ON RESUMPTION: 24TH AUGUST 2000 - DAY 8

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning everybody.

WILLEM HELM JOHANNES COETZEE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont)

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Coetzee, you will recall the evidence of Mr Olifant after the certain statements that he makes on page 6 of Exhibit A and especially this section in this one paragraph where he says:

"Pretorius told me that if he was caught, he would have to be killed, as he would talk like others were busy doing."

Did you have any knowledge of this, that Mr Pretorius made such a statement?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know if it was a fear that Mr Pretorius expressed?

MR COETZEE: He never discussed it in such a way with me, no.

MR HATTINGH: In his statement that he made, his first statement, it seems as if he says that you were also involved in such a discussion.

MR COETZEE: I deny it Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You never told him or anybody else that you had a certain fear that Mr Bambo could talk about projects in which he was involved in?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, if I can explain it as follows, since '86, '87 there were various members who were arrested abroad and they were at that stage detained and they were then questioned by the ANC's Intelligence Service. Some of these members were involved in these incidents and it was very clear that these members would have disclosed some of these incidents because they were revealed as agents in the years 90's, concerning one of these specific incidents referring to the Pantso case, that person had already been arrested and was detained abroad. That eventually provided the ANC's Intelligence Service with this information and revealed this operation to them and would have identified the people who were involved in this and it was also at that stage a reality.

MR HATTINGH: Why would you say that?

MR COETZEE: With the return of these people at a later stage, those who were not, who did not die under detention, they revealed to us and they told us they had no other choice but to recall the specific incidents with which they were confronted, the members involved, the modus operandi of the Security Police in this regard.

CHAIRPERSON: What you have just said, do you know it as a fact?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: At what stage did these members return and report back?

MR COETZEE: It was in the beginning of '91 or in the middle of '91.

MR HATTINGH: So it could have been after this incident had taken place, Mr Bambo's case?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And where Mr Bambo was killed, you did not have information that these facts had been disclosed to the ANC?

MR COETZEE: No Mr Chairperson, at that stage there were already newspapers reports published by the ANC locally, where they made certain allegations that these agents had their handlers, the operations they were involved in and the operational programmes which we had at that stage and that this was disclosed to them.

MR HATTINGH: Is your evidence now, Mr Coetzee, that it did not matter to you who said what about your activities at that stage, that is now the stage at which Mr Bambo died?

MR COETZEE: When he died, Mr Chairperson, I just want to say that at that stage the RS programme in which I was involved, was suspended since February that year and there were various RS members, by saying that I mean members of the Force, they received reports and they were taken into the covert operation system and a lot of them did not want to associate themselves with the police and then found new work in the private sector. What I'm meaning is that the people were spread out, there were various members who were not with us anymore and we had no control over them anymore and our whole set-up and our plans could then be disclosed by them.

MR HATTINGH: That is not my question. My question is very simple. During the Bambo case, did it not matter to you what members or agents disclosed what about your operations?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, I would say no.

MR HATTINGH: It didn't matter.

MR COETZEE: It would have mattered yes, it was something that bothered me, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Of course. You did not want these matters to be disclosed?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And these newspaper reports and allegations that were made in the papers was based on speculations.

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that except for the fact that as I've already mentioned, that they later confirm that they did disclose it.

MR HATTINGH: But this is now at this stage, this is now August 1990. I'm not quite sure if that was the date of the Harms report, but that is approximately when the Harms Commission was going on, did the police deny all involvement in criminal activities?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Two teams of advocates, both teams with a senior and a junior, they all had to represent the Police in front of the Harms Commission?

MR COETZEE: That is correct, yes, that is what I understood.

MR HATTINGH: And then Judge Harms brought out a report that supported the police at that stage?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And now a few months later we have the death of Mr Bambo.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Who had information similar to that which you denied in front of the Harms Commission.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, I was not part of the Harms Commission, but I do agree with Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Now Mr Bambo, I'm sorry, Mr Olifant, the evidence concerning the incidents that I deal with with him in Exhibit A, you deny that evidence, is that correct? Not all of them, but some of them?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So for example - if you can just give me a moment. On the first incident, on page 1 of the statement, I think it was put to him that you applied for amnesty for that incident and that you are certain that Bambo was not involved in this incident?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Why are you so sure about this?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, because two RS members were involved in this and I also mention it in my application and I know it was Selamolela, was the co-handler. It was not a human directed operation, it was for credibility of the RS members who had to follow these instructions and of their cross-border MK handlers.

MR HATTINGH: And was Mr Olifant involved in this incident?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I already mentioned that he was involved in this incident. I may be mistaken.

MR HATTINGH: If you may be mistaken then concerning his possible involvement, why cannot you then make a mistake with Mr Bambo's involvement?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot see why such a large amount of members had to be involved in it, while the primary members, the people who had to throw the handgrenades and those who had to be present, they were RS 269's and 265's. Now it seems as if you are saying that because you cannot understand why so many had to be involved, you say Olifant and Bambo were not involved.

MR COETZEE: I would just like to highlight who the primary agents had to be, or who were supposed to be present.

MR HATTINGH: So you can recall the primary agents?

MR COETZEE: Yes, who were involved specifically in this operation.

MR HATTINGH: But apart from them, there could have been others who could have assisted them?

MR COETZEE: Yes, then it could have been that without me knowing it that they did accompany them, but I was not aware of Bambo's presence.

MR HATTINGH: In other words you are not able to tell if Bambo was involved or not?

MR COETZEE: I cannot confirm it.

MR HATTINGH: You also cannot deny it, Mr Coetzee.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. The second incident you say, or you tell me, this is now the last paragraph in Exhibit A, I do not want to mislead you but my note states that you do not know anything about this incident, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: This is an incident where limpet mines were placed at certain hostels?

MR COETZEE: Yes that is according to his evidence.

MR HATTINGH: That is a very serious allegation.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you say that you do not know anything about this incident?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Would members under your command have done this on own initiative?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, I had a Commander above me, that was Col de Jager, then I was not informed about this

MR HATTINGH: But they say that you and de Jager and Pretorius accompanied them to the hostel.

MR COETZEE: I was not present and I do not know about this.

MR HATTINGH: Can you think of a reason why he would incriminate himself in such a serious incident?

MR COETZEE: It's unknown to me.

MR HATTINGH: Now the third incident, that is the one that appears on page 2, the second paragraph where he talks about:

"Another incident also took place during 1986. Coetzee and Pretorius summoned Military Intelligence to come to Johannesburg."

What do you say about this incident?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, I applied for amnesty for this specific incident, I do know about it.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr Bambo involved in it?

MR COETZEE: I was not there myself, so I cannot say. Col Pretorius will be able to comment about the specific incident and who was present.

MR HATTINGH: But if my note is correct here, it was put to Mr Olifant that you were involved in this incident, but Mr Bambo was not involved in it.

MR COETZEE: If you can just repeat that please?

MR HATTINGH: According to the note that I made, it was put to Mr Olifant and your evidence was that you do know about it, that you were involved in it, but Mr Bambo wasn't.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, because it was an operation from Col Pretorius.

MR HATTINGH: What about Mr Olifant? Was he involved in it?

MR COETZEE: Yes. I said yesterday I believe he was because he worked directly under Col Pretorius' command.

MR HATTINGH: If he says then that Bambo was there, can you deny it?

MR COETZEE: I do not believe that Col Pretorius will make use of my team members.

MR HATTINGH: So you're just making an inference that he wasn't there because you do not think that Mr Pretorius would have made use of one of your team members.

MR COETZEE: I do not see why they would have involved him.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but you do not know if he was involved, or not, you are now speculating.

MR COETZEE: No, Sir, I would like to put it as follows. Col Pretorius never mentioned to me that that person was involved in such an incident on instructions of him.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know if Olifant was involved?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I do, he was involved.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Pretorius tell you this?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Then concerning the fourth incident, my note states that the same counts for the fourth incident, or your evidence is that Bambo was not involved.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Why do you say that?

MR COETZEE: I can recall the specific incident Mr Chairperson and the fact that we were accompanied by members of the Special Forces, or Units, that we were mainly a white group.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Olifant, was he present?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on Mr Olifant. It could have been that he was present. I believe with Col Pretorius we will be able to clear this up further.

MR HATTINGH: But if you cannot if he was there or not, why can you say that you know that Mr Bambo wasn't present?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, from my side on that specific evening, I can recall specifically all the white members and I can recall my role and function in this incident and I can also recall that we were primarily white members who accompanied Special Forces.

MR HATTINGH: Do you then deny that Mr Olifant was present?

MR COETZEE: I believe Mr Chairperson that Col Pretorius will be able to assist there.

MR HATTINGH: I'm not asking what Mr Pretorius can say, I'm asking about your knowledge. You were there.

MR COETZEE: If I can look at my application to refresh my memory.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, you are free to do it but before you do it, without looking at your application, do you have any recollection of this?

MR COETZEE: It could have been that he was there, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, can you look at your application then please. Did you find it Mr Coetzee?

MR COETZEE: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairperson, we are just looking for the specific incident.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, maybe between myself and Mr Pretorius, these are huge applications. We can try and find it. The moment we have it we will give it, in the meantime if Mr Hattingh wants to proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the next question dependent on what they find Mr Hattingh?

MR HATTINGH: It may very well be, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's give him the necessary time.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to page frantically, take your time.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, I do have my application in front of me.

MR HATTINGH: Please look at it and look to see if you mention that Mr Olifant was present or not.

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, I agree with the applications of Lieut Gen Coetzee and Col de Jager in this regard. I do not notice or see that I mentioned specific people except for my own role and function in this specific incident.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, you cannot recall what Mr de Jager said in this regard.

MR COETZEE: If I recall, he only referred to myself and Pretorius and Coetzee as well as the Special Forces members who were all involved in this operation, what the purpose was and that we received instructions to execute this operation.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Mr Olifant is certain that Mr Bambo was there. He says that he carried the 25L diesel and that he broke the window to throw this into the building.

MR COETZEE: Can I just point it out that nobody carried diesel. We were there with a vehicle. It was taken from the vehicle and it was then thrown into the building. I had one of the containers with the diesel as I explained it in my application, that I threw in the building before it was set alight.

MR HATTINGH: Well you had to carry the diesel from the house to the vehicle, or from the vehicle to the building.

MR COETZEE: Well we parked right next to the building.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that you threw the diesel in the building from the vehicle?

MR COETZEE: Yes, the vehicle was close to the building.

MR HATTINGH: So you never left the vehicle?

MR COETZEE: Yes, we did. We left the vehicle and we moved towards the building.

MR HATTINGH: Well you had to carry the diesel even if it was just one or two metres. You're not quite sure if Mr Olifant was there or not?

MR COETZEE: In my application I do not refer to him.

MR HATTINGH: But you also say in your application that he wasn't there.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And what your recollection is now presently, is that you're not quite sure if he was there or not?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now I will put it to you just to finalise this matter, if you cannot recall that Mr Olifant was there, then you cannot recall if Mr Bambo was there. Very well. I would just like to go back to a few aspects that I have dealt with in passing. You say that, I now forgot his rank, I think it was Brig van Rensburg.

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: That you were told by him to again appoint Mr Bambo after he was released from prison for the first time.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Olifant's evidence is that there was a discussion at Headquarters about the question if he must be appointed again or not.

MR COETZEE: That is possible, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you not recall if there was such a discussion?

MR COETZEE: I was not in ...(indistinct) myself. I know that I got my instructions via Schoeman, he dealt with this matter.

MR HATTINGH: But you are quite sure that you were told by Head Office to again Mr Bambo?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And when you arrived there, it was a fact and he came to accept his appointment?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can I just refer you to your statement and application in this regard? On page 9 of bundle 3, sorry page 8, beginning at the bottom of page 8, paragraph 2.3.

"At a certain stage, I'm not quite sure of the date, Strongman was involved in a robbery and he was charged, found guilty and sentenced to prison. To the best of my recollection he served a year or two after which he again came to me to ask for work."

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: That is not correct, not according to your evidence now.

MR COETZEE: I think Mr Chairperson, I now give the details of the process that led to his re-appointment at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: But he never came to you, he went to Brig van Rensburg to ask for work and you were just told to again appoint him.

MR COETZEE: It could be so, but I had a direct channel to Roelf van Rensburg, and I also did some homework last night concerning this and I was informed that the Brigadier was the Commander of the Far North and was also involved in the Head Office.

MR HATTINGH: But now you say that he could have been with you.

MR COETZEE: I believe that because I was in contact with him on a daily basis, they were all living at the same house.

MR HATTINGH: But he just came out of jail and now you say that you were in contact with him on a daily basis.

MR COETZEE: No, on a daily basis I went to the house where Olifant and some of the other people lived.

MR HATTINGH: But did you have contact with him at that stage?

MR COETZEE: I cannot recall the specifics, but I would just like to inform you about how the process went, that then led, at the end of the day, to his re-appointment.

MR HATTINGH: My question to you, Mr Coetzee, was did you have contact with him on a daily basis after he was released from prison?

MR COETZEE: Contact yes, in that I met him at the place where he lived.

MR HATTINGH: Now you use the expression "I would have".

MR COETZEE: I can.

MR HATTINGH: I'm sorry, you can, you could be in contact with him. But are you not able to tell us if you were in contact with him or not?

MR COETZEE: If I can put it clearly, I was in contact with him, but I cannot recall in what context.

MR HATTINGH: And did he, during this contact that you had with him, ask you for work?

MR COETZEE: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Because it's very clear, according to your evidence, that he wanted to come back to work, because according to you he approached van Rensburg.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But you cannot recall if he ever approached you.

MR COETZEE: If I can put it this way. I cannot recall, he could have approached me.

MR HATTINGH: And you do concede in plain Afrikaans, if you look at the sentence on the bottom of page 809 that: "He again approached me for work" means that he came to you for work. Can you recall if he did it or not?

MR COETZEE: It is possible, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Well if it is possible, what would your reaction have been if he approached you firstly?

MR COETZEE: I would not have been able to appoint him, Mr Chairperson, because he was found guilty of a criminal offence.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall that you said something like that to him?

MR COETZEE: No, I cannot.

MR HATTINGH: You do recall Mr Olifant's evidence in this regard that you told Mr Olifant that you wanted Mr Bambo to come and work again with you and that he must tell him that?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, sorry if I interrupt, I have it that that was at a later stage. Olifant's evidence was the statement now put to Mr Coetzee was in relation to the time between October and December 1990 and not the stage where Mr Coetzee is now.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I recall it as - that's correct, Mr Wagener.

MR HATTINGH: I agree with him, I was wrong, so I apologise. Very well. Let us then deal with that. You did ask Mr Olifant to contact Mr Bambo?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: This was now after he was suspended?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you wanted Mr Bambo to come and work with you again?

MR COETZEE: No, I differed with him there.

MR HATTINGH: Can you think why he would have said this if it wasn't true?

MR COETZEE: I do not know Mr Chairperson, that's maybe the impression that he had.

MR HATTINGH: But how is it possible that he had that impression?

MR COETZEE: Well the fact that he wanted to make contact with them and that I was looking for him.

MR HATTINGH: I do not know if you are aware of this, but during the time when we heard about other incidents, Mr de Kock, in an attempt to mislead Mr Harms, people who served at Vlakplaas and were then transferred to Bloemfontein, were then taken back to Vlakplaas until the Harms Commission was concluded, to prevent them from coming forward and disclosing certain operations in which they were involved in, do you know about that?

MR COETZEE: No, Mr Chairperson, I was not part of it.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock also testified that they went to a lot of trouble to protect people who had a lot of sensitive information, to keep them as happy as possible and to keep them under the impression that they, also like Mr Nofomela, from disclosing their involvement in these operations.

MR COETZEE: I do not know anything about it, I'm not part of it.

MR HATTINGH: You also testified that Joe Mamasela, where they generated a lot of money for him, that he had children in a private school, that he had a safety fence around his house, all actions that were taken to prevent him from talking?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that because in terms of our own unit, nobody ever gave me instructions to take this person in again after that last incident where I suspended his services.

MR HATTINGH: What I'm asking you now, I'm not quite sure about this because my notes do not say that it was a statement that was made by you, or if it was a version of Mr Olifant, but somewhere there was mention made about a fear that if the police arrested Mr Bambo, he would have gone over to violence and he could have killed or injured somebody.

MR COETZEE: Yes, the statement was made by Mr Olifant with reference to a discussion between him and Col Pretorius.

MR HATTINGH: Have you ever had such a fear?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I believe that I knew his background, he could have, yes, with any action against him, knowing specifically at that stage that his services had been suspended and certain allegations that were made against him concerning criminal activities, and he could have, in such a situation, resorted, as Mr Olifant put it or Mr Pretorius put it, it could have been that he then would have resorted to violence.

MR HATTINGH: And while you foresaw that possibility at that stage, did you do anything to prevent such a situation.

MR COETZEE: Then I would have made - I would have requested Mr Olifant again for the second time and as I said yesterday, I would have attempted to get hold of him. I did not make a second request to Mr Olifant. I also did not take the initiative to make or to arrange for a meeting with Mr Bambo and I also said yesterday that it was possible for me, if I really wanted to get hold of him, I could. I however did not do it.

MR HATTINGH: You heard Mr Olifant's evidence that his impression during the conversation with Mr Bambo was that he had a certain fear that because of that he changed his residential address.

MR COETZEE: Yes, I heard that Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Then if that is correct, then you wouldn't have been able to get hold of him that easily.

MR COETZEE: It would still have been easy to get hold of him.

MR HATTINGH: Did you want to talk to him to prevent such a violent outburst, or possible violent outburst?

MR COETZEE: No, Mr Chairperson, I wanted to inform him that I am aware of certain allegations. I am sure I would have questioned him about these allegations. As I have already said, I would have warned him that if he was involved in any criminal activities and there is substance to it and if I had substance, I would have acted against him at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: So you wanted to warn him that if he had information about criminal activities on his side, he would have warned him and that he had to take responsibility for his criminal activities.

MR COETZEE: This meeting, Mr Chairperson, never took place,

MR HATTINGH: Yes, I do know that, but did you want to get certain information from Mr Bambo.

MR COETZEE: Yes, because as a handler who knew them, I think I had the capacity to talk to this person.

MR HATTINGH: That is not the question Mr Coetzee, I'm asking you a very simple question. Did you want to get certain information from him?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What information?

MR COETZEE: Well in terms of the allegations that were made against him, his activities with other criminals.

MR HATTINGH: My notes about your evidence here is that you had two reasons why you wanted to contact him.

MR COETZEE: The first one that you mentioned was to talk about him and then extract information from him.

MR HATTINGH: Well what information did you want to extract from him?

MR COETZEE: As I just put it, Mr Chairperson, I would have discussed him, or I would warn him first of all and then if there was certain substance to these allegations that he was involved in criminal activities, I would have warned him.

MR HATTINGH: Did you really believe that Mr Bambo would go to you and say: "Yes, I did rob Barclays Bank, or First National Bank and the week before I robbed Trust Bank", do you think he would have done that?

MR COETZEE: Mr Chairperson, I do not think he would have disclosed everything to me, but I'm sure he would have conveyed some information to me and he would have then used that to take certain steps against him and to ensure that he would be charged for them. I cannot really comment what I would have done at that stage, because the meeting was never realised and I never received any information from him.

MR HATTINGH: But you said that if you found any substance in the allegations that he was involved in criminal activities, you would have taken certain steps against him.

MR COETZEE: Yes, I would have managed the process.

MR HATTINGH: But then if he did give you information that he was involved in criminal activities, then it would have been a statement to you. What would you have done then?

MR COETZEE: I would have managed the process with the relevant units, or through the command structure, where he could then act as a State witness.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, let's leave it there. You also stated in your evidence, let me just find my notes, I'm not sure whether it's correct verbatim but it was put to you in more-or-less words to the following extent:

"Suppose Strongman was a great security risk, what would you have done about that?"

Can you recall?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall what your answer was?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson, I think so.

MR HATTINGH: Would you repeat it for us please, because my note is very cryptic?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I said that the process would have had to run its course and if I was held accountable for such acts, then they would have taken acts against me, like in the case of Col de Kock and that is why I'm still here today. It's a process that's being managed and in terms of these incidents, I have already signed warning statements at the A-G's office.

MR HATTINGH: Please explain to us in simple language, what do you mean when you say that the process would have run its course.

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I would have been prosecuted.

MR HATTINGH: I mean what would you have done if Strongman was a security risk for you?

MR COETZEE: There were two alternatives.

