--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. On behalf of the Committee I would like to apologise for not having been able to start at 9.30 as we had arranged. We had some personal problems concerning the TRC that we had to solve this morning.

MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair I have been requested to humbly request whether or not the gentlemen can remove our jackets for the rest of the sitting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson during the evidence of Mr Pule I omitted to request that the supplementary statement be given an exhibit number. Could we perhaps just attend to that?

CHAIRPERSON: You mean the further supplementary affidavit of Mr Pule?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it really necessary Mr Lamey? We can, if you think it's absolutely necessary.

MR LAMEY: I'm in your hands there. If you think it's not necessary, then I'll leave it there, then it's just regarded as part of his ...

CHAIRPERSON: As part of his affidavit.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Which applicant are we going to hear today?

MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chairperson, with the Committee's leave I will call Mr Schoon. I've already discussed this with the other representatives of the other applicants and they have no objection to this particular procedure. I call Mr Schoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo.

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. You may proceed Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair.

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, you are an applicant in this specific incident with regard to the death of Mr Jameson Mngomezulu, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And your application with regard to this specific incident appears in the bundle. Your formal application appears on page 68, 69 and the specific incident which will be addressed here, appears from page 71 to 73 and then the political motivation appears from page 74, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, at the time of this incident you were stationed at Josini, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the rank that you occupied at that stage?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I cannot recall dates pertinently. I know that it was after December 1985, so I had to have been a Lieutenant.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you mean 1985?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you were a Lieutenant?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, can you recall the date of this incident or not? You have heard when more or less it happened and can you assist the Committee any further with specific dates?

MR SCHOON: No, I cannot.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, you have already heard the evidence of Mr de Kock in this matter, that a request was directed that Mr Jameson Mngomezulu be abducted from Swaziland for purposes of questioning. What is your recollection in this regard?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that I called him telephonically, but I think it was improbable to discuss something over the telephone.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you have personally directed this request?

MR SCHOON: De Kock did visit Josini from time to time and I believe that I directed such a request to him personally.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, this person Mngomezulu, was he known to you?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson I had a file on the man. I did not know him personally, but I knew him on paper.

MR PRINSLOO: You had a file of him. What information did you have with regard to the deceased, Mr Mngomezulu?

MR SCHOON: I knew that Nkomweni, in the district of Ngwavuma, where he had a kraal, in the RSA.

MR PRINSLOO: And besides this kraal that he had in the RSA, did he have any other kraal elsewhere?

MR SCHOON: He went to Swaziland and established himself in Swaziland.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you give the Honourable Committee a background as to the two kraals that he had and why he had established himself in Swaziland? Can you please supply the Committee with the background?

MR SCHOON: There was a dispute in the Ngomezulu tribe. The Captain of the tribe went away to Swaziland and Jameson accompanied him to Swaziland. He also went to Swaziland. I can also just mention that a part or a section of the sub-ordinates of the Captain also lived in Swaziland, in other words part of his property was in Swaziland and part of it was in South Africa.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Mngomezulu, did he receive any training during the 70's from any organisation that you had direct knowledge of?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson. He was militarily trained by the PAC in Libya.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know more or less when this took place?

MR SCHOON: I am not entirely certain of the date, but it had to have been the beginning 70's to the middle 70's, somewhere around there.

MR PRINSLOO: And besides his relationship with the PAC, did he have any relationship with any other political organisation afterwards?

MR SCHOON: After the PAC were kicked out of Swaziland, he was recruited by the ANC and he received military training under the banner of the ANC abroad. I don't know in which camp he was, I cannot recall that.

MR PRINSLOO: From his membership with the ANC, what was his interest to you where he was located in that vicinity that you have just now mentioned to the Committee? Can you please tell the Committee what he did, what your information was and what interest you had in him?

MR SCHOON: The information was that he had received trained military ANC persons at his kraal and that he had brought three different groups of terrorists into South Africa and that they had founded three bases and established three bases in South Africa. I cannot recall the group leaders of every group, but I know that there was a group under the leadership of one Mogadi. There was one group under the leadership of one Post and the third group's leader I cannot recall.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you continue and tell us further what you knew of them and what they did?

MR SCHOON: These three groups, along with their arms, were according to information infiltrated by Mngomezulu into the RSA to the bases.

MR PRINSLOO: You can continue.

MR SCHOON: During 1984 I assisted in the investigation of terrorist activities in the Ngwavuma district. I operated as an explosives expert and on approximately 20 different places I took out weapons and ammunition that were pointed out to me and the arms were pointed out by the one group to whom I have referred, under the leadership of Mogadi and within that group, I cannot recall whether there were four or five who were arrested, people who were trained abroad and one was killed in police action. But in any event that group was entirely taken out.

The second group under the leadership of Post, we did not know much about them, but we did find where their base was and in a police operation, Post, who was the leader, was shot dead. We recovered a small part of their arms, but not all of it.

The third group, we did not know much about them and we did not find any of their arms.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Schoon, for what reason did you want Mngomezulu in order to interrogate him or whatever your purpose was?

MR SCHOON: It was vitally important for us to know where exactly the other trained ANC members were who had infiltrated South Africa and to find their arms.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Schoon, there has already been evidence with regard to Mr van Vuuren who had been killed. Would you please inform the Committee about this?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson. The information was, I was not personally involved in that investigation, but the information was that the persons who were responsible for this, had also been infiltrated by Mngomezulu to the RSA.

MR PRINSLOO: And was there any other incident, any shooting incident of persons from the ANC by the police?

MR SCHOON: As I have already mentioned, one member of Mogadi's group was killed during police action and during this police operation one Capt Holloway was wounded in his hand.

MR PRINSLOO: According to you, was Mr Mngomezulu an important or the weak link between the ANC and the insurgents and operatives in the Republic? What can you say about that?

MR SCHOON: He was the most important link between the ANC abroad and the infiltrated persons within South Africa.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you have had knowledge or not of possible cache points within the RSA, or were you personally involved in any investigation?

MR SCHOON: We had information that all three groups had brought in arms and as I have already said, we only found the total amount of Mogadi's arms and a small amount of Post's arms.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, you have already said that according to your memory and you would have probably discussed the matter with Mr de Kock, were you contacted at any time by any person with regard to this person Mngomezulu, for which you were called to be present?

MR SCHOON: On a day I received a telephone call from Capt van Dyk and he said that I had to meet him at a ruin somewhere at Leeuspoort, he did not elaborate on the telephone what it was about, so I believed that it had to be something important and I did not ask any questions.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, this specific place at Leeuspoort, is this close to the Josini Dam?

MR SCHOON: It is approximately 30 kilometres from Josini in the direction of Golela. It is also approximately 30 kilometres from Golela. I would say approximately 5 kilometres from the main road and approximately 3 kilometres from the dam.

MR PRINSLOO: This specific place, the farmhouse, had it been previously used for purposes of the police?

MR SCHOON: The house was regularly used by the police when road blocks were set up in the area or when there was any operation in the area.

MR PRINSLOO: This specific place, was it known to Mr Freek Pienaar, one of the previous applicants?

MR SCHOON: That is correct. He sometimes went there with us.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon following on this telephone call from Mr van Dyk, did you go to this place?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And can you recall what time of the day or night did you arrive there, can you recall?

MR SCHOON: If my memory does not fail me, it was during the evening.

MR PRINSLOO: And when you arrived there, were the people already there or did they wait for you?

MR SCHOON: They were already there.

MR PRINSLOO: When you say 'they', whom do you refer to that you can recall?

MR SCHOON: Van Dyk was there, Pienaar was there, Beeslaar was there and there was another white member who was unknown to me but who, during this amnesty application, that I heard could have possibly been one Willemse.

MR PRINSLOO: And the black members, did you know them?

MR SCHOON: The black members who were present, I only knew Mogadi, he was a Warrant-Officer I think.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know him personally?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: The others, were they just mentioned to you?

MR SCHOON: The others, I knew that they were from Vlakplaas, but I did not know them.

MR PRINSLOO: There has already been evidence that the person who had been involved was Mr Mngomezulu, did you see him there at the farm?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you tell the Committee, as you saw him, what was his condition?

MR SCHOON: It was clear that he had been assaulted and had endured much punishment.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you requested to interrogate Mr Mngomezulu?

MR SCHOON: Capt van Dyk, or Lieutenant van Dyk then, gave me instruction to do so.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you question him?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I did or I tried to interrogate him.

MR PRINSLOO: In which language did you question him?

MR SCHOON: I spoke Zulu to him.

MR PRINSLOO: And are you fluent in Zulu?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I can help myself in Zulu.

MR PRINSLOO: And is it understandable for a person whom you address?

MR SCHOON: I believe so.

MR PRINSLOO: And the questioning which you did with Mr Mngomezulu, did you receive any information from him?

MR SCHOON: Not on the first evening. I obtained nothing from him that evening.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you do then when you saw that you could not do anything with the man?

MR SCHOON: I had him rest until the next day.

MR PRINSLOO: And the following day, what happened then?

MR SCHOON: The following day I periodically questioned him. He was still relatively weak, but he did supply names and I made notes of these names and later I had to investigate these names.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Schoon, the evening when you arrived there, did you assault him?

MR SCHOON: I never assaulted Mngomezulu, at no stage.

MR PRINSLOO: Did anybody assault him in your presence?

MR SCHOON: No-one assaulted him in my presence, but I could see that he had already been assaulted.

MR PRINSLOO: And the following day when you periodically questioned him, was he then assaulted during this periodical interrogation while you were present?

MR SCHOON: No.

MR PRINSLOO: During interrogation, were you alone or were there other persons present or can you not recall?

MR SCHOON: Because I was fluent in Zulu and that was my proposal, I was alone and I tried to win the confidence or trust of this man, so I would not have wanted the people who had assaulted him to be present, but it is possible that some of the other members from time to time peeped in to see if there was any progress.

MR PRINSLOO: During the course of this day when you periodically questioned him, was there at any stage, did you stop at any stage questioning him, what happened?

MR SCHOON: I questioned him and I went out and left him so he could rest.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there an opportunity when the persons there left from there or did everyone remain there all the time, or can you not recall?

MR SCHOON: I have listened to Capt van Dyk's evidence that he left but I cannot recall that, but it is possible that some of the members had left for elsewhere for a brief period of time and it is possible that I myself had gone back to my office briefly.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, you have heard the evidence here of Mr Pienaar and Mr van Dyk that the deceased at some stage was taken away from this farmhouse. Did you have anything to do with the decision to take him away or what is the position?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I decided that this man could serve no further purpose to us and that he had to be taken back to Swaziland. I'm saying I decided, although I was not in command or in control of the operation, but there were two options open to me as to what I should do with this man. The first was, we had to kill the man and the second was that he had to be released and the most acceptable choice for me was that he should be released.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, did you at any stage attempt, or not attempt, to recruit this man as a source?

MR SCHOON: That was my objective all the time, firstly to obtain information and then to try to recruit him and send him back to gain information for us.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you try then?

MR SCHOON: I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it successful?

MR SCHOON: The man was deceased before we could reach finality.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Mngomezulu was then taken away from the farm. Where did you take him?

MR SCHOON: We took him to Josini.

MR PRINSLOO: With regard to this decision which you said was taken to take this person away, your decision was to take him back to Swaziland. What was Mr Pienaar and Mr van Dyk's attitude in this regard?

MR SCHOON: They opposed it, but I realised that they cannot force me to follow them or to kill a man. I could force them to do a less serious thing.

MR MALAN: What is the less serious thing, Mr Schoon?

MR SCHOON: This was to put him back over the border.

MR MALAN: Was it an offence to place him back? If you say "less serious", why do you use that expression? I'm trying to understand.

MR SCHOON: I use this expression that it would have come to light that the man had indeed been assaulted, but then he had not been killed yet.

MR MALAN: Is that all that would have come to light, that he had been assaulted and that he had been abducted, cross-border abduction?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, what would the consequences have been, in your opinion at this stage, if he was taken back over the border in this assaulted state that he was in and he had been abducted?

MR SCHOON: My objective was to send this man back for purposes of obtaining information and I realise and I know that the possibility for success was closer to zero than anything else, but it was more acceptable than killing the man.

MR PRINSLOO: What would have been the consequences Sir, for your placing him back in Swaziland? Could something have happened from Swaziland side or from this side, or from any side? What was your impression with regard to that?

MR SCHOON: If we placed him back in Swaziland, the worst that could have happened was that he would report the matter to the Swaziland police.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you think the consequences of this would be?

MR SCHOON: Even if they investigated it, although there might have been an indication that the man was speaking the truth, they could not prove anything against us.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, this person, according to the evidence, was taken with a bakkie from the farmhouse and he was taken to a place. To which place did you go from the farmhouse?

MR SCHOON: From the farmhouse we went to my house. I wanted to find out whether there were any messages for us.

MR PRINSLOO: And the deceased, Mr Mngomezulu, where was he?

MR SCHOON: The vehicle which we drove with, it was a 4 x 4 bakkie. Mngomezulu was on the back of the bakkie. The bakkie was covered with a tarpaulin. My usual manner when I had my camping equipment on the back of my van, was to cover it with a tarpaulin and to tie it up with rope and not as Pienaar had said by leaving the thing loose on the van, so I cannot recall that I did as Pienaar had said I did. I would want that we covered the tarpaulin in my usual manner, but I cannot recall.

MR PRINSLOO: The deceased, can you recall whether he was loaded onto the bakkie or whether he climbed up himself?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say you went to your house. What happened there when you stopped there?

MR SCHOON: While we were there one of the three of us opened up and lifted up the canvass and saw that the man had died.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you do then? What did you decide then, if any decision was taken?

MR SCHOON: I then once again realised that now we had a problem. We either had to dispose of the body somewhere or we had to cover up this whole incident and I proposed that we destroy the corpse with explosives, since I was an explosives expert and I also had the necessary explosives available.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you then obtain explosives?

MR SCHOON: Yes, we fetched it from my office.

MR PRINSLOO: What type of explosives was it?

MR SCHOON: It was PE 4, in other words Plastic Explosives.

MR PRINSLOO: And what was the amount? Can you recall?

MR SCHOON: If I recall correctly it was 25 kilograms a case.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you give us an indication how large a 25kg case of explosives is?

MR SCHOON: If I may indicate, it's about this much centimetres, if you can judge ...

MR MALAN: I would make my estimate in inches.

MR SCHOON: I shall put it as follows, more or less the size of a cardboard beer case. It might have been a little bit bigger, but I don't know whether everyone drinks beer here, so we'll have to judge.

MR MALAN: I think Mr Schoon has a 50 cm x 35 cm x 20cm case...

MR SCHOON: As it pleases you.

MR PRINSLOO: What else did you take with you except for the explosives? Anything else?

MR SCHOON: I also had a container where my other explosive equipment was in and a roll of electrical wire.

MR PRINSLOO: What were the dimensions of this electric wire?

MR SCHOON: The diameter was, I would say, 30 cm and it stands on a stand which makes it a little bit higher. It's on a wooden round top.

MR PRINSLOO: And the other case, the size more or less?

MR SCHOON: It's a square container it would seem 50cm x 50cm x 30. It might be less than 50.

MR PRINSLOO: And that is what you took along?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is what I took along.

MR PRINSLOO: There has been evidence about a Mr Beeslaar and another person, allegedly Mr Willemse. What happened to them when you departed from the farmhouse?

MR SCHOON: Because I knew that these members were not familiar with the vicinity, I told van Dyk to give them instruction to wait for us at the fork, it's just on the other side of Josini, where the Ngwavuma road turns off from the Mbazwana road.

MR PRINSLOO: These two persons, Mr Beeslaar and Mr Willemse if I may call him for purposes of the record, did they resort under your command or not?

MR SCHOON: No, they were under the command of Mr van Dyk.

MR PRINSLOO: And with whose vehicle would they drive?

MR SCHOON: They drove with van Dyk's vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: And as per previous evidence, Mr van Dyk and Pienaar drove with you and the deceased on the back of that van. Was it your van?

MR SCHOON: Yes, it was my bakkie.

MR PRINSLOO: And what happened then? You took the explosives and the decision was taken to destroy the person. What happened then?

MR SCHOON: We drove up to the point where the other two members waited for us and they followed us from there, right up to Sodwana.

MR PRINSLOO: Please continue.

MR SCHOON: And at Sodwana we went to the coast and we drove along the coast in a southerly direction. And I do speak under correction, but I think we drove approximately 30 to 35 kilometres in a southerly direction where the one vehicle with Beeslaar and the other person who was possibly Willemse, was left behind. van Dyk spoke to these people who remained behind. I don't know what the conversation was about, but I assume that he told them to inform us if any other vehicles would approach because that is how we had discussed it.

We then drove on approximately 2 kilometres further with my vehicle. There we removed the corpse from the vehicle and took it to a point. I would just like to mention that it was low tide at that stage. We then took him to a point below the high tide mark where I packed the explosives on him. I cannot recall, the other persons might have assisted me. I don't know what each one did exactly, but the main operator was I, because I was the expert. We then, with the help of a detonator and the electrical wire, the explosives were detonated and the corpse was entirely destroyed.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, with such an explosion is there a loud bang or is it a soft bang with so much explosives?

MR SCHOON: It was a very loud bang.

MR PRINSLOO: From a distance of a kilometre and a half, would it be heard?

MR SCHOON: Under normal circumstances I believe that it should have been heard, but depending on the direction of the wind, there is a possibility that one cannot hear it but I believe that one should have heard it from a distance.

MR PRINSLOO: Will anything be visible?

MR SCHOON: There would have been a flame and a smoke cloud. The smoke one could not have been seen at night but you would have seen the flash.

MR PRINSLOO: So are you saying it was dark?

MR SCHOON: Yes, it was after sundown, if I recall correctly it was after sundown.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall at what time of the year this was?

MR SCHOON: Not at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Or what the climate was at that stage?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that. I heard that it is speculated that it was cold that specific day. I cannot deny this and I cannot confirm it.

MR PRINSLOO: And this person was then destroyed. What happened then? Did you depart from there or did you remain in that vicinity?

MR SCHOON: The three of us returned to the point where we had left the other two members and then we spent the night there on the beach.

MR PRINSLOO: Did anything happen the following day?

MR SCHOON: The following day I and some of the members, I don't know if all of us went there or only some of us went there, but I know that I went there along with some of the members, it might have been all, I don't know and we went and investigated at the point where the explosion had taken place to see if there were any remains left behind. That is also the reason why we stayed at the beach that evening.

MR PRINSLOO: Were there any remains that you could see?

MR SCHOON: No, there were none that we could see. I would also like to mention it was already low tide then, in other words the high tide had already passed the place and had covered the place where the explosion had been and the water had receded again.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, that vicinity, was it well-known to you or was it not well-known to you, the surroundings and environment there, did you know it well?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I knew it reasonably well.

MR PRINSLOO: But that area, is it well-known to you? I'm not speaking of the specific place.

MR SCHOON: This place is known to me.

MR PRINSLOO: How long did you know that specific area, more or less?

MR SCHOON: For years.

MR MALAN: I don't know if it's important, I beg your pardon, but this does not give us an indication. Ten years, two years, fifty years, Mr Schoon?

MR SCHOON: It won't be fifty, but it could be ten.

MR MALAN: Fifteen?

MR SCHOON: I don't know if it is that long.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: This specific place where it happened, would you be able to point it out more or less?

MR SCHOON: I believe I should be able to find it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar in his statement alleges that at some stage, let me just find this place. Please grant me a moment Chairperson. Mr Beeslaar says on page 138 of his application:

At that point did you go on any patrol with Mr Beeslaar or any other persons during that time when Mr Mngomezulu was held at the farm?

MR SCHOON: I assume the military area which is referred to is the place adjacent to the point where the explosion had taken place because this was a place that was used by the Air Force, where they shot off their missiles. It was closed to the public and the coast was as well and the coast was part of this area.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, I assume that that is the area to which Mr Beeslaar refers to? Did you drive on a patrol there?

MR SCHOON: Except for the patrol when we disposed of the corpse, no other patrol.

MR PRINSLOO: And then Mr Beeslaar continues. He says:

Did you speak to operational members in your office at any stage?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall, but I will not deny it.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you refer here specifically and I assume from what is being said, during the time that Mngomezulu was being interrogated or afterwards, at that time were any discussions held? It is not very clear what is stated in the statement.

MR SCHOON: We had discussions at the house where the interrogation had taken place and I may also mention that Beeslaar was actually a passenger, from what I saw that he did, it was absolutely nothing. He didn't do anything. He didn't do anything right or wrong. I cannot connect him to any incident.

MR PRINSLOO: But was Mr Beeslaar at any stage in your office where there were discussions held?

MR SCHOON: Not that I know of.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. What was Mr Beeslaar’s state of sobriety when he was left behind at that place, can you comment on this or are you not able to?

MR SCHOON: I could see that he had had something to drink.

MR PRINSLOO: How did you see this? What created this impression?

MR SCHOON: At that stage I had been a policeman for 20 years, more than 20 years and I know what a person looks like when he's inebriated.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, at a stage when you saw Mr Mngomezulu at the farmhouse, did you then realise that he had been abducted from Swaziland?

MR SCHOON: I was informed to that effect.

MR PRINSLOO: But you realised that he was detained unlawfully there?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I knew he was there illegally.

MR PRINSLOO: And under those circumstances, he was held against his will and that amounts to abduction?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I knew.

MR PRINSLOO: You also saw that he had been abducted, been assaulted and you did not get any medical help for him and you did not report this assault on him?

MR SCHOON: No, I did not, but I did see the assault.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you consider the possibility that Mr Mngomezulu, because of the assault and the injuries, that he could have died there without any medical assistance?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I realised.

MR PRINSLOO: And you associated yourself with the fact that you did not supply him with medical assistance?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And thereafter Mr Mngomezulu died and he was then blown up by you?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you at that stage realise that with blowing up the corpse you at least were guilty as an accessory after the act which, depending on the legal argument, would come down to culpable homicide or murder?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I realised that.

MR PRINSLOO: And that it is also an offence to destroy a corpse in that manner?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I realised that.

MR PRINSLOO: And you never reported this matter to the police and this would amount to defeating the ends of justice.

MR SCHOON: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: And at a stage when you applied the explosives for this purpose, did you know that you were using the explosives for an illegal purpose and that you had illegally transported it to that stage and that you had possessed it illegally.

MR SCHOON: No, I did not possess it illegally, but I transported and applied it illegally.

MR PRINSLOO: This incident, did you inform your command structure that Mr Mngomezulu had been interrogated and assaulted there and had died and had been blown up, did you inform your command structure?

MR SCHOON: No, I accepted that Lieutenant van Dyk would directly report it to his superiors.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Schoon, under these circumstances you then request amnesty from the Honourable Committee, that amnesty be granted to you for the acts which I have put to you, or any other offence which might emanate from the evidence placed before this Committee, as well as any delictual accountability that might emanate from the evidence?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: You have indicated that you are willing to point out the place where the body was blown up?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you act out of malice, did you have any grievance towards Mr Mngomezulu?

MR SCHOON: No, I did not.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you act out of personal gain?

MR SCHOON: No, I did not.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage you were on duty and you performed your duty as a policeman?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prinsloo. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Schoon it appears to me that you accept that Mr de Kock, that you had directed a request to Mr de Kock to the effect that Mr Mngomezulu be abducted from Swaziland so that he could be interrogated by you?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I accept that Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: The only thing which you are not sure about is that you say that you do not believe that the request had been directed during a telephone conversation?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Because such a thing would not be discussed over the telephone?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that such a request could have been directed in an indirect manner so that if somebody was listening in on the conversation that they would not know what it was about?

MR SCHOON: It is possible.

MR HATTINGH: But to put something as that clear would have been difficult, but you do not have a recollection that a specific time was agreed upon, it was a request that was directed in general. It was not agreed that it would be executed at any specific time?

MR SCHOON: No, there was no specific time specified.

MR HATTINGH: So you did not sit and wait for the arrival of a date that you would have expected the person to be brought in?

