conscious?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, he was lying on the ground but he was not doing anything. I would not say anything other than saying he was lying there, I would not say he was conscious or not dead, because I cannot put it the other way in Tswana.

MR KGASI: And you still remember why you were told to leave?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, we were just informed that Black members should return to our base near Piet Retief, we should go and wait there, we were not given reasons why.

MR KGASI: That instruction was only given to Black members of the team?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR KGASI: And you have no idea why that is so?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, I've no knowledge.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Mr Koole, you have heard, I think it was Mr van Dyk's evidence which said that Mr Mngomezulu was blindfolded. Did you hear that evidence?

MR KOOLE: Yes that is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: What do you say about it?

MR KOOLE: It's correct Chairperson, he was blindfolded when we put him in the car.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think you understand his question. It was Mr van Dyk's evidence that during Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation, not at the time of his abduction. During his interrogation he was blindfolded and that is the question which is being asked of you.

MR KOOLE: I don't remember as to whether he was blindfolded at the time of the interrogation.

MR MALAN: I find it very strange that one cannot recall that because you can tell us that his one eye was swollen. Could you see it if he was blindfolded?

MR KOOLE: He may be blindfolded for seconds or minutes and thereafter it would be removed so there will be chance. At the time when I saw the eye being swollen, I don't know as to whether he was blindfolded or not but maybe before then he was blindfolded.

MR MALAN: I don't know if we're missing each other or whether it's the interpretation of what you are saying. Please tell us, how could you see if a man's eye was swollen because of an assault while he had a blindfold around his head, how does one see that?

MR KOOLE: As I have explained Chairperson that I will not be able to see the swollen eye if he was blindfolded. At the time when I saw that eye swollen he was not blindfolded.

MR MALAN: And you cannot recall that he was specifically blindfolded during the interrogation and the assault?

MR KOOLE: There is a time when he was blindfolded and there was a time when he was not blindfolded.

MR MALAN: Can you tell me, when he was blindfolded was he blindfolded when you abducted him?

MR KOOLE: Do you mean after we crossed the border or whilst we were still in Swaziland? After we crossed the border within South Africa he was blindfolded within the Republic of South Africa.

MR MALAN: So while he was in Swaziland he was not blindfolded?

MR KOOLE: He was taken to the car from the house then we alighted the car, then we walked on foot, then we boarded the car after we crossed the border.

MR MALAN: And at which stage did you blindfold him for the first time?

MR KOOLE: For the first time it was when we put him in the kombi whilst we were still in Swaziland.

MR MALAN: When did you remove the blindfold for the first time, can you recall?

MR KOOLE: I don't remember as to whether we were in the kombi but the blindfold was removed but it was after he was abducted.

MR MALAN: I do understand that because the blindfold was applied after he was abducted is that not so? You didn't find him there where he had blindfolded himself but I think I will leave that question there. I would just like to get certainty from you, from your recollection was he blindfolded most of the time or was he not blindfolded most of the time?

MR KOOLE: He was blindfolded most of the time, that's what I'm able to remember.

MR MALAN: Can you please tell us why he would be blindfolded?

MR KOOLE: I'm not able to recollect the reasons behind that, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: And you are entirely certain that at times he was not blindfolded?

MR KOOLE: Yes that is correct, Chairperson, there was a period where he was not blindfolded.

MR MALAN: Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: Just one, Madam Chair, thank you.

Mr Koole, you say most of you participated in the interrogation and assault. You will recall you said Mr de Kock subsequently came to the scene as well as Beeslaar and Mogai, you recall that?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV MOTATA: Would you say now the team that assaulted Mr Mngomezulu grew because on page 24, I think, paragraph 8, you said:

Does that suggest that the party that interrogated him and assaulted him grew besides those who were there before their arrival?

MR KOOLE: It is correct Chairperson, after the arrival they took part in the interrogation and the assaults which means the group grew.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Just on a point of clarity with regard to what's contained in paragraph 8, you also mention on the last, on the one but last line, on that night, that's paragraph 8, page 24:

would this include Mr de Kock who was present at that stage?

MR KOOLE: They hadn't arrived at that particular time, the three of them at that particular time.