MR HATTINGH: Let us hear.

MR COETZEE: If I may say so, Chairperson, if I may put it as such, (1) the process runs its course which would have been reasonable for me and (2) I could have acted against this person myself. This would not have brought me anywhere because there were so many of these people, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now, I'm asking you once again, you are saying that the process would have run its course, what do you mean by that?

MR COETZEE: In brief, Chairperson, they would have criminally prosecuted me.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Coetzee, I am not certain whether you and I are on the same level now. Let us suppose the question was put to you by your legal representative on a hypothetical basis and he said that suppose Bambo, before his death, was a security risk to you, what would you have done about it? With regard to Bambo, not what would happen afterwards to you.

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I have given the two alternatives. I do not know whether I understand Mr Hattingh properly. The alternatives to which I want to refer is that I act myself against the particular person. I could have gone to Col de Kock for assistance or I could have let the process run its course where he would have disclosed everything where there was an investigation and where I would be charged for these particular incidents, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What would this process have been that had to run its course.

MR COETZEE: By that I mean the investigation and the criminal accountability on my part.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just put aside that possibility. Let us look at the other possibility that you have mentioned, that you could act yourself. What do you mean by that?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, that I could have killed this person.

MR HATTINGH: You were very hesitant to put it as forthright, but you would have considered that possibility if he was a risk to you?

MR COETZEE: I did not get to that point?

MR HATTINGH: But you would have, Mr Coetzee.

MR COETZEE: Yes, that's what I said. That would have been one of the alternatives Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So it was not a foreign concept with you that if your security was threatened, that persons would be killed in order to combat that threat?

MR COETZEE: As you have said, that possibility did exist Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then you added that you would have approached Mr de Kock for assistance. Why?

MR COETZEE: Because I know Mr de Kock and I was aware of Vlakplaas and I had already been involved with Mr de Kock in operations.

MR HATTINGH: So you were aware that Vlakplaas's operational unit, more specifically of the Security Police that was used to act violently against the then enemies of the Government ...(end of tape)

MR COETZEE: ... did not have much knowledge about internal operations. I was not involved there.

MR HATTINGH: Did you think that they would act internally?

MR COETZEE: The possibility was there.

MR HATTINGH: You mention a possibility now, but you say that you may have approached Mr de Kock for assistance and that was to kill someone within the Republic?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So you yourself, you would not have undertaken the elimination?

MR COETZEE: I could have Chairperson, but I never got to that point.

MR HATTINGH: Now, are you aware of the circulars from Head Office to all other units of the South African police with regard to the applications of Vlakplaas and its members?

MR COETZEE: I believe so, although I cannot recall right now.

MR HATTINGH: You see, Mr de Kock on various occasions gave evidence, in the very first case that was handled with regard to his applications with regard to Vlakplaas and what it consisted of, what its purposes were, how it was used and so forth and he did this in a supplementary affidavit which has served before just about every Committee where his applications have been heard and in this document, this supplementary affidavit, he mentions this, that there were circulars which stated that not any member of the Security Police, could approach Mr de Kock for assistance, that the Commander of C1, the overhead Commander, in other words Mr de Kock's Commander, had to be approached for assistance. He could not be directly approached, are you aware of that?

MR COETZEE: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: May I interrupt here? In fairness to the witness, I think Mr Hattingh should also put that those circulars he referred to were in 1980, 1981 and they referred to lawful action to be taken by the Vlakplaas component. In fairness to the witness, the statement should be complete.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this so?

MR HATTINGH: That is so, Mr Chairman. I accept that. But I want to put it to you Mr Coetzee that you could not just go to Vlakplaas and say; "Listen here, will you come and kill this guy for me?"

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And now, this is Mr de Kock's version, that the correct procedure had been followed here, you went through Gen Engelbrecht and directed your request for assistance through him.

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that Chairperson, I was not present where such a request was directed and I did not direct such a request to the General.

MR HATTINGH: Very well.

MR WAGENER: Sorry to interrupt again, but there was never evidence that it was the prescribed procedure that for unlawful acts like the killing of someone, the procedure in terms of the circulars had to be followed. It is not a fair statement put by Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, Gen van der Merwe gave evidence on several occasions and he made it quite clear that they would never have spelled out criminal conduct in a letter like that. The inference was clear that if you want to use Vlakplaas for legitimate or illegitimate purposes you had to approach them through their Commanding Officer. They couldn't possibly say in a circular like that: "If you want Vlakplaas to commit crimes, you must do this or that and the other", they would never have said something like that, that would be totally naive Mr Chairman.

ADV SANDI: Wouldn't they have used, in that kind of situation, some kind of code language like for example to say: "Please do something about this man"?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I submit that it became abundantly clear, throughout all these hearings, what Vlakplaas was there for and what it was used for and the intention was that it should always be through the Commanding Officer.

CHAIRPERSON: That's correct. No, no, that is the tenor of the evidence. Should we rehash it, because we have listened to so many of these incidents and the monster Vlakplaas became to be, should we rehash that?

MR HATTINGH: I submit it's not necessary Mr Chairman, I'm going to deal with a further aspect which emerged from these circulars that were sent to all units.

CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Coetzee, in these circulars it was made clear that if Vlakplaas' assistance was needed to come and work in a certain area, then they work under the command of the Commander in that area. Were you aware of that?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson, although I was not involved with that unit. I would just like to point out to the Committee, we were an Intelligence Unit. We were not involved, not according to my knowledge with such operations. There were units and in this regard, if I could just shed more light on this, Col Grobler of Soweto who specifically in this regard dealt with Col de Kock's unit and as an Intelligence Unit we were not exposed or to the best of our ability we tried not to expose ourselves.

MR HATTINGH: The Pantso operation in Swaziland, when that happened, which unit were you attached to?

MR COETZEE: Intelligence Unit, Soweto, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you participated in that operation?

MR COETZEE: Yes Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock's assistance was also called in?

MR COETZEE: Yes and this took place under instruction, this was executed by Col de Kock as operational Commander on instruction of Head Office and a person mentioned in this statement, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Very well then. Now we also know from evidence which has been led through many Committees and before the Harms Commission when the revelations of Mr Coetzee and Mr Nofomela came about, Vlakplaas, to use an idiom here, was put on ice, can you recall that?

MR COETZEE: I can recall that Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock's evidence was, in many of those instances and it would appear from this supplementary affidavit of his, that he was supposedly suspended from the service, pending the Harms Commission's investigation, where you there?

MR COETZEE: That is what I heard, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: In other words, that the impression which was created to the outside was that action was taken against these persons while these investigations are on-going and up till a finding is made, they will not render any service. Were you aware of that?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I can remember that, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you will concede that there were very few instances during the last part of 1989 and the first part of 1990 that made more headlines than the Harms Commission and the evidence that was led there.

MR COETZEE: That's possible, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: It's not possible, it was in the news daily.

MR COETZEE: Yes, I can recall there was media coverage.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr de Kock also said, you may have been aware of his evidence and you must have heard that all of a sudden Vlakplaas and Vlakplaas' people became lepers, no-one wanted to associate with them, the parties that were held there and that were attended by the Generals in Staff just did not take place anymore, you were aware of that?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that, I was not a regular visitor to Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: And you will certainly concede that at that stage Vlakplaas was for the Security Police in particular, a very big embarrassment.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then you will also concede that it would have been unwise to approach Vlakplaas here a month, two or three months after the Harms Commission, to go and kill someone?

MR COETZEE: That's possible, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And specifically not to go and kill someone who had been officially detained in a prison and been taken out of there.

MR COETZEE: That is logical, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Because this is not someone one would go and await or go and abduct at night and just make him disappear, one has to say what happened to this person because he is officially imprisoned.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And if he is taken out of that prison and he attempts to escape, or attempts to assault someone and he is killed, he's shot dead and the person who kills him is a member of Vlakplaas, it would have caused great consternation, is that not so?

MR COETZEE: I believe so Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And I put it to you, that is the reason why they did not use the services of Vlakplaas for the killing of the person.

MR COETZEE: At this stage on this aspect, I cannot comment, Chairperson, but it's logical Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But instead thereof, they used the services of an experienced murder and robbery detective, who is trusted among the ranks so much that he was acceptable to Mr de Kock as a member of Vlakplaas.

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And who was so reliable in the police ranks that indeed later he became a member of the Security Police.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson, he did become a member of the Security Branch later.

MR HATTINGH: Vlakplaas was indeed used to perform services which would not come to light later, namely the establishment of weapons cache points.

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But when the killing took place, there was not a member involved in the killing thereof.

MR COETZEE: That's how it was testified here, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And when the killing took place, it was only this Koekemoer who was so reliable, who could testify as to how it happened.

MR COETZEE: That is how he told it, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: May I just hear from you, when was your amnesty application handed in?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, let me just have a look. On the 17th of December 1996, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And thereafter you did not supplement it?

MR COETZEE: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: By supplementing, I mean you did not bring in any new applications?

MR COETZEE: Not that I can recall, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I am informed that the final cut-off date was in September of 1997.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So in December of 1996 you handed in your application?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you say before that you heard about this incident?

MR COETZEE: I heard of this incident with the applications in December. The time period immediately before the 16th/17th of December, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Just before that you heard about this incident?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: How did you hear of it?

MR COETZEE: It was in Mr Wagener's offices, Chairperson. There was an allegation made that we were responsible for the killing of Bambo, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Who made this allegation?

MR COETZEE: I cannot recall Chairperson, but I want to imagine we were informed at that stage that it was made by Col de Kock.

MR HATTINGH: But that is incorrect. Mr de Kock never in his criminal trial testified about that.

MR COETZEE: That is what I can recall Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can I read to you what was said about it in his criminal trial? I refer to bundle - I do not know whether it's part of the bundle, but the evidence of Mr Koekemoer that was attached to the documents, page 11763. There he is questioned by Mr Pretorius who was the Prosecutor in Mr de Kock's case. It starts on page 11762, Mr Pretorius. He says:

"I thank the Court, there was an incident where a certain Bambo was killed in Nelspruit, is that correct?"

And Mr Koekemoer says:

"Your Worship, if you would just refresh my memory."

And then he says, Mr Pretorius:

"A person Adriano Louis Bambo, a person who was arrested by the Eastern Transvaal Murder and Robbery unit and who was allegedly taken out to identify a DLB, a weapons cache point in the Nelspruit vicinity and then he was killed on the scene there because he allegedly grabbed a handgrenade, can you recall that incident?"

And he says:

"That is correct."

And then Mr Pretorius says:

"I shall be brief, I shall put it to you that I have an affidavit from Lionel Snyman in this regard, or I have seen the affidavit in that regard and I have also consulted with Dawid Brits in this regard. Is it so that before you took this person to Nelspruit vicinity, that you went to Vlakplaas? And I also wish to say to you that you must be careful as the Court has indicated initially that you do not have to incriminate yourself."

And then His Worship Judge van der Merwe says and he confirms that the witness does not have to incriminate himself, and here on line 20, Mr Pretorius continues and says, he says to the Court that the witness went to Vlakplaas himself and the Judge says that he was alone and he says:

"I do not know whether this leads to any incrimination."

And Mr Koekemoer says:

"I have been to Vlakplaas before then."

And then Mr Pretorius continues:

"Is it so that Dawid Brits went down with you to the Nelspruit vicinity?"

And he says:

"No, that is not true."

And then Mr Pretorius says that:

"My information is that beforehand a weapons cache point was established there with landmines that Dawid Brits had supplied."

And he says"

"I do not know of that."

"Very well and then the person was shot there at the scene, is that correct?"

And he says:

"That is correct."

Mr Pretorius says:

"The point I wish to make is that in some instances you also assisted C10's people and you did favours for each other, is that correct?"

And he says:

"Can you just qualify that?"

And Justice van der Merwe intercedes and says that:

"You sometimes assisted them with operations and they assisted you with operations, because it has already been said that by means of handlers, askaris were of assistance to you."

And he says:

"That is correct."

And he continues:

"And the statement was further and consequently favours were done for each other, in other words did favours for each other, rolled boulders out of the way for each other, that is what it boils down to."

And he interrupts the Judge there and he says:

"The basis was strictly work basis."

That is the sum total of what Mr Koekemoer had to say about the Bambo incident and I'm telling you now Mr de Kock did not testify about it, I was previously wrong, but I may be incorrect now but my recollection is that Mr de Kock did not testify about this himself and I would have expected that if he did give evidence about this, that his evidence would be attached to this, as it has been done in other incidents.

Now I have spoken long now, Mr Coetzee, but the conclusion that I reach is that you could not have heard from the criminal trial of Mr de Kock, that you could not have heard from that that you had been involved in the Bambo incident, do you agree?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And I also cannot see how Mr Wagener had insight into Mr Snyman's statement to the police.

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, if I may just add, at that stage all the SAP applicants got together at Mr Wagener's office and there were discussions with regard to incidents and if I recall correctly, I referred that Col de Kock, that it was said in his trial that we were responsible for the death of this person, but what I can recall is that in the Adriano Bambo case, because he was an informer of ours, was being attached to us by somebody else as well as other incidents that we did not describe at that stage and for which we did not apply for amnesty for the pure reason Chairperson, because we were not involved.

MR HATTINGH: Let us see then, who could have given evidence about this, or information about this? Mr Snyman here said that he did not know of your involvement, do you recall that?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: He just said that he received instruction to supply equipment or explosives for the establishment of a weapons cache point. Do you recall that?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Brits, up to that stage, did not make an affidavit. Mr Pretorius puts it clearly that he consulted with him and you will recall Mr Britsí evidence - maybe I should just return back to Mr Snyman. You will recall that he justified that he told Ms de Jager about this incident but when he referred to Mr Human, and Koekemoer's involvement, he was told: "Just keep quiet about this" and when he had to testify against Mr de Kock in the criminal trial, he feared that I knew of the fact that he can testify about this incident and that there was no statement about him and only then a statement was taken from him. Do you recall that evidence?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I just need to check one aspect. In Mr Britsí statement, which appears from page 79 in bundle 2, you also, if I have a look here quickly, also do not mention your or Mr Pretorius' alleged involvement in the death of Mr Bambo, he only says that he contacted Koekemoer from Murder and Robbery. Yes, I'm reading quite fast, but my recollection is that he did not mention you and Pretorius and I do not see it in his statement, when I read it quickly, so it would sound to me, Mr Coetzee, as if information with regard to your alleged involvement in the Bambo incident, did not come from Mr Brits as well.

MR COETZEE: I cannot recall how this specific incident was placed there. It was one of two or three incidents as amongst others, the black handgrenades in Alexandra to which I was connected and I denied it there and for which I did not submit any application.

MR HATTINGH: Well, let us just stick to the Bambo incident. The only persons who knew of what had happened there, firstly with regard to the weapons cache point, Mr Brits and Snyman, they do not mention you and possibly Mr Koekemoer may have known of it and he does not mention you, he does not ask for amnesty, does not mention the two of you as persons who were involved, so where could you have received this information that you had allegedly been involved in this incident?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I cannot recall how this specific - maybe Col Anton who went with me through this process later, maybe he can shed some light on this aspect. I do not know whether it could have come from Brig Thoms(sic), but there were a myriad of allegations made against us, Chairperson, and these instances where there was substance, which we were involved in, we applied for amnesty, Chairperson, but however today I cannot say where, but it's possible it may have come from Brig Thoms' side, I do not know, but this Bambo case was connected to me because it was the man that I handled in the past Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But where would Brig Thoms have received that information, if it came from him?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment, the only thing I can say, Chairperson, is that I signed a warning statement at the A-G's office with regard to this incident, after a myriad of allegations were made against me, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: When did you sign that warning statement?

MR COETZEE: In 1989, Chairperson, or 1999.

MR HATTINGH: Years after the cut-off date for amnesty applications?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So can you recall whether that was the first time when you heard of it?

MR COETZEE: No Chairperson, what I wanted to say here was that there I also went to sign a warning statement at the A-G's office regarding this incident, so I do not know where they received their information or statements from, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is the truth not the following, Mr Coetzee, you knew that the only persons who could know, who had first-hand knowledge of this incident insofar as it sheds light on your possible involvement, was firstly Mr de Kock, secondly possibly Mr Human, three, possibly Mr Koekemoer and not one of them spoke up, not one of them applied for amnesty for this incident, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on their applications. It is clear that Capt Koekemoer who testified here, did not apply for amnesty and I do not know of Brig Human's application or whether he had submitted an application in this regard.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but he would have been here if he had submitted an application.

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So he did not apply.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So you accepted that, 'no-one would talk about this incident, that is why I will not talk about it.'

MR COETZEE: I deny that, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And when this was exposed, it was too late for you to apply for amnesty.

MR COETZEE: I deny that Chairperson, I would have then at that stage where I listed all the incidents where I would have been involved in, I would have incorporated this incident as well.

MR HATTINGH: In your warning statement, is this incident stated, the Bambo incident?

MR COETZEE: Yes, I speak under correction but I think so, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Where do you say about it that: "I do not know anything about it?"

MR COETZEE: The same as I am saying today.

MR HATTINGH: So in the statement you say that you do not know of it?

MR COETZEE: What I said in the statement Chairperson was that I do not wish to comment.

MR HATTINGH: That is something else than saying that: "I do not know about it."

MR COETZEE: That is why I'm saying it, that is why I'm putting it now as such.

MR HATTINGH: So if you really did not know of it and you were not involved, then there was no risk for you to say in the warning statement that: "I do not know of this incident."

MR COETZEE: May I just ascertain, Chairperson, I do not have that statement here with me, what did I say there? Did I say that I did not want to comment, or I don't know about it? This is on the grounds of my legal representative's advice, my comment to the A-G's office at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Do you not have the statement before you?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, I wish to put it to you Mr Coetzee, that you had indeed sent Mr Olifant to bring Mr Bambo to you, that you wanted to take him in employ again, so that you could control him so that he would not talk out about operations that he was involved in. I assume that you deny that?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that Mr Olifant had reported back to you that Mr Bambo didn't want to have any dealings with you and harboured fears and that he had changed his address and that the warning lights came on with you.

MR COETZEE: Only yesterday did I hear that he changed his address and that he had harboured fears. I was of the opinion if he wanted to contact me, he could have done so, he had my telephone numbers and he knew where I lived, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And because he did not want to contact you, you were afraid that specifically in the light that there were serious allegations against him, that he may disclose his involvement in your operations and when you heard that he was in prison, you made a plan to get him out there and to kill him and you were involved in that.

MR COETZEE: I deny that Chairperson.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. At this stage we'll take - I would rather take our tea and come back within 15 minutes just to give the interpreters some break. I don't know if it's arranged, but could we arrange it?

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

WILLEM HELM JOHANNES COETZEE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh I take it you're finally done?

MR HATTINGH: Indeed Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair. I'm satisfied that my learned colleague, Mr Hattingh, has covered all aspects which I think are relevant pertaining to my two applicants, so I've got no questions, thank you Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

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

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Coetzee, what has now been referred to as the Pantso matter, when did that become public knowledge that you were involved in that?

MR COETZEE: I believe Chairperson, already shortly after the operation, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And when was that?

MR COETZEE: I was not personally involved there. If I am not mistaken it could even be December 1985 or '86, I'm not entirely certain of the dates.

MR VAN DEN BERG: There is an incident, we can research that. And this was a so-called external operation?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Simelane matter. As I recall it, this only came into the public domain after Sgt Veyi made certain revelations to the Sowetan.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you recall when he made those revelations?

MR COETZEE: 1995, yes, that is as I have it, that is how I recall it, from the application for the abduction of Ms Simelane.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Of this Simelane matter, I can recall that you were quite strict with your men, how they worked and with whom they discussed issues.

MR COETZEE: Yes, that's correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: To such an extent that part of your group was left out at some point in time in order to secure those operations.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If I understood your cross-examination by Mr Hattingh properly, you considered the possibility of killing Mr Bambo.

MR COETZEE: This idea could have taken place with you. May I just place it as such, Chairperson, those were the two alternatives I referred to.

MR WAGENER: Sorry, Mr Chairman, but the evidence was, should Bambo have been a security risk, what would have been the alternatives? But the evidence was repeatedly, he was not a security risk.

CHAIRPERSON: That's correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Perhaps I phrased it somewhat inelegantly, Mr Chairperson. In that scenario and when one realises that you could not involve Vlakplaas in this operation, how would you have gone about this?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment on that because I didn't think about it and I did not give execution to any ideas about it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Would you not have involved an outsider?

MR COETZEE: Highly improbable.