MR SCHOON: No I did not.

MR HATTINGH: The position in the police was that when a Commander from another area enters your area of command for official purposes, that he had to inform you about it, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And this was a requirement which was applied quite strictly, is that not so, in the police?

MR SCHOON: Although it was not followed, it had to be followed at all times?

MR HATTINGH: To ascertain that other police officers were busy in your area?

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock did not visit you in this regard during your interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR SCHOON: No.

MR HATTINGH: You did not see him at all during this interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu?

MR SCHOON: No, I did not see him.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, when you put Mr Mngomezulu in the bakkie at Josini, who was all involved in loading him onto the van?

MR SCHOON: The question is not clear. We did not load him at Josini, we loaded him up at the farm Leeuspoort.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where you loaded him, who was all involved there?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that. I don't know.

MR DU PLESSIS: Could one accept that it was all the persons who drove from there to your house?

MR SCHOON: Possibly.

MR DU PLESSIS: This is yourself, Pienaar and van Dyk, Beeslaar and Willemse?

MR SCHOON: I have already said Willemse was a passenger.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, you said Beeslaar was a passenger.

MR SCHOON: Yes, Beeslaar and if the other person was Willemse, then I could also include him there.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, the question is not clearly stated, it is ambiguous. When he said that he drove to his house, there is no evidence like that. His evidence is that Beeslaar and Willemse did not go to his house but to a point where they had to meet with them. It could be interpreted incorrectly.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, I never meant to say that Beeslaar and Willemse also went to his house and that's also not Mr Beeslaar’s version, with the utmost respect, but I'll rephrase the question.

CHAIRPERSON: You meant the house at Leeuspoort?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, the house at Josini, but let me rephrase the question. Mr Schoon, I will try and clear it for you. There was a stage when you loaded Mr Mngomezulu on the back of the bakkie at Leeuspoort, at the farm at Leeuspoort?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were there when he was loaded onto the bakkie, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was Mr van Dyk present when he was loaded onto the van?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall exactly who was there, but I am speculating. I am not entirely certain who was there, but I believe that he would have been there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall who drove on the back of the van with the man?

MR SCHOON: I did.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you drive in the bakkie?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I did.

MR DU PLESSIS: And who was inside the bakkie along with you?

MR SCHOON: Pienaar and van Dyk and the deceased was on the back of the bakkie.

MR DU PLESSIS: So Pienaar, van Dyk and yourself drove in the bakkie?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is there any possibility that van Dyk and Pienaar were not present when he was loaded onto the bakkie? Is it not probable that they were present there?

MR SCHOON: I believe that they were, but I am speculating, but I believe they should have been there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was there any other vehicle?

MR SCHOON: There was the other vehicle that the other two persons were in.

MR DU PLESSIS: What type of vehicle was it?

MR SCHOON: It had to be a 4 x 4 vehicle because we drove along the coast and a normal car could not drive along that road.

MR DU PLESSIS: It was Mr van Dyk's Safari.

MR SCHOON: It could be.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall that Mr van Dyk’s vehicle was there?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I accept that the second vehicle that was there was van Dyk's vehicle. I cannot recall what it was and I do not know what van Dyk's vehicle was, I don't remember.

MR DU PLESSIS: And in the other vehicle, the Safari, I know you are saying that you cannot recall it, but you're saying this was Mr Beeslaar and Willemse in the other vehicle?

MR SCHOON: In the other vehicle, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And they drove behind you.

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you agree that Mr Beeslaar was in the area there, or do you not recall, when this man was loaded onto the back of the van?

MR SCHOON: I believe he was there.

MR DU PLESSIS: You then drove to Josini?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: This is a little town?

MR SCHOON: Yes, sort of.

MR DU PLESSIS: How big is this place? How many houses are there? Can you give us an indication?

MR SCHOON: The town is actually in two sections. The section where my house was, there were probably 30 to 40 houses, I cannot say with precision and the second section, which was a few kilometres from there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Schoon, as I understood it Beeslaar and Willemse did not go into the town in their vehicle, they stayed at the cross roads outside the town?

MR SCHOON: Yes, they drove past and waited at the cross roads.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you did not speak to Mr Beeslaar there at your house, because he was not there.

MR SCHOON: No, he was not there and I did not speak to him.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you drove from there to Sodwana?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you arrived at the beach.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you immediately left the one vehicle and drove with the other vehicle?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And when you arrived at Sodwana, you saw that Mr Beeslaar was inebriated. When did you see that he had consumed liquor?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall the exact time, but I was in his company.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, very well, when were you in his company?

MR SCHOON: After we returned after the explosion and I cannot tell you exactly at which point in time it was.

MR DU PLESSIS: My question is, Mr Schoon, as I understand your evidence, you said he was inebriated when you arrived there. Am I incorrect? Did you see he was inebriated the first time when you arrived there?

MR SCHOON: It could have been at the time when we left from Leeuspoort.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see, if it is so and you are telling us that there, where the vehicle had stopped, before the one vehicle continued, there you saw Mr Beeslaar was inebriated. Now my following question to you is, if it is so, how did you see that he had drunk?

MR SCHOON: Once again, I have been a policeman for a long time and I could see when a person had been drinking.

MR DU PLESSIS: Could you smell it?

MR SCHOON: It is easy to see that the man's eyes were bloodshot and the exact story I cannot recall exactly, but I knew he had been drinking.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you speak to him?

MR SCHOON: I spoke to him after the incident. We all congregated there where we slept and we spoke there, but I cannot recall in detail, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see your evidence was that where you had left the one vehicle with Beeslaar and Willemse and you had continued further, you testified that Paul van Dyk spoke to Beeslaar and Willemse before you continued.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: That was your evidence in chief.

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: If that is correct, that means that you could not have spoken to Mr Beeslaar.

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then you couldn't have smelled him either. You could not have spoken to him and you could not have smelled him.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then my question is, how did you see he had been drinking?

MR SCHOON: Once again, I cannot recall at which time it was, whether it was a Leeuspoort already or whether it was after we returned to them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Let us investigate the possibility that it had been at Leeuspoort, because that is the only other place where it could have been, is it not? Do you agree with me?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: It could not have been at your house because he was not there. Do you agree? And in the meantime you were in separate vehicles, do you agree?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Let us investigate the possibility that it had been at Leeuspoort. It could have been so that you saw that he had been inebriated at Leeuspoort, then you are telling us that a man who was drunk, and you took a man along who was drunk, on a sensitive operation, to take Mngomezulu back across the border, a man who had been entirely inebriated, or was he not that bad?

MR SCHOON: I would just like to say that I was not the one who took him along. I was not in control of the operation.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you were the man who said that: "We'll take him back to Swaziland".

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The other two did not want to, but you said: "Let's take him back to Swaziland". Now you take a drunk person with you. Does it make sense? May I ask you as follows, had you been drinking at Leeuspoort?

MR SCHOON: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Had Mr van Dyk been drinking?

MR SCHOON: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Had Mr Pienaar been drinking?

MR SCHOON: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Mr Willemse?

MR SCHOON: I don't know.

MR DU PLESSIS: I put it to you that if you saw Mr Beeslaar had been drunk at Leeuspoort, I find it extremely, extremely improbable that you would have taken him along to dispose of the man.

MR SCHOON: I would just like to say that Beeslaar was a passenger. He didn't do anything. The reason why that vehicle went along was so that van Dyk and Pienaar had transport back. I realised it was a mistake to take the persons along with us because in reality they did not play a role at all. It was unnecessary taking them along.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, please just answer the questions that I put to you. We do not want to know as to...

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, Mr du Plessis' question went directly as to why they took a drunk person along and he answered and he said that that vehicle was the vehicle of Mr van Dyk's and they had to return with that vehicle, that is the reason why they went along and not the reason was to take him along to help with taking the man across the border and I can see no reason, with respect, that he does not answer the question.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, let us return to the events there at the beach. Do you agree that after the corpse had been blown up, you ate and drank there?

MR SCHOON: That is possible, but I cannot recall. I cannot tell you whether we had eaten, what we had eaten and I cannot tell you whether we had had anything to drink, what we had drunk.

MR DU PLESSIS: It will be Mr Beeslaar’s evidence that you then had something to drink.

MR SCHOON: I will not deny it, but if one works with explosives, you will not drink before the time. That is a rule and I would not have transgressed the rule.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is it not possible Mr Schoon that what you recall from Mr Beeslaar, that he had been drunk, had to do with the time period after this corpse had been blown up? Is that not possible?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall exactly at which stage, but as I have said, the man was drunk and I saw him.

MR DU PLESSIS: I ask you, is it not possible that you recall him at a stage after you had blown up the corpse and all of you had consumed liquor?

MR SCHOON: It is possible, Chairperson, I cannot recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: I ask you if you are willing to accede to that possibility?

MR SCHOON: I said it is possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't he made a concession? He says it's possible, he can't recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well, he didn't say in so many words it's possible, he said everything is possible, but he didn't want to make the specific concession that that was possible and that's what I wanted from him, that that was possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the English translation came, "It's possible."

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: "I can't recall."

MR DU PLESSIS: That wasn't in the Afrikaans exactly correct Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: What was said by him? I need to correct my notes?

MR DU PLESSIS: He said: "Enigiets is moontlik" "Everything is possible".

CHAIRPERSON: Oh.

MR DU PLESSIS: "Anything is possible." That was his answer.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there was a mistake then with the translation.

MR DU PLESSIS: But now he has given me the concession. He has said it is possible that he saw him in a drunken state after the...

MR SCHOON: I just added that I could not recall.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, we accept that Mr Schoon. Very well. Mr Schoon, your evidence is furthermore that you, Capt van Dyk and Freek Pienaar drove in the bakkie, upon which you had Mr Mngomezulu.

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar will say that he and Willemse and as he recalls, Mr van Dyk, were in the Safari and that only yourself and Mr Pienaar drove in the other vehicle.

MR SCHOON: As I recall it, Pienaar and I and van Dyk were together in the vehicle.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see, I do not know if you know a Safari. It is not a bakkie. It is similar to the new types of 4 x 4. What appears strange to me and I would like you to clear this up for me, is that you, Capt van Dyk and Pienaar, all three of you large men, drove in the front of a bakkie as opposed to when there is more than enough space in the Safari. Do you not find it strange?

MR SCHOON: I would imagine that it was a double cab Toyota, but I will not swear on it, but I would imagine it was a double cab Toyota bakkie.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr du Plessis. What was a double cab Toyota? The one that Mr Beeslaar drove in or the one that you drove in?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall Mr Beeslaar’s vehicle, but I would imagine the vehicle that I drove in was a double cab Toyota.

MR MALAN: Did you not earlier say that it was your own official vehicle?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Would you not know exactly what your official vehicle was then?

MR SCHOON: My personal official vehicle was a 2 x 2 bakkie, so I could not have driven with that one. I would want that it was one of the other official vehicles at the branch, which is a double cab bakkie. I cannot recall 100%.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR SCHOON: But I did not have a 4 x 4 bakkie that was given to me personally.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Schoon and as I understand your evidence now, you and Mr van Dyk and Mr Pienaar then drove to your house. This was on the way to Swaziland, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then you drove to your house?

MR SCHOON: That is correct. The others continued up to a point where they waited for us at the cross roads.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you have to turn off to the place where your house was from the main road?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I had to turn off.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you have to drive quite a way to your house? You had to turn off specially?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I had to.

MR DU PLESSIS: And was your house where it's a residential area where there are many houses?

MR SCHOON: Yes, there are other houses.

MR DU PLESSIS: Surrounding your house?

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Next to your house?

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you have neighbours on both sides of you?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Opposite the street?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You then rode with Mr Mngomezulu on the back of your bakkie to your house and you say he was still alive at that stage or you do not know what his condition was. He was still alive when you loaded him onto the back of the van, so when you turned off, you thought he was still alive.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And when you put him on the back of the van, was he just lying there? Were his hands cuffed?

MR SCHOON: Once again I cannot recall exactly but I would imagine that he had leg irons.

MR DU PLESSIS: Leg irons? That is the first time that we hear of that. Are you certain?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Chairperson. It was somebody else, I can recall offhand that he had been in cuffs. I think it was a Mbelo who testified that he had been wearing leg irons.

MR DU PLESSIS: I mean it's the first time that he has given this evidence now. Mr Schoon, you did not give this evidence in your evidence in chief. Are you certain about this?

MR SCHOON: I am not certain, that is why I did not mention it, but I would imagine that that is what he had.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether he had a blindfold or did you do something to his face?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall at any stage that he had a blindfold. I heard that Capt van Dyk said that he had been blindfolded but I cannot recall that at any stage during the time when I dealt with him, that he was blindfolded.

MR DU PLESSIS: You can definitely recall that his mouth was not gagged?

MR SCHOON: Well, he could not have been talking if he was gagged.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. Very well. You then drive with this terrorist that you were on your way taking to the Swaziland border, you quickly go into Josini to your house, what did you want to do there?

MR SCHOON: I wanted to find out whether there were any messages for us.

MR DU PLESSIS: You drove with this man into a residential area, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Without his mouth being gagged, on the back of a van, while you think he is still alive?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS; And you want us to believe that, Mr Schoon?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, that is what happened. Whether the person asking the question wants to believe it or not, that is what had happened.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, it sounds to me really, Mr Schoon, that it appears entirely improbably that here while you are on the main road on your way to Swaziland, you turn off with this man on the back of your bakkie. You don't know what his condition is but you think he's still alive, you drive into an inhabited area, while you are driving with an abduction, an illegal operation, to receive messages, how do you explain that?

MR SCHOON: You must just keep in mind this man had been covered under this canvass on the back of a van. He did not know where he was, he did not know he was in an inhabited area and on the other side, I am the man who had the law on my side, I was the authority in that area, so no one would have asked me any questions that I could not answer.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, I shall tell you straight out what it appears to me. It would appear to me that this part of your evidence had to be added in your statement to appear, you add this fact that Mr Mngomezulu had accidentally died on the back of the van and you had to add this so that you could not - it would appear to me that you wanted to kill him on the beach.

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, my share in all of this is more gruesome than any other. I know that I'm guilty of murder and I cannot see that it would serve any purpose for me to deny if I had killed the man or if he had died coincidentally as a result of my negligence.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Schoon, why are you saying that your share was so gruesome, because you say that your share in the murder is based upon the fact that you knew that he could have died during interrogation.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Is that so gruesome? Why is it so gruesome?

MR SCHOON: Because I allowed the man's body to disintegrate completely, I don't know if there is a more gruesome manner than this.

MR MALAN: But now I do not understand you. To let his body disintegrate had nothing to do with murder, except if you had killed him in this manner.

MR SCHOON: The fact that I was an accomplice in the whole operation and the man had died during an unlawful operation, it is murder.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, you see it seems very strange that Mr van Dyk and yours and Mr Pienaar's versions are entirely similar, word for word and Mr Beeslaar comes along and says that this man was killed on the beach, he was eliminated. Where does Mr Beeslaar come with this story?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Honourable Chairperson, is that Mr Beeslaar’s version, because it does not say so in his statement?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't have that version, Mr du Plessis.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I just rephrase the question? Mr Beeslaar’s evidence would be that he was taken to Sodwana Bay, that the two vehicles were parked next to each other on the beach at Sodwana and that he was taken by yourself or van Dyk and Freek Pienaar and that he had walked next to you on the beach and that they had returned later without him and that later he was informed that he had been eliminated and blown up. That is Mr Beeslaar’s version. Now I ask you and the inference is apparently quite apparent that he was eliminated there on the beach. If that is Mr Beeslaar’s version, I would just like to ask you, how does it come about with this version, if your evidence is correct, that the man had already died on the back of the van? Where does Mr Beeslaar get this from?

MR SCHOON: If that is Beeslaar’s version as you have put it now, then I deny that in totality because that is an untruth.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see the fact that Mr Beeslaar was later informed that the terrorist had been blown up, he could not have been drunk then as well. Are you saying he recalled it incorrectly and he's lying about it.

MR SCHOON: I am saying he lies when he says that the man walked away from there and I had 25 kilograms of explosives under my arm plus the other container plus the other things while I had a vehicle to drive it.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see, you did not speak to Mr Beeslaar before this application was drawn up, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: But you did indeed speak to Mr Pienaar and to Mr van Dyk?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you drew up your versions collectively?

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: So you collectively tried to recall this incident and tried to reconstruct it from your memory?

MR SCHOON: I believe that we might have joggled each other's memory and I agree with you that would be the reason as to why there is a great similarity.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. You see I put it to you, I won't take it any further, I just put it to you that it is quite improbable that Mr Beeslaar, who had independently drawn his application from you, would differ to such a great extent, what is your comment to this?

MR SCHOON: I am saying that I deny that it happened as Beeslaar states. It is entirely untrue.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, let us just investigate the probabilities a little further in your story. You are saying that you were on your way with this terrorist after you had interrogated him, to Swaziland. What would you have done, would you have placed him back across the border?

MR SCHOON: That was my idea.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where would you place him back?

MR SCHOON: At Mac's Pass.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr du Plessis, I would like to ask this question. The question was, you were on your way to place him back across the border. May I get your answer again?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And you said it was your idea?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And the question was whether you were on your way and not whether it was your idea. Were you on your way to the border at that stage when you left from Leeuspoort?

MR SCHOON: We were on our way first to my office and then we would have gone to the border.

MR MALAN: My question is when you left from Leeuspoort, did you depart to go and place him across the border?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR MALAN: That decision was taken at Leeuspoort?

MR SCHOON: By me.

MR MALAN: By you?

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

MR MALAN: And you told the others: "We drive from Leeuspoort to the border, we will place him back across the border".

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr du Plessis.

CHAIRPERSON: That has been always your evidence in chief, Mr Schoon.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your evidence, as I understand it, is that you yourself took the decision. You were the solitary person who took that decision.

MR SCHOON: Yes, I decided and the other members did not agree with me.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Would you page to the second paragraph, page 72 of the bundle, of your statement? Will you please read that paragraph to us?

MR SCHOON:

MR DU PLESSIS: So which version is correct? The one that you have testified now or the one in your application?

MR SCHOON: It might have been a poor choice of words. The fact is I decided that we would do it. I realised that these people could not oppose me, I speak of van Dyk and Pienaar, because I could force them to do a less serious thing, but they could not force me to commit murder.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Schoon, what did van Dyk and Pienaar tell you about this decision to take him to Swaziland, can you recall?

MR SCHOON: They did not agree with me.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but what did they tell you? Why did they not agree?

MR SCHOON: They pointed out the consequences that might ensue.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what was that?

MR SCHOON: That it could cause an international incident.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, that is what I want to arrive at. You see Mr Schoon, as it appears to me, your evidence was that if he was placed back he would have gone to the Swaziland police and they would have investigated it.

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is what I believed.

MR DU PLESSIS: But that is not all that would have happened. Do you not think that the ANC would make it into an international incident?

MR SCHOON: Yes, they could have done so because the man was still alive.

MR DU PLESSIS: And that it would have grave consequences for the South African Government, do you agree with me?

MR SCHOON: If they could prove it, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: You know just as well as all of us here in this hall that the allegations of the ANC at that stage were believed internationally whether they could prove it or not.

MR SCHOON: We would have just denied it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well and do you not think that the government on their part would have investigated the Security Police activities where you had interrogated him and that would have cause a problem to you, is that not so?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, it would have caused a less serious problem than it would have been if we murdered the man from my vantage point during the incident.

MR DU PLESSIS: And despite what I have sketched for you now, but I hear what you say, and despite what Pienaar and van Dyk told you, you are saying no, you decided that he would be taken to the Swaziland border? Does this not sound improbable to you?

MR SCHOON: That is what happened Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what makes it even more improbable, Mr Schoon is that you were lesser in rank with regard to Mr van Dyk.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And do you agree, we have had this evidence much, that Vlakplaas members who operated in specific divisions would be taken up for that period while they were there, so you would have had to follow the instructions of a higher rank?

MR SCHOON: If it was about a lawful order, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: An illegal instruction as well, Mr Schoon. Any instruction.

MR SCHOON: I differ from you.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because you see there is much evidence before the Truth Commission about persons who executed illegal instructions because it was part of their counter revolutionary struggle, are you saying this is not true?

MR SCHOON: I am saying it is true, many illegal orders were given.

MR DU PLESSIS: I think your brother testified to this effect.

MR SCHOON: But an unlawful instruction does not necessarily have to be executed because one can refuse it.

MR DU PLESSIS: You see what I find improbable furthermore is that you who were lesser in rank, just gave a command and said: "We'll take the man back to Swaziland and the others can follow", I find that entirely improbable.

MR SCHOON: Chairperson we did argue in the vehicle. They probably thought that they could convince me to decide differently and then on the other hand, I was the person who knew the area, on their own they would have gotten lost so it was necessary for them to keep me with them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Schoon, Mngomezulu was a South African citizen, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: As far as I know, he had dual citizenship.

MR DU PLESSIS: In other words his allegations, do you agree with me, could lead to investigations within the RSA against you and the others, is that not so?

MR SCHOON: It is possible.

MR DU PLESSIS: Because the abduction and assault and the murder, or I beg your pardon, the assault and the abduction, let us forget the murder, the abduction and the interrogation took place within the RSA, is that so?

MR SCHOON: No, the abduction was from Swaziland.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but a part of it took place within the borders of the RSA.

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: So that would have been investigated against you, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And by nature of the situation, it would have caused a great problem for the Security Branch if such questions were asked?

MR SCHOON: Well it still had to be proved.

MR DU PLESSIS: But still it was a risk for the Security Branch and now you are saying that he had to be taken to Swaziland and be released.

MR SCHOON: ...(not interpreted) (transcriber's translation - Every action in the Security Branch was a risk)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, haven't you already covered this already? He has given several responses but his cardinal response was that this was a better risk to take, than the one option that was left to him, which was to kill him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, I've explored the one improbability about the international incident. I'm exploring now the other question which would or should have gone through their minds and that's the question of an investigation internally in South Africa and the damage it would have caused to the Security Branch and then the probabilities surrounding the fact that notwithstanding that, he'd let him go over the border. I'm just exploring ...

CHAIRPERSON: Have you not covered that as well?

MR DU PLESSIS: I'll leave it there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you've dealt with it and his response was even if they had been investigated, the ANC would have had problems and problems. You can't take it further than that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, alright I'll ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: It's his belief in any case. It's what he believed at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: I will leave it there and I will argue the improbability Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well Mr Schoon, let us return to where you turned off to your house. Your evidence was, as I understood you, that you believed that from the time you had departed from Leeuspoort, let us rather go there, that you could still turn him as a source or an askari, do I understand you correctly?

MR SCHOON: Yes, there was a minute possibility.

MR DU PLESSIS: But where would you have done this?

MR SCHOON: We would have spoken to him further at Josini.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was the idea therefore, are you telling us now to question him at your house?

MR SCHOON: The idea was to speak to him again, to see if we could not convince him to other insights and to gain his co-operation.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is the first time that you have said that now, you did not say so in your evidence in chief.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose also, Mr du Plessis? I thought I understood your evidence that once you took a decision that the man should be returned to Swaziland, you then left Leeuspoort for the border with the explicit intention of effecting the decision that you had taken and that is to release the man across the border? Now that was your evidence in chief. That was your evidence during cross-examination. Do I still understand your evidence correctly in that regard?

MR DU PLESSIS: Chairperson, we would have tried to turn the man but whether he would turn or not, I decided that the man had to go back to Swaziland. That was the objective.

CHAIRPERSON: So the objective of leaving Leeuspoort, putting the man onto the vehicle was to return him to Swaziland. That was the objective.

MR SCHOON: That is correct Chairperson. We would have left him there whether he had co-operated or not, we would have left him there in any case. That is how I decided.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Lamey, I see you want to say something.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson I apologise for being disruptive. I just want to ask whether I could be excused just for a minutes?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Maybe you may not be the only person who needs to be excused for a minute, so this would be an appropriate time to take a five minute adjournment.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

GERHARDUS STEPHANUS SCHOON: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, you may proceed.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Madam Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: (cont.)