CHAIRPERSON: I have a problem with that because if you read what is contained in the few lines before that you will see that you start by saying that during the day Mr de Kock also arrived as well as Mr Beeslaar and Mr Mogai. Then you went on to explain that they also participated in the interrogation and the assault of Mr Mngomezulu. How can you say they had not yet arrived by that stage? You mentioned three persons who later showed up during the day and that's Mr Beeslaar, Mr Mogai and Mr de Kock?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, Mr Mogai and Mr Beeslaar, they came on the second day and they took part during the interrogation and the assault, they were not there during the first day so I thought maybe the group day during the first day and during the first interrogation and the second interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you responded to Mr Motata's question out of context, you did not understand the question? Because if that is so it means you then did not respond to the right question?

MR KOOLE: Maybe I did not understand the question Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You however referred to a specific paragraph, were you not, Mr Koole? He referred you to your paragraph. How is it possible that when you are referred to a paragraph you then do not understand the context in which the question is being asked?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, the way I explained, is that the way I remember is that Mr Mogai and Beeslaar and Mr de Kock came later then on the second assault that is where the group or the team grew.

CHAIRPERSON: During your evidence in chief you will remember that you stated that you were able to identify Mr Mngomezulu during the abduction because he was pointed out by the informer?

MR KOOLE: I stated that he was identified by the informer then we abducted him, that's what I stated.

CHAIRPERSON: So the informer was with you as you went into Mr Mngomezulu's house?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure about this aspect of your evidence?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I did not know any person who knew that house and even that informer was lost, we went to a different house and thereafter we went to the right house.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm not worried about whether you were initially lost or not in locating Mr Mngomezulu's house, I'm asking you if you are sure about the fact that the informer was with you when you went into the identified house of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And he did the pointing out and that's how Mr Mngomezulu was abducted?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I am asking this question is because we have before us an affidavit from Mr Mogadi who was the driver of the kombi. Do you remember that Mr Mogadi was the driver of the kombi that transported you to Swaziland?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know Mr Mogadi very well?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, but not that well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Mogadi says that when you arrived at Mr Mngomezulu's house the informer remained behind with him inside the kombi. What do you say to that version given by Mr Mogadi and I draw your attention to page 15, paragraph 22 and page 16, paragraph 25.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just had to take the document from the pile here, sorry could you just repeat that?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's page 15, paragraph 23, let's commence with that. He says:

He goes on further on page 16 at paragraph 25 to say:

What do you say to Mr Mogadi's version with regard to the informer and the fact that the informer remained with him at all times material to the abduction concerned?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I will explain shortly. So that we worked with the informer, at the time when we went to abduct Mr Mngomezulu we went with the informer then we instructed Mr Mogadi in the car that we'll do a sign with a torch, then when we make that sign, there should be a sign that we succeeded in the action. We did that, then from there we used the torch that we've arrived and he did not come. Then one of us left to go and inform Mr Mogadi then he informed us that he found him asleep. He was alone in the kombi.

CHAIRPERSON: So do you still persist that Mr Mngomezulu was abducted with the assistance of the pointing out of the informer who was with you at the time of his abduction?

MR KOOLE: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that if Mr Mogadi says differently, he would be lying?

MR KOOLE: I would not say that he would be lying, it is possible that he did not understand the situation as we did but my understanding that we made a sign with a torch that he should come, that we succeeded, then we sent somebody to go and call him because he was wasting time. If there were two he couldn't have slept in the car.

CHAIRPERSON: But if Mr Mogadi says that the informer remained with him inside the car during the abduction, wouldn't he be lying?

MR KOOLE: I have no evidence to say that he's lying but my understanding is that we went with the informer towards the house of Mr Mngomezulu.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which is the same as saying Mr Mogadi would be lying. I also need a little bit of clarity, Mr Koole, with regard to the length of Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation. I must say I'm a little confused with regard to when he was interrogated and where he was interrogated on your version. Now after abducting Mr Mngomezulu on the night when he was abducted to the best of your recollection where did you proceed to?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't want to state what I heard, I want to state what I remember. I remember that he was interrogated from - we went straight to the dam. About the interrogation at Piet Retief, I don't remember about that so I would no say that I heard that he was interrogated at Piet Retief. I not certain that it's not like that but I'm saying I don't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: You do not recall the interrogation that was conducted in Piet Retief at Moolman?

MR KOOLE: That is the one which I've already mentioned that I don't remember about that one, I only remember about the one which happened at the dam.

CHAIRPERSON: To the best of your recollection, how long did the interrogation that took place at Josini dam last?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, on the night it did not happen a long time because he was not responding to anything, they were speaking with him in Zulu, it took about ten minutes and that was all then we were told to rest.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you participated in the interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu, he briefed you on what you had to ask Mngomezulu about?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I did not ask any question and there is no one who instructed me to asking a question. They were using English and Soswasi and I'm Tswana speaking so no one instructed me to ask a particular question. That is what I learnt when they were interrogating him, in English or in Zulu so I did not know the content of the interrogation.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you say that you participated in his interrogation, what do you mean?