MR VAN DEN BERG: No further questions Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HURWITZ: Mr Coetzee, how long have you known Manuel Olifant?

MR COETZEE: Very long, Sir, Mr Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: And would you describe the relationship with him as fairly positive?

MR COETZEE: As he testified, yes, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: I see. Now can you just describe briefly the length of your service in the Security section of the South African Police?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I think already there with the hearing of the incidents, we referred to various dates where I was involved. I may just point out that up to and until September 1993, I do speak under correction, I was attached to covert Intelligence components, Chairperson, since my Soweto days Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Now most of the operations and procedures which did take place, were they carefully documented?

MR COETZEE: Which operation are you referring to?

MR HURWITZ: I'm talking generally. Was there a case docket on every operation undertaken?

MR COETZEE: Yes, there were information notes on a continual basis Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Now, were you agitated by the fact that a former informer who was possessed of very sensitive information, had gone off the rails? Did this agitate you in any way?

MR COETZEE: Yes, there were many such incidents where people went off the rail, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: I'm talking about this particular incident.

MR COETZEE: He had already proven himself upon the first arrest for armed robbery, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Now the length of your service in the Security Police and the number of operations you were involved with, these must have been numerous and far too many to mention, is that correct?

MR COETZEE: To my knowledge Chairperson, the incidents are in my application, arrests, legal arrests and legal actions excluded, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Let's be frank with the Committee. During years of work, there are certain things which do skip your mind, which are not imprinted to such an extent that they cause you to devote a lot of thought thereto.

MR COETZEE: It's possible, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Now, is it possible, now I want you to be frank with the Committee, that you could have forgotten about this conversation with Manuel Olifant which he so clearly remembers?

MR COETZEE: I deny that, I deny the contents of that conversation. I would just like to submit to the Committee that Mr Olifant had involved me in an incident which served before the TRC, where he implicated me with the death of three activists in Soweto, of which I had no knowledge up until 1996 and this incident served before the Committee and it has been proved that I was not involved in the incident Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: What perturbs me, Mr Coetzee, is that taking into account that Mr Hattingh's question to you, that should it have come out that Mr Bambo was a security risk, you would have considered eliminating him - no, let me finish the question. That coupled with Mr Olifant's clear and categoric memory of this conversation, is it not possible that you did forget about it?

MR COETZEE: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Is it possible that the possibility existed that you could have had such a conversation?

MR COETZEE: I never had any such a discussion with Mr Olifant, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Why are you so dead certain about something which happened nine years ago?

MR COETZEE: This specific incident I recall, otherwise I would have told the Committee that I was of the intention of acting against this person, if he had been a risk for me. I would have also told the Committee that I had attempted repeatedly to try to trace this person and thereafter I never attempted to contact Mr Olifant or this person, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Now coming back to the SAP69 referred to by Mr Wagener, can you just explain the firearm used in the incident? What firearm was it? That was the conviction of robbery for Mr Bambo.

MR COETZEE: I speak under correction Sir. I think it was a .32 pistol, I cannot recall and I also told the Committee that I did not investigate the matter, I was not involved in this case.

MR HURWITZ: Now what is the position with informers? Are they issued with firearms?

MR COETZEE: These people had already been on a contract basis in Namibia, members of the Force and they were sent back to South Africa. I cannot recall at that stage whether they had already had our contracts, but they were at safehouses from time to time, placed in possession of arms, yes, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: So is it possible that they were issued with firearms, is that what you're saying?

MR COETZEE: No, I cannot recall. However, if this particular individual later hears he was armed on the grounds of his R contract status.

MR HURWITZ: My recollection of the evidence yesterday was that the weapon used in the robbery incident was a weapon which disappeared at Soweto, am I correct? Did I write it down correctly?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Now my instructions are that the deceased, Mr Bambo, was issued with a 7.65 weapon by yourself, in his presence, in the presence of Mr Olifant.

MR COETZEE: I will stand by my point that with regard to this particular incident, this was committed with a stolen firearm Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Are you then denying that you issued a weapon to the deceased?

MR COETZEE: At what time, Chairperson? If you can give me a time frame.

MR HURWITZ: The exact period I'm not certain of. I could take an instruction if the Committee wants it, but I don't think it's relevant. The question then that is being asked is, was Mr Bambo issued with a weapon by yourself at any stage?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Now, my further instructions are that you personally volunteered to reappoint Mr Bambo without first consulting Brig van Rensburg.

MR COETZEE: Will you repeat the question please?

MR HURWITZ: My instructions are that you volunteered to reappoint Mr Bambo without first consulting, without being pushed to do so by Brig van Rensburg or anyone else.

MR COETZEE: To which time are you referring to?

MR HURWITZ: After his release from prison.

MR COETZEE: Was this in 19 - I cannot recall, but I do know that the instruction came. I will stand by my point, the instructions came from Brig van Rensburg, who looked after these people. I conceded, this person was taken in service and he rendered service up to his last suspension Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Could you think of any possible reason why Mr Olifant would want to cause you any harm or implicate you?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment, Chairperson, I've already indicated that he had made many mistakes already.

MR HURWITZ: Can you elaborate on when he'd made many mistakes?

MR COETZEE: I refer to the specific one incident where he implicated me which served before the Committee and where he said certainly that it was an instruction from myself and I knew of it.

MR HURWITZ: Well that's still for the Committee to decide. The question I'm putting to you or the statement is that based on the totality of evidence before the Committee, it's more probable that Mr Olifant's version is correct, that you did have this conversation with him.

MR COETZEE: I will stand by my point as I offered it to the Committee.

MR HURWITZ: Thank you. No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HURWITZ

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hurwitz. Ms Patel. ...(end of tape)

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: No thank you Chair, I don't have any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee, when Bambo and the others were with Koevoet, in what capacity were they there?

MR COETZEE: I speak under correction, I believe Col de Kock would be able to assist me, I think they were appointed as Special Constables, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And I take it now when they were transferred to Soweto thereafter, in what capacity then?

MR COETZEE: As Headquarters informers and Soweto informers, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Even though Bambo proved himself to be a strong man and the nickname originated from you that he could do the job, he now becomes just an informer when he was a Special Constable of outstanding bravery?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You had no input to say: "Look I want these guys and let them be given the status of police in our unit"?

MR COETZEE: Yes, there were certain prescriptions and instructions for the taking into service of members of the Force. No academic requirements were needed. They had no South African documents in their possession. That was a problem, we worked on it. I think Mr Olifant's appointment testifies to the fact that such appointments did realise later, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You were asked by Mr Hurwitz about them being issued with firearms. What I want to know is that with the other operations where the informers had to execute as Olifant has said, that they executed several, were they in those instances issued with firearms?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I assume that some of them were placed in possession by myself or by my second-in-command of arms when they had to secure safehouses and they did handling in order to combat the robbery of vehicles and to defend themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know when Mr Bambo was imprisoned, that he subsequently escaped and he thereafter was rearrested and imprisoned?

MR COETZEE: I have no knowledge up to that time that I said that I was following on Mr Olifant, that I heard that he had been arrested and he escaped, but Chairperson, no person of the unit which investigated the matter against him and arrested him, did at any stage contact me and informed me in this regard with regard to the allegations against him and his arrest and escape, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You only knew about when you suspended him, that he was subsequently again arrested for robbery?

MR COETZEE: Yes, afterwards, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And nothing about his escape and now receiving a term of imprisonment, you don't know.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Under which circumstances, if you had this deviant behaviour in the informers, would you have approached Col de Kock to instil discipline, if I may put it that way? Under what circumstances would you do that because in all fairness to you you said you would have approached Col de Kock?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson, that's what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: Under what circumstances, in respect of these informers or askaris, would you have approached him?

MR COETZEE: I would have contacted him directly, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What I actually want to know is that if you approach him where you had exercised strict discipline and you had various options at your disposal and in this instance you had two, forgetting the first, that the normal process of the law would have taken its course and concentrating on the second one, under what circumstances under the second option you had, would you approach Col de Kock?

MR COETZEE: I would have visited him at his offices and put the problem to him, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: On an advisory capacity, or that he should take over?

MR COETZEE: No, I would not, I would only present the problem to the Colonel, I would have made suggestions or have listened to suggestions from him as to how to manage the situation Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it that we know at this juncture that when Vlakplaas and specifically Mr de Kock in this instance, when he's approached, this is of a serious nature, very serious nature?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that that person would even be eliminated?

MR COETZEE: If that was the solution Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But don't we know that Vlakplaas was eliminating, even evidence we've heard for the past three years is that even if an askari was deviant, Mr de Kock wouldn't hesitate to take him out or eliminate him, to use the words used in the "omsendbriewe"?

MR COETZEE: That is possible Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I say, I'm telling you that we have listened to that, it's not a possibility, it's that if an askari was deviant, Mr de Kock would exercise little patience with such a person.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson, when it would appear that, it came out in cases later.

CHAIRPERSON: But this never crossed your mind, in any event?

MR COETZEE: I did not implement anything or go to the Colonel, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It would have eventually happened, if you couldn't exercise the two options, which the one took its due process?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It still bothers me. I think it's Mr de Kock in his application, if I'm not mistaken, are you called - is your nickname Timul?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know each other very well, with Mr de Kock?

MR COETZEE: I would believe so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you first meet Mr de Kock?

MR COETZEE: In Namibia, Chairperson, with Koevoet.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that where your name originated, because my impression is that it's the guy who fell to his death in John Vorster Square, Timul?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Chairperson, this name came along from 1972 with me, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In any even, what I wanted to ask you is that if I listen to the evidence proffered by Mr de Kock, or rather let me put it the other way around, that the evidence of Messrs Snyman and Brits, when the other does not remember precisely how it happened, but however, Mr de Kock said to them: "Look, I want you to assist murder and robbery", that's their evidence and that "you Brits, get the DLB in codes in place". That's their evidence and they did not know precisely what happened, but Mr de Kock says on page 3 of bundle 1:

"On opportunity, Gen Engelbrecht requested me to delegate one of my members to, along with a member of the East Rand Murder and Robbery Unit, to ...(not translated)"

In your mind, I'm just wanting to find out, how could Mr de Kock have come to such information that this informer or source belonged to you, even though he says he spoke to Engelbrecht?

MR COETZEE: I cannot comment, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you returned from South West Africa, because Namibia, it's recent, let's call it what it was known to us during the Koevoet operations, did you have any contact with Mr de Kock?

MR COETZEE: No, Chairperson, only when he returned to the RSA, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you repeat that please?

MR COETZEE: Chairperson, I had no further contact with Mr de Kock while he was in Namibia.

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

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairman.

Mr Coetzee, you were questioned by Mr Hattingh concerning a warning statement. I have a document in front of me, I got it from Ms Patel, is this the warning statement?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: What is the date thereof?

MR COETZEE: 6th July 1989, sorry '98. 6/7/1998.

MR WAGENER: And on page two thereof, it is a typed form in which it is filled in with pen.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: And on page two thereof, the question is typed, it reads as follows:

"What is your choice? Would you like to make a statement, only answer questions, or not to make a statement."

Then you give your answer, what is it?

MR COETZEE: Not to make a statement on the advice of my legal adviser.

MR WAGENER: Very well. Then just a technical point, questions were put to you by Mr Hurwitz, how long you were in the Security Police. If I look at bundle 3, page 7, paragraph 1, can you just read it in the record from the beginning?

MR COETZEE:

"On the 8th of December, 1968, I joined the South African Police. Immediately after my basic training at the College, I was transferred on the 3rd of July 1970 to the Security Branch where I served until, because of medical reasons I left the Department on the 30th of April 1997."

MR WAGENER: So in other words, to answer Mr Hurwitz's question, you were approximately for 27 years, a member of the Security Police?

MR COETZEE: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: In Exhibit A, the statement of Mr Olifant, he refers to amongst others on page 3, to the Swaziland incident. If you can recall, it was one of the incidents where he said that Strongman and himself were involved, as well as other members. Can you recall that?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: He also states that they had to reconnoitre, if I translate it correctly, at a house in Dalbridge, in Swaziland. Can you see that?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: And then he continues and says that:

"At a certain stage an operation followed in Swaziland where people were killed."

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: In which you were involved as well as Mr de Kock and others.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Now we do know that this is the incident that we refer to as the Pantso/Smit incident.

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Regarding the date, Mr Chairman, for completeness sake, I've got the Judgment here with me. The date of this incident was the 13th to the 14th of December 1986. I think Mr van den Berg asked about the date.

CHAIRPERSON: Come with the year again please.

MR WAGENER: 1986, 13 and 14 December.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR WAGENER: You were involved in this incident in '86. Did this shooting take place at the same house to which Mr Olifant referred to, where they reconnoitred?

MR COETZEE: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: It's not the same house?

MR COETZEE: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Then I would like to ask you, you testified that during that same time when Mr Bambo was released, other members were also released.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: That is now from the Security Branch?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Did that also include members from your section in Soweto?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: You have already said in your statement in bundle three that there were other black members and specifically who were involved in other operations and who held a greater risk for you than Strongman did.

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Did you at any stage, that is now up to today, act against any of such members?

MR COETZEE: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Did you kill anybody or tell anybody to kill them?

MR COETZEE: No.

MR WAGENER: Were there at any stage any of these members in prison?

MR COETZEE: Yes, there are currently some of them serving a sentence.

MR WAGENER: Who are they?

MR COETZEE: Inst Phineas Motsualiba.

MR WAGENER: Motsualiba, is that his surname?

MR COETZEE: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Was he involved in operations for which you apply for amnesty?

MR COETZEE: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Did you at any stage consider killing him or eliminating him?

MR COETZEE: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Thank you Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wagener. Mr Coetzee thank you very much, you are excused.

MR COETZEE: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR WAGENER: Chairman, the next witness will then be Mr Anton Pretorius. He is now also on my right-hand side. Thank you.

ANTON PRETORIUS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. You may be seated and be comfortable.

EXAMINATION BY MR WAGENER: Mr Pretorius, in this matter you have made a short affidavit and you can find that on page 12 and 13 of bundle 3 of the documents, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR WAGENER: It is an affidavit, but would you also like to confirm the correctness thereof?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: In short, since when - from when did you work with the previous witness, Mr Coetzee?

MR PRETORIUS: That was from September 1981.

MR WAGENER: And where was this?

MR PRETORIUS: In Soweto.

MR WAGENER: The deceased in this matter, Mr Bambo, when did you meet him for the first time?

MR PRETORIUS: If I'm not wrong, it was in 1983 that he arrived in Soweto, or late 1982, beginning 83.

MR WAGENER: And Mr Olifant, one of the previous witnesses?

MR PRETORIUS: That had to be late 83 beginning 84, if my recollection is correct, that he came then from Ovamboland.

MR WAGENER: So that means that you did not work with these three in the old South West?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

MR WAGENER: During the time in Soweto to which you just referred, what was the relationship between you and Mr Bambo, Strongman?

MR PRETORIUS: There was not an exceptional relationship. I would say it was like any subordinate or informer.

MR WAGENER: Did you work closely with him?

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage I was second-in-command of the Intelligence Unit and I did, at certain times, work closely with him and Mr Coetzee.

MR WAGENER: I see that Mr Coetzee said and you confirmed it, that you were his co-handlers.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: Now we also know Mr Pretorius that at the end of 1996 you submitted an application for amnesty where you deal with various incidents.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct yes.

MR WAGENER: Was Mr Bambo involved in any of these incidents for which you applied for amnesty?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Do you apply for the Simelane incident?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Was Mr Bambo involved in that one?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: What was the date of that incident?

MR PRETORIUS: I think it was September 1983.

MR WAGENER: You are aware and you attended this hearing this whole week and you've heard the evidence that has been led.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: So you are aware of first of all, the allegations of Mr de Kock, or let us begin from the allegations made by Mr Olifant.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: And that allegations that he made in Exhibit A, where he deals with various incidents, you did read Exhibit A?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR WAGENER: You also heard the cross-examination that I led myself concerning Mr Olifant's evidence where I put it to him that my instructions were also on behalf of you and do you confirm what I told him?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, if it is okay with you, I'm not going to take the witness through each and every incident. I assume it will be done in cross-examination, but to save time, I intend doing it this way, if it is fine.

CHAIRPERSON: No quite in order, Mr Wagener.

MR WAGENER: Now you see that Mr Olifant, on page 6 of Exhibit A, refers to a discussion that he allegedly had with you in the second last paragraph of the page. What is your comment on that?

MR PRETORIUS: I deny the contents of the paragraph.

MR WAGENER: Did a discussion take place between you and Mr Olifant concerning Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: How did it happen that this discussion took place?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, Olifant also referred to it and I can also recall that there was a newspaper article and I cannot recall if it was him or if I saw it first, but in the newspaper report or article, there was, if my recollection is correct, there was mention made of his escape from prison and myself and Mr Olifant then discussed this article.

MR WAGENER: Did you express any fears concerning Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: The only fear that I had was for Bambo's own life, in that he would be killed and the fear, as Mr Olifant put it, that if Mr Olifant was cornered, he's not the type of person who would just give over, he would definitely draw a weapon, if he had a weapon and fight to the death and that was the fear that I had.

MR WAGENER: Now Mr Olifant says in this paragraph that there was a fear from you that Strongman would start talking, as others did and I would like to ask, what is your comment on that?

MR PRETORIUS: I deny it strongly, that I would have said something like this.

MR WAGENER: You have heard the evidence of Mr Coetzee concerning the whole issue of irregularities that led to the discharge of Mr Bambo. You heard that?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR WAGENER: Do you also know about these irregularities and the whole discharge that followed?

MR PRETORIUS: I can just tell the Committee the following. After Mr Bambo came out of jail, after his first arrest, while they still served under Mr Coetzee's command, that was approximately January 1988, I know of one or two or three incidents where Mr Coetzee chased Adriano away and told him he doesn't want anything to do with him and after a week, I think he disappeared for a month where he had no contact with Mr Bambo. Mr Bambo then came back, tail between the legs, apologised and then Mr Coetzee would then again take him back and then just to qualify that further, Mr Chairperson, unfortunately Mr Bambo had undisciplined characteristics and it was very clear in the unit.

MR WAGENER: Now Mr Coetzee says that he thought of the possible security risk, that he considered this before he finally discharged Strongman. Were you part of this consideration?

MR PRETORIUS: No, you are now talking about - I think his discharge, I think it was in '89, I was not part of the discharge.

MR WAGENER: Was it discussed with you?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, all that I can recall from this incident and that is that Mr Coetzee, during a meeting, told me that he now finally chased Strongman away and I think those were his words, he chased him away.

MR WAGENER: Did you see that as a great security risk for yourself?

MR PRETORIUS: Not at all.

MR WAGENER: Why not?

MR PRETORIUS: The last time that I had contact with him, I think that was in December or January 1988, I'm sorry it was '87, December, or January 88.

MR WAGENER: At this stage Mr Pretorius when - I'm sorry, let me just interrupt myself. You heard the evidence from Mr de Kock in this hearing.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I did.

MR WAGENER: Which comes down to the fact that Strongman was murdered in order to prevent him from disclosing sensitive operations from you at the Soweto branch.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, yes.

MR WAGENER: What is your comment on that?

MR PRETORIUS: I deny it. I strongly deny it.

MR WAGENER: During March or the beginning of 1991, because we do know that Strongman died in March 1991, where were you then stationed?

MR PRETORIUS: I was still at the Soweto branch.

MR WAGENER: Gen Engelbrecht, what was his position at that stage?

MR PRETORIUS: I was unaware of what his position was.

MR WAGENER: Did you know him?

MR PRETORIUS: I knew about this person, this Gen Krappies Engelbrecht, but I never met him or knew him at that stage.

MR WAGENER: Then it's also logical to think that he was not a confidant of yours?

MR PRETORIUS: Definitely not, Mr Chairperson.

MR WAGENER: Meaning that matters for which you now applied for amnesty, that you would not have gone to discuss this with him?

MR PRETORIUS: No, never.

MR WAGENER: Thank you Mr Chairman, that's the evidence.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Wagener. Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Pretorius, just for the record, you sat in during the evidence that was led, or Mr Coetzee's evidence and the cross-examination by the various legal representatives?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you know exactly what my line of questioning was to him and you had the opportunity to think about it and to prepare yourself for similar questioning?

MR PRETORIUS: Well I do now know if there was an opportunity to prepare myself, but if you put it that way, I am ready for the cross-examination.

MR HATTINGH: Can I just start off with the last bit of evidence that was led? You said that you did not know Gen Engelbrecht, you would not approach him with certain requests for information about sensitive operations?