Very well Mr Schoon, you were involved in other interrogations I'm sure of terrorists and activists.

MR SCHOON: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you involved in other interrogations of people who operated from Swaziland?

MR SCHOON: I don't follow the question.

MR DU PLESSIS: I will repeat it. Were you involved in interrogations of terrorists who operated from Swaziland that you had apprehended?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: What did you do with those people?

MR SCHOON: They were charged.

MR DU PLESSIS: You did not send them back to Swaziland?

MR SCHOON: No they were legally apprehended in the RSA.

CHAIRPERSON: Your question is a little elastic to elicit the kind of answer that I think you want to elicit.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm not going to pursue this further, Madam Chair. I'm going to leave this point. If you'll just bear with me please. Let us return to the reason or the allegation or the evidence that you have testified in your evidence in chief where you said that you wanted to turn him as an askari or as an informer. Did you leave with that idea in your mind from Leeuspoort that it could still happen?

MR SCHOON: I realised it was a minute possibility but it was in the back of my mind.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you were asked a few minutes ago as to what had happened at your house. Do you stand by your evidence that you wanted to question him at your house?

MR SCHOON: That is correct. Not at my house, at the office.

MR DU PLESSIS: Or at your office, I beg your pardon. Despite the fact that you decided to take him back to Swaziland.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: I shall leave that point there because I shall argue that Mr Schoon, that version of yours is quite improbable.

MR SCHOON: That is what happened, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then I would just put it to you that Mr Beeslaar will testify that in so far as he can recall, Mr Mngomezulu could still walk when he was loaded onto the back of the bakkie at the farm Leeuspoort and then he could also walk on the beach at Sodwana when you stopped there. What do you say about that?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall his exact condition, the condition of Mngomezulu when he was loaded up onto the back of the van, but if Beeslaar says he saw him walking from the vehicle on the beach, then I am saying it is a lie because the man was never in Beeslaar’s presence removed from the bakkie. There was no reason for it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Williams?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Schoon, can you recall a time - how long before you had seen Mr Mngomezulu at the dam at Leeuspoort or before he was abducted? Did you know how long before that he had been abducted?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I had no knowledge of the previous abduction. I did not even know that he was questioned at Moolman. I believed that he was taken directly from the border to me.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but according to your understanding, was it more or less a day before that the abduction had taken place or how long before?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall whether I was informed about it or whether I asked about it, I don't know.

MR LAMEY: May I ask you as follows? How long before you saw the man at the Josini dam before you saw Mngomezulu, did you direct the request to Col de Kock to abduct the man?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that either. It was definitely not a brief period before that, then I would have recalled it, but I cannot recall it.

MR LAMEY: You cannot recall?

MR SCHOON: No, I cannot recall.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall what the arrangement was between yourself and Mr de Kock as to when it would be done?

MR SCHOON: No there was no arrangement made, not with me.

MR LAMEY: Did Mr de Kock not tell you something in that regard that: "There was a group of mine who would work in that area or who were busy working in that area" and we would be able to do it more or less during that period of time?

MR SCHOON: No.

MR LAMEY: Is it not possible?

MR SCHOON: I think I would have recalled it, but it is probably possible, but I can really not recall.

MR LAMEY: As I understand your evidence, is it correct by means of retrospect, do you exclude the possibility that Mr de Kock would have directed this request to you telephonically? Do I understand your evidence correctly?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall such a call, because it is improbable because I don't believe one would discuss such a matter over the telephone.

MR LAMEY: Are you saying that it is more probable that Mr de Kock would have personally directed this at you at Josini?

MR SCHOON: I don't understand.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, he is the one who made the request to de Kock, so are you saying, is it possible that he might have conveyed his request to de Kock at Josini?

MR LAMEY: Yes, well I gathered that that was his evidence in chief. My follow-up question is, are you saying that it's probable that he made this request to you at Josini, directly?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but he is the one who is making the request. Maybe you are not being clear with regard to who is requesting.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: It's Mr Schoon who is requesting Mr de Kock.

MR LAMEY: Yes, yes, I apologise.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon Mr Lamey. I apologise for interrupting. Can you give us an indication as to why you asked this question? Are there any contradictories to your client's evidence in this regard?

MR LAMEY: I am investigating the possibility of Mr de Kock's presence at Josini in the light of my client's evidence in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALAN: Then you can continue, but you must please arrive at it swifter than you are.

MR LAMEY: Would you please answer the question, or shall I repeat it, Mr Schoon? Are you saying that it is more probable that you had directed the request at Mr de Kock at Josini?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Did Mr de Kock from time to visit you at Josini?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well, I would just like to ask you then, during the interrogation at Josini, were you continually present there?

MR SCHOON: If you refer to the house at the dam.

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR SCHOON: I was not continually present there.

MR LAMEY: Therefore if there was a stage that Mr de Kock would have arrived there, is it possible that you were not there at that stage?

MR SCHOON: There could be such a possibility but I believe that he would certainly have waited for me to return to speak to me, but I have to speculate.

MR LAMEY: Are you speculating now if you say that?

MR SCHOON: Yes, I am.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that he could have left the further proceedings to Mr van Dyk, but they had been there?

MR SCHOON: I did not see him there.

MR LAMEY: And then I would just like to understand your evidence correctly with regard to the interrogation that had taken place at Josini. Is it your evidence that the man was not severely assaulted there?

MR SCHOON: I did not say that. He was never assaulted in my presence.

MR LAMEY: But you accept that there was a serious assault on him during the interrogation at Josini?

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, it was also his evidence that he had been severely assaulted and that he had endured tremendous punishment, but he was not assaulted while he interrogated him.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. I was not entirely certain in which context I had to see his evidence in the light of his statement on page 72. It was not clear to me, that it is why I wanted to determine with regard to this aspect whether there is a difference with the clients whom I represent. Mr Schoon, did any extraordinary interrogation method, for example the use of barbed wire, as you have heard the evidence of Mr de Kock here, I would not want to repeat it in graphic detail, you know what I am referring to, did anybody ever mention anything like this to you, did any of the members there apply such a method which was entirely unacceptable?

MR SCHOON: At no stage was I present when something to that effect was done. If something like that was done, nobody mentioned it to me but my healthy mind tells me that if something in that manner had happened, that there would have been much blood and I would have seen it, if it had taken place during that period of time.

MR LAMEY: You did not see any bleeding to such effect?

MR SCHOON: I did not see any bleeding because there was no profuse bleeding that one would encounter with such a deed.

MR LAMEY: You questioned Mr Mngomezulu in Zulu you have said and my instructions from Mr Mogoai is that he was given instructions to put questions and in a mixture of Zulu and the Nguni languages, he undertook the interrogation upon instructions, can you comment?

MR SCHOON: I am not able to say. I cannot even recall. In any case, I believe when I arrived there I took over the interrogation. I was the person who had the knowledge about the man's background. It was not necessary for me to work by means of an interpreter, indeed an interpreter who could not speak the language properly, so in my presence I did not see the man interrogating Mr Mngomezulu.

MR LAMEY: I would just like to confirm it with you, in your statement on page 72 you say that you did hear that the askaris there had questioned him as well, you heard this?

MR SCHOON: That is correct, but I don't know who did what because I was not present.

MR LAMEY: Do you know whether as subject of the interrogation, whether he was questioned about infiltration, about PAC, because Mr Mogoai's instructions to me are that he recalled that Mr Pienaar gave him those instructions to do an interrogation in that regard.

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, at that stage the PAC was not really a factor, but what was of import regarding the PAC, and I put questions was persons who had received military training under the banner of the PAC, but whether anyone else questioned him about the PAC, I do not know, but it is possible.

MR LAMEY: I think Mr Pienaar also conceded in his evidence, I would just wanted to hear your comment to that.

Thank you Madam Chair, I have got no further questions. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. In any event Mr Schoon, it is your evidence that you conducted the interrogation all by yourself, you didn't need anyone to be there, though people did come in to peep and see what the interrogation was going like, the interrogation was done largely by yourself alone with the subject. Mr Schoon?

MR SCHOON: I mainly questioned the man with my arrival there, that is correct yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did not see any askari participating in any interrogation of whatsoever nature whilst you were at Leeuspoort?

MR SCHOON: Not that I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Just one singular aspect.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: I would just

like to put it to you, Mr van Dyk testified that he was a lieutenant during the time, that was the same rank that you occupied, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And may I put it to you that Mr van Dyk and yourself went together on an Officers' Course in 1985.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So is it correct that the two of you had the same rank, that you had a lower rank than he did in that period of time?

MR SCHOON: I don't believe I said I occupied a lower rank, but I was under his authority because he worked under Head Office and I regarded myself subordinate to him, although we had the same rank.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?

MR SCHOON: Thank you, Madam Chair, I've got no questions for Mr Schoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele?

MR RAMAWELE: Just a few questions, thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE: Mr Schoon, you are the person who requested that Mr Mngomezulu be abducted, is that so?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR RAMAWELE: Now after his abduction, what was your primary purpose? What were you supposed to get from Mr Mngomezulu?

MR SCHOON: Information.

MR RAMAWELE: Information about what?

MR SCHOON: There are many aspects, I don't know if you want to elaborate, but it was primarily about the presence of terrorists in the RSA for the purposes of tracing them and eliminating them. It was about the presence of cache points, weapons cache points in the RSA and tracing those cache points and the primary reason was to obtain information upon which one could act and it was also to obtain historical information, in other words persons who received training with him so as to act against them later. That was basically primarily what it was about.

MR RAMAWELE: I see. And you have already testified that Mr Mngomezulu was the link between the exile ANC operations and the internal operations in Swaziland.

MR SCHOON: I did testify to that effect because that was our information and it was also confirmed from the interrogation of terrorists that we had arrested in the area in 1984.

MR RAMAWELE: And because Mr Mngomezulu's operations were conducted, according to you, in an area where you had control, so it was of major importance to you, it was of major concern to you that he be abducted and be interrogated?

MR SCHOON: It was extremely important to me that we question the man. I did not say in which manner.

MR RAMAWELE: I see. And he was actually abducted and from the evidence you have given I gather that you have not, you did not assault him when you were questioning him.

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

MR RAMAWELE: And he was not providing any information to you, or was he?

MR SCHOON: I think I have said in my evidence that he did supply names. I would not call it information because it had to be verified.

MR RAMAWELE: But the information that he gave to you, was that information sufficient for the purpose for which you requested his abduction?

MR SCHOON: Definitely not.

MR RAMAWELE: So in other words it's safe to say that during your interrogation you were not achieving the purpose for which his presence was sought?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAMAWELE: You did not think it was necessary to assault him a little bit for him to be able to give you the information?

MR SCHOON: I had indeed thought that the man had to rest and the longer he rests, the larger the possibility was that one could obtain something from him.

MR RAMAWELE: And the following day also, you had some period interrogation with Mr Mngomezulu and you also gave him an opportunity to rest, according to your evidence.

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

MR RAMAWELE: Am I correct to say that the following day also the information, he did not supply you with the information that you were looking for, the information that was sufficient for why he was abducted?

MR SCHOON: That was indeed the following day that he supplied the names, but I agree with you, it was not sufficient.

MR RAMAWELE: Notwithstanding the fact that the information that he supplied to you was not sufficient, you then took a decision that he has to be taken back to Swaziland, is that so?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR RAMAWELE: And here we're talking about a man who was, according to you, you know, a link between the ANC in Swaziland, or in exile and in the country, responsible for the operations and yet you decide he can go back and continue what he was doing, is that what you decided to do, or what you want the Committee to believe?

MR SCHOON: I am telling the Committee what had indeed happened. This man was no longer a child. He was reasonably mature. I judged him to be in his fifties. He had endured severe punishment. It would have served no purpose to interrogate the man any further. The alternative was to kill him and by taking him back to Swaziland was the most acceptable solution to our problem, because we had a problem.

MR RAMAWELE: Do you agree with me that if you had taken him back to Swaziland, he would probably have continued to do what he was doing, because he was never turned into an Askari?

MR SCHOON: No, he was never turned.

MR RAMAWELE: So he would probably have continued to do what he was doing?

MR SCHOON: Yes, he could.

MR RAMAWELE: And you, in that knowledge, decided that he could go back to Swaziland?

MR SCHOON: May I also add that if this man returned to Swaziland and he comes about with a story and says that the police have released him, I believe that, from experience, that the ANC would not have accepted him just like that. They would have known that this man had been planted and they would not have trusted him anymore.

MR RAMAWELE: Just one last aspect relating to the arrangement between yourself and Eugene de Kock. You say that it was never arranged between yourself when the abduction was supposed to take place?

MR SCHOON: I never made any arrangements with him.

MR RAMAWELE: In other words, the abduction was not supposed to be undertaken on a date that was suitable to you? That was not the arrangement?

MR SCHOON: No.

MR RAMAWELE: And yet you were the person who was supposed to interrogate this person, is that so? And yet you don't have to arrange a suitable date for him, or a time when he's supposed to be abducted, so that you could be able to be available and interrogate him?

MR SCHOON: I also did not say that I was the person that had to interrogate him, but I believed that I was in the best position to be able to interrogate this man. This would not exclude that anybody else could also interrogate him. If other persons had knowledge about him they could do so.

MR RAMAWELE: But Mr Schoon, the fact of the matter is you testified that you had the background about this person. you knew this person. You knew his operations. You were interested in this person, so you had to be there to interrogate him, don't you think so?

MR SCHOON: I will emphasise, I was not the only person who had the background knowledge. There was a file from which any other person who would go to the trouble to find this information, there are other persons who had the background knowledge of the whole area. I did not make any arrangement with Mr de Kock. I was informed after the abduction had taken place and I was glad that I could interrogate the man because I was looking for the man because I knew he had knowledge of much information, but the operation did not work as I wanted it to.

MR RAMAWELE: And I correct to ...(intervention).

MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, may I just ascertain at this stage, this line of cross-examination, is Mr Nofomela going to testify anything to the contrary as what Mr Schoon has testified about in this with regard to the abduction, as to the reason for the abduction and the interrogation and availability or non-availability and arrangements, otherwise I do not understand the line of cross-examination. Maybe Mr Ramawele could enlighten the Committee with regard to the line of interrogation.

MR RAMAWELE: Chair, Mr Nofomela is not going to testify anything contrary to what Mr Schoon is saying, but he is troubled by certain things that Mr Schoon is saying because this Committee wants to hear the truth, that's the reason why I was putting these questions, because we have to hear the truth. Just because it doesn't affect the testimony of Mr Nofomela doesn't mean that then we cannot put a question

even if it is a fair question.

CHAIRPERSON: You are testing his credibility?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes. I just want to lay certain matters to rest which are very troublesome in his testimony.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they troubling Mr Nofomela in particular?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes. Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Mr Nofomela privy to information which is contrary to what Mr Schoon has testified?

MR RAMAWELE: No, he's not.

CHAIRPERSON: How is he troubled?

MR RAMAWELE: Madam Chair, as I put it to you that if, as a participant in this amnesty hearing, if Madam Chair feels that even though we are of the opinion that certain issues that he has raised are far from the truth should not be raised because it does not affect Mr Nofomela, I would gladly not pursue the matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I'm not saying you shouldn't if you have information to the contrary because we are here to make sure that we are placed in possession of all the facts from which we can make a proper and judicious decision whether to grant amnesty or not but obviously we will not allow you to go on a fishing expedition.

MR RAMAWELE: I would - I think it is proper for me then to say that I don't have to put any further questions to Mr Schoon, under the circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it your intention to explore the matter further?

MR RAMAWELE: Yes, it was but I had only the last question.

CHAIRPERSON: You may put the last question only.

MR RAMAWELE: Thank you. My last submission to you was, you knew the background of this particular Mr Mngomezulu. you had a file on him. He was troublesome in that area where you were in control and therefore to me you were supposed to be there when he was interrogated. Now my only concern is, why would you have then arranged with Mr de Kock for the abduction to take place at a particular time which was available to you or suitable to you?

CHAIRPERSON: You've explored that Mr Ramawele.

MR RAMAWELE: That's all. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may not respond to that Mr Schoon, that question has already been put to you.

Mr Kgasi?

MR KGASI: Thank you Madam Chairperson. I'm not going to be long, as my colleagues have already done most of the job for me, but I however have some few questions Madam.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KGASI: Mr Schoon, as the person who ordered that Mr Mngomezulu be abducted and brought back into the RSA, would I be correct if I say you were the Chief Commander of this operation or that this operation was yours?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, the decision did not abide by me to give an instruction that an act be committed in Swaziland. I did not have the power to do this. I was a junior lieutenant. It would have had to happen with the approval of Head Office because I could not give such an instruction. I directed a request yes, but I could not give such an order.

CHAIRPERSON: So this operation was pursuant to the request that you directed at Mr de Kock?

MR SCHOON: Mr de Kock did testify to that effect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know Mr Schoon.

MR SCHOON: I can actually not answer as to what Mr de Kock's motivation was, but according to his evidence he says it was because of the request that I directed to him.

CHAIRPERSON: But wouldn't you know whether you directed such a request to Mr de Kock? If you don't know, who would?

MR SCHOON: I did direct a request at him, I do not deny it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it was the "yes" I wanted. Mr Kgasi?

MR KGASI: Thank you. Mr Schoon, I want to take you a little bit further to the scene of your first interrogation. Was it your testimony that you interrogated him and that failing to solicit the information that you wanted, then you let Mr Mngomezulu rest for a day, is that so?

MR SCHOON: No. I had him rest for the night.

MR KGASI: Alright. And the following day you proceeded with the interrogation?

MR SCHOON: Correct.

MR KGASI: That is when he supplied you with names. Did you bother to verify the information that he supplied to you?

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean, Mr Kgasi?

MR KGASI: Madam Chairperson ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: He's in charge. He knows what kind of information is useful to him.

MR KGASI: Mr Schoon has earlier testified that on the second day when he wanted to interrogate Mr Mngomezulu, he supplied him with names.

CHAIRPERSON: Which he found useful because they were familiar to him and they would have assisted him to conduct further investigations with regard to the infiltration which was his primary investigation and for which he wanted Mr Mngomezulu to be questioned about.

MR KGASI: Alright. Now Mr Schoon ...(intervention).

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I would just like to correct something. I never said that the names were known to me as is now being interpreted to me.

CHAIRPERSON: The names that were furnished to you, was it not your evidence that he gave you names which were useful to you?

MR SCHOON: What he did - I believe in my evidence I said that he supplied names to me that I noted down and that I later had to investigate.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Kgasi?

MR KGASI: Now Mr Schoon, would I be right if I say the purpose of Mr Mngomezulu's abduction and his interrogation was fulfilled in that you got names for which you can further act on?

MR SCHOON: The names that he supplied were not sufficient. It was more about the whole truth, as to extracting the truth from him as you are extracting it from me now.

MR MALAN: Would you not like to give it to us without us having to extract it from you?

MR SCHOON: I am trying, Chairperson.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.

MR KGASI: Mr Schoon, is it your testimony further that you had always wanted to turn Mr Mngomezulu in?

MR SCHOON: That was my purpose, to try it, yes.

MR KGASI: Okay. And that you decided that you should take him to Swaziland.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR KGASI: And then it is clear from your testimony that your resolve to take him back to Swaziland was in contrast with your colleagues. Did you do anything to persuade them that it's in their best interests that the man go back to Swaziland?

MR SCHOON: Up to the point when we found out that the man had died, we still argued about it.

MR KGASI: Are you saying you argued about it, even when you went to Josini, at your place, to check messages?

MR SCHOON: On our way to Josini I took a decision but we still argued in the vehicle about the viability of the decision that I had taken.

MR KGASI: But was it your resolve that notwithstanding their protest, the man is going back to Swaziland?

MR SCHOON: That is correct yes, Chairperson.

MR KGASI: Now Mr Schoon, let me take you a little bit backwards. Was it your testimony that you cannot recall who loaded Mr Mngomezulu into the van or whether he climbed the bakkie himself?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall exactly.

MR KGASI: So as you cannot recall exactly, would you say it is a possibility that he climbed the bakkie himself?

MR SCHOON: I don't know. It is probably possible.

MR KGASI: When you got to Josini at your place you said one of you lifted the tarpaulin and realised that Mr Mngomezulu is dead. Is that so?

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

MR KGASI: Can you recall who that member was?

MR SCHOON: No, I cannot.

MR KGASI: Did you check Mr Mngomezulu, just to ascertain whether he is dead?

MR SCHOON: The appointed thing to do was to feel his pulse, but as far as I can recall, none of us did so. The man was motionless and he appeared as if he was dead and I am convinced that he was although we did not feel for a pulse.

MR KGASI: So there is a possibility that he might have been in a coma or unconscious?

MR SCHOON: If it had the consequence of him not breathing, then it would be possible, but we accepted that he was dead.

MR KGASI: Yet you did not ascertain it, Mr Schoon?

MR SCHOON: Correct.

MR KGASI: Would I be wrong if I come to a conclusion, or just to make an assumption, that the man might have been alive when you took him to Sodwana?

MR SCHOON: He was already dead, according to my opinion.

MR KGASI: And that is your unverified opinion?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that was my opinion.

MR KGASI: Thank you Madam, I have no further questions for the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you Madam Chair, no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: Mr Schoon, please help me with my geography, with the location of Ngwavuma. I did not look at the chart, but if I recall correctly it is in the furthermost northern point of Natal, as part of the Natal Province, right adjacent to Swaziland and Mozambique, is it in that area?

MR SCHOON: No, that's correct except that it is quite a way from Mozambique, it is quite close to the Swaziland border.

MR MALAN: Yes, but it is a small area that is not Ngwavuma before one reaches Mozambique.

MR SCHOON: If you refer to the Ngwavuma District, it reaches right up to Mozambique, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Very well. Then can you indicate to us where Mr Mngomezulu's, what you refer to as the Swaziland kraal, can you tell us where that was located?

MR SCHOON: It was at Msoko.

MR MALAN: Can you place Msoko on that chart for us, more or less in terms of wind directions within Swaziland?

MR SCHOON: Ngwavuma is right on top of the Lebombo mountains. The mountain forms at times, the border between Swaziland and South Africa. There are no border fences. If one stands on Ngwavuma and one looks and I will actually speculate now.

MR MALAN: No, if you have to speculate, then I will not continue. To fetch him, you knew where his kraal was, you knew the physical location of his kraal in Swaziland. That is just a question.

MR SCHOON: I knew the area, but I didn't know exactly which kraal was his.

MR MALAN: If I was at Piet Retief and I have to drive there, how do I drive to get there? Can you give me the road?

MR SCHOON: You would have to drive to Golela and go through the border post or close to the border, go through the fence and then from there one would go from Golela about 30 kilometres, right up to Msoko, I am guesstimating now.

MR MALAN: And if I drove from Josini?

MR SCHOON: You would also have to drive through Golela.

MR MALAN: So in other words you still have to move south in the direction of Golela?

MR SCHOON: Otherwise from Ngwavuma to Mac's pass, which was an uncontrolled point, where I could also go through the border.

MR MALAN: Do you know which road they arrived at after they had abducted him?

MR SCHOON: I think in their evidence they said they came through Golela border post.

MR MALAN: Why did you decide to leave him at Mac's Pass if that wasn't where his kraal was?

MR SCHOON: Mac's Pass was an uncontrolled area and one could do something there without being seen quite easily and I knew that area quite well.

MR MALAN: How would he have returned to his kraal, or did you not care?

MR SCHOON: The fact is that on the other side, I think in my evidence in chief I said the tribal area of the Mngomezulus was divided into two, so he could have gone in either direction to either kraal and he would have arrived at the Mngomezulu tribe and they would have helped him.

MR MALAN: But you would have left him there in a condition where he actually was not in control of himself because you are saying, I think the general evidence is that when he was loaded up on the back of the van he was in a coma or unconscious, or whatever the case may be.

