Special Report Transcript Episode 73, Section 2, Time 10:04

The purpose as I can remember was to remove the three activists from society so that they could no longer participate effectively in organisation and be either directly or indirectly responsible for the unrest in the townships. // Even if he had removed some radicals there were other radical leaders and members of Pebco that were alive at the time, not so? // That is correct. // Is it also not correct that Pebco formed a constituent of UDF which was the umbrella body? There were other radical political organisations like COSAS and COSATU, which had radical members. So, eliminating a specific grouping like Pebco leaders would have been inconsequential or futile. Would you agree with me? // No I don’t agree. // Explain why you don’t because you did not mention that in your application. You said you wanted to regain the initiative, but is it not correct that after the disappearance was made public and known in the media there were protests for the release or the revelation of the leaders resulting in a State of Emergency, which you do not mention, in June 1985, two months afterwards? Or July 1985, two months afterwards, because of the pressure that was exerted for the release of the leaders. Is it not correct? // That is correct. // So therefore you grossly miscalculated that the death will instead diminish activism or regain initiative where that was not the case. Not so? // Well I believed that it served a purpose and it also served a purpose, to a measure, to curb Pebco’s activities and structures, but what I’m saying is that we didn’t kidnap them to interrogate them. We kidnapped them to kill them.

Notes: Johan van Zyl; Bond Nyoka (Victims’ Lawyer)