MR PRETORIUS: You are now talking about my career up until 1991. That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now what about his predecessors, Gen van Rensburg, Nick van Rensburg, Gen Nick van Rensburg?

MR PRETORIUS: Well let me put it this way. I knew about him, I think I met him once in my life and that was at Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: And what about Brig Schoon?

MR PRETORIUS: I did know Brig Schoon, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Would you have trusted them when you had, wanted to disclose sensitive information or wanted assistance?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have already testified in previous hearings, it did come up with Brig Schoon.

MR HATTINGH: But now you knew what Vlakplaas was. You knew it was an operational unit that was involved in violent attacks against the enemy.

MR PRETORIUS: I knew some of them were involved in it, but I knew their main purpose was the handling of askaris and the deployment of askaris.

MR HATTINGH: How did you know this?

MR PRETORIUS: Well, it was common knowledge ... was a place where arrested terrorists, whether PAC or ANC people were channelled through the Vlakplaas personnel.

MR HATTINGH: Were you involved in the Pantso incident?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I think it was around '85.

MR PRETORIUS: The Pantso incident was in December '86, the 12th or the 13th of December.

MR HATTINGH: That was a long time before Bambo was shot and killed.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: I do know that Mr de Kock also was involved in this incident.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he was.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know why they were involved in this operation?

MR PRETORIUS: I can give an explanation to the Committee because it has already been said in front of the Amnesty Committee. There was an incident in the Eastern Transvaal that had nothing to do with Soweto. I think Head Office under the Command of Brig Schoon, arranged a meeting at the Middelburg Security Branch and Soweto was also approached to attend this meeting.

MR HATTINGH: What I would actually like to find out is that it was very clear that they were involved, because they were the experienced operational unit of the police.

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot speculate about that Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Who took command of the Pantso operation and the execution thereof in Swaziland?

MR PRETORIUS: That is true, it was Mr de Kock who was the operational Commander.

MR HATTINGH: Because he was the Commander of the operational unit who had the experience for such operations?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I will accept it, otherwise they wouldn't have held that position.

MR HATTINGH: And we also know that the South African Police had a task force.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And these Task Force members were members who were trained to deal with emergency situations?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, it was internally.

MR HATTINGH: And they were very well trained in the handling of weapons, explosives, etc.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: They were a very fit unit?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: There's nothing that the would have prevented the police from making use of the Task Force if it wasn't for the fact that it was a covert operation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I will accept that.

MR HATTINGH: And you had to know them at that stage, that Vlakplaas was used at a later stage, or at that stage, to kill terrorists?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I did not have any knowledge of that.

MR HATTINGH: After the Pantso incident?

MR PRETORIUS: You now made a very general statement, so I also answered in a general way.

MR HATTINGH: Well after the Pantso incident you had to know about that.

MR PRETORIUS: Well after the Pantso, I was still not aware of any other incidents in which Vlakplaas was involved.

MR HATTINGH: The murder and the killing of people in Swaziland remains killing.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, but it was one specific operation, it wasn't just a Vlakplaas operation, it was a Soweto operation, it was a Middelburg operation and it was a Vlakplaas operation, so where Mr Hattingh comes to the fact that it is a Vlakplaas operation is surprising to me.

MR HATTINGH: Well who was in command of this?

MR PRETORIUS: Well Eugene de Kock was, he was just a person.

MR HATTINGH: Let us not waste time. I want to put it to you that you were aware of the fact that Vlakplaas was used in operations like that.

MR PRETORIUS: I will deny it that I would have known about this.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ask questions after this operation was completed, about why they were involved in it?

MR PRETORIUS: It was not necessary for me to ask questions. I was at a meeting where Brig Schoon said: "This operation will be under the command of Mr Eugene de Kock".

MR HATTINGH: And why did he say that?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Willem Schoon was the representative and the most senior officer and the Chairperson of the meeting.

MR HATTINGH: But why would he want Mr de Kock and his unit to take control or command of this operation?

MR PRETORIUS: Well, Sir, you'll have to ask that to Brig Schoon.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't you at a later stage ask some of your own members: "Why is de Kock now the Commander? Why can't we do it ourselves?"

MR PRETORIUS: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You just accepted it?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, well it is an instruction from Head Office, from a senior Brigadier from Head Office.

MR HATTINGH: Then I will put it to you, I think it was after Brig Schoon, I think I've got it right, I just want to make sure. After Brig Schoon, he was the Commander of C1, C2 and C3, are you aware of that?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I'm convinced that it's right.

MR HATTINGH: And afterwards Brig van Rensburg took over, that was Nick van Rensburg.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And then Gen Engelbrecht followed.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, I was not - I know that Krappies Engelbrecht followed or came there, but I'm not sure if he followed on Nick van Rensburg. I do not want to make any statements.

MR HATTINGH: I put it to you and you can accept it.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I accept it.

MR HATTINGH: Gen Johan van der Merwe was aware of the Pantso incident or operation.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct yes.

MR HATTINGH: I'm talking under correction, but I think he may have given the instruction that the operation had to be launched.

MR PRETORIUS: I was not present at any - or let me put it this way - present where Gen van der Merwe gave the instruction, but I think in his amnesty hearing he did say that he did it, so I am aware that he did give the instructions.

MR HATTINGH: You as a trained policeman, experienced policeman, had to ensure that if Gen Engelbrecht is appointed to take over from people like Schoon and van Rensburg, that he has the trust from the Commissioner of the Police.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I'll accept it.

MR HATTINGH: Then why wouldn't you then trust him with sensitive information?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, I said earlier on at a later stage, or I can quote an incident or let me just put it this way, before 1991 I can quote an incident, a bomb attack from the right wing in the Johannesburg area in 1994 and Engelbrecht will be able to testify about it, that I consulted him concerning this and I was the person who took out those bombs, so there I did share very sensitive information with him.

MR HATTINGH: Well why wouldn't you then share such sensitive information about the possible threat of disclosure?

MR PRETORIUS: Well, the Bambo - I never went to Krappies with this Bambo incident.

MR HATTINGH: But you did share very sensitive information with him.

MR PRETORIUS: Is this now with Krappies?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MR PRETORIUS: In 1994?

MR HATTINGH: 1994.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, before the elections.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then trust him enough to share information with him?

MR PRETORIUS: I will put it that way, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Well what made you change your mind that now in 94 you can share confidential information with him, while in 1991 you weren't willing to do it?

MR PRETORIUS: In 1991 I did not know the General at all. In 94 I think, then the General, if I can, he was already three and a half years stationed at the Security Branch.

MR HATTINGH: How often did you have contact with him, personal contact with him?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, I can maybe mention five cases where I met him.

MR HATTINGH: And were these cases where you actually shared sensitive information with him?

MR PRETORIUS: No they were cases where it was about the transferring of members and the decentralisation of members and of a specific informant, a black woman. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR HATTINGH: None of these contacts would have created the impression that you could trust him.

MR PRETORIUS: No, I never said that.

MR HATTINGH: I know you didn't.

MR PRETORIUS: As I already said to you, after 1991 or let me qualify it further. In May '91 I was transferred to Security Headquarters in the D component, let us call it the Intelligence Office and only then during that time I got to know Krappies better. Maybe that will answer your question. And there I started trusting him, or I learned to trust him.

MR HATTINGH: But the fact that he had the trust of the Commissioner of the Police, did not play a role?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I did not doubt, or question, the Commissioner's decision.

MR HATTINGH: That is not what I put to you, Mr Pretorius. I'm asking you about the fact that he had trust in Engelbrecht who put him in that position and why didn't it create the feeling that: "If he's good enough for the Commissioner, he's good enough for me and I can trust him"?

MR PRETORIUS: Well, if I can maybe just mention another case with Basie Smit that was appointed, we all knew him and what I know is that I did not know him personally, but we were all scared of him, of Gen Smit because we never trusted Basie Smit and that was also an appointment done by the Commissioner of Police and I think Mr de Kock was one of the people who never trusted Basie Smit.

MR HATTINGH: Why do you say that?

MR PRETORIUS: Because Col de Kock mentioned it at various times to me.

MR HATTINGH: So you had a lot of contact with Mr de Kock. In what regard?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, you can say I went to Vlakplaas a few times.

MR HATTINGH: With regard to what? ...(end of tape)

MR PRETORIUS: ... the present and Mr de Kock will recall that. The second case or opportunity was when I went to Nick van Rensburg's farewell function and I can recall these two functions that I attended and then from my information or Intelligence point it was the exchange of information with him and then the third opportunity was with the decentralisation of Vlakplaas members to Soweto.

MR HATTINGH: You never discussed operations in which you were involved with them?

MR PRETORIUS: If you say "in which we were involved" ...

MR HATTINGH: I'm talking about the Soweto Security Branch.

MR PRETORIUS: Information or Intelligence Operations, yes, I did discuss that with him.

MR HATTINGH: But actions of yours, or operations that you launched?

MR PRETORIUS: I think it was the Nceba incident, I did and I think that was, if you can just give me a second, in July 89, it was the Nceba incident and before the incident, approximately a week, two weeks before this incident I approached Mr de Kock at Vlakplaas and asked him if he can give me two askaris that I need in an Intelligence operation.

MR HATTINGH: The Nceba incident which you refer to, is this the one that we find on page 5, the second paragraph there?

MR PRETORIUS: That's it, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You wanted two askaris to do what?

MR PRETORIUS: I was with a flag operation and that is how I submitted my evidence during that hearing and during the flag operation I needed two askaris to assist with the flag operation it was an Intelligence operation.

MR HATTINGH: This Nceba operation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And eventually three people were killed?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Including Mr Nceba?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So what do you mean it was a flag operation?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, if you had attended the hearing...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: But I did not, maybe you should just tell the Committee what you mean by that.

MR PRETORIUS: You would have heard that this operation, it's an Intelligence operation that ran over some time and the deceased pressed us into a corner where at some stage we had to supply them with arms, handgrenades, AK47 and limpet mines that we had to show to them and after I borrowed the people from Mr de Kock, I decided to, specifically ...(indistinct) who is mentioned here, to use him to indicate the working of the arms to these Soweto Youth League members and the one step led to the next until we had no other choice but to basically, I do not know whether trap is the right word, but what it boils down to is that three people went to place these three doctored landmines and they pulled the detonators and one was killed and two of the members were shot dead.

MR HATTINGH: Let's not go into the details too much there, but it is sufficient for me to know that because of your actions, these three were killed, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And this was an internal operation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So who, of Messrs Olifant and Bambo were involved there?

MR PRETORIUS: Only Mr Olifant.

MR HATTINGH: And you knew that there were close bonds between Mr Bambo and Mr Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: I accept that.

MR HATTINGH: And you heard his evidence that he was like a brother and more to him?

MR PRETORIUS: I believe so Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Then you will accept that Mr Bambo, even though he was not involved in this operation, that he must have heard of it from Mr Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir I can assure the Chairperson, Olifant would have been very stupid if he spoke about it because I did not move a finger, I did not pull a trigger, but Mr Olifant pulled the trigger. Even if it was your bosom friend, you never in your life would have said that: "Listen here, I just killed a guy there somewhere", so I deny that statement and I reject it in totality.

MR HATTINGH: If Mr Olifant before this incident, or even afterwards, were involved in operations and they were responsible for the killing or injury of persons?

MR PRETORIUS: I don't know about that.

MR HATTINGH: Well, Mr Olifant said so.

MR PRETORIUS: In which cases was he involved?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Olifant testified that at the Umzimhlope Hostel they placed landmines, or limpet mines in kombis and on page two:

"At both places that night people were injured during explosions."

According to him Mr Bambo was present.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, may I just point out that this incident which Mr Olifant refers to, was in 1987. This was not after the Nceba case. Nceba was 1989 so this was the case before that and then I deny as well as Mr Coetzee, this incident vehemently. The TRC a few months ago, called me from Cape Town and asked me to assist with this incident because they cannot find it and there were even reports in the newspaper about this incident, so I reject this evidence or this questioning note of Capt Liesk entirely.

MR HATTINGH: If Mr Bambo says it happened or if Mr Olifant says it happened, why would he and Bambo not discuss it, and other incidents, why would they not discuss other incidents?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson it's weird or strange that you did not ask these questions of Mr Olifant, I cannot answer those questions on behalf of Mr Olifant, maybe they spoke about it, but I doubt it.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Pretorius, would you please talk slower, the interpreter is struggling to keep up with you?

MR PRETORIUS: I beg your pardon Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Your mike is not on Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: The third incident, on page 2 of Exhibit A, the explosion at the Jabulani, I think it was, amphitheatre during 1986.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: That took place?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: He says, Mr Olifant says that he and Mr Bambo were involved there.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson he's mistaken, he was there, but Adriano Bambo was not there.

MR HATTINGH: Why are you so certain about that?

MR PRETORIUS: Because I was there at the scene and it was actually, as you must have seen, it was the Military Special Forces that were involved in this operation and it was their operation. Mr Olifant and I basically just went along as Mr Willem said, just helped to carry out the container of petrol and I would have recalled if Mr Bambo was there, but he was not there.

MR HATTINGH: You are now confusing this incident with another one.

CHAIRPERSON: It's the Ipalageng incident where petrol was given.

MR PRETORIUS: The same was for the Jabulani amphitheatre, it was once again the same persons as in Mr Olifant's statement, it was Special Forces who executed that operation. It was also them who placed the charge of explosives there and detonated it and I and Manuel went along that evening to see that no-one else was in the vicinity and that unnecessary people were injured, but Bambo was not involved there.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr de Jager there?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he was definitely there.

MR HATTINGH: And the person called Gustav?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson I cannot believe that Mr Gustav, that he was there. I know Mr Olifant mentioned him there, but he was definitely not there. I can say that in all certainty that he was not there.

MR HATTINGH: So why did you say first of all that you didn't believe he was there?

MR PRETORIUS: Because firstly he was not attached to our unit and what would he be doing there?

MR HATTINGH: So where was he attached to?

MR PRETORIUS: Security Branch, Soweto. I was with the Intelligence Unit of Soweto.

MR HATTINGH: And the person mentioned there, van Wyngaardt?

MR PRETORIUS: He was also from the Security Branch Soweto.

MR HATTINGH: Was he there?

MR PRETORIUS: Not at all. Not at all. I can assure you of that.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not sometimes work in conjunction with the Soweto Branch Security Branch?

MR PRETORIUS: Definitely Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So if that is so, why do you exclude those persons as persons who could not have been there?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, this was a highly top secret operation and the people from Pretoria always requested us that the identities, I want to say that they do not disclose those identities to the overt Security Forces.

MR HATTINGH: Once again there was a close bond between Mr Bambo and Mr Olifant and can you then exclude the possibility that they discussed the matter?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot deny that Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And if we can get to the fourth incident, this is where the petrol was used, the Ipalageng incident. What is your comment on that?

MR PRETORIUS: With regard to what, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: As to who was present there and who was not there.

MR PRETORIUS: Manuel was with me, members of Special Forces involved there Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you say once again Bambo was not there?

MR PRETORIUS: Definitely Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So why is Bambo excluded from such operations?

MR PRETORIUS: We were a large unit, there were many members who were excluded from many things.

MR HATTINGH: So is it only coincidental that he was not there?

MR PRETORIUS: No, it's not coincidental as I have told you that we were working with a covert group, Special Force operations, and it may be the reason why we did not want to admit him there, that may have been the reason, but in the same vein, we also had many other members under myself and Mr Coetzee's command whom we left out.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not trust Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: That's not what I said.

MR HATTINGH: But I'm asking you Mr Pretorius. Please, I'm not making a statement, I'm asking whether you did not trust him.

MR PRETORIUS: I trusted him.

MR HATTINGH: So you did trust him, so that was not the reason why he was not involved in the operations?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And that is why I'm asking you once again, is it co-incidental that it was every time Mr Olifant and not Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson as you must have heard what Mr Coetzee said, Mr Olifant, I want to say, maybe I want to use the words side-kick, and Mr Bambo was Mr Willem's side-kick, Mr Olifant was my confidant, where I went, Olifant went.

MR HATTINGH: And then may I just ask you as follows: With this Ipalageng incident, was Mr Coetzee there?

MR PRETORIUS: Let me just - I think he was there. I do not want to look at my amnesty application.

MR HATTINGH: Please have a look at it Mr Pretorius, if you cannot recall.

MR PRETORIUS: I know Mr Coetzee was involved in the incident, but the question you are asking is whether he was there, physically present at the scene. I don't want to say yes just like that, but if I recall correctly ...

MR HATTINGH: He earlier said that he was there.

MR PRETORIUS: Then that's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So if he was there, why was his side-kick not there?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot comment on that, Chairperson, it's also true that one sometimes walked alone and we could only take along a limited number of people to the scene when we drove in one vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: Was he your senior, Mr Coetzee?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So his side-kick had to say and yours could come along?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot comment on that, that's unfortunately how it happened, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Then I return to the third incident, the bomb explosion at Jabulani amphitheatre. Was Mr Coetzee present there?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, I can recall that somewhere this farm is mentioned, I want to say Vlakplaas, but it's not Vlakplaas, I think its Vlakfontein, that's the name yes.

MR HATTINGH: What did he do there? Why did he not go along on the operation?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, once again, with this type of operation in Soweto and for that time and it was a flag operation, the more people we took along the greater the risk that we would get caught out so the movement of persons to Jabulani amphitheatre was limited to as few persons as possible.

MR HATTINGH: My note with regard to this third incident of the cross-examination of Mr Wagener to Mr Olifant, you did not cross-question Mr Wagener?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't recall you cross-examining Wagener, I think you mean Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: What did I say Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: You said in cross-examination of Wagener.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Wagener's cross-examination of Mr Olifant.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR HATTINGH: My note reads that you put it to him, this is my note, if I am incorrect I apologise, I made it cryptically. They were involved and you, but not Strongman. "They" refers to you and Coetzee.

MR PRETORIUS: That is so. That is what Mr Olifant said.

MR HATTINGH: Was he wrong?

MR PRETORIUS: I think so, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall what Mr Coetzee said?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Coetzee was not there.

MR HATTINGH: But can you recall what he said?

MR PRETORIUS: No, not exactly, it's impossible for me to recall everything exactly. Mr Coetzee, what I can recall is that he said that you, Mr Hattingh can question me about it with regard to the Jabulani incident because he was not there at the scene himself.

MR HATTINGH: If I recall correctly Mr Wagener put it to Mr Coetzee that you heard my cross-examination of Mr Olifant and heard what I put to him, upon which he answered in the affirmative and thereafter he said that: "Do you confirm the statements that I made on your behalf to Mr Olifant" upon which he answered yes.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And then if I am correct that Mr Wagener made the statement then it means that Mr Coetzee confirmed that he was indeed there.

MR WAGENER: Chairman no, not at all. If Mr Hattingh can help and say what he understands by the word "betrokke", because the word "betrokke", if you read Mr Coetzee's amnesty application in this regard, in my language he was "betrokke" but this is semantics.

MR HATTINGH: I haven't read Mr Coetzee's amnesty application, Mr Chairman. I don't appear for him, I was not involved in it.

CHAIRPERSON: No, ...(indistinct) before us.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman, so I don't know what he said in his amnesty application, I only go according to what was put here and what was put here, third incident: "They were involved and you, but not Strongman." Then the witness must explain to me what Mr Coetzee should have explained, what he meant by involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's my note, I'm looking at it, not Strongman.

MR HATTINGH: Not Strongman, yes, Mr Chairman. I'm entitled to draw the inference, if it is put that they were involved, that they were involved in the carrying out of the operation and if that was not the intention, then it should have been made clear.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly, I'll allow that question.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. So your are saying that Mr Coetzee was definitely not there?

MR PRETORIUS: Not at the scene Chairperson. He was on the farm, as we have already pointed out, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Bambo, where was he?

MR PRETORIUS: He was not there at all.

MR HATTINGH: Was he not with Coetzee at the farm?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

MR HATTINGH: Why are you so certain of that?

MR PRETORIUS: Because I would have remembered if he was there because with these types of operations, as in the case instance of Jabulani, we made sure that nobody else that evening, because these operations took place late at night, early hours of the morning.

MR HATTINGH: That no-one else - late in the evening, you're leaving the statement there, you said with this type of operations we made certain that we did not leave anyone there. What?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson. As we have already said, I cannot recall the exact number of staff members at that stage who worked, but it could be easily between 20 or 30 staff members, if I must venture an estimation, who were not there.

MR HATTINGH: Can you tell us who were all there?