MR SCHOON: Chairperson I cannot recall that he was indeed in a coma, but that he was not in a good condition, I do concede that that is true and he, with great difficulty, would have arrived at a place where they would be able to assist him.

MR MALAN: And just another thing that I would like to ask you and this is about your decision, that you would take him back, this was the continual evidence. The evidence was that you were under the authority of van Dyk with regard to this operation.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR MALAN: van Dyk was in command.

MR SCHOON: Yes, he was in control.

MR MALAN: And here you oppose his authority and you take a decision and he does not reprimand you about it,

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, we argued about it, but he could not force me to follow his viewpoint. I believe I would have been able to force them to do my bidding because it would have had the least repercussions afterwards, so I believed.

MR MALAN: Were you ever involved in any assault where a person was eliminated, other than this one?

MR SCHOON: No. I have another amnesty application that I had attended.

MR MALAN: Was this the Scorpion matter?

MR SCHOON: Yes, it was.

MR MALAN: Was this the only other incident for which you have applied for amnesty for?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct and in my presence there was no assault and I do not know that any of the other members assaulted the person.

MR MALAN: How was he killed?

MR SCHOON: He was shot.

MR MALAN: By whom?

MR SCHOON: Two persons, Des Carr shot at the man, I'm not clear whether he hit the person, but according to the evidence it was Sakkie van Zyl.

MR MALAN: Did you know he would be shot? What was your evidence there? We can check it.

MR SCHOON: I was not present. I knew that the man would be killed, I assisted in the transport of the corpse to the point where it was destroyed.

MR MALAN: Why didn't you stop it there? Why didn't you go against orders there and say one could not do this, "Let us just run the risk and release him"?

MR SCHOON: There was a brigadier present there, I believe he was a colonel at that stage, but it was a senior police officer who was present. I was not responsible for the action, I assisted and I have said what my role was there and I don't believe I could have stopped it.

MR MALAN: But I heard you saying that you opposed Mr van Dyk and Pienaar in spite of the fact that van Dyk was senior, but let us say that you subjected yourself to his control, you opposed it because you could not be forced to follow an illegal operation, but a brigadier can force you?

MR SCHOON: No, he can't force me.

MR MALAN: But you accepted it there.

MR SCHOON: Yes. There I was not directly involved in the killing.

MR MALAN: But here you also were not and you would not have been.

MR SCHOON: I would have been because I was one of the three who had to sort out this problem.

MR MALAN: But you could have told them: "You can kill this man if you want to, I will walk away, I do not want to be involved here".

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I think things had gone already too far for me to withdraw myself from this.

MR MALAN: No, I just wanted to understand this version. Thank you Chairperson, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Malan. Adv Motata?

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Schoon, I heard you to say you had no grievance or malice against Mngomezulu. Did I hear you correctly?

MR SCHOON: That's correct.

ADV MOTATA: Wouldn't we, at that stage when we had this onslaught, regarded the MK or the ANC as our enemy?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct, he was my enemy. We were in a state of war, but personally I had no grievance against this man.

ADV MOTATA: And it would go against the tenor of your affidavit if we have regard to pages 74 and 75, that they were disturbing the culture of your forefathers in this land and you wanted to stamp that out despite you being employed by the South African Police, so I cannot understand suddenly you have no grievance against this man. Could you please explain to me what you want to say about that?

MR SCHOON: I am trying to say that the man was an enemy of mine because we were in a state of war but against him as a person I had no grievance and my greatest interest with him was to obtain information from him.

ADV MOTATA: Despite him infiltrating the people or the ANC MKs into the country to destabilise the country, you still looked at him as a good man to you, or you had no grievance against him.

MR SCHOON: No, I did not regard him as a good man, I regarded him as an enemy because he acted against my country.

ADV MOTATA: Let's go to another area. I heard you to say that you came, you interrogated the man and you wanted him to have a good night's rest and you did so again periodically the next day until he furnished you with some names.

MR SCHOON: Are you asking why I did this?

ADV MOTATA: No, no, I'm asking you, did I hear you correctly.

MR SCHOON: I did question the man, I did have him rest and the following day periodically I did question him again, that is correct, yes.

ADV MOTATA: What I want to know from you because the impression I gained is that you were just there on the farm at Leeuspoort for two days. How long were you at Leeuspoort?

MR SCHOON: Two days that I was present.

ADV MOTATA: And you say the man was assaulted prior to your arrival?

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct.

ADV MOTATA: And severely assaulted.

MR SCHOON: That is the inference I drew from the condition I saw the man in.

ADV MOTATA: Was he blindfolded?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall that he was blindfolded at any stage.

ADV MOTATA: You know what worries me is that I think it's either Mr Pienaar or Mr van Dyk who said that when they met the man was taken from the farm, or the place where he was interrogated, he was in a coma and I have asked this from them that if there was an intention to turn this man, how could you want to turn a man who was in a coma, to work for you? I find it very difficult. Or you did not see that the man was in a coma when you loaded him on the back of the 4 x 4?

MR SCHOON: I heard that Pienaar said in his evidence that the man was in a coma. I believe he was not in a coma. I did not see this in any event and I can really not recall the physical condition that the man was in but I don't believe it was a coma, otherwise I would have taken another decision, but as far as I can recall, he was not in a coma.

ADV MOTATA: Now you wanted to turn the man and that you would conduct further interrogations at Josini. When the man is in that bad shape, after the severe assault and you could not achieve it at Leeuspoort, what magic wand would you wave for the man to turn to work for you, at Josini now?

MR SCHOON: There is more than one way to approach a man with an interrogation, the one is aggressive and the one is in a nice manner and my manner was to try and extract something in a nice manner because I saw that violence did not assist, that the man was just opposed to us much more and the fact that we had taken him away to where I could speak to the man alone, where the other persons were not in another vicinity, I though this would assist me.

ADV MOTATA: Just lastly. You were questioned that you said you did not recall who actually loaded the man onto the van. I think your papers say you, Pienaar and van Dyk loaded him onto the van, or are you not certain at this stage that that could be so?

MR SCHOON: I think I also said that I cannot recall exactly how he got onto the bakkie or who loaded him up. I was present and the other members were present, but I cannot recall exactly how he was loaded onto the bakkie. I don't know whether someone assisted him or whether he climbed up himself, of whether he was loaded on to the bakkie.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Why I'm saying that Mr Pienaar, your papers do not make any hesitation as to who loaded him. If you could bear with me I would just point out where precisely you're saying so. Page 72, paragraph 4.

Quite precise and pointed, not that it shows any doubt whilst reading these papers.

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I do not deny it at all, but I cannot recall exactly who did what and in which manner we loaded up the man. I can really not recall, but that we loaded him up, that is so and from there we took him further, so it had to have been us who had loaded him up. Who else could it have been?

ADV MOTATA: Did Beeslaar for instance assist or Mr Willemse, who had remained behind, other than the askaris who had been sent away, would they have assisted in loading the man onto the bakkie, because you're not remembering at this stage?

MR SCHOON: It is improbable, but I can really not recall how exactly he was loaded onto the bakkie.

ADV MOTATA: Why is it improbable? I mean, the men remained behind and you told them: "Wait for us where the road forks" and they're with you on the farm. You say it's improbable, only van Dyk, myself and Pienaar could have done it. What makes it improbable that whilst he's on the farm and he's in the same mission as you are, that they wouldn't have loaded the man. I cannot understand this, it's beyond me, really.

MR SCHOON: Beeslaar and the other member were passengers, I don't know what they were doing there.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you Madam Chair, I think I cannot take it any further.

CHAIRPERSON: If Beeslaar and Mr Willemse were passengers, why did you give them instructions to go to the intersection as you have already stated in your evidence?

MR SCHOON: They had to take the second vehicle so that there was transport back for Pienaar and van Dyk. I cannot give any other explanation or any other necessity for their presence there.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was it necessary for van Dyk and Mr Pienaar to have another transport?

MR SCHOON: Pienaar had to go back to Piet Retief and van Dyk probably had to go back to Pretoria. If there was no vehicle for them there, then I had to transport them which was unnecessary.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm getting a little confused. At what stage did you decide that Mr Beeslaar and Willemse had to go to that intersection in order to provide this transport that was necessary to be provided to Willemse and Mr Beeslaar? Was this the decision you took?

MR SCHOON: No I would not say that it was decided that they had to wait there for that purpose or that it was discussed that that was the reason, they were members of the group and I don't think it was spelled out that this is the reason why they had to go and wait there.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get the last part.

MR SCHOON: There was no direct instruction, if I can recall correctly, to them to say that you are needed here to have the vehicle available so that van Dyk and Pienaar could go back, but the fact is they were part of the group who had remained behind and the group stayed together, but there was no necessity for those people to drive all over behind us, but that is how it happened.

CHAIRPERSON: When were they instructed to drive to the point as you have described as an intersection or where the road forks? Was this before you decided that Mr Mngomezulu had to be returned to the border for purposes of releasing him, or was it before you decided that Mr Mngomezulu had to be turned as an askari or as an informer? At which stage was this decision made to send Beeslaar and Willemse to the intersection?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall exactly, but I would want it with our departure from Leeuspoort, the people were given instruction by van Dyk to wait for us there, in other words it was after I had decided that the man had to be placed back through the border. But there is a possibility that when we turned off that van Dyk spoke to the people then, but I cannot recall. It was either at the house or at the point where we turned off. One of the two places, I cannot recall exactly, but I knew that I already decided that the man had to be placed back across the border.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and you say that the decision to attempt to turn him was taken notwithstanding that you had already decided that the man was to be returned to Swaziland?

MR SCHOON: I decided to take the man back to Swaziland. If I could turn him, which was highly improbable, it would have happened. If I could not turn him, he would have still returned back to Swaziland.

CHAIRPERSON: And you have stated that the manner used by yourselves in conducting these interrogations was a nicer one, you did not use force. Did I understand your evidence correctly?

MR SCHOON: I believe so. It would have been less severe, I think those were my words.

CHAIRPERSON: And the reason why you thought he could be turned at Josini was because you would then have been able to conduct an interrogation on your own, without the presence of the other members of Vlakplaas as well as the likes of Mr Willemse.

MR SCHOON: Yes, that is correct and that he would be away from the environment where he was assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: At that stage, how severely assaulted was Mr Mngomezulu?

MR SCHOON: I was not present during any assault but from the man's appearance, I could see that he had been severely assaulted. I cannot recall any specific marks on him, but I could see from his physical condition that he had been severely assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: What marks did you observe?

MR SCHOON: I cannot recall any marks that I saw. I heard the other persons saying that his eye was swollen, but I cannot recall it.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not observe any swelling of the eye?

MR SCHOON: Chairperson, I cannot recall that I saw it, but I will not deny that there was any swelling.

CHAIRPERSON: Evidence has already been led that you were a chief interrogator of Mr Mngomezulu whilst he was at Leeuspoort. Is that correct?

MR SCHOON: After my arrival there, I believe I took over the interrogation, I think that is the function that I fulfilled there and I cannot think that anyone else questioned him after I had arrived there. It could be for brief periods but you may put it as such, I was the chief interrogator.

CHAIRPERSON: And had he, if he had a swollen eye, as a chief interrogator you would have remembered that, if that injury was sustained prior to your interrogation of him?

MR SCHOON: A person with a good memory could recall it, but not necessarily, I cannot recall it.

CHAIRPERSON: You've also earlier on stated that Mr Willemse and Mr Beeslaar had to provide transport to Mr Pienaar and Mr van Dyk and that's why they had to go and wait at the intersection described in your earlier evidence.

MR SCHOON: I don't believe I made myself clear there. The second vehicle was necessary to take Pienaar and van Dyk back to respectively Piet Retief and Pretoria. If he was not available then I had to do it but there was certainly not a reason as to why the members could not wait at Leeuspoort or where they could have waited at Josini or any other place. I cannot explain why they specifically had to come along except to say that they were part of the group and the group stayed together, except the person who had already been sent away.

CHAIRPERSON: Well you've actually come to my problem because I would have wanted to know why it was not ordered of them to remain behind whilst you proceeded to give effect to your objective of returning to Mngomezulu to Swaziland and then later on returning to Leeuspoort in order to provide the necessary transport to Mr van Dyk and Mr Pienaar and what is also not clear to me is why Mr van Dyk could not drive the other vehicle instead of having useless passengers like Mr Beeslaar and Willemse accompanying you all the way to a place when they were not going to do anything of importance as part of the operation.

MR SCHOON: I think that during the interchange I may have lost a few aspects, the interchange between the interpreters.

CHAIRPERSON: What I want to know is why could Mr van Dyk not drive the other vehicle because we have evidence that the other vehicle that was driven by Mr Beeslaar was Mr van Dyk's car. Why could he not have driven his own car?

MR SCHOON: As I have already stated, we were in a group and the group stuck together but in actuality there was no reason why it could not have been exercised as such. There is no reason that I can determine.

CHAIRPERSON: When you made a request to Mr de Kock to assist with the abduction of Mr Mngomezulu, one presumes that such a request was made because Mr Mngomezulu was in your opinion an important subject from whom you could extract the information concerning his infiltration activities in the RSA.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that the abduction was as a result of your request. What I do not understand is why after this abduction had been done at your instance, your status suddenly becomes reduced to that of a person who is merely instructed by Mr van Dyk to conduct an interrogation and you work under his command. Can you explain to me how does that come into being?

MR SCHOON: I lodged a request to Mr de Kock. I could not give him an order. de Kock had to obtain authorisation from Head Office to carry out something like that. It was carried out and he sent a man who fell directly under his command. He sent this man to me and I subjected myself to that man who was under the command of Head Office and we did continue with the operation, that is what took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't this man abducted for purposes of enabling you to conduct an interrogation?

MR SCHOON: The purpose of the interrogation of this man was to be interrogated but to say that I personally had to interrogate him, that was not necessary although I was probably in the best position to do this. However, any other person could also have done it. I think we may be talking past each other.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we may be. The reason why we may be talking past each other is because the evidence of Mr de Kock was that Mr Mngomezulu was abducted to enable some kind of interrogation to be conducted by you, not by any other person. That was his evidence in chief.

MR SCHOON: Well if he said that then it is as he has stated but the reason for the request was not for me personally to interrogate the man, it wasn't of the utmost necessity that I interrogate him, any other person could have done it, if he had executed it because I had requested it with the purpose of obtaining the man, I would not dispute it, then it is as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo, do you have any re-examination?

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Madam Chair.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Schoon, this case of Scorpion, for which you have applied for amnesty and have already testified about, that case, just to put it clearly before the Committee, you were not at all involved with the arrest and handling of that person which took place in the former Western Transvaal, is that correct?

MR SCHOON: I was not involved in it and I had the minimum background information about the whole matter.

MR PRINSLOO: For you this was solely a person who was brought to your area upon the arrangements with another officer of which you were the subordinate and this person was eliminated there and later blown up there.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: But the murder did not take place in your presence, however, the explosion took place in your presence.

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So that case can be distinguished from this case in which you are involved with the person that you were interested in?

MR SCHOON: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Upon a question which was put by Mr du Plessis on behalf of Mr Beeslaar, it was put that the case could be investigated in the Security Branch, given the facts of this case, that Mr Mngomezulu was a trained member of the PAC as well as the ANC. Would such a person have been able to testify here in the Republic against you? Have you ever heard of a case of a person from the ANC which was banned during that time, who testified at that stage?

MR SCHOON: Nothing is impossible, but it is highly improbable.

MR PRINSLOO: Now when you placed the explosives on the deceased, Mr Mngomezulu, at that stage was there any sign of life that you could observe?

MR SCHOON: None.

MR PRINSLOO: In your years of experience in the police, did you work with corpses or deceased persons or not?

MR SCHOON: Very often.

MR PRINSLOO: Now this specific point where Mr Willemse and Mr Beeslaar would have waited, if they had simply driven ahead would the roads have been clearly marked, would one be able to find one's way with relative ease, or would one need to know the environment?

MR SCHOON: At that point where they had to wait, the indications were still clear, but further on there would have been problems, whether it was Sodwana side or Ngwavuma side.

MR PRINSLOO: Now according to the evidence here, this operation was primarily carried out by Mr van Dyk and the deceased was in your vehicle and according to the question as to why Mr van Dyk had not driven his vehicle and had been separated from you and he was someone who was directly involved, would it have been viable for him to drive a different vehicle and you to drive with this person, regarding which there was still a dispute as to what to do with this person? Would that have been viable?

MR SCHOON: Now that I think of that it was probably one of the reasons why van Dyk drove with us because we still discussed the matter, Pienaar and I and him. We were the persons who had to take the final decision. I had to convince these people.

MR PRINSLOO: What would have happened if you, after the abduction of the person from Swaziland, were ill or had left the force, would you have expected the police to leave it at that and not to abduct the person because you could no longer be the interrogator?

MR SCHOON: No then anyone else with relative background would have been able to relieve me.

MR PRINSLOO: But it would have been necessary to bring this person in for interrogation?

MR SCHOON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. Nothing further.

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

CHAIRPERSON: What is the batting order?

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, I believe my client, Mr Beeslaar will testify next, but I see it's 1 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Would you like to have a 45 minute lunch adjournment, or less than that?

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, ...

CHAIRPERSON: 45?

MR DU PLESSIS: Please. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll be back at quarter to two.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, are you in a position to commence with Mr Beeslaar’s application?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. May it please you Madam Chair, I am. I call Mr Beeslaar.

GERHARDUS CORNELIUS BEESLAAR: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis, you may proceed.

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, your amnesty application commences on page 114 and it stretches through to page 146, is that correct, or at least 147, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct. With my old application the page numbers differ.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, but you have originally studied these pages?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you confirm the correctness thereof and you have confirmed this under oath?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, with the exception of the amendments that we are going to make during your evidence, this would then be the body of your documents?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Page 137 Madam Chair, would you please turn to that page, or at least 136. Do you have this before you, Mr Beeslaar? You are applying for accessory and murder, you also seek for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and then Mr Beeslaar, you have informed me that the reference to W\O Schoeman in the list of persons who were involved, is not correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Now Mr Beeslaar, you were not available on Monday when this hearing commenced and there were some problems in tracing you. Could you tell the Committee very briefly what your position was and what your whereabouts were on Monday?

MR BEESLAAR: My step-mother was seriously ill in Potchefstroom. She had terminal cancer. I went to Potchefstroom.

MR DU PLESSIS: On the 16th October?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes. At least this was on the 6th of October, to assist my father who is elderly. I then returned after two weeks and spent a few more days here in Pretoria and then on the Monday I returned to Potchefstroom until they had managed to find me on Monday evening. I had no knowledge that I was required to be present at these proceedings.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you have no problem in participating in this process?

MR BEESLAAR: None whatsoever.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Beeslaar, you have already confirmed the nature and particulars of your application, I would just like to take you through a number of aspects. In the first paragraph on page 137, you state what your duties were. You state that it was administrative work. Could you elaborate somewhat more for the Committee with regard to what you did there, apart from the fact that you registered sources and that you also appointed askaris as members of the force?

MR BEESLAAR: Among others, I worked in the acquisition of food for the farm, I deal with claims and so forth.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. When you refer to the farm, do you refer to Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you resided directly beneath Mr de Kock?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, directly below him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then in the second paragraph on that page, is that also intended to serve as a paragraph for general background?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: You stated that you often had to make appointments of persons, that is why you were in the division where the sections operated, do you mean Vlakplaas sections?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And we have heard much evidence that Vlakplaas units operated throughout the country within various divisions and areas.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also stated that you had to make appointments there, what do you mean by that?

MR BEESLAAR: After a returning terrorist had offered satisfactory evidence in court, he would then subsequently be appointed as a full member of the Force. In order to do so there were certain procedures which had to be observed, certain forms which had to be filled out and he had to undergo a medical examination by the local or district physician, among others that was the procedure of appointments to become a member of the force.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you responsible for that at Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I was the responsible member for attesting to these appointments.

MR DU PLESSIS: And these persons that you had to attest to, were they askaris?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, they were askaris or terrorists that had been turned.

MR DU PLESSIS: In the second last sentence you use the word "hier". You say:

Is the use of the word "here" correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Here or there would have to do with the various divisions. At that stage it was Western Cape or Eastern Cape.

M DU PLESSIS: You are not referring specifically to Piet Retief?

MR BEESLAAR: No not specifically.

MR DU PLESSIS: You intended to refer here to the divisions in which you would normally be deployed?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, the various divisions, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And what do you mean with "patrolling"?

MR BEESLAAR: It would be observation and reconnaissance such as that done by the members of the unit who were stationed there, what their tasks were. I would sometimes simply fall in with them and work with them.

MR DU PLESSIS: And sometimes when you were away from Vlakplaas, were you ever used in some or other capacity during operations?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And this would also then be of application to interrogations, if I have it correctly?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, partially for interrogations. I did assist with such activities.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then in the next paragraph, that would be paragraph 3, we refer in the second last sentence that you were instructed by Col de Kock to go to Piet Retief and to attest to an informer. Is the choice of the word informer correct?

MR BEESLAAR: No it is not really correct, it would be an askari or as I have already stated, a returning terrorist who had been rehabilitated, because an informer was something quite different.

MR DU PLESSIS: And can you recall who this askari was that you had to attest to?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I can unfortunately not remember who he was.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was it intended to be Mngomezulu?

MR BEESLAAR: Negative.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you say that as far as you can recall, you were instructed by Col de Kock. Can you recall this specifically, or are you uncertain about this?

MR BEESLAAR: I am certain because I received instructions from him. Sometimes I received orders from Mr Baker who was second in command at Vlakplaas.

MR DU PLESSIS: In the final paragraph you state that on the Saturday afternoon you arrived at the place where the section lived, where was that?

MR BEESLAAR: It was outside Piet Retief, it was called Moolman.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then on the following page if you would turn over, you state in the last sentence:

You refer in that sentence to the interrogation that very same evening of his arrival.

MR BEESLAAR: I'm referring to the same evening that I arrived there which was the Saturday evening, that is when I was present there.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether you participated in the assault?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I also slapped him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And then you state in the following paragraph that you participated in the interrogation.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In the third paragraph, second last sentence, you refer and state, this is now when Mr Mngomezulu was taken to the Josini dam and further interrogated there, you state that in the meantime you continued with your work, what do you mean by that?

MR BEESLAAR: Simply paper work relating to the appointments.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. In the last paragraph Mr Beeslaar, you have heard the evidence here today of Mr Schoon and Mr Pienaar and also Mr van Dyk whose evidence you did not hear. You said there that you patrolled and that you tested army missiles in a forbidden area. Can you explain to the Committee what you recall?

MR BEESLAAR: Upon a day we went in a vehicle, it was Lieut van Dyk's vehicle. We went to this specific place. It was Gert Schoon, van Dyk, me, Doe Willemse, I'm not certain whether Mr Pienaar accompanied us. It was a place where the army tested missiles and there was no road running through that area, we drove quite difficulty and we reached a point, I don't know how many kilometres far we had travelled at that point. There was some form of a plantation or a forest and there were cement floors which had remained, I don't know whether these were the floors of a former army camp, but we drove to that point and spent some time there. Then later we returned.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what were you told was the purpose of the journey at that stage?

MR BEESLAAR: It was simply to undertake observation as to whether or not there were inhabitants or not in that area, or anything, whether it was populated or not populated, we just wanted to determine that everything was safe.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you told why you had to determine whether or not everything was safe and whether or not there were inhabitants?

MR BEESLAAR: The discussion that we had there indicated that if he had to be blown up, there would not be any noise or sound that could be detected towards the inland side of that area.

MR DU PLESSIS: On the next page, page 139, you state that one day the terrorist or activist was loaded onto the back of Gert Schoon's bakkie. Can you recall in what condition he was at that stage?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall he walked to the bakkie. Whether he climbed on himself or whether he was assisted in climbing onto the bakkie is something that I'm not certain about, because as far as I can recall, there was a drum, a 44 gallon petrol drum, one of the old sort, which had been cut open and he was placed into the drum head first and then a piece of canvass was placed over the back of the bakkie.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this bakkie, can you recall whether it was a single or double cabin bakkie?