MR KOOLE: I'm certain that I was present during the interrogation because the interrogation is accompanied by assault. I would understand the question when it was asked in English but I would not understand what he was saying. I only took part in the assault but I know that the interrogation was accompanied by assault.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you recall Mr Mogadi having to be called to translate for anyone during Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation?

MR KOOLE: It's not him alone, Chairperson, he was also instructed that he should interrogate Mr Mogadi about certain names and again other places which I did not understand then he would translate that into Zulu and I did not understand.

CHAIRPERSON: You do not understand Zulu?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, I only understand Zulu here and there so I would not say I'm conversant, I don't know the difference between Zulu and Xhosa.

CHAIRPERSON: You obviously never put any question to Mr Mngomezulu?

MR KOOLE: Not from me Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The reason why I'm asking this is because as you were given evidence I was under the impression that you participated though to a minimal extent at both his interrogation and assault?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson when you say to a person respond to the question it's part of their interrogation so then after that if that person does not respond to the question you would make a remark of saying respond to the question, thereafter you would assault that person.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't say anything to Mr Mngomezulu because you didn't speak Zulu? I thought you said nothing? Have I understood you incorrectly?

MR KOOLE: I did not put a question to Mr Mngomezulu, I did not ask you a question.

CHAIRPERSON: Who in your opinion was the chief interrogator amongst the Black members?

MR KOOLE: There's no one whom I would say he was a chief interrogator, at times it would be Mogai, at times Mr Mogadi. The one who I would say he was - I'm not able to mention any person who was leading the interrogation or who was the chief interrogator.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, Mr Mogadi states in his affidavit on page 18 which has already been put to you by Mr Hattingh that he recalls that Mr Mogai was the one who was busy with Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation to a point that he thought that he was the chief interrogator. Would you dispute his version?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson, I don't dispute that version but I'm not able to state that who was leading or being a chief interrogator, I'm not able to say if it's Mr Mogai or Mr Mogadi.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you worked with Mr Mogai for some time, Mr Koole?

MR KOOLE: Not for a long time Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: To your understanding, does he speak Zulu?

MR KOOLE: I don't know as to whether the language he is able to speak is Zulu or a combination of the Nguni languages so I don't know whether he knew Zulu or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you personally observe him putting questions to Mr Mngomezulu?

MR KOOLE: No Chairperson, I did not listen or concentrate because I did not hear what they were saying, I would just listen but I would not understand or hear what he is saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Yet you participated in Mr Mngomezulu's assault without understanding what was going on?

MR KOOLE: Chairperson when it is stated that a response to the question, then I see that this person is not responding to the questions asked, so therefore we take part in the assault because many things which were asked there he did not respond to.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, any re-examination?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, no re-examination thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Koole, you are excused.

MR KOOLE: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if all counsel has been brought up to speed with regard to the many requests that were channelled to us as early as yesterday. We have two counsel who have approached us because they have an engagement which cannot be postponed and that requires them to leave at half past three. Another counsel has to attend to a commitment that requires him to be at a particular venue by 4 o'clock. The Committee was therefore approached with a view to requesting that we adjourn today at 3.30. I was however assured that this matter has also been discussed with all counsel involved. If it hasn't, may I apologise on their behalf. I see Mr Hugo is shaking his head as not having been made privy to this special request? Mr Williams has discussed it, Mr Prinsloo and Ms van der Walt have also conveyed their request to be released early. What is your position now, Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Chairperson, I have no objection to taking the adjournment now. As I understand the position we're carrying on with the other matter tomorrow and we're starting at half past eight, is that still the position?

CHAIRPERSON: That is still the position. This matter will stand down until Thursday morning at 9.30 and the Mandla incident - the Mahlangu incident will commence tomorrow at 8.30. Is that in order, Mr du Plessis, that we adjourn early?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes I have no objection that Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams, you are not involved, you are the subject of the request. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: I have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?

MR NEL: I really have no objection, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele?

MR RAMAWELE: I have no objection, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?

MR KGASI: Same with me, Madam, I have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This matter is therefore postponed until Thursday morning at 9.30 and counsel appearing in tomorrow's matter are reminded that the matter will be proceeding at 8.30 and not 9.30. Thank you.