MR PRETORIUS: I know that what I do recall is myself, Mr Coetzee, Col de Jager, Mr Olifant and then it was Noel from the Army and the other person from the army, his name was Charl, if I recall correctly Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Is that all?

MR PRETORIUS: That's all Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Are you certain?

MR PRETORIUS: That is what I can recall and that's what I'm certain of.

MR HATTINGH: So van Wyngaardt and Gustav were not there?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: With the fourth incident, that is now the Ipalageng incident, Mr Olifant says, and it would indicate to me that he is convinced of his facts, that the same persons were there except for Gustav and van Wyngaardt. He exempts them at this stage whereas he positively places them at the previous incident.

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, I cannot give reasons why Mr Olifant omits them, but as I have told you, they were not involved there. I know that for a fact. I drove in that vehicle.

MR HATTINGH: How many, or may I ask the question as follows: can you just off the top of your head tell me with regard to how many incidents you apply for amnesty?

MR PRETORIUS: Twelve, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And with regard to those twelve incidents, in how many of them was Olifant involved?

MR PRETORIUS: Will you just grant me a moment, or I can mention it as the Nceba case, the two Botswana cases, the one we've already received amnesty for, the second Botswana incident was the 14th of June 1985 operation in Botswana and then he and I went to Mrs Winnie Mandela's house, which we went together on and if I depend on my memory, then those are the incidents which I can recall and then this Jabulani incident, the Ipalageng matter and then I just want to make sure, there's one, but I cannot recall its name, it was not the professor's one, I want to have a look at his statement. I want to make sure on Mr Olifant's statement.

MR HATTINGH: So now you have to refresh your memory with Mr Olifant's statement.

MR PRETORIUS: I know which case it is. Mr Olifant was there, but I am trying to get the name.

MR HATTINGH: The name is not important, I just want to know the number of incidents.

MR PRETORIUS: And then there was the one where the handgrenades were at the Councillors' office, Mr Olifant was there.

MR HATTINGH: And in how many of those was Mr Bambo involved?

MR PRETORIUS: He was not involved in a single one of them.

MR HATTINGH: And in how many of them was Mr Coetzee involved?

MR PRETORIUS: With all of them.

MR HATTINGH: Once again his side-kick is not there, but your side-kick is there.

MR PRETORIUS: In this one specific instance that is here, the reason why I know he was not there, was because he was still in detention. Even Mr Olifant says that early in January 1986, if I recall correctly, Mr Bambo was still in detention.

MR HATTINGH: If you would grant me a moment Chairperson. Very well, can you recall the names of all the police officials or army officials who assisted you in all your operations, whether these be lawful or unlawful operations?

MR PRETORIUS: No, that is somewhat impossible to recall all of this.

MR HATTINGH: So why do you recall so well that Mr Bambo was not involved in these incidents?

MR PRETORIUS: Because these were serious incidents, criminal offences, where I was involved and I think I would have remembered if Mr Bambo was involved there.

MR HATTINGH: Why? Why would you recall that he was involved there? How many of his category persons worked with you?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, it was actually three, it was him, Olifant and Peter Lengene. Further, other than that, the others were informers in the real sense of being informers.

MR HATTINGH: There's another name that I cannot recall here, let me just have a look. Big Boy, who is Big Boy?

MR PRETORIUS: He was an RS, a deep cover agent of the police.

MR HATTINGH: Was he involved in some of these operations?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, amongst others the '83 Nokuthula Simelane incident Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And who was Manuel?

MR PRETORIUS: That's Mr Olifant, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was there no other Manuel, because it's Mr Olifant speaking here on page 1 of Exhibit A he says: "Big Boy took Manuel Peter Selamolela and Oscar."

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, that is Mr Olifant, that indicates that these are questioning notes that are taken down here.

MR HATTINGH: What do you mean, Mr Pretorius?

MR PRETORIUS: This is a manner of speaking, as Mr Olifant would speak. "Our source, Big Boy, took Manuel", he means himself, " to Peter Selamolela and Oscar".

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, but if I read it, our - he includes himself, Manuel.

"Our source, Big Boy, took Manuel, Peter..."

He's enumerating people. How could he say "our" and then he took "me", that's what it says, if I interpret your answer correctly.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, Mr Olifant is here. There was no other Manuel there, on the Intelligence Unit, in all the years that I rendered service there.

MR HATTINGH: Who is Selamolela?

MR PRETORIUS: He is Sgt Selamolela Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So he was a police officer there?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he was.

MR HATTINGH: Was he present during some of these operations?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And Oscar?

MR PRETORIUS: Oscar was a deep cover agent, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Was he involved in some of these operations?

MR PRETORIUS: No Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Here Mr Olifant says Oscar was there.

MR PRETORIUS: This is the incident - this incident Sir, you will see here, this is the one I was looking for. I did not apply for amnesty for this thing because I do not know of this incident. I was not involved in that. On the contrary at the time when this incident took place, I was on explosive course at Maleeuskop for 6 weeks. And furthermore, just to assist you, you will see the time in his statement, which he attaches at the back, during that time I was doing a 6 week explosive course at Maleeuskop.

MR HATTINGH: I cannot recall what he said in his evidence, but I do not see that he mentioned you as a person who was present.

MR PRETORIUS: I think Mr Wagener asked him, Chairperson, and he conceded that I was not involved in that incident.

MR HATTINGH: So you would not know who was there if this incident had taken place?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Who is Chris Hlatswayo?

MR PRETORIUS: That was S W T 180, he was an informer.

MR HATTINGH: Did he participate in operations?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, the Pantso matter and the Botswana incident.

MR HATTINGH: There's reference made in the statement to a Steenberg.

MR PRETORIUS: He is a retired Col Steenberg, that is where Mr Olifant and I were involved in the Nceba case.

MR HATTINGH: So he was involved there?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Tell me Mr Pretorius, when did you leave Soweto?

MR PRETORIUS: I left Soweto in May of 1991. I was transferred to D component Security Head Office, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And in March 1991 Mr Bambo was killed.

MR PRETORIUS: That is what we understand from the documents, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: When did Mr Coetzee leave Soweto?

MR PRETORIUS: January 1988, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: January 88?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Where did he go to?

MR PRETORIUS: He went to Security Head Office.

MR HATTINGH: And from there?

MR PRETORIUS: He went to the East Rand

MR HATTINGH: Since then he was there?

MR PRETORIUS: No, from there - I beg your pardon Chairperson, he was transferred, I do not know the dates, but up until his retirement from the police force, he was at Security Head Office, Provincial Head Office in Randfontein, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard Mr Coetzee's evidence that he asked Mr Olifant to contact Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Where was Mr Bambo at that stage? Where was Mr Olifant stationed at that stage?

MR PRETORIUS: If it was before 1991, he was with me at Soweto Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: This would have been before his death, before March 1991?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, we were still at Soweto Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Bambo also?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Mr Bambo, ...(intervention)

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon, I made a mistake, I mean Mr Olifant, was he also still there?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he was with me Chairperson, but Mr Coetzee was no longer there. He had left a long time ago.

MR HATTINGH: Can you explain why is it that Mr Coetzee comes to ask Mr Bambo, or I beg your pardon, Olifant, to contact Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I speak under correction. Mr Olifant may be able to assist here, but I believe at that stage, Olifant and Bambo, I would not want to say the same house, but in Soweto there's a semi-house, semi-detached houses on the one side Mr Olifant and his wife lived and on the other side Strongman lived.

MR HATTINGH: Were this official police housing that was supplied to them?

MR PRETORIUS: Not in the entire sense, the house, briefly after they returned from Ovamboland, we arranged that house for them.

MR HATTINGH: And now Mr Bambo is discharged by Mr Coetzee.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: On what basis did he remain there?

MR PRETORIUS: I do not know whether he remained there, I cannot express any opinion there.

MR HATTINGH: My question was actually Mr Pretorius, can you explain, or please tell us, if you cannot tell us, can you explain that Coetzee was no longer at Soweto, came to your side-kick as you refer to him in Soweto and asked him to contact Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, it was not uncommon for me, I know that Mr Coetzee on many occasions, would speak to Olifant or some of my other staff members who were with me and there was nothing wrong with that.

MR HATTINGH: Did he know you in this incident, or did he inform you about this incident when he wanted to speak to Mr Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: He never told you about this?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson. At the stage, I cannot recall the date, he told me that he asked Manuel to find Strongman, because Strongman was busy with crime.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not have that information?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Olifant not report to you that Mr Bambo had apparently been involved in criminal activities?

MR PRETORIUS: I don't believe so, Chairperson. What I believe by that, if they were such great mates, he would definitely not come and tell me, because he knew what my attitude was with regard to crime.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not hear it from any other persons who worked with you, informers and the like?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Coetzee told you that the man was involved in such activities. What was your reaction to it?

MR PRETORIUS: I do not want to say I was shocked because he had previously disappointed us, so it was not strange to me, because he had been convicted previously for armed robbery.

MR HATTINGH: And did you try to do something about it?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Here on page 6 of Exhibit A Mr Olifant says:

"I was approached by Pretorius and requested to keep and ear out for him"

referring to Bambo. Do you dispute that?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I will not dispute that, I probably told him, listen here, try and find out where Strongman is and what's going on with him. I did not take any steps.

MR HATTINGH: So why would you direct such a request to him?

MR PRETORIUS: Probably because we knew the person and we wanted to know what criminal activities he was involved in and we cannot allow that someone who was with us becomes involved in crime.

MR HATTINGH: So are you saying that you directed this request to Mr Olifant after Mr Coetzee told you that Bambo had been involved in criminal activities?

MR PRETORIUS: That is how I recall it, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So you were also concerned that Mr Bambo was involved in criminal activities?

MR PRETORIUS: That is so.

MR HATTINGH: And what did you want Mr Olifant to do in this regard?

MR PRETORIUS: As far as I can recall, I only told him to try and find out what Strongman was busy with, so that we can inform Mr Coetzee or someone else.

MR HATTINGH: And did Mr Olifant report to you?

MR PRETORIUS: Never, not what I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: Did you make enquiries?

MR PRETORIUS: No Chairperson. I didn't see any use, I gave him an instruction that if there was something, he would have come to tell me.

MR HATTINGH: So you just gave him instruction for the purposes of giving him instruction, so did you expect that the instructions should be carried out?

MR PRETORIUS: I expected him to carry it out because I can tell you that Mr Olifant, if he had something, he came to tell me that he had this, or he saw that.

MR HATTINGH: So he never gave any feedback to you?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: But you heard that he testified that he had succeeded in coming into contact with Mr Bambo, and he didn't tell you?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you also didn't ask him?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So you were not really concerned with the activities of Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: Not at all.

MR HATTINGH: So why, if you were not, or maybe I understood your answer incorrectly, are you saying so that you were not concerned, or are you saying that you were concerned?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot say that I was not concerned at all in general, but I was concerned that this man was involved in criminal activities. I am a police official. Anyone involved in crime, then it upsets me.

MR HATTINGH: So while you were getting upset, you give this instruction and you do not follow it up?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson. It was not an instruction, I asked him: "If you see him", I didn't say: "Listen here Manuel, can you go and look for Bambo?" That's an instruction. But if you meet up with him, or if you see him somewhere or he comes to your house, inform us about it.

MR HATTINGH: And then Mr Olifant continues:

"I was to pass the information on to them."

So he understood that he was to give a report back to you.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And he continues and says:

"Pretorius told me that if he was caught, he would have to be killed, as he would talk like others were busy doing."

MR PRETORIUS: I deny that statement in totality.

MR HATTINGH: Were you concerned that if Mr Bambo was arrested that he could possibly speak out about operations where he was involved in, or that he knew of?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I was not concerned at all.

MR HATTINGH: Would you repeat that please.

MR PRETORIUS: As I've already said, I was not concerned that he could speak about something that could do damage to us.

MR HATTINGH: But now it's my question, why were you not concerned.

MR PRETORIUS: What could he have said? That we had detained Nokuthula Simelane? That's what he could have said and that we had recruited her.

MR HATTINGH: And according to him, she disappeared.

MR PRETORIUS: Ja, this afterwards, now everybody is saying she disappeared. As Mr Coetzee pointed out, then we had to face the consequences as we are here at the TRC.

MR HATTINGH: But at that time, you were not prepared to face the consequences.

MR PRETORIUS: How can you say something like that? How do you know whether I was not prepared to face the consequences?

MR HATTINGH: Mr Pretorius are you telling this Committee now in all earnest that it would not have concerned you if Mr Bambo went to speak out about your involvement in the Simelane case?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, if he did, then he could have done so, but he didn't do it. I was not concerned about it. It wasn't even an idea with me that he might go and talk out.

MR HATTINGH: If he talked, it would have been a great embarrassment to you.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, but the Security Branch was in trouble all the time, as it appeared later, many people went to speak out. People ran over to the ANC. The danger to us was not from the State, but our danger was from Umkhonto weSizwe.

MR HATTINGH: You're speaking about things that happened later.

MR PRETORIUS: No, I'm referring to the early 80's when a variety of our members was caught by the ANC. Mr Coetzee referred, there was in the newspapers, there were investigations, the media tried to find us, so we were not concerned about it. There were people who were still abroad, we could bring those people back safely to the RSA and so forth, and I can carry on.

MR HATTINGH: Let's not go on too much. Let's keep to my question. Are you trying to tell this Committee seriously that if you received information that he would speak out about Simelane, that you would not have worried about it?

MR PRETORIUS: But what could I have done, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Would it have concerned you? That's the question.

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I am not asking you what you would have done.

MR PRETORIUS: No, Sir, I would not have been concerned.

MR HATTINGH: So he could have spoken out if he wanted to, as far as it concerned you?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he could have.

MR HATTINGH: So what would you have done? Would you have admitted your involvement in that action?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, that was a recruitment action, one of many. It is so that in today's time it's an unlawful arrest, or unlawful kidnapping or assault, but in our time, it was a recruitment action.

CHAIRPERSON: You need to answer the question just properly, we would not take a long time. Listen to Mr Hattingh and just respond to what he's saying.

MR HATTINGH: That is not the answer to my question, Mr Pretorius. My question is, if he went to speak out about Ms Simelane's abduction and unlawful detention, would you have admitted your involvement, or would you have tried to cover up as you, according to the evidence of Mr de Kock you did, when I say you I refer to the Security Police in general, with the Harms Commission.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I was never involved in any cover-up of any evidence or any witnesses. The Intelligence Unit was not Vlakplaas. Vlakplaas was the name, was the moon and the Security Branch was the sun, that is how far they were .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, may I just come in? Mr Pretorius, you must also follow the flow of the questions. He asked you about if Bambo had spoken, you said it wouldn't concern you and then he says to you, "Would you have admitted that if you were approached with that information given?" It's a simple question really.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, but then Mr Hattingh, says in general, like the Security Branch killed people ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, but this was just honed on Bambo and Simelane, or did I not understand it correctly? Really, that's how I followed it. He was asking about Bambo and Simelane and then you said if he spoke you were not concerned and then he says if you were now approached with that, would you admit that you kidnapped Simelane? It's simple, really. That's how I followed Mr Hattingh really.

MR PRETORIUS: Will he put the question to me again please?

MR HATTINGH: Certainly. If Mr Bambo went to go and speak out about how you had abducted Ms Simelane and had detained her and you were approached by police officials who were investigating those allegations, would you have admitted it, or would you have denied it?

MR PRETORIUS: I would have denied it, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Why?

MR PRETORIUS: Just.

MR HATTINGH: No, please Mr Pretorius, just is not an answer. Why would you have denied it?

MR PRETORIUS: As you have said, in that time I would have denied it firstly.

MR HATTINGH: And tried to cover up.

MR PRETORIUS: No, not cover up.

MR HATTINGH: So what do you do when you deny?

MR PRETORIUS: Then technically it must be so Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And in the meantime you are getting upset when I just make a suggestion about covering up.

MR PRETORIUS: No Chairperson, as I have said, I was never involved in any cover up.

MR HATTINGH: But you were prepared to do it, if it would protect your interests?

MR PRETORIUS: I protected the interests of the State.

MR HATTINGH: So you were prepared to do it if it protected the interest of the State?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So you could have also been charged with abduction and unlawful detention of a person if it came to light?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll take the lunch adjournment and we'll come back at quarter to Two, is that okay with everybody? Thank you. We're adjourned.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ANTON PRETORIUS: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont.)

Mr Pretorius, in a follow-up to the topic that we dealt with before the lunch break, I'd like to put it to you that your unit, the Intelligence Unit, whether as a unit or in co-operation with the Security Police, it was also your modus operandi to get rid of evidence of criminal activities.

MR PRETORIUS: I do deny it very strongly.

MR HATTINGH: Let me then refer you to the Nceba incident, on page 5 of Exhibit A. I do not want to deal with the details of this, I don't know if it still will be heard or not, what was done with the body?

MR PRETORIUS: We dropped it off.

MR HATTINGH: Where did you drop it off?

MR PRETORIUS: In the Rustenburg direction, I cannot recall the specific place.

MR HATTINGH: Did you just leave it there, drop it off there?

MR PRETORIUS: No, we burned it. We set it alight.

MR HATTINGH: Why?

MR PRETORIUS: So that they cannot find us.

MR HATTINGH: Is that not then the removal of proof?

MR PRETORIUS: In that context, yes. Yes, of course.

MR HATTINGH: And after the body was burned, did you just leave it there?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you go and bury it?

MR PRETORIUS: No, not where I was involved in.

MR HATTINGH: But did you hear that they did that?

MR PRETORIUS: No. There was a suggestion made, but I was not involved with it.

MR HATTINGH: You will not succeed in completely burning out three bodies so that there's no trace afterwards.

MR PRETORIUS: I never went back to the scene after that specific evening.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall if it was mentioned in the media that there were - three bodies were found, burned out bodies were found?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, no. Can I just tell the Committee, they never mentioned three, there were only two bodies.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. If we now look at page 6 of Mr Olifant's statement.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: In the first paragraph he said:

"We removed the corpses from the Husky, we smeared them with oil, poured them with petrol and lit it. Pretorius put on the matches. We all came back. I heard that Coetzee and Pretorius returned to fetch the bones the next day."

MR PRETORIUS: During the hearing it came up that Mr Olifant, after the investigative unit of the Attorney-General went to go and identify the scene, the Attorney-General already had the bones, so I do not know where we removed the bones, and I therefore deny that statement as a whole.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Let's look at page 31 of Exhibit A. Here Mr Olifant, in paragraph 119 says:

"Approximately two weeks before the incident, Capt Coetzee phoned me and informed me in a group that the police are looking for me relating to this specific incident. Capt Coetzee laughed and told me that I shouldn't worry and that they arranged for everything. That was the last time that I ever heard of this incident again."

Do you know what he's talking about there?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, I would just like to ensure, I'm not quite sure what incident he's referring to.

MR HATTINGH: We are referring to the Nceba incident.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, that once again came up in the hearing of Nceba, that once again Mr Olifant made a serious mistake by implicating Mr Coetzee. He was not involved in this incident at all.

MR HATTINGH: But he does not implicate him in this paragraph, all that he is saying is that Coetzee told him that there was an enquiry and that he shouldn't worry.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, as I have already mentioned in Nceba hearing it came up that Mr Coetzee never had any knowledge of this incident when I applied for amnesty, so he couldn't have known about this.

MR HATTINGH: Let me just refer you to something else as an example of what I mentioned before, that is paragraph 115, that is page 30, paragraph 115. I think it is about the landmine incident.

MR PRETORIUS: It is the same incident Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, it is the same incident, you are correct. Then in paragraph 115 he says:

"Linda informed us that the landmine that Elias set did not go off and that he shot him. Manyane informed us that the Castro Mine did not go off and that he shot him."

The point that I'd like to make here is that the members who were involved in operations, did talk about it to other members.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Sir, these are the members who were involved in this operation.

MR HATTINGH: But the one was not there when the other one was shot.

MR PRETORIUS: If I can explain it to the Committee, Mr Chairperson, it was one operation that had three concurrent legs that took place at different places, but it all happened at the same time.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that is the point that I'm making. The one on point B does not know what the others are doing on point C.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is with the report-back or feedback on the farm Guys, where the feedback was done, or the report was done to me, or was given to me as the three respective teams. I was involved in one of the teams and as we came back, we went back to Guys, all the teams reported back to me and everybody there heard about it, so it was not a shop talk situation, it was a feedback situation.

MR HATTINGH: Were you at New Canada, or Nancefield?