MR BEESLAAR: I'm not certain.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the other vehicle, what sort of a vehicle was this?

MR BEESLAAR: It was a Nissan Safari.

MR DU PLESSIS: And can you recall who drove away in the Nissan Safari once you had loaded him onto the bakkie and when you departed?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall the vehicle driver was van Dyk and there was me and Doe Willemse, we were in the Nissan Safari.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well and in the last sentence you say:

Can you explain to the Committee why you say that?

MR BEESLAAR: When we undertook observation it was discussed as such, that is why we undertook the observation inland.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then you state that you drove to Sodwana. Is that how you recall it?

MR BEESLAAR: After we had departed from the farm? Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now there was evidence previously which you have also heard that you stopped at Mr Schoon's home at Josini. Can you recall anything about that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I don't know if we stopped at his house because I wasn't with him in the vehicle, but that he turned off in the direction of Josini is something that I wouldn't doubt and we drove ahead and waited at a point.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then you state in the fourth paragraph, you say:

That is when you arrived at Sodwana. Can you tell the Committee or explain to the Committee what you can recall of that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, Willemse and I remained behind and number three departed from there with the terrorist.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did he walk? Can you recall?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, as far as I can recall he walked.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And did you hear anything subsequently?

MR BEESLAAR: No I did not hear the sound of any explosion.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Then what I want to ask you is about the evening that you spent there. What did you do after the others had returned, after van Dyk, Schoon and Pienaar returned? You say in the last sentence that you spent the night there, what do you mean by that?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know whether we had a braai or whether we had taken food with us, but we had a meal and we also had a few drinks.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Allegations have been made in the evidence that you were drunk when you arrived at Sodwana. What do you say about that?

MR BEESLAAR: I can only state that I was not inebriated because Col de Kock's instructions were that no liquor should be consumed before or during an operation. My share was remote but due to my minor share, I nonetheless respected the instructions of Mr de Kock and obeyed them as such.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then on page 140 you state that later you were informed that the terrorist had been blown up. Can you recall who told you this?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot recall precisely.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well and then at the end you state that you were under the command of W/O van Dyk, it was actually Lieut van Dyk..

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then Col de Kock has testified that he, at a certain stage subsequently heard that you had something to do with a fence when it came o the interrogation of the terrorist.

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

MR DU PLESSIS: And you were not involved in anything like that?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I was not.

MR DU PLESSIS: With regard to this incident, did you ever make any statement to the Attorney-General?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I did not make any statement before the Attorney-General.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then finally can you recall whether Mr de Kock was ever at any one of these places about which you have just testified?

MR BEESLAAR: While I was present, he was not present. I don't know whether or not he was present before or after, but I know that when I was there he was definitely not present at the scene.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then one final point Mr Beeslaar. Mr Mogoai states in his affidavit that he drove with you from Vlakplaas to Piet Retief.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall I drove alone, but I would concede that it is possible that someone may have travelled with me.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Beeslaar. Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Beeslaar, when you departed for Piet Retief, did you depart from Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson no, it was on the Saturday and I departed from my home.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall when, with regard to the Saturday, you received the instruction to go to Piet Retief?

MR BEESLAAR: If I recall correctly it was during the week that Col de Kock or Mr Baker or whoever told me to go there.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall whether they told you to take a member or other members from Vlakplaas with you?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall. As far as I know, I travelled alone.

MR HATTINGH: Are you aware that Mr Mogoai at a certain stage, worked at Head Office?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And at that stage were you still with Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, the administrative office was formally at hear office, Security head Office when I worked there and this office with which I was involved later, was transferred to Vlakplaas so I don't now about the period in time, but first I was a Head Office and then later I was transferred to facilities at Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: And when this incident took place, were you still at Head Office, or had you already been stationed at Vlakplaas?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot say with certainty because it was quite a long time ago. I would imagine that I was already at Vlakplaas but I'm not completely certain about that.

MR HATTINGH: If anybody had travelled with you, would he have travelled with you to assist you or simply to travel there in order to join the other members?

MR BEESLAAR: It would only have been for him to join the other members because he would not have been involved with my tasks.

MR HATTINGH: And you were the only person who fulfilled your tasks?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, at that stage I was the only person involved in this.

MR HATTINGH: And you went to Piet Retief, not to participate in the operations there, but to undertake the administrative task for which you had received the instruction.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: During the assault on Mr Mngomezulu there at Moolman still, were any of the black members of Vlakplaas also involved in the assault?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, Chairperson, because I believe that the four of us who were there, could not speak any black language, there had to be one or two black members who could serve as interpreters.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall which of them participated?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Did they also participate in the assault on Mr Mngomezulu?

MR BEESLAAR: It is possible.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall the nature of the assault on Mr Mngomezulu?

MR BEESLAAR: It wasn't serious, he was not tortured, he was slapped a few times.

MR HATTINGH: Was he kicked?

MR BEESLAAR: No, not as far as I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: Where on his body was he kicked?

MR BEESLAAR: No, he was not kicked.

MR HATTINGH: Oh, I beg your pardon, I thought you said that he had been kicked. So what you say is that as far as you can recall he was not kicked. I misheard you. This is now at Moolman. Were you also involved in the interrogation at Josini?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall I did not participate in the interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: Were you present during his interrogation?

MR BEESLAAR: I was not, I cannot recall that I was present during his interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: Therefore you wouldn't know anything about any possible assault on him and if so, who was responsible for this assault?

MR BEESLAAR: No.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr Williams?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Beeslaar, Mr Mogoai's recollection is that he, before he went down to Piet Retief, was at head office and at that stage he was working there under Brig McIntyre and that he was requested by Brig McIntyre to accompany you and that he accompanied you in a vehicle to Piet Retief. Is it possible that he travelled with you, but that this may an aspect which you cannot recall?

MR BEESLAAR: I've already said so, I would not dispute that he travelled with me, I simply cannot recall.

MR LAMEY: And then he states furthermore that upon your arrival at Piet Retief you went into the Security Offices there and he waited for you in the vehicle. Can you recall that you visited the Security Police offices there?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, I beg your pardon, I've interpreted it as such. The Saturday afternoon we arrived at Piet Retief, it was approximately 3 o'clock that afternoon and I think that the offices were closed and I went to W/O Pienaar's house. On that afternoon he went with me to the home of friends which was situated before one reached Piet Retief and we watched rugby there, I think it was Northern Transvaal against Western Province, we watched the rugby match there. From that point onwards, after the match, we went through to Moolman ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Try and be short, Mr Beeslaar. The question which was put to you was whether you stopped at the offices of the Security Branch in Piet Retief.

MR BEESLAAR: I beg your pardon. As far as I can recall we did not stop there because the offices were closed, it was during the afternoon.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, may I just ask something on this point.

Were the offices not situated at Mr Pienaar's house?

MR BEESLAAR: No, the offices were in the main street running through the town, but Mr Pienaar's house was not near there.

MR MALAN: It was a distance away?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes. I cannot say precisely, it was about two or three street blocks away. I'm quite unfamiliar with the layout of the town.

MR MALAN: So you cannot recall that his home and the office were situated close to each other?

MR BEESLAAR: No, they were not.

MR LAMEY: Furthermore, I want to put it to you that my instructions from Mr Mogoai are also that the Security Police offices and the police station in Piet Retief were situated next to each other. Is it possible that you may have visited the police station?

MR BEESLAAR: No, the offices were in the main street and the police station was way to the other side as far as I can recall.

MR LAMEY: Can you possibly be mistaken in your recollection of visiting the offices?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall I did not visit the offices. If we did, it would just be to see if there was a member there, but I can recall that we did not stop there.

MR LAMEY: So what you would concede too is that you may have stopped there to see if anybody was there?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is possible.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mogoai's recollection furthermore is that when you came out you requested him to go with other black members, among others Moses Nzimande Mgade and Mbelo in a minibus and they then followed you to a caravan house of sorts outside Piet Retief. Can you recall anything like that?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible, but you simply cannot recall it?

MR BEESLAAR: No, it is improbable. I cannot recall it at all.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Were you there - at which stage did you see Mngomezulu for the first time?

MR BEESLAAR: It was after we had arrived at the house. It was already dark at that stage and we were seated in the lounge, when some of the black members arrived there with a black man.

MR LAMEY: And your evidence is that there was an interrogation of this person.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, there was an interrogation.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall how long the interrogation lasted?

MR BEESLAAR: I would be speaking under correction, but it was quite brief, I would say approximately half an hour.

MR LAMEY: Could it have been shorter than that?

MR BEESLAAR: It is possible. As I've stated, I cannot recall precisely.

MR LAMEY: And your recollection is from your evidence, I don't know whether you are definitely certain about this, but you recall that he was simply slapped upon that occasion.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that he may also have been assaulted in other manners, such as kicking?

MR BEESLAAR: Not during that time that I was present.

MR LAMEY: Were you present at all times?

MR BEESLAAR: While he was there I was present all the time.

MR LAMEY: Because Mr Mogoai's recollection is that he was slapped and kicked.

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know anything about that, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Now ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst you are going through your notes, Mr Lamey, may I just make a follow-up to the question that you posed to Mr Beeslaar.

Mr Beeslaar, you say that whilst you were in this house some black officers arrived with the deceased, do you know the names of the black officers who arrived with the deceased?

MR BEESLAAR: Unfortunately not, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you identify some of them in this room?

MR BEESLAAR: No, positively not.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not? Why is that so?

MR BEESLAAR: It is quite a long time ago and if I recall their names I would recall their faces, but unfortunately I cannot bring them into relation with anything, unfortunately not, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Some of the members here are persons, or some of the applicants here are persons who also worked at Vlakplaas, is that correct, and that served for quite some time there.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Can you recall at which stage Mr Mngomezulu was then transported to the place near the Josini dam?

MR BEESLAAR: If I recall correctly it was approximately two days later. The following day was a Sunday, and I don't know whether it was on the Monday afternoon or the Tuesday morning that we went there.

MR LAMEY: Could that lapse of time also perhaps be faulty, due to your recollection?

MR BEESLAAR: It would definitely not have been later that the Tuesday.

MR LAMEY: Because Mr Mogoai's recollection is that the interrogation didn't last very long and on that very same evening he was taken to Josini dam.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot recall that.

MR LAMEY: Mr Beeslaar, as part of your application - I beg your pardon, I just want to get to the relevant page. Can you recall - you already testified that you cannot recall where you were when Mr de Kock - and you say that it is possibly also Mr de Kock, but you are not certain, but this request was given to you to go down to Piet Retief, you cannot recall where this request was issued to you.

MR BEESLAAR: It must have been on the farm if I was in my office on the farm at that stage, or it was at head office if that is where my office was. I cannot recall where my office was at that stage, but it was during the week because he wouldn't have told me this on a Saturday morning.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this request conveyed to you telephonically or was it conveyed to you personally?

MR BEESLAAR: It was personal.

MR LAMEY: If you could look to page 144, where you are questioned with regard to the order, you say the order was given to you by your immediate Commander and that would refer to the deeds or offences which were committed in the execution of an order. Now which order did you have from Mr de Kock?

MR BEESLAAR: Is that with regard to this matter?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR BEESLAAR: Well he gave me the order, I don't whether it was at head office where he heard that the man was ready for arrest, but he gave me the order to go to Piet Retief in order to complete the necessary documentation there.

MR LAMEY: But he didn't give you any order with regard to any interrogation or abduction?

MR BEESLAAR: None whatsoever.

MR LAMEY: If I may refer you to page 144, and that question, the section (a) of that is about whether the acts, omissions or offences were committed in the execution of an order, the answer is "Yes", and then you state furthermore -

I don't really understand your response in the light of your evidence which you gave earlier, but when you received the order, there could have been no talk of an offence ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, is my learned friend disputing this issue?

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you allow Mr Lamey to finish. Mr Lamey, you may proceed.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't understand your question.

MR LAMEY: Let me just repeat it, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: At the stage - or let me put it like this first, you state in paragraph 9 or 11(b) on page 144, that an order was given to you by your immediate Commander, Lt-Col de Kock. To which order are you referring?

MR BEESLAAR: He ordered me to go to Piet Retief to attest to a black member, to attest to a black askari and to appoint him as a policeman.

MR LAMEY: But certainly that wouldn't be an offence?

MR BEESLAAR: No, it is not an offence within itself.

MR LAMEY: And in paragraph 11(b) you are very certain, you do not qualify it by saying that you cannot recall precisely, you state quite clearly that it was Col de Kock, whereas previously you stated that you were not entirely certain, that it could also have been Mr Baker.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct, I stated that previously.

CHAIRPERSON: You are however now sure that the order that you should go to Piet Retief in order to complete some documentation, was given to you by Col de Kock.

MR BEESLAAR: I believe that it was Col de Kock who issued the order to me. Sometimes Maj Baker would also give orders if Mr de Kock wasn't present and in this particular case I believe that it was de Kock who gave me the order.

MR LAMEY: If I could just take you to page 116, as part of your general background you explained that, as I understand it from within the context, that you underwent treatment from a psychologist known as Dr Verster, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I hope this is leading to something that is relevant to issues that we have to decide, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Yes, it is relevant, Chairperson, it is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance thereof?

MR LAMEY: It is - I am exploring the witness's memory in relating also to the version of my clients that I will come back to later.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance of referring to that aspect of the background evidence in order to explore the version of your client?

MR LAMEY: Well it is clearly from the background that Mr Beeslaar has testified about memory problems and in this regard I would like to further question on this aspect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but his evidence today is about events that we have not been given any evidence about him having problems in recollecting properly.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson no, but this portion is part of his total amnesty application ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and we have taken note thereof, we have read the documents.

MR LAMEY: But I gather that it is also in the light of particulars that he relates about events must seen also against that background and the history of his medical problem and memory problems that he has.

CHAIRPERSON: Can't you do that without having to refer us to this background, by putting it to him that he might be mistaken because of the problems that he has alluded to in his application?

MR LAMEY: I can sooner to the point, Chairperson, I just wanted to, as an introduction, refer him to what I'm getting at.

Mr Beeslaar, let me just get to the point then. I would accept that there are certain aspects which you can recall, but if one has this problem which you have mentioned in your background evidence within your statement, then it can be expected that there would be certain gaps in your memory, and I want to put it to you that Mr Mogoai recalls very clearly, according to my instructions, that - and let me just get to his version, that Mr de Kock at a stage joined - this is after or during Mr Mngomezulu's interrogation - I beg your pardon, Chairperson?

MR MALAN: I wonder, Mr Lamey, I just want to ask you this question and I think my colleagues will share my sentiments, what is the greater significance of your allusion to Mr de Kock's presence or not? Because only two of the applicants have stated this, there is no motive for them implicating him. Is this material to the dispute and are your clients implicated to their disadvantage in any other way by Mr Beeslaar?

MR LAMEY: No, indeed not, they are not implicated by Mr Beeslaar.

MR MALAN: But I think that you can accept, and you can put this to him, but I really don't think that it is necessary for you to go into in-depth cross-examination about this because nothing will really emanate from it.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. I will then just put it to him.

My instructions from Mr Mogoai are that Mr de Kock joined you at a certain point where the first interrogation took place and that Mr de Kock was later also present during the interrogation upon the occasion at the Josini dam.

MR BEESLAAR: He was not present there.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Then I want to put it to you just to round matters off, that the fact that you exclude this is probably ascribable to your faulty recollection, particularly when it comes to the other members from Vlakplaas. I'm putting that statement to you upon that basis.

MR BEESLAAR: You see this took place quite a long time ago. As I've stated, anyone with a clear recollection wouldn't be able to recall all the details. As I've stated, I cannot recall everything as you have put it.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Then I would just like to put the final statement to you and that is, due to the nature of the function that you fulfilled there with regard to administrative tasks and the fact that you were not really a member of the operational group as such, would it then be correct to accept that you would not be the person who would subsequently have to report anything back to Mr de Kock?

MR BEESLAAR: What I would report back would be with regard to the task that I was sent there with, that would be the attestation of the askari. I would confirm that the paperwork was in order, but with regard to the interrogation and what happened to the black man, I had nothing to report back, it was not part of my duties.

MR LAMEY: Therefore with regard to the events during the interrogation, you would not report these back to him either.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr Beeslaar, I see that you applied for amnesty in May 1997 and that in your application you also say that this had happened quite some time back. If we have regard that this was in 1986, that it was 11 years back from the time that it happened to the time of your application, and you say that your memory is poor and you do not hear properly any longer, you do not recall any longer, is that summarised well, Mr Beeslaar?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it was.

MR PRINSLOO: And these events, Mr Beeslaar, were events that were kept secret, you worked in the Security Branch and this was an aspect which was dealt with in secret, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And I assume that you did not keep any notes according to which you could refresh your memory in order to recall these events.

MR BEESLAAR: This is how I recall it, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And when these events occurred, Mr Beeslaar, I assume that you never thought that this matter would be discussed in open, at the stage when it happened.

MR BEESLAAR: That's correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And because of the secrecy thereof, you never discussed this matter with anyone else afterwards.

MR BEESLAAR: I did not discuss it with anyone afterwards.

MR PRINSLOO: And as we have heard from previous applications, these events happened on a need-to-know basis and on that basis things were kept secret, am I correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, at the stage in May 1997, when you had to lodge an application, you had to rely on your memory, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And in all fairness towards you, at that stage your memory was apparently already poor because you state so in your application. Is that summarised correctly?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, my memory is poor but there are certain things that one does recall.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, were you involved in incidents where persons were interrogated in the past and where violence was possibly used during these interrogations?

MR BEESLAAR: No, not while I was in the Security Forces.

MR PRINSLOO: Up to and including the elimination of this person, just during interrogation, before according to your evidence, that this person would be eliminated, nothing extraordinary took place or did there?

MR BEESLAAR: I'm not following you.

MR PRINSLOO: Did anything specific, extraordinary take place that would give you a reason to recall it later, up to the time that this person was eliminated?

MR BEESLAAR: There are certain things which are prominent in my memory. If someone spoke or had said, I cannot recall that, but there are certain things that I do recall.

MR PRINSLOO: You, according to your evidence, played a very minor role in this matter, do you agree?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I played a very minor role with regard to this incident.

MR PRINSLOO: And for that reason you are today saying you can recall certain things today.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is so.

MR PRINSLOO: You cannot recall whether you questioned him and what you questioned him about, can you?

MR BEESLAAR: I must have put one or two questions to him, but as I have said, I cannot elaborate on the questions that were asked because I was not an operational person and I could only have asked a question as a policeman.

MR PRINSLOO: With all respect towards you, Mr Beeslaar, what question could you have asked him in this regard? You didn't have any dealings with the man, you did not abduct him, you arrived there, you have another function, what would you have questioned him about?

MR BEESLAAR: Whether he was involved, and the other members asked questions and I would just have repeated the question.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, I am not trying to ask you a trick question, are you speculating or did you ask him?

MR BEESLAAR: I did not intensely interrogate him, that I never did.

MR PRINSLOO: If you did not have any information about him except for vague information, you could not have questioned him in-depth, but in regard to what did you question him that you had seen a necessity to slap him?

CHAIRPERSON: Hasn't he responded to this, Mr Prinsloo? His response is that he actually repeated the questions which had been put by others to Mr Mngomezulu. Can you take it any further than that?

MR BEESLAAR: Well I'll leave it for argument, Madam Chair, as far as his memory is concerned and his involvement.

Mr Beeslaar, you have heard the evidence of Mr Schoon.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you agree with his evidence with regard to when he arrived at the farm, do you agree?

MR BEESLAAR: I agree with certain things. As I've said, I know he was there and I don't believe that he was there permanently because he did not live far from there and while we were at this old farmhouse we were not there all the time, so he could have arrived there when we were not there or something to that effect.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, let us get to the point. You heard Mr Schoon say that he arrived there in the evening at the homestead, did you hear that?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you agree with that?

MR BEESLAAR: It could be, I do not dispute it.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you agree that that evening he questioned him by using Zulu?

MR BEESLAAR: It could be, I was not there.

MR PRINSLOO: And the following day, did you heard that Mr Schoon had questioned him again? Do you agree with that?

MR BEESLAAR: If he was there, he could have questioned him. I don't know whether we were there that day.

MR PRINSLOO: Where would you have been - if Mr Schoon was interrogating him, where were you?

MR BEESLAAR: I could have been outside, outside the building, it was not that all of us were present while he questioned him, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have heard what Mr Schoon said with regard to his interrogation, that he did not assault the man.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is what I heard.

MR PRINSLOO: You have told the Committee that you arrived in Piet Retief and had watched rugby at Mr Pienaar's house, did I understand you correctly?

MR BEESLAAR: Not at Mr Pienaar's house, but at a friend's house as you enter Piet Retief.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you recall it vividly in spite of your poor memory?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I recall it quite clearly.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you recall it? It's not mentioned in your application.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot mention all the particulars here, but that is what I did.

MR PRINSLOO: You have heard the evidence ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: May I just ask you, Mr Prinsloo, are your instructions that this is being disputed?

MR BEESLAAR: Mr Pienaar is not here and this is the first time that I have heard of it, so I have to take this point up. I would just like to hear from him. It was never put to Pienaar and I am entirely in the dark about this.

CHAIRPERSON: What wasn't put to Mr Pienaar, Mr Prinsloo?

MR BEESLAAR: It was never put to Mr Pienaar that rugby was watched, Chairperson. It was never put to him that they were watching a rugby match at a friend's place, as Mr Beeslaar is now testifying about.

CHAIRPERSON: But that's not his evidence. He, on arrival, went to a friend's house in Piet Retief to watch rugby with somebody he cannot remember. Were you specific with regard to Pienaar?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, Madam Chair, he said he went with Pienaar. I never put it to Pienaar because I don't regard the fact that you went to watch a rugby game five hours before you arrive at a place where an interrogation takes place, as a relevant fact in respect of these proceedings. Similarly, I never put to Mr Pienaar various other things like, when did they eat, when did they sleep, when did they drink beer, when did they have tea. I mean, how far do we have to go? Why is a rugby game relevant, with respect.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, is it sufficiently relevant to the issues that we ultimately have to decide?

MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, with respect, I will leave that, it's not relevant to the issues in this matter. I will leave that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Beeslaar, are you able to tell the Committee with regard to this patrol that you referred to, where was with and when?

MR BEESLAAR: When I speak of the no-go area?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR BEESLAAR: That had to be a day or two before the elimination. I cannot recall on which day the man was eliminated.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, who went along on this patrol with you?

MR BEESLAAR: Mr Schoon, because he was familiar with the area, then van Dyk, myself and Willemse, because we were there in a group.

MR PRINSLOO: This was a day before the elimination did you say, or two days before the elimination?

MR BEESLAAR: It could have been a day or two before the elimination because everything happened in a matter of a week.

MR PRINSLOO: You have heard the evidence of Mr Schoon, that the evening before the so-called elimination, he had arrived the evening before the so-called elimination. Did you hear that?

MR BEESLAAR: Was it before the elimination that night?

MR PRINSLOO: Did you hear that evidence?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I heard it.

MR PRINSLOO: You agree with it and it was never disputed by your legal representative, do you agree?

MR BEESLAAR: I agree, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And do you agree that it is correct as you have already said, that Mr Schoon had arrived there that evening before the elimination?

MR BEESLAAR: I beg your pardon, I need to correct myself. He arrived the afternoon of the elimination because if it was the evening it was too late to go into Sodwana, so he arrived there that evening of the farm. If this was the Thursday afternoon, then we reconnoitred the area the previous evening.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you saying now, Mr Beeslaar, that Mr Schoon arrived there in daylight and had already gone on patrol before he had questioned the man? Is that your evidence?

MR BEESLAAR: Not the same day, we didn't ride out the same day, we undertook reconnaissance. If it was the Thursday, then we rode out the Wednesday.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, do you know that Mr Schoon questioned the man the evening and the following day? When did you go out on the patrol, please tell the Honourable Committee.