MR PRETORIUS: I was not there, I was at the Klipspruit one.

MR HATTINGH: Just as you now conceded that evidence was removed in this instant, I also assume that it has happened before in other operations in which you were involved in?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, I think this is the only case where an operation went wrong. If I can interpret it in that way, where we had to cover up our involvement in this operation.

MR HATTINGH: And if a policeman had approached you concerning this incident and said to you: "Look I've got information and I know that you killed people", would you have denied it?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I would have.

MR HATTINGH: And this is why I'm putting it to you, Mr Pretorius, that if - that it was very important to you that Mr Bambo shouldn't talk about the operations in which you were involved in.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, I've already said that it was not a concern to me because the operations about which he could talk about were minor operations, according to my opinion.

ADV SANDI: But were you not concerned that he could possibly talk about things he was not necessarily involved in, things which had been told to him by Olifant, or whoever?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, with all respect, if I wanted to harm people, I think it would have been Mr Olifant, he knew far more, he was involved in physical murders in the country. Bambo was never involved with me in any such violent operations, so what danger did he hold for me?

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR HATTINGH: But you're not answering Adv Sandi's question. He's not just asking what operations he was involved in, but also where he heard from other members, what he could have heard from other members.

MR PRETORIUS: Well, Mr Chairperson, I was not aware of that, that is why he held no danger for me. I never saw any danger in him.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know what they were discussing at this safehouse when he was next door to Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, if I can just explain myself as follows. I do not deny the fact that he and Manuel could have talked about it or discussed this.

CHAIRPERSON: And besides they were bosom friends, Mr Olifant said: "He was more of a brother to me".

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, so Mr Linda Monde could have told the whole of Vlakplaas what happened and I think that's what he did. He did tell the whole Vlakplaas about what happened in the Nceba incident, so I had to do something about the whole of Vlakplaas then.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson. So you do admit that some of your members did talk out about some of the operations in which they were involved in?

MR PRETORIUS: It's logical, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And so for example, there's at least a theoretical possibility that Mr Bambo could have spoken out about the three people who were involved in the three mine attacks, of which two were killed?

MR PRETORIUS: I do not have such knowledge, that Mr Bambo knew about this incident.

MR HATTINGH: But you also do not have information that he did not know about this?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

ADV SANDI: Didn't you and Mr Coetzee talk to each other about things you were separately involved in?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Mr Chairperson.

ADV SANDI: Okay, thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. In your evidence you said that Bambo had some undisciplined actions or characteristics in him, will that not then enforce the suspicion that he will then come forward and talk about operations in which he was involved in, or in which you were involved in?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, if I am talking about the undisciplined actions of him, it doesn't fall in that category, no.

MR HATTINGH: Are you talking about physical undisciplined actions?

MR PRETORIUS: Well Mr Chairperson, he made use of alcohol a lot, he used unauthorised vehicles, he did not pitch up for work and when Mr Coetzee told him, for example, to "ensure that you're at the scene to look after the office", he will not pitch up and we never knew where he was and that's the type of undisciplined action I'm talking about.

MR HATTINGH: Now we know that it's a well-known fact that the use of alcohol does loosen the tongue and that you can be or act irresponsibly when you have taken a lot of alcohol and that there are certain things that you will say when you are drunk, that you won't usually say when you're sober. That didn't bother you, the fact that he could have then disclosed certain things about your operations. You also talk about other people knowing about the operations. You said you would have rather have killed Olifant, but he was not part of that.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: But he was not part of that, while Mr Bambo is in prison awaiting the trial for serious crimes like murder and robbery?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, the same with Phineas Motsualiba that Mr Coetzee mentioned and he was, I think, with Mr Coetzee and myself since 1982 and when I applied for amnesty I also heard that Mr Coetzee and others, of which Phineas was included, were involved in an operation where Mr de Kock was also involved, that was in Swaziland and we did nothing to him.

MR HATTINGH: Let us just hear, when was he arrested?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot say exactly when, but I think it was during the time when we applied for amnesty that he was arrested.

MR HATTINGH: Well then his case is very different from Mr Bambo. Now you are going to talk about yourselves in this amnesty process, he's not a risk for you anymore because you are going to disclose it yourself.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson if I can put it as follows: If Mr Bambo, or if I were to be part of the planning to kill Mr Bambo, I would have applied for that.

MR HATTINGH: You are once again not answering my question, you are talking about the other person as an example of a person who is in jail and could have disclosed certain facts, but I'm talking now about after you've decided to apply for amnesty and to make a full disclosure, he still did not hold any risk.

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot say it. I do not know what he knew, I do not know what he recalled, he could have come forward with a load of stories.

MR HATTINGH: Were you scared that he could have disclosed certain incidents for which you did not apply for amnesty and if he could have talked about things that he - so there's no risk of him being in jail while he could not have disclosed anything about incidents for which you did not apply for amnesty. If I have got my notes in order, the last operation in which you and Mr Bambo were involved in, I think I wrote December 1988 or January 1988.

MR PRETORIUS: If I'm talking about an operation, Mr Chairperson, maybe I expressed myself in the wrong way. I'm talking about physical contact within the work context, this is now with Adriano Bambo. Afterwards he never, in his official capacity, made contact with me.

MR HATTINGH: But did you not want to then disclose by saying that because you were involved, you haven't been involved with him for so long, there's nothing that he could really disclose about you? What were these operations in which you were involved with him?

MR PRETORIUS: It was only one operation. It was the 83, September 83 - I cannot recall the name now. It was Nokuthula Simelane incident.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.

MR HATTINGH: I'm asking you, what was the operation in which you were involved with him, you said in January or December 1988.

MR PRETORIUS: I did not say an operation Mr Chairperson, I meant it was the last time that I had any contact with him in a work context.

MR HATTINGH: My note says the last operation.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, maybe I expressed myself in the wrong way, it was not an operation. I meant it was the last time that I had contact with him and that's the last time. You will recall Mr Chairperson when Mr Coetzee and his component were transferred to Pretoria, that was the last time that I had any contact with Adriano Bambo. So it was not an operation.

MR HATTINGH: Let us get to this discussion that you said you had with Mr Olifant which he discusses on page 6 of Exhibit A.

MR HATTINGH: You say that you did have a discussion about Adriano Bambo.

MR PRETORIUS: About Adriano Bambo, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Was that after Mr Coetzee told you that he asked Olifant to contact Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Now while Mr Coetzee already said it, why do you repeat this request?

MR PRETORIUS: Well Mr Chairperson, I did not mean anything by it. We've learned out of experience that in working with these people that you can say something like that about 50 times and they still forget it.

MR HATTINGH: Did you want him to ask Bambo to make contact with you?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have already said to you, Mr Coetzee told me that he had information that Mr Bambo was involved in criminal activities and I think you asked me if I knew anything about it and then I said no, I do not know anything about it, I do not see this person, but I'll ask Manuel, this is now Mr Olifant. So I asked Olifant if he knew anything about it.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't he then tell you that he already asked Olifant about it?

MR PRETORIUS: I accept that he would have told me this, but then I would have repeated it.

MR HATTINGH: So you just wanted him to be on the lookout for Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, and to come and tell myself of Mr Coetzee if he saw the person, or if he can confirm that Mr Bambo was involved in these criminal activities.

MR HATTINGH: But couldn't you just ask him to tell Mr Bambo to come and see you so that you can personally question him?

MR PRETORIUS: Well I did not have the information, I would not have been able to ask him anything. If I can explain this to the Committee, if I would have asked Mr Bambo to come and see me, I wouldn't have had to send him to Mr Coetzee, it wouldn't have been a good exercise.

MR HATTINGH: Is that all that you are now saying that you told Mr Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ask him more at a later stage?

MR PRETORIUS: If we are looking now specifically at the Bambo case, that is where the newspaper article explained that Mr Bambo was involved in robbery and that he escaped and that's where I spoke to Mr Olifant.

MR HATTINGH: What was the discussion at that stage?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have already testified earlier on, Mr Chairperson, I was concerned about the safety of the people who would then attempt to arrest Mr Bambo, because I knew that Adriano Bambo was a fighter and I was also worried about him, that he would be killed in the process.

MR HATTINGH: So I understand you correctly now that at two opportunities you had a discussion with Mr Olifant concerning Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, there was also a third instance.

MR HATTINGH: Can you then mention that?

MR PRETORIUS: In this case I can specifically recall Mr Olifant came to me with a newspaper article and he asked me if I heard that Adriano Bambo is dead and I then told him, or asked him, "What do you mean?" He said: "No, he attempted to escape and he was killed."

MR HATTINGH: Very well. Let us leave the last incident. Let us deal with the second one that you now mention, this is now when there was an article in the newspaper informing or saying that Mr Bambo attempted to escape, but now you're not worried about him, but about people who would try to arrest him, what did you do about this?

MR PRETORIUS: If my recollection is correct, I contacted Mr Coetzee and asked him if he knew about this escape and I think I informed him about what the article said.

MR HATTINGH: And what did you think, what would he be able to do about it?

MR PRETORIUS: I think that he also expressed his concern.

MR HATTINGH: I understand the concern, Mr Pretorius, but what could you do about it?

MR PRETORIUS: Nothing, our hands were tied, we couldn't do anything about it.

MR HATTINGH: My notes about your evidence concerning this reads as follows:

"All fear was for Bambo's life, that if he pulled, drew a weapon and he was cornered, there would be a lot of trouble."

So you were worried about his life?

MR PRETORIUS: Well, Sir, if you knew somebody and you worked with him for a few years, you do not want to see him killed.

MR HATTINGH: Now you had this discussion about his escape and you just expressed your fear about what could happen afterwards. Did you ask Mr Olifant to do anything about this?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, I cannot recall if I asked him to do something specifically. Maybe I asked him if he knew where Mr Bambo was.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard Mr Coetzee's evidence and although Mr Olifant said that Mr Bambo will change addresses, that he, Coetzee, will still be able to find him, if he wanted to meet with him and then if he wanted to meet with him.

MR PRETORIUS: I heard what Mr Coetzee testified.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have the same capacity to do that?

MR PRETORIUS: Only through Mr Olifant yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you do anything to trace him?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I did not take any physical steps to try and trace him.

MR HATTINGH: Why not, in the light of the fact that you had certain fears?

MR PRETORIUS: Well I did not take any physical steps, but what I did do is that I believe I told Mr Olifant that look, if you do see this person, tell him or we'll have to try and do something to prevent him from getting into some kind of fight.

MR HATTINGH: What did you have in mind, what would you be able to do?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, at the end of the day we could have used Mr Olifant to convince him to give himself up, hand himself over or we could have taken him to the Investigative Officer or something in that light and that is what I had in mind.

MR HATTINGH: If it was possible for you to get hold of him through Mr Olifant, why didn't you then try to do it? Earlier today you said that crime is unacceptable for any policeman.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, it was not my duty to chase after robbers, I was busy dealing with Umkhonto weSizwe matters to get hold of MK members, so it was not my function and as I said, I believe that if I told Mr Olifant: "Look, try and get hold of this guy and see if we can assist him", that is a normal action of an old Commander, or former Commander.

MR HATTINGH: This discussion with Mr Olifant, concerning Mr Bambo, did this happen before or after the disbanning of the ANC?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, I cannot say, I know that the disbanning took place on the 2nd of February, 1990 but I cannot say in all honesty if it was before or afterwards.

MR HATTINGH: And Mr Bambo was killed in March 1991.

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, just to explain what knowledge I had, the day with the consultation with Mr Wagener, I heard for the first time in my life, or saw the dates during which Adriano was arrested and I heard then for the first time that he was rearrested and sentenced for a 12 month period and that he was held in prison. Apart from the newspaper articles, I never heard anything else.

MR HATTINGH: Did you then get the details afterwards, of dates?

MR PRETORIUS: Are you now talking about after I consulted with Mr Wagener.

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, we looked at the post-mortem inquest of Mr Koekemoer.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, that now gives you the date on which Mr Bambo was killed. Could you determine the date on which he escaped?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, I think we didn't see anything in that line, I'll have to go back to the documents, because I'm now talking about a month or two ago when this happened, when I looked at these documents.

MR HATTINGH: Did you, after the disbanning of the ANC, still continue to, if I can put it in a simple way, hunt MK members?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, we continued up until 1994. If you say hunt, from my perspective it would be to get information.

MR HATTINGH: I did not mean it in a literal way, I meant it in a more figurative way. Mr Olifant never returned to you to try and find out if you could get hold of him?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: How often did you and Mr Coetzee have contact with each other after he left the Soweto branch?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, there were opportunities, as I said. May 1991, I went to Security Headquarters and there were certain opportunities where there were co-ordinating meetings that took place in the Witwatersrand and that's where I met Mr Coetzee. There were a few opportunities where these information co-ordinating meetings were held at his residence.

MR HATTINGH: His residence?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes I think it was somewhere in the mid-Rand.

MR HATTINGH: And how often did you make contact with him after you returned to Soweto, after Headquarters?

MR PRETORIUS: I never went back.

MR HATTINGH: When did you leave the Soweto branch?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, I left in May 1991 and I went to W Section in the H Q.

MR HATTINGH: I'd just like to refresh my memory. When did he leave?

MR PRETORIUS: I think it was in January 1988.

MR HATTINGH: And was this while you were working in Soweto and how often did you have contact with him in the work context?

MR PRETORIUS: I would say not often because he went to Headquarters, or Head Office and he dealt with a different field concerning information and intelligence.

MR HATTINGH: So your fields did not really coincide or cross?

MR PRETORIUS: Then at co-ordinating meetings at Head Office, or maybe in a different district, we would meet...

MR HATTINGH: But not at the Soweto branch?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I did not say that, Mr Chairperson, Mr Coetzee did come to Soweto.

MR HATTINGH: How often? This is now before you left.

MR PRETORIUS: If I take a guess, I would say once a month. I would also not say every month.

MR HATTINGH: Wasn't it strange that you'd go there to make contact with Mr Olifant and have discussions about Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: I was not present where he spoke to Mr Olifant and I do not think evidence was led that said where it was, I don't know if it was at the farm, or wherever.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Olifant ever report back to your Headquarters, or Head Office?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Concerning what?

MR PRETORIUS: There were certain matters in which Mr Coetzee asked and we did make use of each other's assistance and maybe this can answer your question, he asked me a few times too if he could maybe make use of Manuel to transport that informer from point A to B and I never had a problem with that.

MR HATTINGH: In conclusion I will put it to you Mr Pretorius that you and Mr Coetzee did fear, after the arrest of Mr Bambo and with the knowledge of further hearings to be held, that he may disclose certain operations in which you were involved in and because you feared this, you conspired with Mr Koekemoer and Gen Engelbrecht to kill him.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson I deny it very strongly and I would like to conclude it with the following. Mr Chairperson, Mr Hattingh never asked me if I knew Mr Koekemoer. For the first time, I only met Mr Koekemoer in 1994, the beginning of 1994 and before that I never knew him.

MR HATTINGH: When was that?

MR PRETORIUS: 1994, I met him at a co-ordinating meeting.

MR HATTINGH: It still could have happened that you and Mr Coetzee decided to make a plan to get rid of this man and he could have taken over the planning and he could have made this plan.

MR PRETORIUS: Well I do deny it.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairperson. No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, there's something that is worrying me.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Let me clear it up with you right away before I give somebody else an opportunity to cross-examine.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: This Exhibit A by Mr Olifant.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If I understand the evidence, is that he was approached and there was a threat of prosecution upon him.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And if you look at Exhibit A, he's incriminating himself extensively, wouldn't you agree?

MR PRETORIUS: I agree with that, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And my reading of the Exhibit is that he does say in certain instances, Mr Strongman Bambo, Adriano Bambo was not involved.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And he mentions instances where Bambo was involved and mentioned amongst other people, yourself and Mr Coetzee.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now listening to your evidence is that all these incidents other than Simelane, he was not involved, but Olifant was involved.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson. I think I attempted to show this Committee that Mr Olifant, as you conceded, I think, in many instances he was told what to say by the Attorney-General's office. Secondly Mr Olifant had two opportunities, if I can recall correctly, made mistakes in this statement. First of all he involved Mr Coetzee and the Nceba incident in such a serious manner, that Mr Coetzee had to issue a warning statement through the Attorney-General's office and he was never near the Nceba incident. The second, clearly under cross-examination he had to admit and that was his third paragraph, that is the ...(indistinct) house incident and according to his statement, he is trying to make it out as if I was involved in it and I'm telling you now, Mr Chairperson, I was not because I was on an explosives course at Maleeuskop, so he already made two mistakes, so it is possible that he could have made the same mistake with Adriano Bambo.

CHAIRPERSON: We have heard evidence that this was a brave man.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And some of the incidents undertaken needed a brave man, wouldn't you agree with me? I'm just talking about the Exhibit A and nothing else.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, as in the Simelane case, Mr Chairperson, Strongman was also physically very strong, that is why we used him as a guard, he's a very strong man.

CHAIRPERSON: And according to Mr Coetzee, he was identified whilst he was still in South West Africa, that this is a brave man.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And it would appear when he got to Soweto, he was under utilised, if not utilised at all, in operations.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I personally had a problem with this fact that Mr Bambo was present. We could not really make use of him, he was a fighter, he's a person that just wanted to fight. He comes from a fighting background and in Soweto there weren't that many fights.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh no, how could you say that because Soweto was in flames after 76, how could you say that?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I do agree with you, but the instruction that I know, Mr Coetzee got from the then Brig van Rensburg was that he must work with Mr Willem. If Mr Willem worked at the terrorist unit in Soweto, then I would say yes, Mr Bambo was at the right place because these were the people who, if terrorists were found in houses, they got involved in fighting and not us at the Intelligence service.

CHAIRPERSON: And after 1985, the infiltration into South Africa by the so-called terrorists was intensified as well.

MR PRETORIUS: Once again you're right.

CHAIRPERSON: And you said it yourself that your duty was to fight the ANC and I suppose by that you meant the MK cadres who infiltrated the country?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson. If I can just qualify that. If I say fighting I mean that we were an Intelligence service, our task was to fight the onslaught of MK, whether in Durban, Zambia, Angola and we were involved in the information in that whole spectrum, we were the intelligence or information centre.

CHAIRPERSON: Then when I listen to the evidence, but my concern is just this, his killing and this hearing, is that he is issued with a firearm, but he's never utilised to carry any operation, but he has a firearm.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, we all at the Intelligence Unit, had various weapons. We also had our fears. As I maybe have mentioned earlier on in my evidence that there were people who sold us out to the ANC. We lived outside of Soweto, very isolated areas, we worked till 2 or 3 o'clock in the mornings, we did not have uniformed members who protected us, we had to make use of our own protection, we had to ensure that we do not become a target of the MK, more specifically then.

CHAIRPERSON: Not to take the thunder away from the other legal representatives, what strikes me as odd, I may be mistaken, my mind is not made up, that's why I say I want to clear it with you from the outset, so that I know what the evidence is going to, is that listening is that other people may be forgotten who were involved, but definitely not Bambo, it worries me. Bambo is remembered specifically but not the other people who were involved in operations. How come this?

MR PRETORIUS: Who recalled him specifically, Mr Chairperson? I do not understand.

CHAIRPERSON: I say you recall him specifically, that he was not involved. Because if you take away Simelane, he was not involved at all. I say Bambo is not involved at all in all these incidents if we take just the Simelane one away.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, as I have said before with the other incident, I do know for a fact that Mr Bambo was still in prison, so he couldn't have been present and then the other incidents, I do know for a fact that Mr Bambo was not present, because I was at the scene and we were a very small group and if Mr Bambo was present, I would have definitely have seen him and remembered him.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I've taken cognisance of the fact that he was in prison and if I read what you called notes, is that Mr Olifant speaks from 1986, when he was released, that he was involved and what we know is that he was taken back.

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Chairperson, there are only two incidents, that the Ipalageng incident, in which I was involved and the Jabulani Amphitheatre incident where, a credibility operation and Ipalageng, where we wanted to prevent them from continuing having meetings, myself and Mr Olifant were at those meetings and I cannot recall anything about Mr Bambo being involved in any of those meetings and I stick to my view point that maybe Mr Olifant made a mistake as he made previous mistakes, but Mr Bambo was not involved in any of those matters.

CHAIRPERSON: Were people like van Wyngaardt and Gustav not members of the South African Police?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And if thus far, I may be mistaken, that they were not attached to the Soweto unit.

MR PRETORIUS: Intelligence Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: They were not attached?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And he says so, he says: "People from outside, van Wyngaardt for instance, Gustav, who were not attached to us, came and assisted. He remembers such things. That's what worries me, that how could he make a mistake about his bosom friend, because if, for instance, he was - I'm not saying I'm believing this document, if he was an out and out liar, he would have said Bambo in all the incidents, because the man is dead, he can't answer for himself.

MR PRETORIUS: I'm not certain that Mr Olifant, or Mr Olifant and Mr Bambo had close bonds to each other, but the circumstances under which these notes were made, it's literally somebody puts a pistol to your head and I would have admitted anything then just to get away. Mr Olifant here said it himself. He would have done anything just to stay out of prison and not to be deported back to Mozambique, because he's a Mozambican by birth, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't the tenor, or the sentiment he was expressing, that look, when I approached my seniors and said: "Hey, we are also covering our backs, see what you can do" and he was faced with this prosecution, he said: "I have no chance, let me make a clean breast, let it take whatever turn it does take, I'm not protected now."

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, maybe I should just correct the scoreboard here. I think Mr Coetzee and I, basically I think for a half a day I was in detention, long before Mr Olifant, I was in a much more serious situation than Mr Olifant found himself in, but I didn't drop any names and I'm convinced that Mr Olifant here did some name dropping here, a name that came up by him, he mentioned it, it was indicated in the Nceba incident where he involves Mr Coetzee in this serious crime, three persons were murdered. He involves Mr Coetzee there and he involves me in another incident that I deny in totality because I was not here, I was in Maleeuskop, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But would you say for instance, the names he mentions here, Big Boy, Peter, Sgt Selamolela, Oscar, Adriano, not members of your unit?

MR PRETORIUS: They were members of my unit Chairperson but this is the incident where I was not present. I did not apply for this one.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I'm not asking about what you have applied for or not, I said were the people I've just mentioned not members of your unit?

MR PRETORIUS: They were, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And if you go through the statement, it does not necessarily just include them. He does not necessarily say: "Because we consisted of so many, whenever we went on an operation, everybody was there", he doesn't do that, but where he was involved, he says: "I was involved and these are the people who are involved" and in one instance he said: "I am not sure here whether it was Oscar or Mandla who was involved in that incident", do you recall that? He's not sure and wouldn't you say that is honesty?

MR PRETORIUS: No Chairperson, because here Mr Olifant, when he made this statement, he was prepared to take the oath. He was prepared to swear on this statement of his that Mr Coetzee was involved in the Nceba incident and he made a mistake, it was a big mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: And if you look at the statement of ...(indistinct) you say you only knew in 1994.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If you have regard to it, is that no member of your unit could be prosecuted on such a statement.

MR PRETORIUS: I do not understand the question, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I say if you look at it, he includes nobody. He says just: "I received information". Let me find it for you.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just put it to you in Afrikaans? What the Chairperson is trying to ask you is if you studied Mr Koekemoer's statement. In Koekemoer's statement there is no incrimination of anybody in your unit.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And wouldn't you say it's surprising that he received information, I'm asking you just for your opinion here, that Grimbeek is the man who is investigating Bambo, he knows nothing about these guns, but somebody else, whom he cannot recall, tells him this guy has hidden guns somewhere. You know this is a big, big jigsaw puzzle, what on earth he said here.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot comment on that, but the little that I heard here was that Mr Koekemoer said that the prison authorities called their office with regard to this man and that it was basically, it would sound like it was a procedure that he had to fetch the deceased, but I cannot comment on this. What I am saying now is only speculation.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm just saying this to indicate my confusion.

MR PRETORIUS: I understand Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. Mr Cornelius.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Mr Pretorius, no-one testified that Olifant was under tremendous pressure to make Exhibit A, it was only said, or it was jokingly indicated that if you do not co-operate then you will have to polish Coetzee's shoes in prison.

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson I will just qualify. Just briefly after Mr Olifant - briefly after this Capt Liesk threatened him at his house, he ran back to me and this was already after I had been suspended from the South African police, the Liesk threatened him with deportation and arrest and what should he do and that is why the statement came in that I was already in the fire, I couldn't help him. I do not believe that I was supposed to talk to him. I think the best for him was to get some legal advice.

MR CORNELIUS: You would agree with me that Mr Olifant was under extensive cross-examination here and he impressed me as a good witness.

MR PRETORIUS: No, but that's very well then.

MR CORNELIUS: No, I'm not asking your opinion, what was your impression?

MR PRETORIUS: You see, I'm not an expert in evaluating people's evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: What impression did you get from him, this is Olifant, without Mr Cornelius' impression?

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, in general I do realise his dilemma, that he has said certain things here.

CHAIRPERSON: The impression, I don't want us to go further than that. What impression did you get of him when he gave his evidence here?

MR PRETORIUS: I would say he's a good witness, Chairperson, if I can give him that credit.

CHAIRPERSON: Please continue, Mr Cornelius.

MR CORNELIUS: He answered the questions easily, the answer came easily, he didn't contradict himself in his evidence.

MR PRETORIUS: Except that with regard to or well let's say there was no contradiction, he sticks to his story and we will stick to our story.

MR CORNELIUS: And you would agree that when he gave his co-operation...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May I just enter here, except that he spoke of other incidents where you say you were not there?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Except for that he answered everything else very well.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson. And you would agree that when he gave his co-operation to the Investigative Team of the A-G, they could cross-reference any allegation that he made.

MR PRETORIUS: I believe so, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So, they could have caught out Mr Olifant if he was lying to them, with this statement.

MR PRETORIUS: Well if one studies the bits and pieces of incidents to which they asked him, it's clear that they didn't question him for too long, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Well, it's a very long statement with very much information, so it had to be a long conversation.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, he mentions a whole lot of incidents. For example this instance where we are involved now, that's one paragraph.

MR CORNELIUS: According to me that is not very long, but that's a paragraph that's causing you many problems. Let's go to that paragraph. Mr Olifant places you on the scene in the discussion on page 6 of the second last paragraph.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And then I want to ask you at that stage you knew in the conversation that Bambo was involved in a few robberies, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, I did not know if.

MR CORNELIUS: But you knew he was involved in crime?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You do not know what happened to the victims of those crimes?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

MR CORNELIUS: So according to you as a police official, you just know that Bambo was involved in serious crimes?

MR PRETORIUS: No, as Mr Coetzee said, it came to his attention that Adriano Bambo was possibly involved in criminal activities. That is what I said the first time I spoke to Mr Olifant, so we did not know whether it was theft of cars, or housebreaking.

MR CORNELIUS: But it's quite clear that Olifant knew because he says:

"He, then allegedly involved in the robberies, later arrested and escaped."

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, but that is indeed where my problem is. He tries to put three conversations that I had with him in one paragraph, that is where my problem is. Everything that he and I discussed, he tries to put it in one paragraph.

MR CORNELIUS: So what did you find out about the robbery?

MR PRETORIUS: Where Mr Adriano was involved?

MR CORNELIUS: Before the escape.

MR PRETORIUS: This was in a newspaper report, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Was this before the conversation or after the conversation?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have said, this was after, this was my second conversation with regard to Bambo with Mr Olifant Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have a look at the normal intelligence, if you could see what was happening?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, because the persons who were handling the case were involved with it.

MR CORNELIUS: But you were looking for Bambo.

MR PRETORIUS: I did not say I was looking for Bambo, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: But Mr Coetzee looked for him.

MR PRETORIUS: Well to want to speak to a man is not looking for him.

MR CORNELIUS: So you are an experienced member and you know there's a former member committing crimes, so now you decided you do not want to know what he's involved with, you're trying to protect him.

MR PRETORIUS: But in the newspaper report it said that he was involved in armed robberies and if I recall correctly, I think it was in Kempton Park, the incident that was in the newspaper, there was an armed robbery in Kempton Park and thereafter he escaped.

MR CORNELIUS: And you know any police official who would arrest a suspect in an armed robbery would know he was dangerous.

MR PRETORIUS: Well this man was a little bit more than dangerous.

MR CORNELIUS: What made him more dangerous?

MR PRETORIUS: Well, Sir, he's a former Renamo soldier, he comes from Koevoet and his evidence from Mr Olifant in the fighting situations he was the only person who jumped up with an LMG and ran with it, so this is not just your common criminal or a common person.

MR CORNELIUS: I see and he was much more dangerous because he had information that was quite dangerous to you.

MR PRETORIUS: Oh no, please Chairperson, I've already said to me Mr Strongman Adriano Bambo was no threat to me.

MR CORNELIUS: But the knowledge that he had?

MR PRETORIUS: What knowledge?

MR CORNELIUS: He had much knowledge of many operations.

MR PRETORIUS: No Chairperson, as I have already said, Chairperson, according to what I know in the description of an operation it was only the Simelane matter.

MR CORNELIUS: And then he was ill-disciplined as well, that gives you even greater problems.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I saw him for the last - or I worked with him for the last time in 1988 and that is how - there are many people, if I can just take Soweto Intelligence part, as the saying goes, I hired and fired many people, so I can tell you that Mr Bambo was only one of the people who, for a short period where I was involved, worked with me.

MR CORNELIUS: When this discussion took place between you and Olifant, have you eliminated persons before that? When you and Mr Olifant, this conversation on page 6?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, this is where I went to Swaziland with Mr de Kock.

MR CORNELIUS: So you had previously eliminated people?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have said previously, this was in 1986, December 1986, Chairperson. I refer to the Pantso matter.

MR CORNELIUS: There is evidence that Olifant and Bambo were more than brothers, can you recall that? Do you not think that Mr Olifant would specifically remember if you told him that his "brother" had to be killed?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I think here he said in his own words, I never told him that. He never said that here, he said that I never said so. I denied that I said it and he said in his own evidence that Mr Pretorius never gave him instruction or said something that we had to kill Adriano.

MR CORNELIUS: Not that he that was Olifant, had to kill Adriano. That's where the confusion is, but the words:

"He had to be killed"

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, sorry, if I may come in here, but in fairness to the witness, Mr Olifant specifically retracted that part of this document that Mr Cornelius now tries to cross-examine on.

CHAIRPERSON: That's my recollection.

MR CORNELIUS: I stand to be corrected. Did he also retract the part:

"As he would talk like others were busy doing"

MR PRETORIUS: I denied that Chairperson. I think the name of Nofomela was mentioned here. I deny every saying anything like that to him.

MR CORNELIUS: But Mr Olifant did not retract that, that part still stands.

MR PRETORIUS: I agree and I am saying that I discussed that matter with Mr Olifant.

MR CORNELIUS: You see because I find that strange that Mr Olifant would remember that part.

MR PRETORIUS: As I've already said, after this piece that Mr Olifant had handed in, I have many problems with it. It's possible that he said so, but I deny it.

ADV SANDI: My recollection says to me at that stage where Olifant was mentioning names, Nofomela and Dirk Coetzee and so on, he was simply drunk and the inference, because those were the people who were talking here at that stage, their names had not been mentioned to him. All that had been mentioned was that people were talking at that stage, but specific names had not been mentioned.

MR CORNELIUS: That is quite correct, the names weren't mentioned. I understood that as well. Because you see, can you think of any reason why Mr Olifant would falsely implicate you?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I testified earlier on, I would not say falsely, this thing was mentioned under a tremendous stress and I keep on mentioning the Nceba incident. Mr Coetzee could have been in prison for a week or a weekend, because of his mistake that he had made, because he was so convinced, as I said he was prepared to swear under oath that Mr Coetzee was involved in the Nceba incident.

CHAIRPERSON: But he enlisted your advices and you said: "Do as you want to do, because there's no other way out", but had you sat together, you would have advised him what has happened and he wouldn't just mention names, would he, because he did not go there only, he came to you people and said: "Here are these people, here's Liesk behind my back" and you say: "Hey, we are also in the same soup or quagmire, see what you say" and he says what he remembers and now you are fighting him and say he just mentions names at random.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson what was I supposed to do at that stage? Was I supposed to influence the A-G's evidence? I couldn't afford to do that, otherwise I would be in trouble for that too. I realised that Mr Olifant as well as other members of my office, were also probably promised things for Section 204.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, let me be honest here, I have seen many Commissions in my life and I've been in this process for the past three years, what I've noticed and I want to understand is that when you come to the Security Forces, the whites stand alone, the blacks stand alone. Am I making a mistake when it comes to that?

MR PRETORIUS: No that's a fact, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And I have said it, I repeat it, can we go on news media, newsprint, that I find it very unsatisfactory that when you get the former Security Police, they are giving the best representation under the Pretoria Clause and those foot soldiers who were black, they have got to find their own legal representatives and if not so, through Legal Aid, which pays nothing. Would that not be true?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, because I was suspended, despite the fact that the Commissioner Fivaz told me that: "You will not be suspended as long as you make a full disclosure to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission"

CHAIRPERSON: Answer my question that, are the whites not standing together when they submit their applications for amnesty?

MR PRETORIUS: In the Soweto incidents, because we had no other choice because all the blacks were State witnesses, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You can take it from me that not only Soweto, all the Security Branches are standing together and the blacks alone and they were operating together.

MR PRETORIUS: Then there is an instance of Soweto where we had Phineas Motsualiba who was with Mr Coetzee, he didn't turn against us, he was with us.

CHAIRPERSON: That's why it is much better for you. I'm not making judgment, I say that's why it's making much better sense to you, because you had an opportunity to speak to Mr Coetzee. He is a man who went there and stood alone and as he came here, he stood alone again. Don't you find that rather disturbing that people would say you're talking not the truth, you can ask Mr Coetzee, it happened this way.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, were we supposed to involve the State witnesses of the A-G's office? We couldn't do that, in all honesty. Mr Olifant knows specifically me, I was one of the few who stood by him and I would go out of my way to assist him.

CHAIRPERSON: That's why he was surprised when he was followed by Liesk. Then when you and Coetzee said: "Do what you can do."

MR PRETORIUS: No Chairperson, I'd just like to correct that. Coetzee and I had already been suspended, our cars were taken back, our telephones were taken away, we were told also ...

CHAIRPERSON: You are taking it out of context. Whether you were suspended or not, he did come to you, didn't he?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he did come to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Now why do you bring the suspension in, because he came to you as seniors he respected.

MR PRETORIUS: I told him what he was supposed to do.

CHAIRPERSON: He must go and told with Liesk.

MR PRETORIUS: No, that's not what I said.

CHAIRPERSON: What was he supposed to do?

MR PRETORIUS: I told him: "Go and find yourself and attorney" and at that stage Mr Coetzee and I were looking for an attorney, nobody wanted to help us, not Head Office, no-one. I gave Mr Olifant advice as to what he was supposed to do.

CHAIRPERSON: So he had to find an attorney with R400, because that was his salary? Like an informer, Mr Coetzee said this, he received about R400.

MR PRETORIUS: Not at that stage. Mr Olifant was already a Sgt in the police, Chairperson, he could, on the contrary he had more right to the State Prosecutor, or State Attorney than I did. They didn't want to help me at all Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I apologise for interrupting, Mr Cornelius.

MR CORNELIUS: I would just like to know. Do you know Mr Ivor Human? You're referring to the A-G's evidence.

MR PRETORIUS: Not know, I just saw him once in my life.

MR CORNELIUS: And is this the one time before Mr Bambo was killed?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I can give you the exact date, 30 April 1996 after I was given the suspension document by Brig Ivor Human and I was kept in semi-detention and that was the first and last time that I saw him.

MR CORNELIUS: So he was also with Eastern Murder and Robbery?

MR PRETORIUS: I understand that. I cannot comment on that.

MR CORNELIUS: And from your own knowledge, you do not know whether Mr Coetzee knew him?

MR PRETORIUS: I doubt whether Mr Coetzee knew him, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: And then in summary, you testified where you went Mr Olifant went.

MR PRETORIUS: He was my confidant. I would not say he was my confidant, but in this instance I had a few people who worked with me, whom I regarded as confidants, all of them and in that context I just tried to point out that when I went to, or when Mr Coetzee went to Pretorius, Strongman went with him and when I remained behind, Mr Olifant remained behind also.

MR CORNELIUS: I am quoting your own words, because I wrote it down. You said that:

"Where I went, Olifant went. He was my confidant."

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So there was a position of trust, a relationship of trust?

MR PRETORIUS: Correct, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: So why is he trying to prejudice you?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I think if Olifant had to chose between myself and prison, I think he would have dropped me.

MR CORNELIUS: A last statement, I will accord with my learned colleague, Adv Hattingh and I would put it to you that you feared that confidential information would be exposed and you want to make it known now that my two clients acted on their own to kill Mr Bambo.

MR PRETORIUS: I deny that vehemently, Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Very briefly Mr Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG Mr Pretorius, you confirm that you did not know my client before 1994.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then the other aspect which might assist the Committee, you many a time have said that you went on an explosives course at Maleeuskop.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, June 1986.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you know the difference between an F1 and an M75 defensive and offensive handgrenades? Can you indicate that?

MR PRETORIUS: Both are defensive handgrenades Chairperson. The F1 handgrenade is the handgrenade to which I think it was referred here to the pineapple. May I say, in layman's terms, they will refer to it as the pineapple. It's a solid metal with clearly fragmented pieces. That is the F1 defensive handgrenade, if I might describe it to you as such and then the Russian M 75 handgrenade is a plastic or ...(indistinct) handgrenade where approximately 2 000 to 2 500 steel balls are inside. There's quite a clear difference between the two. A very important between the two handgrenades is that when the F1 handgrenade would be thrown, one would hear a slap sound and that is where the pin is activated between three or four seconds that one has time and with the M75, when this handgrenade is thrown, you do not hear any sound. That is the difference between the two handgrenades Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then there was the aspect that the deceased here, Mr Bambo, only had two wounds to his head because of the handgrenade that had exploded.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you assist the Committee in explaining how it is possible that it could have happened in this manner?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I was not at the scene myself. I would just like to categorically state it, I was not at the scene, but what I know of the M75 handgrenade is that, Chairperson, I was in Soweto on two occasions where I had to attend scenes where an M75 handgrenade, at both these scenes in the living rooms, were thrown into living rooms by the attackers, where persons were busy watching TV and not in one of these cases did the shrapnel injure any of the persons in the house. The injuries that those people had when the handgrenade exploded as they were falling over chairs and I think in some instances there were arms broken and there were clear cuts like as people fell and then ear drums that were burst, but it was inexplicable or it's an inexplicable situation, I could not believe it that persons could survive where these M75 handgrenades had been thrown in. That is what I know of what an M75 handgrenade, the one moment it could damage you so severely and the following moment it could explode in a very small area and not injure you at all. I do not know if I answered the question there, Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Pretorius. Chairperson, I have no other questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van den Berg. Just before you do, you said to Mr Cornelius that Bambo, what is his correct name? There are lots of versions about him.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, if I can say it quickly, Adriano Bambo, that's how I knew him, but I knew him as Strongman actually, from the first day when he was introduced to me, they told me this is Strongman.

CHAIRPERSON: You said that he had experience from Renamo.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: He was this kind of person who would have fought the Murder and Robbery because they didn't know him and he was also brave, in other words.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But my understanding of the evidence thus far is that he died at the age of 30/31, thereabouts and he would have been here and taking South West Africa and Soweto, he could have spent something like 20 years, South Africa and South West Africa and then that leaves us with 10 years, if my arithmetic is correct at this time of the day. What I'm saying is that if I'm doing just rough calculations in my head, that we take his operations in South West Africa and again him coming to Soweto, my arithmetic tells me that is a span of 20 years.

MR PRETORIUS: It's possible, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Then if he came from Mozambique, then he came here as a 10 year old. Why I'm saying that, then I say your response surprises me that a 10 year old could have that experience of Renamo ...(indistinct). You know it took me some time to sink in.

MR PRETORIUS: No, Mr Chairperson, I cannot exactly recall how old he was when he arrived in Soweto, but he was in his late twenties and I think if you look at today's television, you see children of under 16 years old running around with an AK47, so Strongman, as I've already said, in a normal discussion and Mr Olifant - or if I can tell this to the Committee, I know it's a very sensitive issue, that they do not want to talk about it, but they were the people who were Renamo people. Mr Olifant was a Renamo man who walked over. This is now hearsay, these are not facts. I am telling you what I heard. He told me that he came from Renamo, then he went to Brig van Rensburg and from there they went to Ovamboland and I met him the first time in 1983 in Soweto.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, if I may be of some assistance, I heard the evidence to be the 20 years that you are referring to, to be 10/11 years. The evidence is they went to Namibia in round about 1980 and he died in 1991.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I beg your pardon.