MR BEESLAAR: It had to be a day before we went through to Sodwana.

MR PRINSLOO: In other words, this would mean that Mr Schoon went on a patrol before he questioned the man, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: It could be that we went out that day and after we returned that evening he could have questioned him again.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the purpose of that patrol? What did you say?

MR BEESLAAR: It was to reconnoitre whether there were any persons there.

MR PRINSLOO: For what purpose, Mr Beeslaar?

MR BEESLAAR: I believe that as they had decided to eliminate him by means of explosives, that there are no people inside who could have heard the explosion.

MR PRINSLOO: So in other words, Mr Beeslaar, you are saying it was decided to eliminate him before Mr Schoon had seen or questioned this man? That is the only logical inference, because the evening Schoon arrives he questions him, he gives him a rest and the following day he questions him.

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know how it works.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, you were there, we were not there. MR BEESLAAR: I am saying this is how I recall it happened, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: It would seem as if your memory is very poor, Mr Beeslaar.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it is poor, but not very poor. As I said, we went out to reconnoitre the place and we returned that afternoon and that evening he questioned him and the following day he again arrived there. That is what I can recall.

MR PRINSLOO: Then it would seem that he was there twice, Mr Beeslaar.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it is possible that he was there twice. We both went out on observation because he knew the area and after we returned he could have questioned the man again and the following day, the afternoon he was taken away.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, why would Mr Schoon go out on patrol if he knew the place? He worked there for 10 to 15 years.

MR BEESLAAR: That's correct, that is why we used him, he knew the area.

MR PRINSLOO: And he wanted to eliminate a man whom he seriously wanted to question and he wanted to eliminate this man.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot answer that question.

MR PRINSLOO: And you are taken along and taken into his confidence with a patrol, there where it is already suggested that this man be eliminated.

MR BEESLAAR: I have said that I'm a Security Policeman, and I have taken an oath of secrecy.

MR PRINSLOO: Yes, there are many others, but there is still a need-to-know principle and you are not even involved in the questioning and you heard Mr Schoon said you were a passenger.

MR BEESLAAR: I have heard, Chairperson, they took me along. I cannot comment any further.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I would just like to take instruction about this patrol business.

Can you be specific about this place which you say - if I heard you correctly you spoke of cement surfaces. Where is this area?

MR BEESLAAR: It's in this no-go area.

MR PRINSLOO: But as I understood it this area is quite large, where is that area located? Tell the Honourable Committee.

MR BEESLAAR: As I have said, it's unknown, but it is quite a large area. I do not dispute it. And we drove quite a way, there was no road and if I recall correctly it was marsh area and I don't know - we drove in a southerly direction, I don't know how far.

MR PRINSLOO: Are you saying that area is the place where the missiles are tested?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So there could be no people where missiles are tested.

MR BEESLAAR: At that stage I don't know whether the Army had ceased or whether arrangements had been made or whether they only tested them on certain days, I am not able to say, but I know we drove in that area.

MR PRINSLOO: Now how far is that place from Messina, these cement surfaces that you refer to?

MR BEESLAAR: It is quite far because it is close to Sodwana. From Sodwana one drives in a southerly direction.

MR PRINSLOO: How far from Messina do you say approximately?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know, 40 kilometres. I don't know how far Sodwana is from Messina, but it is not far from Sodwana that one turns off.

MR PRINSLOO: And how long did you take to drive to this place where the cement surfaces were?

MR BEESLAAR: It could have been two hours, 2½ hours. There is no road.

MR PRINSLOO: And then 2½ hours back?

MR BEESLAAR: More-or-less.

MR PRINSLOO: So it's five hours more-or-less?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And what time did you leave from where, to that place?

MR BEESLAAR: We went early that morning. After Mr Schoon went along with us we went away.

MR PRINSLOO: Was this before the other people had arrived at the farm, or after they had arrived at the farmhouse?

MR BEESLAAR: No, we were all there, all the whites drove out.

MR PRINSLOO: Is this including Mr Willemse?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Pienaar?

MR BEESLAAR: I am not certain of him.

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you drive with?

MR BEESLAAR: In the safari.

MR PRINSLOO: And who drove the vehicle?

MR BEESLAAR: I suspect it was van Dyk.

MR PRINSLOO: And who gave directions?

MR BEESLAAR: Schoon. And here one looks - I will sit behind and say "Drive like this", or he will say "drive like that".

MR PRINSLOO: And what did you look at then?

MR BEESLAAR: What do you mean what did I look at?

MR PRINSLOO: What did you look at? You've driving on patrol and you have to look at something while you're on patrol.

MR BEESLAAR: One looks for houses in the vicinity and if there's any form of life there.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you look for houses or did Mr Schoon look for the houses?

MR BEESLAAR: Sir, it's a open field, you are not blindfolded, anybody can look at. It's an open field ...(intervention)

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, you said you were looking for houses. Mr Schoon knew the area, why would he want to look at houses in a missile environment? Would there be houses?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know. That is why we went and reconnoitred the place to see if it was safe inland. I cannot specifically recall now.

MR PRINSLOO: Let us take this point further to see what we can find in this regard. Where did you go to the evening when the man was blown up?

MR BEESLAAR: The evening when he was blown up?

MR PRINSLOO: Yes.

MR BEESLAAR: We went to Sodwana.

MR PRINSLOO: You went to Sodwana.

MR BEESLAAR: And through Sodwana, through the entrance, when one gets to the beach there, there we moved in a southerly direction. I don't know how many kilometres, but quite a way.

MR PRINSLOO: And where did you stop?

MR BEESLAAR: On the beach.

MR PRINSLOO: Right next to the beach?

MR BEESLAAR: Well it depends how you want to say it. On the sand surface there next to the sea.

MR PRINSLOO: How far from the beach did you stop?

MR BEESLAAR: Where the water ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, I think he said "on the beach".

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Madam Chair, the evidence of Mr Schoon is clear that at the point, 1½ kilometres away they left the other vehicle and they moved from there - and that's a crucial point, according to Mr du Plessis, and he said that they walked that distance. So I'd like to know, why would they leave the vehicles and walk 1½ kilometres from there.

MR DU PLESSIS: But Madam Chair, the question was, "How far away from the beach did you stop?" And he kept on testifying that they were driving on the beach and they stopped on the beach ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: They stopped along the beach.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes. And the question was "How far away from the beach did you stop?" And that is an unfair question, with respect.

MR PRINSLOO: I will rephrase that question.

Mr Beeslaar, how far from the sea level did you stop? I know ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Was it high tide or low tide, Mr Prinsloo. He said on the beach, on the sand, next to the sea.

MR PRINSLOO: I will formulate the question otherwise then.

Mr Beeslaar, how far did these people walk with the man from where they stopped?

MR BEESLAAR: I am not able to say, but the following day we walked along with them and it was quite a way that we walked. Because when one walks next to the sea, distance is not a problem, one just walks and walks and walks. I am not sure how far, but I recall that when we walked along with them we saw that they had walked quite a distance.

MR PRINSLOO: And this distance, was this a kilometre-and-a-half? Would you agree?

MR BEESLAAR: I am not able to dispute it.

MR PRINSLOO: You are saying that according to your evidence this person was taken to where your vehicle was and from there they walked with him, is that your evidence?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Was this person tied up, handcuffed, what is the position?

MR BEESLAAR: While he was on the vehicle I believe he was cuffed, I don't know whether they removed his leg-irons afterwards or whether he has cuffed to one of the white members.

MR PRINSLOO: But you were saying he was in a drum, how was he in a drum?

MR BEESLAAR: He was placed in a drum on the farm at Josini and on the beach he was taken out of the drum.

MR PRINSLOO: So who placed him into the drum?

MR BEESLAAR: On the farm where he was put in we helped him in. It was the white members who were there.

MR PRINSLOO: Who are these "us", does this include yourself?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I could have helped.

MR PRINSLOO: You could have helped. Did you help?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot say. All of us assisted. I don't recall whether - I cannot say whether I picked up his feet and helped him in, I'm not certain. As far as I recall we all helped him. Who specifically took hold where, I do not know.

MR PRINSLOO: But if you performed a function in that regard, you would recall that you had lifted him up because you say he was placed into a drum.

CHAIRPERSON: He could have assisted, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chair -

You say you assisted the people, what was your role?

MR BEESLAAR: I helped to lift him up at the rear of the bakkie and helped him get into the drum with his head first.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you now recall that you physically helped with your hands or are you speculating?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall I did assist.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say in many places "as far as you recall", but did you help? Do you recall it as a fact.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot say with certainty. I would accept that I assisted in loading him.

MR PRINSLOO: Was he handcuffed when he was loaded into the drum, his hands?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall, but I think his feet were shackled, but his hands could also have been cuffed and that is why we had to assist him in putting him in.

MR PRINSLOO: So when you were on the beach, what happened then, please tell the Committee. He's now on the beach, this person, the vehicles are there, what happens then?

MR BEESLAAR: He was then taken out.

MR PRINSLOO: By whom?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall. It had to be one of us who was there, one of our members who were there, who unloaded him.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you assist him?

MR BEESLAAR: I could have helped, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Once again Sir, you are saying "I could have". Did you help?

MR BEESLAAR: If it pleases the Committee, then I did help him.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you do?

MR BEESLAAR: I basically took him by his feet and lifted him out.

MR PRINSLOO: And who else?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot - I don't know whether all four or five us assisted, but it was not difficult to take him out because it was just a matter of shifting him out. So not much assistance was needed to unload him.

MR PRINSLOO: The man was then taken out, what happened then?

MR BEESLAAR: And then his leg-irons must have been removed, I cannot recall, and the three of them went away from there.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, you recall this thing you said, you say his ...(intervention)

MR DU PLESSIS: No, he said his leg-irons were removed, but he could not remember.

Now with respect, Madam Chair, my learned friend shouldn't then put to him that he definitely said "dat die voetboeie losgemaak is", because he qualified it.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, Madam Chair, the witness explicitly said in Afrikaans "Die voetboeie is seker losgemaak". That leaves doubt, with respect, Madam Chair, in Afrikaans. Unless Mr du Plessis can give us some other translation.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, I think that's exactly Mr du Plessis's point, that there is doubt.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well, Mr Beeslaar, what is the fact of the matter, were the leg-irons removed or not?

MR BEESLAAR: To walk on the beach, I believe his leg-irons were removed so that he could walk comfortably and as I have said, I don't know whether he was attached to one of the members' arms so that he could not escape.

MR PRINSLOO: Were his hands loose?

MR BEESLAAR: I am saying that his hands were loose but he might have been cuffed to the arm of one of the members so that he could not escape.

MR PRINSLOO: You are saying "possibly".

MR BEESLAAR: I did not see, but if his leg-irons were removed and he can run away he would have been attached to one of the members so that he could not run away.

MR PRINSLOO: Why are you saying "he must have been attached"? Why "must have"?

MR BEESLAAR: So that he could not escape.

MR PRINSLOO: How was he going to escape? Why would he want to escape?

MR BEESLAAR: I think for what he was detained he had reason to escape.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you recall it as a fact that he was cuffed to one of the members?

MR BEESLAAR: As I have said, I believed he was cuffed to one of the other persons. It was already reasonably dark when they left there with him.

MR PRINSLOO: Did he willingly walk away?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, he did not resist.

MR PRINSLOO: Now did they take anything with them?

MR BEESLAAR: I couldn't see. As I've already stated, it was already dark and at a stage I was also seated in the vehicle. I don't know whether they unpacked all the things on the side of the bakkie where they were, I couldn't see anything.

MR PRINSLOO: So you were there and according to your version you knew that they were going to eliminate him.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes

MR PRINSLOO: So you must have at least have been quite interested in how this elimination was going to take place, correct? A living man, and you say that he was taken away from there, what do you say, how do you think this elimination was to have taken place?

MR BEESLAAR: As it already been discussed previously that he was going to be blown up.

MR PRINSLOO: So according to you this man would then have been blown up while he was still alive?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know according to which methods such an elimination would take place as I have never been present previously with such an elimination and I don't know how such an elimination would have taken place.

MR PRINSLOO: So it is not an everyday thing to kill somebody, and you say that he would have been blown up. How did you think this man would be blown up?

MR BEESLAAR: With explosives.

MR PRINSLOO: And how was it going to take place, how would it be done?

MR BEESLAAR: As I've already stated, I didn't know how these things were done. By the nature of my work I had not been involved in such an incident during which a person had been blown up. I cannot describe to you how this would take place. I'm very sorry, with respect, Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: But you would agree one cannot attach explosives to a living person and then expect of this person to remain quiet and blow the person up.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot comment on that.

MR PRINSLOO: But you would agree that it is logical.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I suppose so, but I cannot comment.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you expect to place explosives on a living person and then walk away and blow the person up?

MR BEESLAAR: I wouldn't be able to say, I had never participated in any such exercise previously, I wouldn't know whether the person would be shot first and then be exploded, I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: You heard the evidence from Mr Schoon as to what he used to explode the person, the sort of explosives, the size of the explosives, he gave a thorough description of the cartridge of the explosives and indicated the size of the explosives. Did you see that any such explosives were carried by any of the members?

MR BEESLAAR: I couldn't see.

MR PRINSLOO: Why wouldn't you have seen it from your departure?

MR BEESLAAR: As I've already stated, Chairperson, these things could have been packed on the other side of the vehicle where I would not have been able to see them because I was not on that side of the vehicle.

MR PRINSLOO: But you saw them walking away, how do you get beyond that?

MR BEESLAAR: They were above the bakkie, one could see them walking away but it was dark. One could see people walking away, but I couldn't surmise what they were carrying.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, he's still busy answering that question, he's still busy.

MR PRINSLOO: ...(indistinct - no microphone) vehicle passed here, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Allow him time to answer the question. I think you seem to be also asking questions at a pace which is a little faster than one could expect counsel to ask a witness.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair, I'll do so. Thank you, Madam Chair, I apologise.

Mr Beeslaar, have you finished, because I interrupted you?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I don't know where we were, it was about walking away with the explosives. As I said, the explosives that they used may have been stored on the other side of the vehicle and have been loaded off from that side of the vehicle. It was dark and I don't know whether it was due to moonlight, but one could surmise that there were people walking away, but one couldn't see what they were carrying.

MR PRINSLOO: But you were with them when they departed, you helped them to unload the man.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, he was unloaded, but they did not depart immediately after they unloaded him. There may have been a five to ten minute period before they decided that they were going to walk with him.

MR PRINSLOO: So was there a discussion, was the decision taken to walk with him, or is that your inference or speculation?

MR BEESLAAR: This is not an inference, I saw them walk away in a southerly direction and that the black man was with them, but who carried what is unknown to me.

MR PRINSLOO: So when they walked away, you saw them walk away?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you say that these three members, Mr Schoon, van Dyk and Pienaar, walked away together?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you heard that there was a 24 kilogram charge of explosives which had to be carried across sand. You must have seen if someone was carrying something which weighed 24 kilograms.

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know what the weight of such a container would have been and they were three persons who assisted in carrying the item.

MR PRINSLOO: But the man was tied up, he had to be guarded.

MR BEESLAAR: Well I'm sure that one could carry something with the one hand, I don't know how the electrical cable would have looked. I don't know whether the black man also helped to carry any of the items. I couldn't see who was carrying what.

MR PRINSLOO: But this unfortunate man must have known then that he was being led like a lamb to the slaughter, that he had to walk with them some distance away, to a point where he was going to be blown up.

MR BEESLAAR: I'm sure that he was like a lamb being led to the slaughter.

MR PRINSLOO: And then he would have assisted in carrying the goods, he didn't offer any kind of resistance. Didn't he struggle, did he follow them voluntarily?

MR BEESLAAR: Well he wasn't struggling when they departed, I don't know whether he struggled on the way.

MR PRINSLOO: And they had at their disposal a 4X4 vehicle which could drive on sandy terrain, why didn't they just drive with the vehicle?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know, Chairperson, I cannot respond to that because the vehicle remained there, the two vehicles remained there.

MR PRINSLOO: Can you offer any reason to the Committee as to why they did not take the vehicle with them and why they left the vehicle there and carried the items as they were walking across the beach?

MR BEESLAAR: That was their decision, I cannot explain their decision.

MR PRINSLOO: But you were with them when the decision was taken.

MR BEESLAAR: Well as I said, I wasn't there with every single moment, because as they were unloading the goods I was on the other side of the vehicle. They may have discussed among each other what they were going to do and I wouldn't have heard what the reason for their decision to walk would have been, but the vehicle remained there.

MR PRINSLOO: And while they were walking away, what were you doing?

MR BEESLAAR: After they left I waited in the vehicle for van Dyk because the wind was very strong and it was very cold.

MR PRINSLOO: So you waited in the vehicle.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And you didn't hear any explosion or see anything?

MR BEESLAAR: I didn't see or hear anything.

MR PRINSLOO: You didn't hear any loud noise? There were 25 kilograms of explosives.

MR BEESLAAR: The sea was loud, the wind was blowing strongly and I didn't hear anything. Perhaps my hearing is also not 100%, but all I know is that I didn't hear anything.

MR PRINSLOO: And when the others returned, didn't they say anything? The others would be the three members, when they returned without this man.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I don't know whether they said that they had blown him up or what had become of him. I don't know whether they said what had become of him.

MR PRINSLOO: So you cannot say that they said anything, or what are you saying?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know because there would be conversation, but I was seated in the vehicle and they may have said something to me, I don't know. I am not clear on that point.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Beeslaar, at that point, according to your recollection, you associated yourself with three other members who had killed a man and blown up his body, a murder had taken place and you didn't even find out - they didn't tell you whether the man was dead or alive, is that what you are saying?

MR BEESLAAR: As I've already stated, I was not an operational man, I was an administrative man and I did not share their activities.

MR PRINSLOO: But you were an administrative man who had participated in a murder, you had associated yourself with it, didn't you ask any questions about it, such as what did you do with the man, how did you do it?

MR BEESLAAR: I did not ask them any questions.

MR PRINSLOO: Why not, Mr Beeslaar?

MR BEESLAAR: Because I did not regard it as necessary at that point.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. And subsequently no-one said anything about it, anything in connection with the killing of this man and the explosion of his body?

MR BEESLAAR: Not as far as it went with my presence. I cannot recall that anybody said anything in my presence. I don't believe that anybody would have boasted about it.

MR PRINSLOO: So you wouldn't even have known if he had died in an explosion?

MR BEESLAAR: I couldn't say how he died.

MR PRINSLOO: So you ...(intervention)

MR BEESLAAR: I - then continue with your question.

MR PRINSLOO: No, please continue with your response, I apologise for interrupting. What else did you want to say?

MR BEESLAAR: If he had been killed, I would not have been able to say how he had been killed because I didn't see him subsequently and never again heard anything about him.

MR PRINSLOO: So you also had no reason to refer to an explosion in your application because you didn't know how the man had died.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I didn't.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. Just a moment's indulgence, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Now Mr Beeslaar, you have heard the evidence that this man was seriously assaulted.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And are you capable of disputing this?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot.

MR PRINSLOO: And you have heard the evidence of Messrs Schoon and Pienaar, and their relation of these events.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Well I will not reiterate this to you in a statement. And you have also heard that the whole purpose was initially to obtain information from this deceased, Mr Mngomezulu.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is what I heard.

MR PRINSLOO: And your evidence was that the person who had all the knowledge about him was Mr Schoon.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I believe so, either he or Mr Pienaar. I don't know in whose ward he fell or who was primarily involved with Swaziland and so forth.

MR PRINSLOO: You also refer in your application that in Mr Schoon's office there were certain discussions which were held, which discussions are those?

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, I cannot say, it may be with regard to this matter or it may have been regarding other matters which had to do with the Josini area. I wasn't present, I don't know whether they were discussions or what exactly they discussed. I have referred to discussions here, but I don't know whether that was just them talking among one another or whether they specifically discussed this matter or any other matter.

MR PRINSLOO: Now when were these so-called discussions supposed to have taken place?

MR BEESLAAR: In Josini, in Mr Schoon's office. It may also have been on the morning before we went out on the patrol.

MR PRINSLOO: So it would have been on the morning, before you interrogated the man?

MR BEESLAAR: That is possible because we would go there periodically.

MR PRINSLOO: You heard Mr Schoon testify that he denied any form of patrolling.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I've heard so.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment's indulgence, Chairperson.

Mr Beeslaar, you have also heard what Messrs Schoon and Pienaar testified with regard to the liquor situation.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I heard so, Madam Chair.

MR PRINSLOO: What do you have to say about that?

MR BEESLAAR: I have already stated that the Colonel's instructions were very clear in this regard. I was not inebriated. His instructions were never to consume any liquor before or during operations and I respected and observed his instructions.

MR PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I've put to the witness that he's heard the evidence of Mr Pienaar as well as Mr Schoon, I'm not going to repeat their versions and it stands.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Honourable Chair.

Mr Beeslaar, I would just like to take you back to the observation which you referred to in your evidence-in-chief. You recall that aspect of evidence which began with the fact that you drove in the vehicle belonging to van Dyk, that it was you, Schoon, Willemse and van Dyk. Do you recall that aspect of your evidence?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is the aspect regarding the time when we entered the no-go area. Yes, I recall that. I'm not certain whether Freek Pienaar accompanied us.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes. Your evidence now is that the purpose behind your excursion there was to undertake observation.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it was necessary for the operational personnel to determine that everything was secure.

MS VAN DER WALT: Secure for what?

MR BEESLAAR: That everything was secure on the inland side, that there would be no inhabitants in the area because they already knew that he was going to blown up.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you knew at that stage already that he was going to be blown up.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I've stated that previously as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now precisely when? Because you see just with regard to the period of time, I would like to know precisely when before you undertook this observation, was there already a discussion that the person was going to be blown up.

MR BEESLAAR: It may have been on the farm, and as I've stated, there must have been a day before he would have been blown up.

MS VAN DER WALT: That would have been when you undertook the observation?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, the day before, when we undertook the observation. Let's say if we wanted to blow him up on the Thursday, we would have to observe on the Wednesday.

MS VAN DER WALT: So then it was definitely before the observation was held, that there was a discussion regarding the explosion of this person.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now Mr Beeslaar, from which point onwards did your evidence alter from patrolling to observation?

MR BEESLAAR: I would remain with patrolling. There isn't really a tremendous difference between patrolling and observation. If one patrolled, one would undertake observation as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you would say that you were also patrolling?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I defined it as such in my application.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Let us take your application, Sir, and I would like to refer you to page 138, the final paragraph-

Is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you also patrol in other places?

MR BEESLAAR: In this division, or what are you referring to?

MS VAN DER WALT: No, I am referring to what you have written here. It is about this incident.

MR BEESLAAR: What I mean by patrol is that from that farmhouse we drove out to Josini and I don't know whether we went back to Piet Retief for that one day as well, but the patrol would actually just be something that I have included to indicate that we moved around in the vehicle from that point onwards.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just listen carefully, I'm asking with reference to what you have written here, that among others you also patrolled in the place where the missiles were tested. Were there any other places where you patrolled as well? That this would indicate another place.

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know whether we went to Sodwana previously or beforehand to look at the entrance there, but there wasn't a lot of time to undertake patrolling because it was just for that one day and on that one day we departed from Piet Retief for the farmhouse.

M VAN DER WALT: But that wasn't patrolling, that was travelling from one point to the next.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, you are correct, I would conceded to that. The word "patrol" is actually incorrect here.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you just mention with regard to the fact that you don't know whether you went to Sodwana for the one day to go to the entrance? What do you mean by that?

MR BEESLAAR: No, that would be to examine the entrance from the inland area towards the seaboard.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you actually do that?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot recall specifically, but it is a possibility, because if one undertook such planning one would have to take all factors into consideration.

MS VAN DER WALT: But then why didn't you mention that you have a vague recollection that you may have travelled there because the planning was rather extensive?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot respond to that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Or are you simply just attaching tales to your version?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I'm not doing that, it is simply a possibility of what could have taken place.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you see, you are assisted by a very experienced advocate and attorney and during this session of this Committee, several statements have been submitted by your legal team for other applicants which provide further information for their statements which they made initially, but in your case there was not even anything which was put to any of the other applicants or Mr Schoon who testified this morning, that you undertook observation in order to determine whether or not it would be safe if explosions were going to take place from the seaboard side. Can you explain that?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot explain it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then why, during Mr Schoon's evidence, didn't you instruct your advocate to put this very significant point to him?

MR BEESLAAR: I didn't do so.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you really cannot explain to the Committee?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it was also not put to Mr van Dyk, not to Mr Pienaar.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot comment on that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I just for purposes of the record say that when Mr van Dyk testified I was not here, firstly, and secondly, I had no instructions of Mr Beeslaar because he wasn't available at that stage. I couldn't consult with him beforehand and I did not know at that stage what my position was pertaining to his application. Just for purposes of the record.

CHAIRPERSON: And when Mr Schoon testified you were here and you didn't take the matter up.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, well what I - as far as I can recall, what I put to Mr Schoon was what was in the amnesty application on the last paragraph, page 138.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

ADV STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, I'm sorry, I'm the last person to barge in, if you'll excuse me. There's a request from the interpreters to take a five minute adjournment if it's possible. Just five minutes, Madam Chair, if possible.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take a five minute adjournment.

GERHARDUS CORNELIUS BEESLAAR: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Ms van der Walt.

MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I perhaps just clarify what I did put as far as I can remember and what I didn't put? As far as I can remember I put the last paragraph on page 138, and together with that I said he knew at that stage because it was discussed that there would be an elimination. I did not put that they rode around there or drove around there looking to see if there were people "in die binneland", that as far as I recall I didn't put, and what I also didn't put - and I don't know if my learned friend is still going to come to that, is the fact that there was a discussion already before they drove in that area, about the elimination. I also didn't put that. Just to put the record straight.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: (cont) Honourable Chairperson, that is the reason for cross-examination, now the cart is being drawn before the horses and now I can conclude my cross-examination. I think Mr du Plessis and I are trying to let this flow, but I think one could follow the normal procedure, that I can follow with my cross-examination if you would allow me, please.

CHAIRPERSON: You are allowed, Ms van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Mr Beeslaar, this piece of evidence that you have given here now, and I wish to read to you what you had testified in-chief. "With a vehicle of van Dyk, Schoon, I and Willemse and van Dyk, but I am not certain of Pienaar, whether he was there, drove to a place that looked like a plantation. There were cement surfaces that had remained there, we stayed there and we undertook some observation there". Then the explanation was given - "The observation was held to determine whether if anything was blown up on the sea's side, that no-one would be able to hear it". Is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is the inference I drew from the discussion in the vehicle, that the inland be safe to do something to this effect.

MS VAN DER WALT: So your evidence is also furthermore that before you were busy with this observation you knew that he would be blown up, this person.

MR BEESLAAR: As the other people have said, they had already speculated as to what to do with him and the last that I can recall is that he would be eliminated.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Beeslaar, could you please listen to the question. And there was no evidence from any of the other applicants that they had decided to blow him up, that there was discussion about that. Please listen to my question, I am telling you that your evidence here in-chief today was that before you went on this tour to undertake observation there was already a discussion that this person would be blown up, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. And who was involved in this discussion?

MR BEESLAAR: The white members who were present there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Therefore at that stage, at that early stage you already knew what the fate of Mr Mngomezulu would be. Now I wish to take you back to your written application, to page 139, top of the page -top paragraph, I beg your pardon, Chairperson, the final sentence -

Is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You give no description whatsoever as to what had happened there as to how he would be eliminated.

MR BEESLAAR: I did not give any description there, that's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in your whole application it does not appear that there was a discussion that this person would be blown up.

MR BEESLAAR: In my written application, no. As far as I can see it would be appear that there's nothing like that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, if we have regard to your application in the final paragraph you say -

Once again you bring it in yourself into your application, but you do not say in your application that there was a discussion by these people, why did you not do this?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot explain that statement, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And your advocate also did not put it to the applicant, do you know why not?

MR BEESLAAR: No comment, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Or did you not tell him?

MR BEESLAAR: I did not mention anything like that.

MS VAN DER WALT: Never, not at all?

MR BEESLAAR: No, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: So now you have decided when you sat here, that you will just dish up this story to the Committee.

MR BEESLAAR: What stories are these?

MS VAN DER WALT: This that there was a discussion that the person would be blown up and that observation would be undertaken so that one could determine whether it was safe if an explosion would take place.

MR BEESLAAR: It is as I have - the observation had already been undertaken to ascertain, and then I said - I cannot recall if I said so in my evidence, but it was discussed in the vehicle why it was observation, to make sure that it was safe inland.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, but Sir, you have heard the evidence of Mr Schoon that he knew that area quite well and this was a no-go area because missiles were fired there, there would be no people and Mr Schoon would know that.

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know what it is, but we visited that no-go area and I am not entirely certain whether the Army had ceased at that stage or whether blacks could have moved in there of not, I don't know. They probably do not understand all the instructions that are issued. We undertook observation, we drove there to that certain point and we returned from there. And I believe Mr Schoon is familiar with the area, but that is the incident that had happened, that we drove there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you see, you were not afraid to drive in the field there with a vehicle, that you could have possibly have driven over one of these explosive devices that had not gone off. That is why they keep the people away from there, that it was a dangerous area.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct. Whether we took a chance and whether they had ceased, but we did visit that area and there we drove in that no-go area.

MS VAN DER WALT: And I wish to take you back. You now arrive in Piet Retief on a Saturday afternoon, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you watched rugby?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And what happened then that you went to this place where this unknown person was?

MR BEESLAAR: That was the general accommodation for security persons in Piet Retief and that is where I also went home when I came along with the members of the operational unit.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is this at the caravan?

MR BEESLAAR: If it was a caravan or whether it was a small house, but it was very small. It could have been a caravan, I am not sure.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you then go there? With whom?

MR BEESLAAR: Along with Mr Pienaar.

MS VAN DER WALT: So this should have been after Mr van Dyk informed him that he had to come there.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I cannot say, I only arrived there that afternoon and this was about 6 or 7 o'clock when I arrived at Moolman.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when you arrived there was this unknown person already there?

MR BEESLAAR: Not inside, not inside the place. I did not see him before the time and he must have been outside where the blacks had stayed.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you know that such a person was there?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I did not.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did no-one tell you?

MR BEESLAAR: Nobody.

MS VAN DER WALT: Not Mr Pienaar?

MR BEESLAAR: No, no-one. I had no knowledge that such a person was there.

MS VAN DER WALT: What is the reason, why did you then go there?

MR BEESLAAR: As I have already said I went to the division under instruction from Col de Kock that a black returning terrorist - I think that is why he sent me there.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you are not even certain about it?

MR BEESLAAR: Listen, this is a long time ago and I cannot recall if I had to do something else there, but I think it was such an incident, that is why I went there.

MS VAN DER WALT: I want to know why you specifically after the rugby, went to that specific place.

MR BEESLAAR: Because I had stayed there that evening.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Pienaar did not tell you anything.

MR BEESLAAR: Of the person? No, he did not tell me anything.

MS VAN DER WALT: I wish to put it to you that the period when this operation had taken place was only three days, that was the evidence of Mr van Dyk. What do you say about that?

MR BEESLAAR: It depends what he means, from when three days?

MS VAN DER WALT: Saturday the person was abducted and he was taken to Piet Retief, Sunday afternoon he went to the old homestead next to the dam and the Monday, late afternoon, they left from there.

MR BEESLAAR: No, I do not agree.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you are saying two days, if I understand your evidence correctly, or a day or two before the elimination, Mr Schoon and Mr van Dyk, you went on this patrol. Is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: After we arrived at this old place?

MS VAN DER WALT: How long had you already been there then?

MR BEESLAAR: I speak under correction, the Sunday as far as I can recall, we went through to Josini on the Monday, then the place was arranged at the dam and whether - if it was a Monday, whether we went the afternoon or the following day, we went to this old house next to Josini dam.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where - I beg your pardon, I interrupted you. Where did you stay at Josini?

MR BEESLAAR: At this old house. We did not stay in Josini itself, we slept in Piet Retief and then the Monday, if I recall correctly, we went through to Josini and there it was probably arranged for the old house where he was further interrogated and then either the Monday afternoon or the Tuesday morning we went through to this old house.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is what I want to know because you said the following day you went to the old house and that is why I asked you where did you stay in Josini.

MR BEESLAAR: If we left the following day we must have returned to Piet Retief. As I have said, I am not entirely certain whether it was the afternoon - if we arrived the afternoon at the old house, then we stayed at the old house that afternoon - the evening. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know how many days and what exactly had happened there, Mr Beeslaar?

MR BEESLAAR: If we arrived there the Tuesday, we there one day, we spent the evening there and the one day we went out on our observation and the following day he was taken to the beach and the following morning we returned and that afternoon I went back to Pretoria.

MS VAN DER WALT: So now you have said that the one day you undertook the observation and the following day the person was taken to the beach.

MR BEESLAAR: That's correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So this observation, was it undertaken in the morning?

MR BEESLAAR: I would say it was during the early afternoon.

MR BEESLAAR: Because it took you five hours approximately.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And that evening Mr Schoon arrived at the farm to interrogate the person.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it could be, I cannot dispute that. That is my recollection of the whole matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now let us arrive at the day when he was taken away from there, from the farm, that is Mr Mngomezulu. You are saying that you assisted in loading the person onto the bakkie.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are saying that he had leg-irons.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, as far as I can recall his legs were cuffed, his hands were loose. I cannot say, I cannot recall.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you say he was placed into a drum.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: If I may call it as such, this 44 gallon drum?

MR BEESLAAR: As I have said yes, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: I don't know what this is in new measurements. If you say that he shifted him in, the drum had to be on its side?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, it did.

MS VAN DER WALT: And how far was he pushed into the drum?

MR BEESLAAR: From approximately his shoulders to his middle.

MS VAN DER WALT: Very well then. Did they tie him up furthermore, or what is the situation?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall he was not tied up again, but he was in cuffs and it could be that his hands were also cuffed so that he could not pull himself out or move out of the drum.

MS VAN DER WALT: And was he covered with a canvass?

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, a tarpaulin was put over the back of the van which also covered this 44 gallon drum.

MS VAN DER WALT: This is also a very important aspect which was never put to any of the applicants. It was never put to the applicants that Mr Mngomezulu was placed into a drum on the back of the van. Why not?

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot explain why it was not done.

MS VAN DER WALT: There is also no additional statement taken from you with regard to these points which do not appear in your statement.

MR BEESLAAR: None, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Schoon testified this morning, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you heard that this was also not put to him.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: One moment, Chairperson.

You arrived at the beach this particular evening and you say that you drove up to a certain point and the vehicle stopped and you climbed out and you helped to unload the person from the bakkie.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are saying that it was dark, that is your evidence, the moon had just come up.

MR BEESLAAR: That is as far as I can recall. I don't know how many years back it is.

MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon?

MR BEESLAAR: I say it is many years ago. The sun had already set quite some time ago and the moon was just peeking over the horizon.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the moon rises on the eastern side and you were on the eastern side of the country.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you want to tell this Honourable Committee that under those circumstances on the beach, where there is an open sea to the east, you could not see that these persons carried anything, as Mr Schoon had testified, this large object.

MR BEESLAAR: I did not see it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Can you explain why?

MR BEESLAAR: No, I cannot explain why because I did not see it. As I have said, the things were placed on the other side of the vehicle and I sat in the vehicle after I unloaded him from the vehicle because the wind was quite strong and it was cold.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you were outside the vehicle, you gave that evidence in your evidence-in-chief.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I was outside. I said I unloaded him, I helped with unloading him and they stayed a while before they departed from the vehicle, but I climbed back into the vehicle because it was so cold and the wind was blowing tremendously.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, you did not see that these objects were carried by these persons or removed from the vehicle because it did not happen. That is why you did not see it.

MR BEESLAAR: I am not saying that I did not see it, if they left there with explosives I did not see it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you see in your written application on page 139, you do not make any mention whatsoever in the last paragraph -

If your written application is read, then there is no indication that you had climbed out of the vehicle, that you had assisted in unloading the person from the drum, none whatsoever. Do you agree?

MR BEESLAAR: According to this sentence it is so, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And this was also not put to the applicants. Is that also correct?

MR BEESLAAR: If it was not put to them, I agree with you.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also do not know why it was not put to them.

MR BEESLAAR: I have no comment, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you also do not know why it was not stated in a supplementary statement.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot comment, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, you were present, but a statement was made to Mr Pienaar, I think, that you had attempted to reach Mr van Dyk and Pienaar before you had drawn up your application, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: What did you do exactly?

MR BEESLAAR: To try and find Mr van Dyk, I contacted a person who was his friend and who is also known to me, a Mr Flip de Beer, I asked him to tell Paul that I would apply for amnesty with regard to this incident and after a few days I found Flip and he said Mr van Dyk was not interested in applying for amnesty for this matter. And Mr Pienaar, I traced Mr Pienaar by means of his son. He was no longer a policeman, Mr Pienaar at that stage and I went through a lot of trouble and I found his son who was a policeman. I think he works with Murder and Robbery Unit at Piet Retief or one of the divisions and he gave me his father's telephone number and at that stage, if I recall correctly, he was working at the sawmills at Piet Retief and I contacted him there and told him that I shall apply for amnesty with regard to this matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you never spoke to Mr van Dyk yourself.

MR BEESLAAR: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Mr Pienaar, what did he tell you?

MR BEESLAAR: If I recall correctly he said he could not recall this matter.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then afterwards you applied for amnesty.

MR BEESLAAR: Yes, I applied for amnesty. And Mr Schoon, his brother who was in Pretoria, a Brigadier, I informed him and I personally told him that I would apply for amnesty for this matter, but I never received any feedback from him.

MS VAN DER WALT: What would you tell the Committee, were these persons not interested in applying for amnesty?

MR BEESLAAR: I don't know. If I draw the inference from the comment, from the one I did not hear anything, the one said he could not recall, so I cannot say with certainty, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you see I would just like to point out to you on page 146 of your application, your application was signed on the 6th of May 1997, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: 6th of May 1997, correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And if you look at Mr van Dyk's application on page 84, his was signed on the 13th of December 1996.

MR BEESLAAR: I cannot explain it. He then did so without informing me that he was to apply. I cannot explain that.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like to put it to you that the impression that you are trying to create before this Honourable Committee is that these applicants were not interested in applying is incorrect because they handed up applications before you. Months before you they applied for this incident.

MR BEESLAAR: Chairperson, what I tried to find I did try and if they did these things before me, they were false because they did not inform me that they were to apply for amnesty.

MS VAN DER WALT: But it's not necessary to inform you, how can you say they are false?

MR BEESLAAR: That was the procedure, where we mention somebody we inform them that a person shall apply for amnesty and that I would implicate him there, and that is the case, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: I wish to refer you back to your evidence where you say that Mr Schoon at a stage when you moved away from the house, from the old homestead, he turned away to his house. That is your evidence.

MR BEESLAAR: If I'm correct I said that it is possible that he did turn away because we were in two vehicles. I cannot recall, but if he said he turned away to his house, I will conceded that.

MS VAN DER WALT: And I shall put it furthermore to you that Mr van Dyk said that he drove with Mr Schoon and Mr Pienaar to go to his house to check messages.

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall the two of us were in a vehicle, but as I have said, I concede that he was with them and that they had discussed further matters. I cannot comment any further, Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: And I shall furthermore put it to you that Mr Mngomezulu was dead by the time they arrived at the house and that Mr van Dyk, along with Mr Pienaar and Schoon, drove with a 4X4 van on the beach to the point where the body was blown up.

MR BEESLAAR: That is not how I recall it.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms van der Walt. Mr Nel?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramawele?

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

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kgasi?

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

Mr Beeslaar, when did you know that Mr Mngomezulu was to be eliminated?

MR BEESLAAR: It was definitely not on the Monday, it may have been on the Tuesday or the Wednesday, after we had been on observation.

MR KGASI: Alright. And that discussion to eliminate him was taken by the white members who were present at that time.

MR BEESLAAR: The operational persons must have taken the decision, I wasn't present. They may have told me at a later stage that this was their decision.

MR KGASI: Alright. And Mr Beeslaar, it was your testimony that you have obeyed Mr de Kock's instructions that at no stage before the operation liquor should be taken, is that so?

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR KGASI: So I take it that at all stages during these proceedings you were sober, is that correct?

MR BEESLAAR: I was sober at all times.

MR KGASI: Thank you. Let me take you a little bit further, to the time when Mr Mngomezulu was loaded onto that bakkie. Was he walking or what was happening?

MR BEESLAAR: As far as I can recall he walked to the bakkie and there we helped him onto the bakkie, onto the back of the bakkie into the drum which was on the back of the bakkie.

MR KGASI: Alright. And now at Sodwana, how was Mr Mngomezulu, was he walking or what was happening at the beach?

MR BEESLAAR: As I have already explained, after he was helped off, he walked by himself.

MR KGASI: Alright. And further, Mr Beeslaar, is that your testimony that you did not know how Mr Mngomezulu was killed, but that you know that the last time you saw him he was alive.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR KGASI: And that further it is your testimony that when you went to Sodwana in the first place for that reconnaissance, the following day that was the time when you took him there, is that so?

MR BEESLAAR: If I recall it was on the following the day. The previous day was observation and the next day we took him there.

MR KGASI: Ja, that was my question, whether you reconnoitred the are first and the following day you took him there.

MR BEESLAAR: That is correct.

MR KGASI: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, I don't think I have any further questions for the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Kgasi. Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?

MR MALAN: There is just one question that I have for you. It is my impression that Brig Schoon wasn't actually at Leeupoort, that he went back to his home on a daily basis.

MR BEESLAAR: Not Brig Schoon, Lt Schoon.

MR MALAN: Yes, sorry, that is what I mean.

MR BEESLAAR: No, he didn't stay there with us, he didn't stay at Leeupoort.

MR MALAN: He didn't stay at Leeupoort, he drove back every day to Josini.

MR BEESLAAR: Well I don't know if he was there every day, he was there for two days, so he must have been there everyday and every time he returned.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata?

ADV MOTATA: Just one clarification.

Mr Beeslaar, you said you arrived on a Saturday, more-or-less how many days did it take before Mr Mngomezulu was eventually eliminated?

MR BEESLAAR: I arrived at Moolman on the Saturday evening, and if I am correct it was on the Thursday that he met his demise. It was approximately a week which I had in which to perform my tasks. I had to get the letter from the district physician for the appointment and I returned again to Pretoria on the Saturday.

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Mr Beeslaar. Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Motata.

Mr Beeslaar, when Mr van Dyk gave testimony he stated that he left for Piet Retief with you from the beginning, is it your testimony today that you left Pretoria for Piet Retief on your own and that you were not in the company of Mr van Dyk?

MR BEESLAAR: Madam Chair, that is positively so. If Mogoai had travelled with me, we would have left on the Saturday. I did not travel with the initial group to Piet Retief.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was of the opinion that even though you were an administrative officer you accompanied the group, the investigative group, because there was a shortage of personnel at that stage. Was it your understanding that you were going to Piet Retief to make up for the shortfall in terms of human resources which was needed in Piet Retief, under the command of Mr van Dyk?

MR BEESLAAR: Madam Chair, let me explain it to you as follows. In some instances it did happen that way, but in this particular event the man had already been abducted before I arrived there and it is obvious that I was only there for four days or so. But if he regards this as me filling in a quota, then it was something completely different than what I thought I was there for.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis, any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, just one or two aspects.

Mr Beeslaar, I just want certainty. When you were there at Piet Retief, whose command were you under?

MR BEESLAAR: Lt van Dyk. I cannot recall exactly what his rank was.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And were you ever told in which way Mr Mngomezulu would be eliminated?

MR BEESLAAR: It may have been mentioned, but I cannot recall this specifically, but I believe that it was mentioned because that was actually the procedure at that stage, to blow up the person in eliminating him.

MR DU PLESSIS: You wanted to say something to the family. You may proceed.

MR BEESLAAR: Madam Chair, would you please grant me the opportunity. I would like to know whether there are any next-of-kin of the deceased present here today because I would like to express my utmost sympathy with them with regard to this matter and I pray that they have God's strength with them for the future. I thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. There are indeed relatives of Mr Mngomezulu present in our midst and I hope they have been able to listen to the translation and heard the message expressed by you to them. You are excused as a witness.

MR BEESLAAR: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Who is next in line?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, Mr Mogoai.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------KIMPANI PETER MOGOAI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Mogoai, you have applied for amnesty to the Amnesty Committee of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for several incidents in which you were involved, including also the incident presently before this Committee, namely the incident concerning Mr Mngomezulu, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: If we just have a look at the bundle, is it correct that you were approached as a State witness initially and that there was an initial amnesty application, which we find on page 27 to 31, which was drafted and submitted to the TRC with the assistance of the staff of the Attorney-General, is that correct? And which was dated the 9th of December 1996. Is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, then I've noted that there is on page 50 a short summary of incidents, I think it's just out of sequence here. I just want to take the applicant to that page before I get to the more detailed supplementary application.

Mr Mogoai, is it also correct that after you obtained legal representation there were short particulars submitted to the TRC for the incidents that you seek amnesty for, as we find on page 50, under the understanding that further particulars would be provided after you had an opportunity to consult with your legal representative, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: Then your more detailed application, is it correct that it starts on page 32 of the bundle before the Committee and then continues in this extract up to page 49, and it was signed by you on the 9th of July 1997, as it occurs on page 49, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: You've also signed the form on page 36, before a Commissioner of Oaths, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: And then you'll find on pages 37 to 39, before the Mngomezulu incidents starts, there's a background about you becoming a member of the Security Police, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: The gist of that without going into detail, is that you were, when you became a member of the Security Police, you became what they called an askari to distinguish you from original police members because you'd been previously a member of the ANC and MK, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I've noted that on page 39 there is a portion deleted in black. As far as it might be relevant, I just want to say if you could just also incorporate that as part of the background in his amnesty application.

CHAIRPERSON: That's paragraph 2.8.

MR LAMEY: Ja, it is part of 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9. Thank you.

Then the particulars regarding this incident next the relevant questions of the form, we find on page 39, 40, 41 and up to 43, Mr Mogoai, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: And do you confirm that to be correct, also subject to the further supplementary statement to which we will come in a moment?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: And also subject to further evidence viva voce that you will give here, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mogoai, is it also then correct that in the - prior to the start of this particular hearing and during preparation for this particular hearing, there were further consultations which necessitated a supplementary statement, which I am showing now to you?

MR MOGOAI: That is so, Sir.

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

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I have signed it, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: The date has been omitted here, but is it correct that this was signed during the morning of 8 November 1999, earlier this week?

MR MOGOAI: It was signed on the 8th of November, it was on a Monday this year.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just want to make sure whether you also have the document before you. I am not sure whether the original is before you, it appears what I have here is also a copy still left.

CHAIRPERSON: I think I must have the original because the other Members of my Committee are in possession of the supplementary statement, but I am not, which should be in one of my papers. You may proceed.

MR LAMEY: As the Chair pleases.

And you have read this supplementary statement and you confirm here under oath that it is to the best of your ability true and correct, is that so?

MR MOGOAI: That is so, Sir.

MR LAMEY: With your leave, Chairperson, I'm not going to lead Mr Mogoai in any detail, I just want to stop here and there.

Mr Mogoai, in your supplementary statement you also elaborated further and said that during that first interrogation session which took place at this particular place near Piet Retief, there was a short interrogation of about 10 to 15 minutes, if you may estimate it, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: And you further stated that he was also assaulted during that period, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Sir.

MR LAMEY: Can you just tell the Committee, did you assault him yourself?

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey, has he not said that in the supplementary statement and wasn't that the purpose? I mean really, why do we have to lead it viva voce?

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson. I wasn't sure whether his particular act was stated in so much detail in the supplementary statement. As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: You really particularised. He slapped and kicked and the assault took approximately 10 to 15 minutes. I think those are sufficient details.

MR LAMEY: Ja. As it pleases you, Chairperson.

Mr Mogoai, can you recall when he was taken - I'm referring now to Mr Mngomezulu, to this other place near the Josini dam, was it the same evening after the interrogation at this place near Piet Retief, or what is your recollection there?

MR MOGOAI: It was at the very same night after having been interrogated at that place in Piet Retief, because I'm not so well - I do not know that place very well, but after having interrogated him shortly, the same night he was taken to Piet Retief dam where there was that deserted house where we were that night.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, the translation came through as Piet Retief dam.

CHAIRPERSON: It must be Josini.

INTERPRETER: Josini dam, I beg your pardon Chair.

MR LAMEY: Now after arriving there, could you just tell, was the interrogation commenced or how did it happen further? I'm talking about this place near Josini dam.

MR MOGOAI: On our arrival there at Josini dam we took him out of the kombi into a room. It was candle lit. There were two beds in that room. He was put on the floor and that is when the interrogation started. I was called by the white officers to come and ask him questions, but I cannot exactly say who called me. But all I kept on hearing was "Piet, as him and tell him that we know that he was in Manzini". They kept on saying "Piet, ask him." That is when I continued to ask the questions in that manner.

When he responded or answered and they were not satisfied with his answers, he would be kicked and punched. Whilst he was being beaten like that he would be hitting against the walls and landing and hitting against the bed frame as well. At some stage he will be on the floor and he would faint and they would leave him at that stage. This carried on, I am not sure for how long because it was late at night and we went to sleep.

The following morning we started again with the interrogation, mainly we wanted to know about the senior PAC officials that it was alleged that he had contact with, that they were staying in Manzini or Mbabane. It was enquired of him as to what was the discussion between him and these people and as to whether they have handed him weapons already.

Most of the time Mr Mngomezulu would not respond, he would just shake his head. He did not respond well to the questions and when he did that, that is when he would be kicked and beaten up.

MR LAMEY: Can I just stop you there. Did you also assault him during these interrogation bouts?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I punched him in the face whilst he was being interrogated.

MR LAMEY: Mr Mgade has - if I could just get his statement, has stated on paragraph 34 of page 18 over to 19, that he recalls that you were also busy with the interrogation and that he thought that you were the main interrogator. Now I'm not exactly sure what Mr Mgade means by the main interrogator and the precise context in which he says that, but what is your comment about that statement? Were you instructed to interrogate and ask questions to Mr Mngomezulu, relatively more than other black members?

MR MOGOAI: This surprises me because how could I be the main interrogator because I was an askari? But I will respond to that question. Most of the time the white officers would tell me to ask Mr Mngomezulu questions. Even though I did not know how to talk the Swazi or the Zulu language, but I was the one who was given the orders to ask him the questions most of the time. I think that is why he says that I was the main interrogator, because I was the one who was instructed most of the time.

MR LAMEY: Okay. And in what language did you speak to Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MOGOAI: It was just a mixture of Zulu and Xhosa, because I do not know both languages well.

MR LAMEY: Now in your statement you have made reference to the presence of - if I can just take you back to paragraph 9, to the presence of certain members there at this interrogation period there at Josini dam. Now do you confirm what you've stated there? I just want to, specifically with - do you want to confirm that?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I confirm that, I confirm that, Chairperson, but I just have a doubt regarding one person because I was not working most of the time with these people. I doubt Steve Bosch, I'm not so certain about him, but the rest I can confirm that they were present. They might not have been present simultaneously, but they kept on coming and going at that place. But I confirm that their presence was there.

MR LAMEY: You have heard the evidence of Mr de Kock here, that he was not at all present. What is your evidence in this regard?

MR MOGOAI: I saw him there, I saw Mr de Kock there.

MR LAMEY: Did he do anything that you in particular remember?

MR MOGOAI: Whilst I was instructed to interrogate there was a moment when we were taking a break and Col de Kock arrived and he asked me if we got anything from this man and I responded by saying "No, we didn't get anything from him", and he said that he will try and remind this man and he approached this man whilst he was sitting down and he punched him in his genitals. Mr Mngomezulu screamed, he was screaming due to pain. And he left thereafter and he said that after some time he should be able to talk.

MR LAMEY: Now was Mr Mngomezulu at a certain stage left, when the interrogation stopped?

INTERPRETER: Could you please repeat your question?

MR LAMEY: Was Mr Mngomezulu at a certain stage left?

MR MOGOAI: If I can recall clearly, whilst he was being beaten against the wall and against the bed frame, he would be silent and be motionless. I think he fainted twice during that period whilst we were interrogating him.

MR LAMEY: May I just ask you this, did the interrogation at a certain stage stop?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, there were times when it would stop.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but ultimately, was there a point where it would stop? - while you were present.

MR MOGOAI: Yes, the interrogation stopped, but everybody went outside at some stage and we were all standing outside and the white officials remained inside and they went into that room.

MR LAMEY: Okay. When was the last time that you saw Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MOGOAI: When we left there after having gone outside, that was the last time I saw him.

MR LAMEY: Was that now during the night or the morning?

MR MOGOAI: It was in the morning.

MR LAMEY: And where was Mr Mngomezulu at that stage?

MR MOGOAI: He was in that room where he was being interrogated, where he was kept. He seemed to have fainted because he was resting on the bed frame, facing the wall. His head was slightly slanted.

MR LAMEY: Now can you - there has been mention made that his head was covered, what is your recollection in this regard?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I remember that. Even when he was being moved from another house to the dam, he was being covered. His face was covered with a white cloth.

MR LAMEY: Was this cover with the white cloth, what is your recollection, was it the whole time on or were there stages that it was off?

MR MOGOAI: There were times - it is not that the cloth will be removed, but due to the beatings and the bumping around the cloth would fall off and it would be loose but it would always be replaced again.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Certainly, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that Mr Mngomezulu was interrogated whilst he had this white cloth over his face?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson. That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: And this was the case during your participation of his interrogation.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And his face remained covered and the only time when the cover was off his face was when it would fall off because of the assault.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And he would again be covered and an interrogation would continue whilst his face was covered.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Now after you last saw Mr Mngomezulu in that room, did you get any instructions after that?

MR MOGOAI: They called W/O Koole and informed him that we may go back to our bases in Piet Retief.

MR LAMEY: Now what time of the day was that?

MR MOGOAI: Around 11 to 12 o'clock, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And did you go back as requested, as instructed?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, we went back.

MR LAMEY: Did you know at the time of making your application for amnesty, what happened further to Mr Mngomezulu, or any time after you last saw him did you learn what happened to him?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, I don't know what happened to him thereafter.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I'm not going to repeat this, Mr Mogoai has already confirmed also what is stated on page 42 and 43.

Just one aspect which I almost forgot. You've heard the evidence of Mr de Kock that he was told that you made use during interrogation of a barbed wire. I'm not going to repeat the detail again, but you've heard that evidence, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson. I want to put it before this Committee, Chairperson, that I was surprised by this evidence and then in front of God and before all people who were present, I swear by my forefathers that is the thing which I will never think of doing and I did not do that.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, that is the evidence-in-chief, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Lamey. Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr Mogoai, you state in your statement that you were instructed by your Commanding Officer, Brig McIntyre, to accompany Mr Beeslaar to Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you what you had to go and do there?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, he did not tell me what we're going to do, he only told me to prepare myself, to take enough clothes for three ... to a week and then I should meet Mr Beeslaar, I'm going to go with him. He didn't even explain where we were going, but he just said I'm going with him.

MR HATTINGH: And when you met up with Mr Beeslaar, did you ask him where you were going and what you were going to do?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, I did not.

MR HATTINGH: Weren't you curious to know what you were going to do or where you were going?

MR MOGOAI: Our culture as askaris, we were just instructed that we should take your things and leave. We were only following instructions, there was no opportunity to question the instructions.

MR HATTINGH: Were you still attached to Vlakplaas at that stage or were you working permanently at head office under Brig McIntyre?

MR MOGOAI: I was working with McIntyre, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: For how long had you been working with him when you received these instructions?

MR MOGOAI: I don't remember how long, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was it a matter of days, weeks, months or what?

MR MOGOAI: I don't remember, Chairperson. At times I would be placed at the farm, at times I would be placed at the various places, so I'm a little bit confused about the whole procedure and the duration which I stayed at the head office.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Can you recall on what day of the week you left for Piet Retief with Mr Beeslaar?

MR MOGOAI: I don't remember, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You heard him say it was a Saturday, can you dispute that?

MR MOGOAI: I would not dispute that, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what time did you arrive at Piet Retief?

MR MOGOAI: It was at dusk, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then you say in your statement that he went into the offices of the Security Police at Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you remain in the car?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, I remained in the car, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And for how long was he away?

MR MOGOAI: He did not take long, he came and a kombi arrived.

MR HATTINGH: Where did this kombi come from?

MR MOGOAI: Maybe it belonged to the people who were around in Piet Retief, but I don't know where it came from, but it didn't come somewhere near there. I don't know where it came from. It belonged to the group which was working in Piet Retief.

MR HATTINGH: It didn't come from the police premises did it?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did it stop where you were sitting in your vehicle?

MR MOGOAI: It stopped on the side on the street. We were on the other side of the street and it stopped on the other side of the street just parallel with our car.

MR HATTINGH: And at that time, was Beeslaar back at your vehicle already?

MR MOGOAI: I don't remember as to whether he was with whom at that time, but it was at the time when he was exiting the police gate towards the car, then he told me that I should take my belongings and go to the kombi. Then I left with them.

MR HATTINGH: And who was in this kombi?

MR MOGOAI: I don't remember well, Chairperson, but I think it's Nzimande Moses, Mgade, Mbelo. I'm not able to remember all of them because I was not working with them anymore, so I forget the identity of those who were in the kombi.

MR HATTINGH: Alright. So you then went to this place, I think you describe it in your statement - you went to a type of caravan-type of house some distance outside Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know what you were going to do there?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you didn't ask.

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, I did not ask.

MR HATTINGH: And it must have been dark when you arrived there.

MR MOGOAI: Yes it was dark, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then when you arrived there were there any white police officers present at this place?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, they were not present.

MR HATTINGH: Did some white police officials eventually arrive?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson, they arrived later. Let me explain shortly. When we arrived at that caravan house we were in a group, there were two kombis, so we were in two groups though we were in the same group. Many of those who were there I don't remember their identities, but all of them were black members.

MR HATTINGH: And you had a meal there and you sat around chatting to one another when some white police officials arrived, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Who arrived?

MR MOGOAI: Firstly it was Mr van Dyk together with Mr Pienaar. I'm not able to recollect who were other members of the white members who came later.

MR HATTINGH: In your original statement you mention the name of Bosch.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson, I mentioned Steve Bosch.

MR HATTINGH: Did he arrive?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, I think I was mistaken because I was confusing him.

MR HATTINGH: Now Mr Koole who is also represented by Mr Lamey as you are, made the same mistake, he also said Mr Bosch was there. Are you aware of that?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then he made a supplementary affidavit in which he said that he wasn't certain as to whether Mr Bosch was there, he had no recollection of him being there, words to that effect. Are you aware of that?

MR MOGOAI: Do you mean in regard to Koole's evidence?

MR HATTINGH: In a supplementary statement which I assume was drafted by Mr Lamey on his behalf, Mr Koole said in paragraph 7 -

The last sentence -

So he rectified or clarified something which he said in his original statement in the supplementary affidavit. You also made a supplementary affidavit, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you say in your supplementary affidavit that you aren't certain about the fact as to whether Mr Bosch was there or not?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, I did not state that.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR MOGOAI: Perhaps I thought that Mr Bosch was present because I don't know them that well, so I thought Mr Bosch was present and I was mistaken.

MR HATTINGH: You've heard the evidence of Mr Beeslaar, to the effect that when you arrived in Piet Retief he went to Mr Pienaar's house, were you present when he went to Mr Pienaar's house?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know where Mr Pienaar was staying at that time.

MR HATTINGH: Did he go to any private home in Piet Retief whilst you were in his company?

MR MOGOAI: He left, I don't know where he went. He knows Piet Retief well, more than I do, so I didn't know where he went to.

MR HATTINGH: Where were you when he left?

MR MOGOAI: That is the time when I boarded the kombi.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Now are you certain that you saw Mr de Kock there on this particular day, Mr Mogoai?

MR MOGOAI: I'm able to recollect, Chairperson

MR HATTINGH: Alright. Let me take you back to the caravan at that place near Piet Retief. You said some white policemen arrived, did other people thereafter also arrive there?

MR MOGOAI: At what time, Chairperson?

MR HATTINGH: After the whites arrived.

MR MOGOAI: After that, Mr de Kock arrived.

MR HATTINGH: But before Mr de Kock's arrival. You told us that van Dyk arrived, Pienaar arrived, did anybody arrive after the arrived there and before Mr de Kock arrived?

MR MOGOAI: Mr Beeslaar arrived.

MR HATTINGH: Did he arrive alone?

MR MOGOAI: I'm confusing the facts here. He came together with van Dyk.

MR HATTINGH: He came with van Dyk?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, again with Pienaar, he came with van Dyk and Pienaar.

MR HATTINGH: So van Dyk, Pienaar and Beeslaar arrived there, not van Dyk, Pienaar and Bosch, as you originally stated in your application?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know as to whether I would say he came with them, I don't know as to whether it's Bosch or whom. I don't know his name.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but now - alright, let's forget about the whites now, did somebody else arrive after they arrived there and before Mr de Kock arrived?

MR MOGOAI: You mean white members?

MR HATTINGH: Any person, white or black.

MR MOGOAI: After that Mbelo, Koole, they came together with a certain person. I don't know how many they were. Then they put that person in that house. I did not know that person then, but later I learnt that it was Mngomezulu.

MR HATTINGH: Did they put him inside the caravan-type of house?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you also go in?

MR MOGOAI: All of us entered that caravan.

MR HATTINGH: And did the questioning of this person then commence?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson. I want to explain a fact. The interrogation was confusing, I wouldn't say it was a proper interrogation because he was assaulted, then they made comments as to whether "Are you an ANC or a PAC". It was not a proper interrogation.

MR HATTINGH: When did Mr de Kock arrive at Piet Retief?

MR MOGOAI: Somewhere around that time, and it was dark at that time. After he had arrived he instructed that we should leave there and then we should go to a certain place and then they went to Josini dam.

MR HATTINGH: Now let's just get this clear. Mr de Kock arrived, was he alone?

MR MOGOAI: I just saw him inside the caravan, I didn't see as to whether he was accompanied by somebody or not.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the occasion when he asked you whether you'd had any success with your interrogation of the Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MOGOAI: No, that is not the time, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But Mr Mngomezulu was there in the room when he arrived, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And the people were still busy interrogating and assaulting him.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what did Mr de Kock do?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know as to whether whom he called, then he said we should not handle it that way, then thereafter they stopped, then they went outside, then other people were delegated to leave.

MR HATTINGH: I'm sorry, you're going a bit fast for me. Mr de Kock arrived whilst the assault and the interrogation was still ongoing, did he participate in the interrogation and the assault?

MR MOGOAI: I don't remember at that time as to whether he took part.

MR HATTINGH: But surely, he's your Commanding Officer, or he was your Commanding Officer, you would recall whether he participated in the assault.

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, he did not take part.

MR HATTINGH: So what did he do as far as you recall?

MR MOGOAI: He was not impressed of what was happening at that time, then he requested that they should cease with the interrogation and assault.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then cease your assault on Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what else did he say did you have to do? Did he give you any further instructions?

MR MOGOAI: Then he said Mngomezulu should be taken, then we'd follow other cars which would be driven by white members, then we should follow those cars. Then we went to Josini ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: Yes, alright, just take it step by step please. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Just a few moments ago you said that when Mr de Kock arrived the interrogation and the assault on Mr Mngomezulu was ongoing and he wasn't impressed with what was going on and he told you to stop, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: I stated so, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: In your affidavit - sorry, I don't think it was in your affidavit, I think it was in your evidence-in-chief, you said that de Kock arrived there, you had taken a break when he arrived.

MR MOGOAI: When did I state that?

MR HATTINGH: In your evidence. I've got my note here and my attorney sitting next to me in fact drew my attention to it, she also has a note, that you took a break and whilst you were taking this break, Mr de Kock arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: I confirm that, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR MOGOAI: That is at the time when we were at Josini dam.

MR HATTINGH: Alright, let's accept that. So he then told you to what, do get into cars and to follow him?

MR MOGOAI: Not to follow him, but to follow other cars.

MR HATTINGH: Other cars.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then leave that place that very same evening?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then travel from there at night-time to this place near Josini?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Where you spent the night?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So you didn't spend the night at Piet Retief or at that place near Piet Retief?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson, we spent the night at Josini.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock, did he also sleep there?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, I have no knowledge.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not see him again that evening?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, I did not see him.

MR HATTINGH: And the next morning you continued with your interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu and with the assault on him, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now Mr de Kock was not impressed with the way in which you did it at Moolman, that place near Piet Retief, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you before you left that place how you had to do it?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, he did not tell us.

MR HATTINGH: So he merely told you to go to this place near Josini and the next day you just continued, I take it in the same manner or fashion as you were doing the night before.

MR MOGOAI: The assault at Moolman and the interrogation there was no control, but near Josini a person would come and inform us that we should ask a question in this way. It was not the same as it was in the first instance.

MR HATTINGH: Who was that person who told you how to put the questions?

MR MOGOAI: White members, Chairperson, were instructing us how to ask questions. For the first time I was told by Mr Pienaar to ask a question in regard to his membership in the PAC and as to whether he met other members, that is senior members of the PAC in Manzini or in Mbabane.

MR HATTINGH: But Mr Pienaar was present the previous evening when you were questioning him too, wasn't he?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson, he was present.

MR HATTINGH: Did he not tell you then what you had to ask this person?

MR MOGOAI: He informed us, Chairperson, but we did not ask those questions at that particular time.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR MOGOAI: Because we were instructed to stop with the interrogation, then we went to a place near Josini, then we continued properly with the interrogation near Josini.

MR HATTINGH: And whilst you were taking a break, Mr de Kock arrived again, is that your evidence?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson, he arrived.

MR HATTINGH: Were you outside the house when he arrived there?

MR MOGOAI: I was inside the house, we were inside the house.

MR HATTINGH: And in the same room as Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And were the white police officers also still present when Mr de Kock arrived?

MR MOGOAI: At that point, Chairperson, I'm not able to verify as to whether white members were present or not.

MR HATTINGH: And - correct me if I'm mistaken, but my impression was that your evidence-in-chief was that Mr de Kock first addressed you. Did he ask you whether you'd achieved anything yet? Am I mistaken in that regard?

MR MOGOAI: Yes, he was asking me.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know why of all people he asked you whether you've achieved anything and not one of the other people, possibly a white man if he was there? - van Dyk.

MR MOGOAI: I don't know, Chairperson, why.

MR HATTINGH: Because at that stage, according to you, you weren't even working at Vlakplaas.

MR MOGOAI: I don't understand your question.

MR HATTINGH: Why of all people would de Kock ask you whether you had achieved any success, especially having regard to the fact that at that stage you weren't even employed at Vlakplaas?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know why, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you told him no, and then he went and punched him in the private parts.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what did he do then? De Kock, what did he do thereafter?

MR MOGOAI: He went out and left.

MR HATTINGH: Did he get into his car?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know where he went, but he left the room, then I don't know where he went.

MR HATTINGH: Did you see him again that day?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson, I did not.

MR HATTINGH: Not at all during that day or any subsequent day?

MR MOGOAI: I don't remember. Even when we returned I don't remember seeing him again.

MR HATTINGH: But surely you would have remembered if he came back again?

MR MOGOAI: If I saw him again I could have remembered.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. So on your version he just came in, asked whether you'd achieved any success and when you told him no, he went and punched him in the testicles and then he left again, is that your evidence?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did he ask him any questions?

MR MOGOAI: No, Chairperson. What he said is "I'll try to make him remember".

MR HATTINGH: And then he hit him, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: Something in that regard. So that he is not responding, he will remind him to respond.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. And then he said something, my note says "He left thereafter. He said that after some time he should be able to talk", words to that effect. Is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: For how long did your interrogation of Mr Mngomezulu continue on that particular day?

MR MOGOAI: We did not stay long, we did not stay the whole day there at Josini. We dispersed and we left.

MR HATTINGH: Where did you go to?

MR MOGOAI: We were instructed to leave.

MR HATTINGH: Where did you go to?

MR MOGOAI: To Piet Retief, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Who instructed you to go to Piet Retief?

MR MOGOAI: I don't know where the instructions came from, but W/O Koole was informed to come and instruct us that we should go back.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then return to Piet Retief?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that's the last time you saw Mr Mngomezulu?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that's all you know about this whole incident?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know of all the people who were there, you and Mr Koole - and I don't know if Mr Nofomela is going to say what he says in his statement, are the only three people who says that Mr de Kock was there. All the other people, including people like Mr Mbelo and according to Mr Mgade's statement, say he wasn't there. How do you explain that?

MR MOGOAI: My explanation is that I remember that I saw him at a particular time as I've already stated. As to whether he was seen by me and other people, I'm not able to comment on their behalf.

MR HATTINGH: You also made a statement to the Attorney-General and his investigating team, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And they also promised you that if you were prepared to cooperate with them and give them a full and complete version of what you knew, they would recommend that you be granted indemnity in terms a certain Section of the Criminal Procedure Act, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And did you then incriminate Mr de Kock in that statement?

MR MOGOAI: Chairperson, no. Mr de Kock was my Commander, I still respect him even today. I would not just implicate him in trouble deliberately because I wanted to wash my hands. I would not do that. I respect him very much, even today I still respect him. Even now I know that I'm here he would help me if he sees that I am unable. I am here to ask for amnesty the same as him.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Mogoai, perhaps we're at cross-purposes. Let me ask you this. Did you implicate Mr de Kock with regard to this particular incident in the statement that you made to the Attorney-General? I use the word "incriminate", let me substitute the word "implicate" for that. Maybe that's your problem.

MR MOGOAI: Do you mean I've implicated Mr de Kock? Do you say that I stated that he was present?

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell the Attorney-General what you tell this Committee, with regard to this incident and more particularly Mr de Kock's participation therein?

MR MOGOAI: I suppose so, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Don't you know?

MR MOGOAI: I don't remember the content of the statements I made to the Attorney-General. It's a long time ago, I don't remember very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you state what you have stated before this Committee to the Attorney-General with regard to the role Mr de Kock played, or that he was present when Mr Mngomezulu was interrogated?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That's the question which you have been asked.

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you. May I proceed, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you.

I want to put it to you, Mr Mogoai, that you are mistaken, that Mr de Kock was not present at any stage during the interrogation and the assault upon Mr Mngomezulu. Are you prepared to concede that you might be mistaken?

INTERPRETER: He was still drinking water, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Oh, sorry.

MR MOGOAI: He was present, Chairperson, he came. He came twice, Chairperson. Firstly he gave an instruction that we should cease with the assault and that confusion which was reigning at that point at that house near Piet Retief. Then again we left to Josini and then at Josini I saw him. I think it was in the morning when the interrogation was on and then he entered, then he stated that he would remind Mr Mngomezulu to respond to questions. That is how I remember the incident.

MR HATTINGH: You insist that he was present, is that correct?

MR MOGOAI: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, may I interpose. You will remember that we have agreed that we will conduct our proceedings today until five fifteen.

MR HATTINGH: I was about to inform you that I have no further questions, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. Mr Motata has to attend his judicial duties tomorrow at 9 o'clock as an Acting-Judge of the TCD, so we shall only be able to commence at 10 o'clock.