MR WAGENER: Except if I'm wrong, but I understood it to be about 11 years, maybe 12, not 20.

CHAIRPERSON: That's why I said forgive my arithmetic at this time of the day, it might be incorrect. That's what I was saying. Thank you for reminding me of the evidence before us, Mr Wagener, we're indebted to you. Mr Hurwitz.

MR HURWITZ: May I just approach my client for instructions? I think he's indicated that he wishes to say something.

CHAIRPERSON: You can even sit next to him.

MS PATEL: Mr Chairman, whilst my learned colleague is consulting, if I may just...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, you may continue on this side, Mr Hurwitz. If it affects you I will tell you.

MS PATEL: I was busy double checking the docket to see if there isn't another statement by Mr Pretorius and I came across this, because of the way the docket has been photostatted, I had misread a statement and I assumed that it was the statement of some other person and his initials are M V and to cut a long story short, there's a signed statement by Mr Olifant, it appears to be just a statement, not an affidavit, I've sent it up for photostatting because there are other documents that have been photostatted back to back with that and I see Mr Japhta is here, I don't know if he has ... I must apologise profusely, it was really unintended, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, let's approach it this way that, give it to the legal representatives present and tell us what you make out of the statement. We don't want to see it at this juncture. Find out if it's got a greater impact on what we have done so far, or heard so far, rather. We haven't done anything, we heard. Thank you. We will adjourn and just advise us, we'll be outside.

MS PATEL: I see that it's been photostatted incorrectly in the same way that I would have read it firstly. Maybe I should just go up and do it myself.

CHAIRPERSON: You wouldn't

MS PATEL: Or what?

CHAIRPERSON: Can't you ...

MS PATEL: The initial statement that I got is by Mr Veyi and then one just back to back to that would be Mr Olifant and I noticed that he signed M A as you can see here, but the start of his statement ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: How long will that take us?

MS PATEL: I shouldn't be longer than 10 minutes, 5, 10 minutes Honourable Chairperson, just to get it straight because it's quite a long document and there were other documents that were photostatted in between this document, unless my ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Ja and it will also give Mr Hurwitz to take proper instructions and my interpreters to catch their breath as well. We'll have a short adjournment. It would have some great impact, I agree.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ANTON PRETORIUS: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, have you sorted out the logistical problems of the statement?

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. It appears that they have a new photostatting machine upstairs and I've had problems in trying to get copies for everybody, but I managed to photostat one copy which my learned colleagues have had sight of. They are quite happy that we proceed without them having copies at their disposal at this stage. If I may, just for the record, state that page 7 of the document I do not have and the adjustments that are on the copy that I do have, are too a large extent typographical errors and I would imagine that nothing really turns on it at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: How many pages does the statement have?

MS PATEL: It's the same as Exhibit A, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So when you speak of 7, that would be the Maphika case.

MS PATEL: Let me just double-check my Exhibit A. Yes, it is, Honourable Chairperson, that's the only page that's missing.

CHAIRPERSON: May I just get confirmation from ...

MR HATTINGH: I confirm what Ms Patel has just told you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh.

MR CORNELIUS: I confirm it as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Wagener?

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, Ms Patel referred to her learned colleagues, that can never include me, but I have no problem.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel, you must be careful and not generalise.

MS PATEL: My apologies.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just, Mr Chairman, for the clarity of the record, I don't think it was put quite clearly. It is a signed copy of Exhibit A, with the exception of one page.

MS PATEL: That is correct, yes and it's not an affidavit, it is not commissioned.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, I think we need that for record purposes, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: I have no difficulties, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hurwitz?

MR HURWITZ: No difficulties.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jonker?

MR JONKER: No difficulties, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Hurwitz, I suppose you took fuller instructions? You may proceed.

MR HURWITZ: Thank you.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HURWITZ: Mr Pretorius there's not much left to clarify after what my learned colleagues and the Chairperson have asked you.

CHAIRPERSON: Including Ms Patel.

MR HURWITZ: Well Ms Patel hasn't had a chance yet.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay.

MR HURWITZ: According to your knowledge, was Mr Bambo and Mr Olifant, did they have military training before you met them?

MR PRETORIUS: Before I met them?

MR HURWITZ: Yes.

MR PRETORIUS: When they came back from Ovamboland, let us call it military trained.

MR HURWITZ: Would you know whether they were military trained prior to their use in the operational area in South West Africa?

MR PRETORIUS: There was talk to that effect that they were with Renamo before that.

MR HURWITZ: Now who did you hear that from?

MR PRETORIUS: Olifant as well as the deceased, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Do you recall the context of your ...

MR PRETORIUS: No, this was in general, at that stage there was I think George Khosa and there was another person by the name of Jimmy. This Jimmy incident I can recall quite clearly because he always alleged that he was a parabat with Renamo.

MR HURWITZ: So would it shock you if it was put to you that neither of them were trained by Renamo and that all their military training was obtained under Koevoet in South West Africa?

MR PRETORIUS: Then they must have lied to me back then, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: But you said you can't recall them having told you exactly?

MR PRETORIUS: No, they did not specifically say that they were trained in these things, or what I understood from them, as I have said, the one specific person who, because he always had the best stories, was a guy by the name of Jimmy who said he was a parabat.

MR HURWITZ: Yes, but Jimmy is unrelated to Olifant.

MR PRETORIUS: No, but it was within that context when they were together.

MR HURWITZ: Can you dispute the fact that they were never trained by Renamo?

MR PRETORIUS: No, probably not, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Can you dispute the fact that they were picked up by South African Intelligence and they were educated in the South African Armed Services?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot deny that, or I do not know of it.

MR HURWITZ: Now, during a question by the Judge on the totality of Mr Olifant's statement, you said that it is incorrect in certain respects, one of them being that he's implicated during the Maphika incident, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Perhaps there is a misunderstanding. If one turns to the Maphika case, that's page 7 of Exhibit A, now have you read, did your legal representative give you a chance to read this statement?

MR PRETORIUS: I see that before me Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: What puzzles me is where do you see that he has implicated you in the Maphika incident?

MR PRETORIUS: Because he starts his statement by saying the second-in-command, that's the inference that I drew, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Okay, in fairness to you, you perhaps obtained a birds eye view of this statement, because nowhere else in the statement does he implicate you and he doesn't place you on the scene either.

MR PRETORIUS: That's how it came about in his evidence also, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: So would you agree then that he has not implicated you in the Maphika incident?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I speak from my point of view, I see that because my name is mentioned there. Why ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no, that's not the question. It has been ...(indistinct) that he mentions you that you were just second-in-command, but otherwise he doesn't implicate you.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I see that, that he wants to implicate me here, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Yes, well perhaps, would you like an opportunity to read that page or will you take it from me and your legal representative that you are not implicated in this incident?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I accept, as I've already said, Chairperson, that during Mr Olifant's evidence-in-chief he, during cross-examination I think of Mr Wagener, said that I was not involved there, so I accept it as such.

MR HURWITZ: Thank you. Now you, from your experience as a Unit Commander, would you say that you are able to assess the capabilities and the effectiveness of persons under your command in operational situations?

MR PRETORIUS: I would believe so, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Now, could you comment on any differences in the operational effectiveness of the deceased, Mr Bambo and Manuel Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson. I think Mr Olifant was much more intelligent than the deceased, he was quite fluent in English. What I do remember from Mr Adriano Bambo, he spoke a broken English and he could understand a command in Afrikaans here and there.

MR HURWITZ: Would this have caused you such a concern that you would have precluded taking Bambo on operations with you, because he would be a security risk?

MR PRETORIUS: No, definitely not, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: From my understanding of the tone of your attorney's cross-examination, this instruction was never given to him, am I correct? From what I understand from the questions which your attorney asked, he was never furnished with this information that Bambo would have been an operational risk?

MR PRETORIUS: No, never, we didn't mention it to anyone, or he was not a security risk.

MR HURWITZ: And you could assist the Committee, if they were both operationally effective, why throughout your evidence thus far, have you stated that Bambo wasn't there?

MR PRETORIUS: Because he was not there, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: How is it that you have such a clear recollection of events 9 years ago, which in your career as a policeman over decades, you seem to have this clear recollection that Bambo wasn't there, that's what puzzles me.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson I cannot help that I can remember it and it's unfortunately so.

MR HURWITZ: You see, it puzzles me that perhaps you have a sinister motive for having such a selective memory.

MR PRETORIUS: Let's suppose that even Mr Bambo was there, I could have mentioned him in my initial application and I could admit it here today that he was there. I have no reason to withhold it if Mr Bambo was there, but I do not want to be guilty of lies by saying that he was not there, but I do know that, before my holy soul, as they mention it in Afrikaans, that he was not there.

MR HURWITZ: Did you trust Mr Bambo?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Were you worried about his welfare after he left the Security Services?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, because he was not ill or anything. As far as I know Mr Coetzee just suspended his services. so there was no concern about it because we knew that he could continue with his life.

MR HURWITZ: Then I put it to you that and I'd ask you to comment, that the more logical version is what appears on Mr Olifant's statement, Annexure A, where he says that you were afraid that Bambo would be an information leak, it's more logical than your version.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson page 6 ...

MR HURWITZ: It's a more logical version than your denial. You see to deny having had such a conversation with Mr Olifant.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I do not see that.

CHAIRPERSON: It's paragraph 1, page 6 of the exhibit.

MR PRETORIUS: Would you start reading?

MR HURWITZ:

"I was approached by Pretorius and requested to keep an ear out for him. I was to pass the information to him. Pretorius told me that if he was caught he would have to be killed, as he would talk like others were busy doing."

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson I deny that statement in its entirety, I've never said that. I never meant anything by that. I never said that.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Hurwitz, are you aware of the fact that Mr Olifant had retracted the major part of this statement?

MR HURWITZ: Yes, he retracted the part about the killing not about the information lead, that was the question.

ADV BOSMAN: Yes, okay.

MR HURWITZ: Okay, thank you. Now you speak that Mr Olifant would perhaps want to turn State witness in order to protect himself. You said that in answer to one of the questions put to you.

MR PRETORIUS: I believe that is the impression that was left by me, the fact that he went to the A-G's office and made statements.

MR HURWITZ: And is that your possible reason to explain why he would implicate you?

MR PRETORIUS: Well that would be one of the reasons and I think it's a good reason, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If you can bear in mind, he said at that stage he was also suspended.

MR PRETORIUS: I was suspended, Chairperson, yes.

MR HURWITZ: Did you tell this to your attorney that Mr Olifant possibly could have done this to be able to testify as a State witness?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall telling Mr Wagener that. We can ask Mr Wagener about it.

MR HURWITZ: Yes, because Mr Olifant's credibility was not challenged in that regard.

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, already in the Nceba incident it came out, as I've already previously stated. We saw how credible he was indeed, that he had involved the wrong persons in a reasonably serious murder case in Soweto, so it's quite clear that ...(intervention)

MR HURWITZ: Yes, but we're talking about Mr Olifant's evidence today. His credibility was not effectively challenged by your attorney on instructions given by yourself. This was apparent to me.

MR PRETORIUS: Sir, I cannot comment on that. I think Mr Wagener would probably argue ...

CHAIRPERSON: Can't we leave that for argument?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, for argument, Chairperson.

MR HURWITZ: Thank you, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HURWITZ

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hurwitz. Whilst Mr Olifant is there, Mr Olifant, what I want to find out, what were Strongman's real names?

MR OLIFANT: Adriano Bambo Nhasopa.

CHAIRPERSON: Like the brother made the affidavit?

MR OLIFANT: That's correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you all aware of the statement by the brother in the documentation?

MR WAGENER: That's volume 2, page 42.

CHAIRPERSON: That would be N-h-a-s-s-o-p-a? Thank you very much Mr Olifant. Thank you Mr Hurwitz. Mr Jonker?

MR JONKER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: May I remind you that you have regard to your phonometer because we will definitely stop at four to afford Mr Hattingh the opportunity to clear his chamber problems.

MR JONKER: Mr Chairman, I'll make a note where I will be in my cross-examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR JONKER: Mr Pretorius, Captain Pretorius, 1983, can you recall what police vehicle you were driving at that stage?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson. 83, no that's a long shot in the dark. I drove many vehicles. Can you be more specific?

MR JONKER: You see Sir, what I am trying to say here, in 1983 you drove a police car. You must have had that police car longer than a week?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You had it longer than a month?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR JONKER: Yes, you drove around with a car for a month, longer than a month and you can't recall what car you drove around with, but you can recall what you were doing on a specific day and who was with you on a specific day.

MR PRETORIUS: And then I can recall specific vehicles. At that stage, may I just inform the Committee, the Security Branch didn't only have one car, we had many cars.

MR JONKER: I'm aware of it, but every person in the Security Branch - you drove a nice car, Capt Coetzee had a nice car, you drove nice Golfs and Skylines and Sierras and you can't recall what you were driving, but you can specifically recall who came to visit you on specific days?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: How long did you know Mr Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: As I've already testified, in 1984 when he arrived at Soweto Chairperson.

MR JONKER: In other words in 1986 you heard that there was a problem, that A-G's people were looking for him, or the TRC were looking for him to get statements, do you recall that? Do you remember that? In 1996 the A-G's people were looking for him. Capt Liesk ...

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: So you testified that Mr Olifant was your side-kick.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, those are the words I used.

MR JONKER: You were on certain operations with him, top secret operations. Will you agree with me Mr Olifant was looking out for you and you were looking out for him, you were buddies?

MR PRETORIUS: Well, one could put it as such, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You entrusted him with your life. He had to look after you and vice versa.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: And in 1996 this person who was your buddy, who looked after you so well in 1986, you told him: "Get yourself an attorney"? You told him, "Get yourself an attorney". He comes to you and he says: "Capt Liesk is looking for me, he wants a statement from me", this man who was your confidant.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, that is correct. I would just like to know from this learned friend, what did he want me to do? What does he think I could do? I was no longer a member of the Force, I didn't even have a salary anymore, I didn't even have a legal representative, representation, nothing. What was I supposed to do?

MR JONKER: I will get there, if you are not so impatient we will get to that question. This person whom you trusted so much, there were many options you could exercise. You could have told him: "Listen mate, Mr Olifant, we are together in this thing. We have to stand together here, otherwise we are going to experience problems". Do you agree?

MR PRETORIUS: Well I think on the contrary that's what I told him.

MR JONKER: But that is not what you have said in your evidence-in-chief.

MR PRETORIUS: Well I admit Chairperson, I did not go into detail but it boiled down to the fact that if he is sitting there he can be asked. My words to him were: "Olifant, just remember one thing, just keep to the truth all the time. Don't tell stories, just keep to the truth. Tell the truth and no stories and find yourself an attorney who can help you. I am still looking for my own attorney."

MR JONKER: Indeed Sir, but would you agree with me, let us argue here for one second, that you, Mr Olifant and Mr Coetzee were together with Mr Wagener, then we would not have had these problems that we are having now. You are referring to instances where you were not present, he says you were there. Then you could have sat together and worked out the thing very nicely and come to a conclusion, would you agree?

MR PRETORIUS: So what you are trying to tell me, Sir, is that I had to take the A-G's witness with me to Mr Wagener's office?

MR JONKER: You refer to the A-G's witness, was Mr Olifant a witness or was he indemnified? They were looking for him like they were looking for you.

MR PRETORIUS: No, the A-G's office, they wanted to have a look at my office where Mr Ivor Human took me. Up to today I do not know why they wanted to go to my office, I never dealt with the A-G's office, they have never approached me up till today for anything.

MR JONKER: But in 1996, who told you that the A-G was using him for a witness?

MR PRETORIUS: That's the impression I gained from my discussion with him.

MR JONKER: But that was an impression.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: You didn't know at that stage whether he was an A-G witness, except for your impressions?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Yes, so what stopped you?

MR PRETORIUS: Probably nothing, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Yes, you threw your colleague to the wolves here. Now I put it to you that you threw him to the wolves and then the A-G's wolves picked him up.

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, he can testify how I protected him over the years. And when I was in trouble, did he do anything to help me, Chairperson? He did nothing.

MR JONKER: We do not know whether who's in the trouble here, we don't know who's speaking the truth, you or Mr Olifant. So you were in the same boat.

MR PRETORIUS: I think my situation is more serious than Mr Olifant. Today he's a member of the Police Service and I no longer. My whole future has been messed up by stories.

MR JONKER: But Sir, you said you looked after him while he was in the Police Force.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, yes.

MR JONKER: But now we have to have a look at the time when you looked at him, that was in the days of the old regime, as we refer to them today. Of course you were looking out for him. If you didn't look after him, then he was there by the Star and the Sunday Times and then your offices would also have been raided by the Harms and Goldstone Commissions and all the Commissions. Of course you had to look after him during those years, would you agree with me?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson in that regard, when I said that when I looked after him, I am the guy who made him a police officer, he worked with me, he received cars from me, I always looked after him, but I did not have any ulterior motives, same like when I left the Service just for the record, I had 55 members under my command, covert members and I tried to look after each and every one of them without any ulterior motives.

MR JONKER: As the Chairperson ... the issue of the white officers or the white members, they looked after themselves and forgot about their black colleagues. "Find your own attorney" You didn't have money, but Mr Olifant also didn't have money. Even if you received a salary of R800 in 1996 that was his salary after deductions, that's not money to appoint an attorney.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, if I recall correctly at some stage when Mr Olifant contacted me, he with me, not I with him, I told him: "Why don't you come to me, I'll take you to Mr Wagener" and he didn't want to, he didn't want to listen because he was already involved with the A-G's persons.

MR JONKER: That is the first time that we hear about that now, why didn't you tell us that earlier?

MR PRETORIUS: You see, Sir, it's now while I'm being asked these questions, then I can recall it now. I never, in the times when I was in trouble, when he kept on working as a police officer, how many times did he call me and I tried to give him advice and he can indicate whether it's right or wrong, he doesn't have to be called for a witness again, but its definitely more than one occasion.

MR JONKER: Did you tell you legal representative about this?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I did, I think amongst other, in the Nceba case, that's how we knew about the bombs, because Mr Olifant came to me afterwards and told me: "This is what the A-G's people asked him about the bombs" and I told it to Mr Wagener and in the same venue here, Mr Wagener brought it up and it came out.

MR JONKER: You are pre-empting the question Sir. You, Mr Olifant contacted you on occasion after you were suspended.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR JONKER: Now my question was, did you ask this of your legal representative? You just gave some long explanation. Did you tell it to him?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR JONKER: So you do not know why he did not ask Mr Olifant about it, or why in your evidence-in-chief he did not mention it? You did not deem it necessary. You see, as we are continuing or as my colleagues cross-examine you, you would like to amend things as we are going on. I put it to you that you are adjusting or amending things as we are going along.

MR PRETORIUS: No, Sir, I am just trying to give an explanation with regard to the situation as to what happened, how I saw it.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, sorry, I'm going to object. "Aanpas" in my language means changing the version and I would like to know from Mr Jonker where a version has been changed.

MR JONKER: Mr Chairman, just before we adjourn, I actually wanted to suggest, I see it's 4 o'clock, otherwise Mr Hattingh's going to get a small office in a little corner somewhere. Can I change the word, or can I restructure the word? As we are going along you are adding bits of evidence in, you are not amending it, you are just adding pieces to it.

MR PRETORIUS: That's probably necessary for me to make full disclosure here of how I see it, or as how things happened, that is what I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to mislead anyone here, I'm trying to the best of my ability to answer a question which is put to me.

MR JONKER: But if a question is put in general, then you answer it in general.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, if a question is asked which was not asked in chief, is he not supposed to fill up that gap which was not covered in evidence-in-chief, so I don't think the accusation would be correct here because at first, until Mr Wagener came in, I thought you said he's tailoring his evidence as he goes on.

MR JONKER: Mr Chairman, at this stage, I don't know what's Mr Wagener's strategy, he's got his own strategy, I'll concede that that's not ...

CHAIRPERSON: May we just stop here, I think this is a convenient and opportune moment to stop.

MR JONKER: Indeed so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, I must say I am sorry that you have to spend three days, and come back for cross-examination. I'm sorry about that, the circumstances forced us to do that. It is not my style that somebody must stay a number of days and be cross-examined. I apologise. Unfortunately you'll have to come back on Monday.

MR WAGENER: Mr Chairman, may I have a last word? My strategy is simple, to try and keep the procedure to the terms of the subpoena of my client.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wagener. We adjourn until Monday. What time, nine? Let's make it nine-thirty and be fair to everybody. Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS