EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: The application of this applicant appears in volume 1 from page 23 Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Raath you are an applicant applying for amnesty for any criminal or legal deed which was committed by you regarding the incident where Mr Kondile was killed, is that correct?

MR RAATH: That's correct, yes.

MR VISSER: In your application on page 23 paragraph 7A and B, you replied "not applicable, and not applicable" to questions as to whether you were, amongst others, a member of a political organisation, institution or body, and if so in what capacity, that information you say to me is wrong. Paragraph 7A which are the correct facts that we can say there? Were you a member of any political organisation?


MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I must tell you, and you will find this with many, many applicants the question here has been put, it's very unclear and it seems to be directed at officials of a particular organisation. Certainly that is the way my attorney read it, he tells me.

CHAIRPERSON: What about the word "lid"?

MR VISSER: "Lid", well I've just asked this witness and he says he wasn't a "lid".

ADV DE JAGER: Was a supporter, the following word?

MR VISSER: Were you a supporter?

MR RAATH: Yes I was a supporter.

MR VISSER: Of which party?

MR RAATH: Of the National Party.

MR VISSER: I would ask Mr Chairman, I would move Mr Chairman for an amendment of the application in that regard. 7A should read "National Party" - "supporter" and 7B should read "National Party".

CHAIRPERSON: (...indistinct)

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman is it correct that on the 21st of January 1968 you became a member of the South African Police?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And that from the 22nd of January 1968 up to and including December 1973 you were at the Uniform Branch?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And is it also correct that from 1973 to 1975 you were a detective?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And from '75 you became involved in the Security Branch?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Is it also so that from January '89 you were transferred to the Eastern Cape, Port Elizabeth where you lived?

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say '89?

MR VISSER: 1980 Mr Chairman.


MR VISSER: Yes. He arrived here one month after Gerrit Erasmus Mr Chairman.


MR VISSER: And that you lived in Port Elizabeth until January '82 when you were transferred to Natal?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And that you lived in Natal until December 1989?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Thereafter from January 1990 till December '92 you were stationed in Bloemfontein in the Free State?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And thereafter till the 30th of March 1997 you were in Port Shepstone, in the stabilising unit, the unrest unit?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And on the 30th of March '97 you left the services of the South African Police Force?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: With which rank?

MR RAATH: Inspector.

MR VISSER: Where were you born and where did you grow up?

MR RAATH: I was born in Pretoria and I grew up there till I was five years old and then we moved to the Eastern Transvaal.

MR VISSER: Very briefly what was the background of your education milieu?

MR RAATH: I grew up in a very conservative Afrikaans household and my parents were supporters of the National party and this is how I grew up. We were also member of the NG Church. My parents were supporters of the National Party's policy of apartheid, we believed in that. Apart from opposition speeches and press there were very few things that made me think that I was wrong in this respect.

MR VISSER: And when you were a policeman you took an oath of trust in the government?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And as security policemen did you have anything to do with internal security?

MR RAATH: That's correct, yes.

MR VISSER: You heard the testimony of du Plessis, van Rensburg and Erasmus, especially Erasmus regarding the matters regarding the unrest situation in Port Elizabeth in the years '80 and '81, was it also your experience regarding the situation there?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: How would you have described the situation, how would you describe it today if you had to tell it in one sentence, how were things during those years, the situation in Port Elizabeth?

MR RAATH: I regarded it as something that had got out of hand. The conditions in and around Port Elizabeth was that the security situation was out of control. There were problems with the fact that the normal, the ordinary policeman could not do his duties effectively. Policemen were a constant target for attacks....(intervention)

MR VISSER: Just a bit slower please. You say that the policemen were a constant target for attacks and murder?

MR RAATH: Yes. This resulted in the fact that law and order could not be maintained and applied properly. The result of this was a tremendous increase in normal, ordinary crime, together with a low success rate of court-orientated actions. There was an inability to protect human lives and property.

MR VISSER: We've already learnt from Mr Erasmus that the role players or some of the big role players here like students and scholars and the workers, they were the biggest component?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: To save time he also referred to resistance actions which took place there and in general he informed the Committee regarding consumer boycotts, the burning of beer halls and large-scale intimidation, was that also your experience?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You confirm Mr Erasmus and du Plessis and van Rensburg's testimony in this regard, regarding the general circumstances.

Now if we can go direct to Mr Sizwe Kondile's matter. I want you, as far as you can remember, and if you can't remember certain aspects from memory just tell me, please tell us what exactly you had to do with Mr Kondile? I am sorry, first I want to ask what was your rank in 1981?

MR RAATH: I was a sergeant.

MR VISSER: So you were functioning on grassroots level?

MR RAATH: I was involved in Kondile's interrogation.

MR VISSER: Mr Raath I think I have to lead you in this regard. Mr Kondile was detained in the Free State, you know that?


MR VISSER: Do you know how he landed in the Eastern Cape then?

MR RAATH: I received an instruction from Captain du Plessis to fetch Kondile and to transport him to Port Elizabeth.

MR VISSER: And you executed this command?


MR VISSER: Where did you place Kondile or what happened to him after you had brought him from Bloemfontein?

MR RAATH: I took him to the police cells in Humansdorp where I detained him, and I reported that to Captain du Plessis.

ADV GCABASHE: If I might ask Mr Raath, who accompanied you to Bloemfontein?

MR RAATH: I was accompanied by Capt Greyling who also worked in Port Elizabeth.

ADV GCABASHE: Was Mr Danster with you when you went to fetch Sizwe Kondile?


CHAIRPERSON: Yes proceed.

MR RAATH: After I detained him I informed Capt du Plessis that he was being detained at Humansdorp. Later Sizwe Kondile was transferred to Jeffrey's Bay where the interrogation continued.

I was at all times in contact with du Plessis. Sometimes we jointly interrogated him, sometimes I was alone, he was alone.

MR VISSER: Here is a person by the name of Danster who made an affidavit, do you know this person?

MR RAATH: Yes I know him.

MR VISSER: Where was this person stationed?

MR RAATH: During this time relevant to Mr Kondile's detention at Jeffrey's Bay he was working at the same security branch in Port Elizabeth as I.

MR VISSER: Mr Danster, according to your knowledge, did he interrogate Mr Kondile?


MR VISSER: And according to what you can remember, when did Mr Danster, for the first time, have anything to do with Mr Kondile?

MR RAATH: It was after I had received an instruction from du Plessis that Kondile should be detained in the barracks.

MR VISSER: That is what has been referred to as the white single quarters?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Then Mr Danster was brought to assist you so that there would always be one person with Mr Kondile?

MR RAATH: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Raath did you ever assault Mr Kondile?


MR VISSER: And if you had done that are you aware that you could apply for amnesty for that?


MR VISSER: Did you ever see Mr Danster assaulting Mr Kondile?


MR VISSER: In any case you were busy saying that you also participated in Mr Kondile's interrogation, what else do you want to add to that?

MR RAATH: I can just mention that during the time of his detention Kondile conveyed certain information to us, he identified certain things. One important identification was in Transkei. We took him there and he identified two people working in a bank and if I can remember now they were his contact persons who during the smuggling of explosives ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman forgive me for asking you but would you switch off your microphone please.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh I am so sorry.

MR VISSER: Thank you. Well it wasn't you that was making the noise, I think it's my witness that is making the noise. Please don't touch the microphone please.

Can you remember who those persons were who were identified by Kondile in Transkei regarding the smuggling of explosives?

MR RAATH: I can't remember their names now.

MR VISSER: But there was an attempt to arrest them but they got away we've heard that evidence.

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Regarding you, what was Mr Kondile's status, did he belong to any organisation according to your information?

MR RAATH: Yes during my interrogation of Kondile it was evident that he was a trained terrorist. And also a courier between Lesotho, Transkei and the Republic. And that he was trusted by Chris Hani. He was an MK commander.

MR VISSER: And would you say that Mr Kondile was also, besides being a confidante of Chris Hani also a member of the ANC?

MR RAATH: Sizwe Kondile was also, besides being a confidante of Chris Hani, also a member of the ANC, he was a trained terrorist.

MR VISSER: Is it correct to say that you became aware that Mr du Plessis was busy to recruit Mr Kondile as an informer?

MR RAATH: Yes, that is what he told me, that he was busy to have long discussions with Kondile and to recruit him as an informer.

MR VISSER: From that moment what was your contact with Mr Kondile afterwards?

MR RAATH: After du Plessis had told me that he was recruiting him as an informer I withdrew.

MR VISSER: Why did you do that?

MR RAATH: It was the general practice at the security branch that you do not interfere with somebody else's informer.

MR VISSER: An informer has either one or two handlers, you were not one of them?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You also became aware that something had gone wrong with the deployment of Mr Kondile as an informer. What was mentioned to you.

MR RAATH: Capt du Plessis approached me and told me that he found that Kondile was smuggling information from the cells to the ANC. He did not provide any details. That created a large problem because certain sensitive information regarding informers and information channels were conveyed to Kondile. Because of this sensitivity of this matter it was decided that Kondile had to be eliminated.

MR VISSER: In any case afterwards is it correct to say that Mr du Plessis spoke to you again regarding Mr Kondile, and here I refer to the instance when Kondile was already being detained in the white single quarters?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What occurred during that discussion?

MR RAATH: That was during the stage when he was in the single quarters, he told me or instructed me and Danster, after he had told me that information was being leaked and that would harm his intelligence network and he said that that person had to be detained there. Nobody should have access to him and I should see that no information would leak from that quarter.

MR VISSER: I just want to interrupt. You later met Dirk Coetzee?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: As far as you know was he at any stage in contact with Mr Kondile while he was being detained in the single quarters?


MR VISSER: Afterwards Mr du Plessis approached you again ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser I am not sure, but is the evidence that he was in the room with him or that he just passed by.

MR VISSER: Mr Commissioner as we understand Coetzee's evidence, his provided evidence, he said that he and Nick van Rensburg went to the police cells in Jeffrey's Bay and he gave evidence that he and van Rensburg walked down a passage and there in one room he found two people. One was a black security officer ...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: Yes I know he went down the passage, I just think he passed by the door and I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: I think your question to this witness was not that, your question was did Dirk Coetzee have contact with Kondile, and he says no he didn't have contact. It was never put that Dirk Coetzee had contact with Kondile.

MR VISSER: Thank you for pointing that out to me Mr Chairman, it's my mistake, I stand corrected and I appreciate it.

Mr Raath while you were busy with Mr Kondile to guard him according to instructions, did you ever see Mr Dirk Coetzee with Mr Kondile?


MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Now Mr du Plessis talked to you again and what did he tell you?

MR RAATH: Capt du Plessis gave an instruction in the form of a request.

MR VISSER: He said he requested you to assist him. He also afforded you the opportunity to consider the matter and a day or two afterwards you came back to him and said that you are prepared to help him. You just said that you regarded that as an instruction rather than a request?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And exactly what did Mr du Plessis tell you? Did he tell you that they had decided at a higher level that Mr Kondile had to be eliminated?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And what was the reason why you had to accompany them?

MR RAATH: The reason was that I had to drive the vehicle with Kondile in from Bloemfontein on.

MR VISSER: Let's be honest Mr Raath, can you remember the dates when those things took place from memory?

MR RAATH: It's very difficult from memory.

MR VISSER: So we leave the dates aside. On a specific day is it correct that you left with other people to Bloemfontein?

MR RAATH: That is correct?

MR VISSER: Who were the other people?

MR RAATH: We travelled with Nick van Rensburg, Colonel du Plessis, the deceased Kondile and I myself.

MR VISSER: And with whose vehicle did you travel?

MR RAATH: If I remember well it was Capt du Plessis' vehicle.

MR VISSER: You left from Port Elizabeth, can you remember at what time of the day it was? Was it during the morning or the afternoon?

MR RAATH: If I remember correctly it was early in the afternoon.

MR VISSER: And then eventually you arrived in Bloemfontein.

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was it light or was it dark?

MR RAATH: It was already late in the evening.

MR VISSER: What happened in Bloemfontein?

MR RAATH: We went to a certain place I can't remember. All I know was the vehicle was handed to me, that was Kondile's car.

MR VISSER: Can you remember what type of car it was?

MR RAATH: It was a light coloured Datsun.

MR VISSER: That was handed to you there, do you remember by whom?

MR RAATH: It could have been by Capt du Plessis or van Rensburg, one of them.

MR VISSER: And did you then leave Bloemfontein at one or other time?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: You are saying it's late in the evening and you were driving, who was in which vehicle?

MR RAATH: Capt du Plessis, Colonel Nick van Rensburg and Kondile travelled in du Plessis' car and I drove Kondile's vehicle.

MR VISSER: Who was in front and who was behind?

MR RAATH: They were in front and I followed them.

MR VISSER: Did you travel fast?

MR RAATH: No we could not because the vehicle was not in a good condition.

MR VISSER: Whose vehicle?

MR RAATH: The Datsun was not in a good condition.

MR VISSER: To cut a long story short, it was the next day the morning or that afternoon - first I want to say that. O your way, you were travelling from Bloemfontein to where?

MR RAATH: We were on our way to Komatipoort.

MR VISSER: On your way to Komatipoort did you do anything to that Datsun vehicle?

MR RAATH: Yes, near the border, I accept it's the Swaziland border there was a notice saying "Barberton". I got instructions from van Rensburg to park the vehicle along the road and to leave it there with the keys in.

MR VISSER: And what did you do then after you had parked it there?

MR RAATH: I then got into the other vehicle and drove further with them.

MR VISSER: Then you came to Komatipoort and what time of the day was that, was it the morning or the afternoon?

MR RAATH: I think it was late in the afternoon.

MR VISSER: And I think it can be said it's common cause that Mr Dirk Coetzee was there, you met him there?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was there anybody with him?

MR RAATH: Yes there was somebody with him.

MR VISSER: Can you tell us today who that person was?

MR RAATH: Your Honour I have met that man there for the first time in my life. I have forgotten his name, but later on I established that it was Roy Otto.

MR VISSER: Can you describe him for us as you remembered him?

MR RAATH: I can vaguely remember that he was a short, stockish man, he had a bald head.

MR VISSER: You met Mr Coetzee and that person to whom we will refer to as Mr Otto, for the purposes of your evidence, and what happened then?

MR RAATH: From there I drove with du Plessis, van Rensburg and Kondile in the same vehicle and we followed Otto and Coetzee in their vehicle.

MR VISSER: Was there anybody else, any other policeman there?


MR VISSER: And once again, to cut a long story short, you drove into the bush and there you parked the vehicles and got out. What did you do then?

MR RAATH: Well we got out of the vehicles and I saw that some wood had been gathered and at that stage I was extremely hungry and I gathered some more wood where we lit a fire and we prepared some food.

MR VISSER: Mr Kondile, was he given any food?


MR VISSER: And what happened in the meantime to him?

MR RAATH: After we got out of the car he was sitting against a tree trunk and his hands were cuffed. We gave him food to eat. While we were standing around the fire Mr Coetzee offered him a drink or something.

MR VISSER: What happened afterwards?

MR RAATH: I noticed that Kondile slowly fell to one side and I suspected then that he perhaps felt sleepy. I did not realise precisely what was going to happen.

MR VISSER: Did you hear later on that it was alleged that sleeping drugs, or drops were put into his drink, you were not aware of it then?


MR VISSER: What happened then?

MR RAATH: The next moment somebody said this matter must be concluded now and then suddenly this person, this Roy Otto walked up to Kondile, he drew his pistol and a shot rang out.

MR VISSER: One or more.

MR RAATH: I only heard one shot.

MR VISSER: Did that shot kill Mr Kondile?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: It's history now and I understand, I am not going into that in detail, but Mr Kondile's body was burnt to ashes.

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then eventually you returned to Port Elizabeth.

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR VISSER: And is that the sum total of your participation in this unhappy incident?


MR VISSER: Mr Chairman would you bear with me a moment.

Mr Raath I've previously referred you to Mr Danster. Mr Danter's statement is found in volume 1. Yes thank you Mr Chairman but more specifically at page 49 the second paragraph. This Mr Danster in his statement submitted - and that is at page 48 I believe Mr Chairman, that he would accompany these people with you, that he would accompany you with Kondile, that it had happened on a Friday and that you would spend the weekend somewhere. Do you know anything about this, or whether Mr Danster was ever asked to accompany you on that occasion where you went to eliminate him?


MR VISSER: It was not put in cross-examination either. I continue to page 49 where Mr Danster says that when you returned you, Mr Raath, bragged about the fact that you had taught Mr Kondile a lesson. And then he asked you what kind of lesson you are referring. He said that you then said his brains were blown apart. And then he drew the inference that Kondile had been eliminated. What are you saying about Mr Danster's version?

MR RAATH: I deny that.

MR VISSER: Is there any sense in informing him about Mr Kondile's elimination?

MR RAATH: No it's not something to brag about.

ADV GCABASHE: But if I might ask Mr Raath, you were there "he was shot in the head", am I wrong?

MR RAATH: I can't say whether he was hit in his head, I did not see where the bullet penetrated. I only saw him falling. I was shocked, I did not know what to expect at that stage.

ADV GCABASHE: My recollection is that the evidence was he was either shot through the ear or through the head, there wasn't any real certainty. Now whichever portion of the head, be it the ear or the head, unless I have a very over-imaginative, whatever, his brain would spat. Now I am simply trying to ascertain your observation and relate it to what is written in this particular affidavit that your counsel is referring to, this particular sentence.

MR RAATH: Yes, his brains - I did not actually see his brains being blown apart and there is also no physical evidence that his brains were blown apart.

MR VISSER: But while you accompanied Mr Kondile did he seem like somebody who was abnormally injured or anything like that?


MR VISSER: Let me put it straight. Did it appear as if he was a person who had the same serious brain injury leading to brain damage?


MR VISSER: What are the consequences of this incident Mr Raath, what consequences did it have for you and your family?

MR RAATH: This is something which happened to me in my life and I and my family are suffering because of this. I am very sorry about this, and I will have to carry this burden for the rest of my life.

MR VISSER: When you were given the instruction by means of du Plessis' request and you said yes, why did you say "yes you would follow instructions" what was the reason, what was the background? Why did you execute this instruction?

MR RAATH: In the first place where I was working from the morning till the night this unrest and violent situations, what I saw there where I was working as a security policeman on grassroots level and suddenly all things just overwhelmed you. You can't describe to anybody what type of life you led. To see schools burning every day. You send this way, you send that way. There are trained people who are infiltrating over the borders, they are bringing explosives, ammunitions. There were bomb attacks, and from my point of view there was absolutely chaos during those time. This person was definitely identified through interrogation as a trained terrorist, a courier who also assisted in smuggling weapons and explosives and ammunition into the country. He was working for the ANC in Lesotho. I can go on and on.

Taking all these things into consideration it just felt for me that I had to serve the government of the day. As a policeman I had to do this and I had to assist in maintaining and enforcing law and order and to prevent the unrest situation as far as possible, and I felt this is why I said yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I notice it is precisely one o'clock. I don't know if you wish to take the luncheon adjournment now.





Thank you Mr Chairman. Just to round off Mr Raath, in your written application you have referred to certain political objectives and I am referring to volume 1, page 25, 26 and 27, do you confirm that? You don't have it in front of you. It's paragraph 10, A and B, page 25 to 27.

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And in paragraph 10 on page 27 you have requested the honourable Commission to the Foundation for Equality before the Law and also van der Merwe's submission, to incorporate that into this application.

Mr Raath if you want to summarise, what were your political motives when this instruction regarding Mr Kondile was executed?

MR RAATH: Your Honour my primary task was that I had sworn allegiance to the State. I did not do it for my own personal gain, but I acted as a policeman against the liberation movement. I felt that that what I had done, seen against the background of the unrest situation in the area and in the country was something which was associated with my duties as a policeman.

My political convictions, I acted in terms of my powers as a member of the South African Police to combat the terrorists and people from the liberation movement. My activities were in the interest of the country to maintain the government of the day.

MR VISSER: After a struggle had been concluded, it doesn't matter where, it's only the people who are the victims.

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR VISSER: How do you feel today?

MR RAATH: This was a struggle in which we were involved and I am very sorry for the losses on both sides.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman that is the evidence, thank you.



CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOOSA: Mr Raath, exactly who was involved in the interrogation of Mr Kondile?

MR RAATH: It was I and Captain du Plessis. He was also interrogated at a stage by member of our East London security branch.

MR MOOSA: But with regard to interrogations by the Eastern Cape Security branch it was only you and Mr du Plessis, is that correct?

MR RAATH: That is correct, as far as I know.

MR MOOSA: In your application on page 24 Mr Chairman, in your answer to paragraph 9, subsection A(iv) you say that you associate yourself with the statement of Mr du Plessis, in fact you make no statement of your own there, is that correct?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR MOOSA: 9(A)(iv).


MR RAATH: I want to refer you to the corresponding paragraph of Mr du Plessis' affidavit which appears on page 14 of the first bundle, and in particular to the last sentence of the second paragraph thereof, have you found that? That begins - "since his detention..." etc. Can you read that sentence.

MR RAATH: That is correct.

"Since his detention in the Eastern Cape he was interrogated by myself, members of my personnel as well as members of the Border Security Branch".

MR MOOSA: I want you to focus on "members of my personnel", it's members in plural and the only member you are referring to is yourself.

MR RAATH: That is correct. I think what he meant there is that Danster was also involved but he was not intensively involved in the interrogation.

JUDGE PILLAY: To what extent would he have been involved in interrogating?

MR RAATH: He was only involved in the guarding of Kondile.

JUDGE PILLAY: Not interrogating?


MR MOOSA: So in fact that's not an application in that Mr Danster was never involved in the interrogation of Mr Kondile, am I right?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR MOOSA: So how do you explain this which you have incorporated as part of your statement, what other members of Mr du Plessis' team are being here referred to?

MR RAATH: I do not know whether Captain du Plessis referred to the team that worked with him.

MR MOOSA: Now that we are talking about Mr Danster, it's also stated by Mr Danster that he was amongst the people who went with you to fetch Mr Kondile from Bloemfontein.

MR RAATH: That is not true.

MR MOOSA: In fact the only person you have mentioned to us is a Capt Greyling, is that right?

MR RAATH: That's correct, yes.

MR MOOSA: I take it then it was only the two of you and no one else?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MOOSA: Not the late Mr Buzane and definitely not Mr Danster?

MR RAATH: Buzara?

MR MOOSA: No, Buzane.

MR RAATH: Buzane, no.

MR MOOSA: Could you tell us where this Capt Greyling is at the moment, where can we find him?

MR RAATH: I have no idea where he is stationed at the moment.

MR MOOSA: And you've said that you fetched Mr Kondile at the Security Branch in Bloemfontein, is that right?

MR RAATH: That is correct, yes.

MR MOOSA: Who did you deal with in the security branch in Bloemfontein?

MR RAATH: I cannot remember.

MR MOOSA: In what type of vehicle did you proceed from the Eastern Cape to Bloemfontein ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Is there some doubt about all this? If there isn't any doubt about it then what is the purpose of these questions?

MR MOOSA: Mr Chairman it goes back to the question you asked me, which is, our version is that Mr Kondile was abducted from Lesotho.


MR MOOSA: I am leading up to something with the vehicle, it will become apparent in the next question. What type of vehicle was used Mr Raath?

MR RAATH: It was a sedan, it was Capt Greyling's official vehicle.

MR MOOSA: So it was not a Datsun Laurel?


MR MOOSA: You are aware that Mr Danster has made a detailed statement, in fact it was put to you in evidence-in-chief, where he says amongst other things that you went to Bloemfontein and that there was discussion with Mr Kondile on the way back.

MR RAATH: No, not at any stage did Danster travel to Bloemfontein with me.

MR MOOSA: Was there any discussion with Mr Kondile on the way back?

MR RAATH: Yes I did speak to him.

MR MOOSA: Could you tell us what that was about?

MR RAATH: At that stage I did not have background, I asked him where he came from and I just spoke to him in general until we reached Port Elizabeth.

MR MOOSA: It is my instructions, as I have just mentioned to the Chairman, that Mr Kondile was abducted from Lesotho.

MR RAATH: That's unknown to me.

MR MOOSA: Now Mr Danster has said in his statement that Mr Kondile was interrogated over a long period and was subjected to many assaults.

MR RAATH: I do not know anything about the assaults.

MR MOOSA: Could you describe the assaults you do concede to those, that is those by Mr du Plessis.

MR RAATH: I was not present when Capt du Plessis assaulted him. I only heard this here at the trial.

MR MOOSA: You would agree with me that the arrest of Mr Kondile was a very important event, not so?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MOOSA: I would take it therefore that senior officers and other policemen would have come to Jeffrey's Bay to see the person who has been arrested.

MR RAATH: All that I know of is that Capt du Plessis, I worked with him, that he was there. I didn't see any other officers there.

MR MOOSA: One of the people that's mentioned by Mr Danster and is agreed to - sorry. There is mention by Mr Danster of people who came from Pretoria, white policemen.

MR RAATH: I do not know about that.

MR MOOSA: And Mr Coetzee has stated that it was himself who went with Mr van Rensburg at least past this place and certainly saw Mr Kondile at the white single quarters.

MR RAATH: I have no knowledge of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether Mr Dirk Coetzee came there?

MR RAATH: No I have no knowledge of that at all.

MR MOOSA: When you fetched Mr Kondile in Bloemfontein do you know what happened to the vehicle which Mr Kondile had?

MR RAATH: At that stage I did not have any knowledge of his vehicle. I only had the instruction to fetch this man and to take him through to Port Elizabeth.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Raath tell me, you and Mr Danster, were you working in a pair or could it possibly be that he was on duty when you were off at some time during that period of Mr Kondile's detention?

MR RAATH: I do not know which stage you are referring to now.

JUDGE PILLAY: At the time (no interpretation).

MR RAATH: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: U was daar ......

MR RAATH: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Also Mr Danster, not so?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Did you work together or were there occasions when you were off duty and he was on duty?

MR RAATH: Yes, we were with him together most of the time.

JUDGE PILLAY: Do you know when there were occasions when he was alone?

MR RAATH: Yes there were.

ADV DE JAGER: Was he guarded day and night?

MR RAATH: Yes. We all slept there at night and he also slept in the room. There was a bed for him.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but you say there were three in the room?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: At the time, was there a time when Danster was alone with Kondile?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And where would you be then?

MR RAATH: I could have been in Port Elizabeth perhaps busy doing other work or I could even have gone home.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes do carry on.

MR MOOSA: When Mr Kondile was interrogated was it always by you alone or were there times when you would join Mr du Plessis and you would do it together?

MR RAATH: There were times that we sat together, there were times when I was alone, when he was alone during the interrogation.

MR MOOSA: And if Mr du Plessis was there to interrogate Mr Kondile would he also stay over at Jeffrey's Bay?

MR RAATH: Not necessarily, no.

MR MOOSA: Most Mr Kondile cooperative from the beginning as far as you were concerned?

MR RAATH: As far as I was concerned from the time that I was involved in the operation he gave his cooperation and I had no problems with him.

MR MOOSA: I am going to put it to you that it's in the highest degree unlikely that you would not have assaulted him and that the version given by Danster is very probable.


MR MOOSA: You say that Mr du Plessis told you about his decision to recruit Mr Kondile, am I right?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR MOOSA: And if I followed your evidence-in-chief properly, he also kept you informed of how that was going?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MOOSA: I would imagine you worked as a security policeman at that point on a need-to-know basis, or am I wrong?

MR RAATH: With his recruitment Capt du Plessis did this on his own, I was present while he was doing the interrogation but he was alone with the man at times and in this way he recruited him and he worked with him on his own.

MR MOOSA: The recruitment occurred while Mr du Plessis was alone with Mr Kondile, is that what you are saying?

MR RAATH: Yes, most of the time.

MR MOOSA: Now why would Mr du Plessis come and tell you, a junior officer, about his progress with the recruitment?

MR RAATH: He did not elaborate and give me details but I could realise that he was recruiting the man and that there was mutual trust.

MR MOOSA: Did he also tell you about the note he allegedly found on Mr Kondile?

MR RAATH: It was mentioned to me but I was not told the details about the note.

MR MOOSA: When did you first meet Mr Coetzee?

MR RAATH: It was at Komatipoort.

MR MOOSA: And Sergeant Otto?

MR RAATH: At the same time, at Komatipoort.

MR MOOSA: You are telling us of course that Mr van Rensburg never visited, whenever you were present at least, at Jeffrey's Bay?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR MOOSA: And the same applies to Mr Erasmus?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MOOSA: Now I am going to take you through from the Eastern Cape to Bloemfontein where supposedly Mr Kondile was released and then abducted or kidnapped. When it's said that he was released does that mean that he was allowed to leave with his motor vehicle from the police station or did the whole transaction occur of him being kidnapped at the Bloemfontein station?

ADV DE JAGER: Sorry. I think the evidence was that he was released at Jeffrey's Bay, according to the papers at least, if it can be said he was ever released.

MR MOOSA: I stand corrected. What actually happened, though, with the vehicle at Bloemfontein, with Mr Kondile's vehicle, did you fetch it immediately from the station and did you get him directly?

MR RAATH: The vehicle was handed to me by Capt du Plessis or Colonel van Rensburg, I cannot remember which one of the two it was that gave me the keys of the vehicle.

MR MOOSA: I am asking this question because Mrs Kondile has brought it to my attention that there seemed to be a number of reports at the time that Mr Kondile was led into his vehicle and was allowed to go, to be released, do you know anything about those?


MR MOOSA: At Komatipoort itself you say you found the wood already gathered, does that mean the wood was waiting for you?

MR RAATH: That is correct. There was a pile of wood lying there.

MR MOOSA: And the area which you were in was a remote area, it was unlikely that onlookers would stumble onto what was happening there, am I right?

MR RAATH: That's correct, yes. It's a forestry area.

MR MOOSA: You have said that Sergeant Otto shot Mr Kondile and you heard the sound, is that right?

MR RAATH: That's correct as far as I can remember.

MR MOOSA: I take it then that a silencer was not used?

MR RAATH: That's correct, otherwise I would not have heard the shot.

MR MOOSA: I put it to you that it's highly unlikely that a silencer would not be used to execute Mr Kondile.

MR RAATH: I cannot recall it very well but I cannot think that they used a silencer.

MR MOOSA: You say that you are unable to recall dates, tell me how you are able to recall the name of Sergeant Otto?

MR RAATH: I said that it was a person that I met at the scene and I later refreshed my memory, I remembered the name Roy Otto.

MR MOOSA: When you refreshed your memory was it with the aid of your co-applicants, that is Mr van Rensburg, Mr Erasmus and Mr du Plessis?

MR RAATH: That's correct. I think I asked one of them whether they could recall who the man was. I gave a description of the man to you and they, one of them, said that this was Mr Otto and the name rang a bell.

MR MOOSA: I take it that was the first time you met Mr Otto during this transaction in Komatipoort?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MOOSA: We have heard evidence about various meetings before statements were compiled, were you at any one of those meetings?


MR MOOSA: Did you read Mr du Plessis' statement before you signed yours?


MR MOOSA: You just went ahead and signed your statement?

MR RAATH: After I went to my legal representatives I compiled my statement and I signed it.

MR MOOSA: You have described in your evidence your background and what you thought about what you called terrorists, am I right?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MOOSA: You have also told us though that you averted your eyes and tried not to see what was going on, and in fact that you were shocked?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MOOSA: I will put it to you that that is actually unlikely that you would do that. You would more likely have enjoyed every moment of what you saw.

MR RAATH: That is completely untrue.

MR MOOSA: And that is why you would have gone back and bragged to Mr Danster and everyone else possibly how the man's brains were splattered.

MR RAATH: That is absolutely untrue.

MR MOOSA: At the end of your statement as also at the end of your evidence today you told us that you were doing what you did in the execution of your duties as a policeman.

MR RAATH: Yes and I worked under instructions.

MR MOOSA: Well working under instructions or not what you did was totally unlawful and it's not what is supposed to be done by a policeman it's a criminal act.

MR RAATH: I understand that that it's illegal but I did this in the execution of my duties and I think that I have testified to this effect.

MR MOOSA: I put it to you that from the viewpoint of my clients there is no political motive whatsoever that will ever justify what you have done.

MR RAATH: It was absolutely a political motivation.

MR MOOSA: And that even if there were any political motives you would have exceeded the bounds you were allowed to go to.

MR RAATH: I don't believe that I exceeded the bounds, I worked under instructions.

MR MOOSA: Finally it's our contention that you have not made full disclosure to this Committee but a part of a massive cover-up and the versions given by Mr Coetzee and Mr Danster are more probable.

MR RAATH: That is why I came here to tell the truth.


CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYOKA: Two minutes again Mr Chairman. I will ask for amnesty if I go beyond.

Mr Raath when you went to fetch the vehicle of Mr Kondile from Bloemfontein were you not given any of those false documentations that he was alleged to have used in crossing into the country? As now he was going to be detained as well in PE or Humansdorp.

MR RAATH: No your Honour.

MR NYOKA: What did he have in his possession when you were transporting him to the Eastern Cape?

MR RAATH: If I remember correctly he had nothing with him, no suitcase, nothing, or any documentation.

MR NYOKA: And you did not find any weapons or pamphlets in his possession?


MR NYOKA: My instructions are that Mr Kondile was kidnapped from Lesotho, he did not cross as alleged, not by you by other policemen, hence you could not find anything with him, he had no clothing. He was abducted. Do you dispute that stance?

MR RAATH: Your Honour I don't know anything about an abduction.

MR NYOKA: Finally just in Volume 2, page 169 I would like you to turn to 169, Volume 2, there's a name on top, Phakamile Xlamile, this person was a close friend of mine, he skipped with Mr Kondile in 1980 and he has informed me to tell you that as now he's in the Easter Cape Provincial Government, Safety and Security, that Mr Kondile would never cross into the country with a vehicle. The two of them would infiltrate by swimming across the river as they had done before. Mr Kondile will swim across the river with him, Mr Xlamile.

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman what is the status of this question, on what is it based? Is this man going to come and give evidence, is my learned friend giving the evidence, what is the status of this, with all due respect?

CHAIRPERSON: (...indistinct)

MR NYOKA: I am putting it to you the family waited for 16 years, I have got to put this. This is not just a one week affair. The family has been sitting on this for 16 years. He has said that Mr Kondile infiltrated the country with him by swimming across, that he crossed with a vehicle is a figment of everybody's imagination, we are saying so.

MR RAATH: Your Honour I can't comment on this. I don't know anything about that.


MR MARAIS:(?) I don't know if Mr Jansen, Advocate Jansen ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: You do it first.


You got information from Mr Kondile is that correct, that's now you personally?

MR RAATH: Yes that's correct.

MR MARAIS: How did you succeed in doing this?

MR RAATH: By interrogating him.

MR MARAIS: Is that all, did you just ask him to give you information and he gave you the information?

MR RAATH: No it was not that easy.

MR MARAIS: Can you tell the Commission what you did, how you did it?

MR RAATH: If there was a subject regarding which interrogation was done I asked him about. And then he was questioned about that, depending on what the information was.

MR MARAIS: Now we know about the information regarding the people in the bank, you were also involved when that was obtained?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MARAIS: The information was merely obtained by methods of interrogation, there was no pressure exerted on him or anything else, is that what you are saying?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MARAIS: If it would have happened then you would have known about it, not so?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MARAIS: And he wasn't promised anything either?

MR RAATH: With his recruitment Capt du Plessis might have promised him something, I do not know what. I don't know what he discussed with him.

MR MARAIS: So you don't know at all what Captain du Plessis, what he interrogated him about.

MR RAATH: He tasked him as an informer and from his interrogation and from mine we put the answers together and we reacted on that.

MR MARAIS: So was he interrogated on his own, then he would come back to you and say that he had obtained that information?

MR RAATH: Yes our interrogation was bound in a bundle and we made notes. We knew what had happened with each other's interrogation, we worked together as a team.

MR MARAIS: And he also obtained information just as you did?

MR RAATH: Yes that's correct.

MR MARAIS: And you don't know how he succeeded in getting the information from Kondile, which method he used or which pressure he exerted?

MR RAATH: By interrogating him I don't know whether he promised him anything.

MR MARAIS: But you personally didn't tell him if you give me the information then I can have these wonderful things happen to you?


MR MARAIS: Do you think that it was practice that Mr du Plessis would have done something like that?

MR RAATH: I don't know, I cannot reply to that.

MR MARAIS: Are you saying you don't know what the practice of interrogation was during that time?

MR RAATH: Yes I know. This man was in a stage of his recruitment as an informer and the recruitment process was dealt with by Capt du Plessis and this man gave information because he had already started cooperating and this information was followed up.

MR MARAIS: I understand that but what I am asking you is, did you know what the practice was, which means you used in order to obtain this information, because you surely would no just tell the man please give me the information and he'd say no thank you or thank you here's the information.

MR RAATH: When he was recruited and he gave his cooperation then there was a reward.

MR MARAIS: So you knew that?

MR RAATH: Yes I knew that.

MR MARAIS: But you didn't know whether Captain du Plessis offered him a reward?

MR RAATH: I don't know.

MR MARAIS: You yourself was it within your powers to offer him a reward?

MR RAATH: Well if I had an informer that I had registered I could have gone to my superior and I could have received a reward to give to him for his cooperation if I felt that he deserved it.

MR MARAIS: And your evidence before the Commission is that it wasn't necessary for you personally to offer Kondile a reward to get the information that you did get?

MR RAATH: No it wasn't necessary for me to do so.

MR MARAIS: How long did you interrogate him before you became aware of the fact that Captain du Plessis was recruiting him?

MR RAATH: The recruitment process started from the first day that he was being interrogated and this continued and the information also continued and we worked on this information as a team and I could see in which direction things were going. He trusted Capt du Plessis and vice versa and with the recruitment I did not get involved personally.

MR MARAIS: So from the interrogation on the first day you were aware of the fact that Capt du Plessis was recruiting this man?

MR RAATH: Yes it was clearly visible, this man cooperated from the start.

ADV GCABASHE: Could I just ask Mr Raath, did you also give Mr Kondile paper on which to write reports to you?

MR RAATH: No I never gave him any paper.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you ever receive written reports from him you know as part of his cooperation with you?

MR RAATH: No, notes which were made I made myself as he made things known to me.

ADV GCABASHE: The room that you interrogated him in was it the same room that he used to sleep in?

MR RAATH: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE: At no stage did you find any paper on him, you personally?

MR RAATH: No, I personally never found anything.

ADV GCABASHE: Did you at any stage see him give a written report to Mr du Plessis?

MR RAATH: No I did not.

ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

MR MARAIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. At which stage did you withdraw from the interrogation?

MR RAATH: If I can remember correctly it was after the identification in the Transkei and when I heard from Capt du Plessis that he had recruited the man and that he was his handler and that's when I did it, when I withdrew.

MR MARAIS: After he was recruited was he recruited at the stage when he was already in Humansdorp?

MR RAATH: I would say that the recruitment that it can require a lengthy period, but it had started there.

MR MARAIS: More specifically was he recruited at Humansdorp already?

MR RAATH: No in Jeffrey's Bay.

MR MARAIS: Were you present or were you assisting in the interrogation from the beginning to the end?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MARAIS: And you are saying that what you saw from the first day that you could see that he was busy turning?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MARAIS: And that he gave his cooperation from the first day?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MARAIS: Capt du Plessis says at one stage it was necessary to hit him with his open hand and with his fists.

MR RAATH: I never saw that.

MR MARAIS: And he found it necessary to do so in order to get his cooperation.

MR RAATH: That can be possible but I was not present.

ADV GCABASHE: And did Sizwe Kondile never say to you Capt du Plessis was here yesterday and what a clap, he made no comment to you at all?

MR RAATH: No he mentioned nothing to me.

MR MARAIS: Thank you. Did you get the impression when he was transferred to Jeffrey's Bay that things were going easier, that the recruitment had been finalised? No before the recruitment was completed did you have the impression that things were going easier now, that things were coming to an end and that the recruitment will be completed?

MR RAATH: I can't say that things were nearing a certain point now, but at one stage he told me that the person had been recruited now. I can't say at which stage. It's not easy to pinpoint a specific stage.

MR MARAIS: Could you get the impression from Mr Kondile himself?

MR RAATH: Yes he cooperated closely with du Plessis, they often spent time together. They sat talking there.

MR MARAIS: And when you interrogated him in Jeffrey's Bay was it easier for you too?

MR RAATH: Yes at that stage the identification had been done and I have completed my task.

MR MARAIS: How long on average did you spend per day to interrogate him, or separately your joint attempts, either individually or jointly, how long was he interrogated?

MR RAATH: It was usually normal office hours.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I didn't catch the answer to the last question.

MR RAATH: They spent the whole day interpreting him, normal office hours.

MR MARAIS: Do I have to repeat the question, did you hear that?

MR RAATH: He was interrogated periodically.

MR MARAIS: And if I understand it correctly you interrogated him for almost a month, a little bit less than one month?

MR RAATH: That is correct, yes. Initially the interrogation was done and the information obtained and later on he was not integrated so much.

MR MARAIS: You see what I am wondering about is how much information did Kondile have that it had taken so long for him, considering the fact that he was cooperating that it had taken a month to give you the information he had, was it volumes full of information?

MR RAATH: I would put it in this way. The information I got and the follow-up work I did in Transkei I have completed my task. Du Plessis testified according to what happened afterwards.

MR MARAIS: What I am saying is now you don't want to answer this.

MR RAATH: That what I have interrogated him for took about two weeks and the follow-up and what du Plessis testified about I can't say. Perhaps whether he's obtained bundles and bundles of information I don't know.

MR MARAIS: But you would have known if there was bundles full of information and was there?

MR RAATH: Yes there was, this information was presented here but I did not work with that. I just worked on the information I obtained. We went to Transkei, we identified some people and my tasks were completed.

MR MARAIS: If I understand you correctly there were bundles of documentation regarding information provided by Kondile to the Security police.

MR RAATH: Those were things du Plessis handled.

CHAIRPERSON: I think your question should really be coming to your client's commitment or involvement in the matter, the extent of his involvement.

MR MARAIS: Yes my questions are related to that, my client's version is that Kondile was tortured and it was difficult to get the information. Now he is saying it is easy to obtain the information. I want to ascertain how much information he had because it took a whole month.

I will continue to the next point. Mr Raath your evidence is that you were involved at Humansdorp and Jeffrey's Bay all the time except those times when du Plessis was there.

MR RAATH: That's what I testified yes.

MR MARAIS: Mr Chairman you can stop me. The impression I've got as far as I remember Mr du Plessis' evidence was that Mr Raath appeared on the scene at Jeffrey's Bay after the note had been found and he was sent there to guard Kondile.

Mr Raath you've heard what I've said. Mr du Plessis' evidence was ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Your objection?

ADV VISSER: My objection is that my learned colleague is putting a question on a factual basis which doesn't exist. Mr du Plessis was quite clear in his evidence that he and Raath interrogated this man. Raath has told you that by the time that du Plessis told him that the man had become an informer, Raath then faded out of the picture. That is the evidence.


MR MARAIS: Mr Chairman is that the correct version that he put, I wasn't sure that's why I asked if...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: That is part of the answer that was given by Mr du Plessis but I think it is common cause that Mr Raath was the man who went in the first instance to bring Kondile from Bloemfontein.

ADV VISSER: Yes you're absolutely right Mr Chair, that's correct.

MR MARAIS: Mr Raath what was the practice - Let me rather put it in this way, if you have to fetch a trained terrorist from another station, how many people are sent to fetch him?

MR RAATH: In our case we were two. It's not necessary to send a whole truck load full of people. They never sent more than two people.

MR MARAIS: Perhaps yes, it would have been safer, wouldn't you agree? Don't you believe it would have been safer if more policemen went to fetch him.

MR RAATH: I did not see the necessity, there were things like handcuffs which could be used.

MR MARAIS: Mr Chairman, just a minute please. Your evidence is some identifications were done by Mr Kondile?

MR RAATH: That is correct yes.

MR MARAIS: During these identifications who were involved, was it you, Mr Kondile and who else?

MR RAATH: Captain du Plessis and also members from East London, I can't remember specifically who.

MR MARAIS: Mr du Plessis specifically testified about an incident in King William's Town when he was not there, can you remember that?

MR RAATH: Yes I can mainly remember about a taxi rank which was indicated.

MR MARAIS: Who were there if he wasn't there?

MR RAATH: There were members from East London who were there, I don't know who they were.

MR MARAIS: Were they senior officers or junior officers?

MR RAATH: I can't say.

MR MARAIS: Then the practice is that identification is done to a senior to an officer at least.

MR RAATH: It depends on what kind of identification.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr Danster have anything to do with all this?

MR RAATH: No your Honour.

MR MARAIS: According to Mr Danster, you and Mr du Plessis were only involved when it came to the single quarters, is that correct?


MR MARAIS: Did Mr du Plessis still visit Kondile in the single quarters?

MR RAATH: Yes regularly.

MR MARAIS: What happened there then?

MR RAATH: They held discussions. I was not involved in that.

MR MARAIS: What happened to you and Mr Danster when Mr du Plessis came there?

MR RAATH: I went to do something else or somebody was at least relieving me.

MR MARAIS: And how regularly did that happen?

MR RAATH: I can't say it could have been every day or every second day.

MR MARAIS: That was during the stage when he was in the single quarters and I accept that he drove quite a way to get there.

MR RAATH: Yes he came from Port Elizabeth.

MR MARAIS: So I assume that he would not just stay there for five minutes, he would spend some time there if he took the trouble to come all that way.

MR RAATH: Sometimes he spent a short time there, sometimes he was on his way to do something else, that wasn't the only thing he had to do.

MR MARAIS: Mr du Plessis and Mr Kondile, did they also go out to do identifications?

MR RAATH: We all went together during these identifications in Transkei.

MR MARAIS: It was already at that stage when he was placed in the single quarters?

MR RAATH: No that happened before that.

MR MARAIS: When he was placed in the single quarters then Mr du Plessis and Kondile, did he go anywhere then?

MR RAATH: No I can't remember.

MR MARAIS: Why I'm asking you that is Mr du Plessis had testified that after you had been placed in the single quarters, no interrogation took place.

MR RAATH: That's correct.

MR MARAIS: And I find it strange, and I'm putting it to you, if no interrogation had taken place, what was he doing there every day?

MR RAATH: I've told you, no interrogation took place but they held discussions. What they were talking about I don't know.

MR MARAIS: Are you sure there was no interrogation.

MR RAATH: I'm sure.

MR MARAIS: How do you know that?

MR RAATH: I said so because I was there.

MR MARAIS: So were you there when Capt du Plessis visited him in the single quarters and spoke to him?

MR RAATH: Yes I was there.

MR MARAIS: As I've heard your evidence, you and Mr Danster left when du Plessis came there.

MR RAATH: We could have stayed in the room, we could have left the room.

MR MARAIS: I can understand that but you've earlier testified not that we could go outside, you said that we did go outside when du Plessis came there and that was the reason why you said you didn't what was happening between them.

MR RAATH: This had happened seventeen years ago, I could have made a mistake, but according to what I can remember, I could have gone out, I could have gone to the cafe.

MR MARAIS: I'm putting it to you that it's strange now that you're using the excuse of not knowing. When I'm mentioning to you that you are contradicting Mr du Plessis's evidence, this is why you're using the excuse now.

MR RAATH: As far as I know Captain du Plessis never visited him at the single quarters.

MR MARAIS: Are you sure? But you've earlier said that he came there every second day.

MR RAATH: I said he did visit them.

MR MARAIS: What was Mr du Plessis instruction to you and Danster at the single quarter?

MR RAATH: Mr du Plessis informed me and I've testified in this regard about the information which was smuggled from the cells and he would place Kondile in the single cells and we had to guard him.

MR MARAIS: Are you sure.

MR RAATH: Yes I'm sure.

MR MARAIS: So he told you that Kondile wanted to smuggle information, to leak information and you must be sure that it doesn't happen. That's strange because Mr du Plessis said that he never mentioned that to you, he just gave you a general instruction that you had to guard this person, see that nothing goes in, nothing goes out. He didn't give a reason for that.

MR RAATH: Mr du Plessis did give a reason. He informed me.

MR MARAIS: So he must have made a mistake in his evidence. But you are sure now that he had provided you with a reason.

MR RAATH: He did give me a reason.

MR MARAIS: So if you are sure he perhaps is making a mistake. Both can't be correct because it's two different things.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just come over to the - you've got a very limited role to play in this matter here, I want you to understand that. I wish you'd confine yourself to matters pertaining to your client please ...(intervention)

MR MARAIS: Mr Chairman...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: There must be some limit to these proceedings as well, we can't carry on indefinitely you see.

MR MARAIS: Mr Chairman while you touch on the subject, may I be allowed to make a short submission.

CHAIRPERSON: Please not, I want this witness to finish.

MR MARAIS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Did Mr Danster ever talk to Mr Kondile while he was guarding him?

MR RAATH: As far as I can remember yes.

MR MARAIS: There were no problems between Danster and Kondile to talk about social matters?

MR RAATH: No not as far as I can remember.

MR MARAIS: And between you and Mr Kondile? You spoke freely to one another.

MR RAATH: Yes as far as I can remember.

MR MARAIS: And you did?

MR RAATH: Yes we did.

MR MARAIS: Did Kondile make any attempt as far as you could gather that he was trying to leak some information or smuggle information from single quarters?

MR RAATH: Not that I know of.

MR MARAIS: And if I remember correctly your task was specifically to prevent that that should happen.

MR RAATH: That is correct yes.

MR MARAIS: So your attention would have been focused on such possible attempts.

MR RAATH: That's possible yes.

MR MARAIS: And you're telling the Commission that you can't remember that he tried to do something like that.

MR RAATH: I can't remember.

MR MARAIS: And I'm putting it to you that it is improbable that you would not have tried.

MR RAATH: He would not have done it openly so that you could see it because then it would not be smuggling.

MR MARAIS: I'll concede to that.

MR MARAIS: You and Mr Danster's relationship at that stage, were there any problems?


MR MARAIS: Were you only colleagues or were you also friends on a social level?

MR RAATH: We were colleagues.

MR MARAIS: Did anything happen afterwards between the two of you that would have caused friction?

MR RAATH: Nothing.

MR MARAIS: You can't think why Mr Danster is saying these things about you in his statement? Do you know what is entailed in Mr Danster's statement? You don't know why he's saying these things about you?

MR RAATH: No I don't know.

MR MARAIS: No further questions your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) would you rather do that when you're re-examining your witness?

MR RAATH: No I've - you stopped me Mr Chairman, I wanted to make a submission in regard to this cross-examination and this witness but that's now over and done with.


MR RAATH: I've got no re-examination your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: No well I, you may yes because I'm going to ask Mr Jansen if he has questions.

MR MARAIS: I'm sorry no.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen do you have any questions?


MR JANSEN: Yes thank you Mr Chairman, I do. Mr Raath you would agree that your application is more than cryptic. You just confirm in total your co-applicant's applications.

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: Why did you not make an attempt to spontaneously give your own version?

MR RAATH: I've given my evidence for the purposes for which I am here and that is to come and tell the truth.

MR JANSEN: But my submission to the Committee is that I have the impression that you all follow the one version till the end till you see which way things are going and so that you based all your applications on this one standpoint.

MR RAATH: I've just told you about what I know.

MR JANSEN: I just want to get certainty. Did you yourself compile this statement, type it?

MR RAATH: No it was done by my legal representatives.

MR JANSEN: And did they ask information from you, you conveyed the information to them and they worded it and formulated it?

MR RAATH: That is correct yes.

MR JANSEN: Now the one thing I still find absent in all your evidence is that the detailed evidence regarding the interrogation about these bomb attacks, do you know whether he was interrogated about bomb attacks?

MR RAATH: From my side I can't remember. I can't, whether I've asked him anything about bomb attacks. I was concentrating on the photo album and about identifications.

MR JANSEN: What was your specific function?

MR RAATH: I worked directly under du Plessis in black affairs.

MR JANSEN: You also know what Mr Coetzee's version is regarding the Audi 80 which was stolen?

MR RAATH: Yes I've heard about that.

MR JANSEN: You deny any knowledge of that incident?

MR RAATH: I don't know anything about that.

MR JANSEN: Mr Coetzee also said that amongst others, after the Audi had been stolen, you said that you wanted the tyres, you've read that version of his?

MR RAATH: Yes but I don't know about that.

MR JANSEN: Yes you're saying Mr Coetzee is lying.

MR RAATH: I don't know about the Audi, I don't know about the tyres.

MR JANSEN: Either Mr Coetzee is lying or he is confusing you with someone else? One of the two, that must be your submission.

MR RAATH: I wouldn't know where he got this from.

MR JANSEN: Okay, could I just ask Mr Raath, I read somewhere here that you owned a Passat at the time, is that correct?

MR RAATH: That is correct yes.

MR JANSEN: Now I don't know but would an Audi tyre fit a Passat tyre?

MR RAATH: Not necessarily.

MR JANSEN: You wouldn't know, thank you.

One other point, you also know Mr Coetzee's version regarding what happened at Komatipoort.

MR RAATH: That is correct yes.

MR JANSEN: I don't want to explain it to you in detail because I know you've listened to your colleagues reacting to certain parts which have been submitted to them. There is not any specific part of Mr Coetzee's evidence on which you want to comment apart from denying it?

ADV VISSER: That's not a reasonable question, if my learned friend wants evidence which he wants to put to the witness he must do so. He can't make a sweeping statement to say what do you disagree with Dirk Coetzee's evidence Mr Chairman. This witness ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) he wants to comment on. Is there anything about Coetzee's evidence which you wish to comment? Is that what you're trying to get?

MR JANSEN: Yes I accept Mr Chairman that it's not practice to place it in such a wide term but maybe I should just place the main events, the main moment's of Coetzee's version to this witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes do that please.

MR JANSEN: Right If you just want to comment on the following statements:

Coetzee says that he did visit Jeffrey's Bay police station where he saw the detainee Mr Kondile.

MR RAATH: I did not see Coetzee there.

MR JANSEN: And Coetzee said that it was at the same stage you stole an Audi vehicle together with him, and Coetzee conceded that he was later murdered at Komatipoort, implicated other people like Fleming for example and he implicates a certain Deetlefs and Rorich, van Dyk but on the other hand he does not implicate Roy Otto.

MR RAATH: These people he's referring to, I don't know them. I've already said in my evidence who were there. We were definitely not at the same party.

MR JANSEN: Please repeat.

MR RAATH: We weren't all at the same place.

MR JANSEN: Did I hear your evidence correctly that Danster first came on the scene when Kondile was transferred to the single quarters?

MR RAATH: That is correct yes. It could have been that Danster moved with me, perhaps visited the man in the cells but he was not involved in his interrogation.

MR JANSEN: It could have possible been that Kondile was was first detained in the cells in Jeffrey's Bay before he was transferred to the single quarters.

MR RAATH: That is correct yes.

MR JANSEN: So did Danster's role entail anything else apart from guarding?

MR RAATH: No he only guard Kondile.

MR JANSEN: Would he ever have taken him out for investigation?


MR JANSEN: Look on page 185.

CHAIRPERSON: What volume are we talking about.

MR JANSEN: Volume 2 Mr Chairman, page 185.


MR JANSEN: Page 185, it's a cell register dated the 25.7.81. The first entry right at the top and correct me if my quote is wrong, serial number 1444 and the 10H.50 and then it reads as follows:

"Investigations on -:, 'B M' which probably stands for 'Black Man' Bueinisizwe Kondile out of cells for investigation, escort by Sgt Danster" .

Would you agree with what I'm reading there?

MR RAATH: It is correct yes.

MR JANSEN: This was on the 25th of July.

MR RAATH: That is correct.

MR JANSEN: As I remember your evidence if I remember that correctly, Kondile was transferred from Humansdorp to Jeffrey's Bay on the 24th of July.

MR RAATH: That is correct yes.

MR JANSEN: How do you explain then Danster's involvement in this investigation, one day after his arrival at Jeffrey's Bay?

MR RAATH: It could possibly be that I sent him to the cells to take him out.

MR JANSEN: Yes anything can be possible. Sorry Mr Chairman I'm not correct, there's just one more question that I do, it's not...(indistinct). To detain Kondile in a the single quarters, is it correct that the cooperation of the station commander was required for that?

MR RAATH: I think yes it was cleared by Captain du Plessis and that was lieutenant Warrant Officer Jonker, I can't remember him.

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman I have no further questions.

Sorry Mr Chairman if you could just bear with me.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes certainly.

MR JANSEN: Yes sorry Mr Chairman there's just a last aspect that I want to refer this witness to. Mr Raath can you please page to page 163 in volume 2. It's an affidavit of a certain Edwin Mayepe. Have you seen this affidavit before?

MR RAATH: It's the first time that I've seen this.

MR JANSEN: I'll just summarise it quickly. It's an affidavit which is made in 1990 for purposes of the Harms Commission by this Mayepe who said that in '81 a second hand Audi 80 was stolen from him in Port Elizabeth. It also confirms that he was involved at that stage with a legal officer of a trade union. My question to you is can you think of any reason why Mr Coetzee would become involved in the theft of a vehicle or make up his own participation in this theft at the stage when he testified before the Harms Commission?

MR RAATH: I have no knowledge of that because I said that I did not even see Coetzee if he was in Port Elizabeth.

CHAIRPERSON: Had you known or seen Coetzee by that time in 1981?

MR RAATH: No I saw him for the first time at Komatipoort.

CHAIRPERSON: So even if he was there, you may not have known who he was at Jeffrey's Bay, you wouldn't know who it was.

MR RAATH: That is correct.


ADV VISSER: I have no re-examination thank you Mr Chairman


ADV DE JAGER: I just want to point out to you this affidavit on page 163 says that the person bought the car in June of '81 and six or seven months later it was stolen. That means approximately December or January '82. Can it then be that you know of a car that was stolen long after this incident?

MR RAATH: No I don't know.

JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Raath, please tell me, the body of Mr Kondile was burned.

MR RAATH: That's correct. He was shot while he was lying next to a tree, that's what I understood from the other witnesses, that's correct.

JUDGE PILLAY: Was he shot or was he burned out next to the tree or was he carried and put on a pyre?

MR RAATH: It was a little way from there, two or three steps, he was carried away.

JUDGE PILLAY: Who carried him?

MR RAATH: I know that I helped to carry him.

JUDGE PILLAY: Where on his body did you support him?

MR RAATH: I cannot remember.

JUDGE PILLAY: In any case you had an opportunity to look at this body. Can you please tell us where this person had been shot?

MR RAATH: I can't remember any more. I did not look at that body it was not an easy thing to do.

JUDGE PILLAY: You were there with the body and you are telling us that you cannot say where on his body the person was shot?

MR RAATH: If I had to say where he was shot then I would have to tell a lie. It was not easy for me at all.

JUDGE PILLAY: And while he was lying on the wood pile, while he was being burned did you not look where he was shot either.

MR RAATH: No I walked away and stood to the side, I did not look, not at all.

JUDGE PILLAY: There of the five people did not know where this man was shot. Because your other two colleagues also say they did not look.

MR RAATH: I did not look, I am sure.

JUDGE PILLAY: Thank you.

ADV GCABASHE: Mr Raath the trip on the 10th of August, first to Bloemfontein and then later from Barberton to Komatipoort, the first leg, PE to Bleomfontein, you were in the same car as Mr Kondile, yes?

MR RAATH: Up to Bloemfontein, that's correct.

ADV GCABASHE: What was the nature of your conversation with Kondile, was he curious about where you were going to?

MR RAATH: It wasn't discussed in the vehicle in my presence.

ADV GCABASHE: Then from Barberton to Komatipoort, he didn't ask you why you had been driving his car? Why you had left it at the side of the road?

MR RAATH: No he did not talk to me about that, I do not know whether he had already been informed, I have no knowledge of this. He did not discuss this with me.

ADV GCABASHE: If I might go back to Jeffrey's Bay. As part of Mr du Plessis team, did you too have intimate knowledge about the principal agent and the network in Lesotho?

MR RAATH: No it was dealt with by Capt du Plessis himself.

ADV GCABASHE: So you had no knowledge at all of those people?


ADV GCABASHE: Then the last question, I keep jumping up and down the country, back to Komatipoort and the decision to shoot Sizwe Kondile and burn him. Were you part of the conversation about burning the body?


ADV GCABASHE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Who gave the order that Kondile should be shot at the scene?

MR RAATH: I do not know who gave that instruction or order.

CHAIRPERSON: Who could have given the order?

MR RAATH: I don't know, there were three officers present and I don't know, accept it...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: The three officers being yourself, van Rensburg and du Plessis.

MR RAATH: No it was van Rensburg, Mr du Plessis and Mr Coetzee, they were the officers on the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes now you remember that apparently the so-called sleeping drops or tablets were apparently administered or put in his drink by Coetzee, do you remember that?

MR RAATH: Yes I didn't see this myself but I saw when Coetzee gave him something to drink.

CHAIRPERSON: No you remember detail of that nature. Now you did not give the order to shoot, is that right?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to tell me who and why is it that you can't remember if you don't remember.

MR RAATH: I accept that it would have been Col van Rensburg because he was in command at that stage, that operation.

CHAIRPERSON: You see he also said that he thinks he gave the order. But before saying that he says somebody gave an order to shoot and he says he thinks it might have been him. Now that kind of evidence leaves one a bit puzzled. Were you standing close to each other at the time and if you heard somebody saying, shoot him.

MR RAATH: No I stood to one side, we were all sitting around the fire where we had eaten. I accept that it was Col van Rensburg because he was in charge of the whole operation.

CHAIRPERSON: It's unlikely that it could have been Coetzee, isn't it?

MR RAATH: That is true yes.

CHAIRPERSON: If it was Col van Rensburg who gave the order, who did he give the order to?

MR RAATH: I do not know, it was something that had been predetermined which the officers spoke about, I was not part of that discussion. I only say when this man stood up and shot Kondile.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the man that did the shooting was somebody you had not seen before? This is the first time you saw him?

MR RAATH: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know whether he was known to van Rensburg?

MR RAATH: I accept that he was yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any reason to believe that he might be known to van Rensburg?

MR RAATH: Yes as he arrived there with Coetzee and Coetzee was well known to Mr van Rensburg, that's why I think that they knew one another.

CHAIRPERSON: If Coetzee had told this person to shoot you would have remembered that wouldn't you?

MR RAATH: I think so yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I want you to think back carefully, did this man pull out his own gun and shoot or did he borrow anybody else's gun?

MR RAATH: This man had jeans on with a holster at the side, he pulled out the firearm, and I accept that it was his own or a government firearm, I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words he didn't take the firearm from someone of you who was standing by? Borrow one of your firearms and then shoot, that isn't what happened?


CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you very much.

ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman if you would allow me, there are two matters arising from questioning by members of the Committee. May I just clarify.


ADV VISSER: The first point is I think that the evidence is clear but I'm going to ask you about this? When Mr Kondile was shot near Komatipoort, was it daylight or what was the situation?

MR RAATH: It was already dark.

ADV VISSER: It was at night?


ADV VISSER: And the same while you took the body to the wood before you set it alight, was it darkness as well?

MR RAATH: Yes it was in the dark.

ADV VISSER: You were also asked as to whether you knew who the principal agent was about whom Mr du Plessis testified and you said no, were you aware that there were informers from the security branch who operated in Lesotho, were you aware of this or unaware of this?

MR RAATH: I was aware of this.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you very much.

Mr Booyens are you calling any other witnesses?

M BOOYENS: If the Committee would just bear with me please, one aspect that we discussed, I just want to find something out from my attorney.


ADV VISSER: May I place my position on record in the mean time Mr Chairman just to take up the time that is being used by my learned friend. Mr Chairman we have no further evidence to present except if Mr Dirk Coetzee gives evidence, the situation changes radically because you will understand that Mr Coetzee is not implicated by these witnesses nor is Mr Danster, so we have a problem with their presence here, but be that as it may I'm not taking any point on that. But if Mr Dirk Coetzee is to be called in evidence, then obviously there would have to be cross-examination and I can tell you now that there will be at least two witnesses which we would have to call in rebuttal of his evidence. So I just want to place that on record. As far as the application is concerned properly as placed in our submission, this is the evidence which we wish to place before you.

M BOOYENS: Mr Chairman we are in a similar position, we may want to rebut something in the evidence of Coetzee, should Coetzee give evidence but otherwise we conclude our evidence at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moosa are you calling any witnesses?

MR MOOSA: Mr Chairman not at this state, we want clarity the directive that was given the last time about Mr Coetzee's evidence in which case we'd consider our position as well.

CHAIRPERSON: But I want to tell you now that the other people who have been dragged here will not be called to give evidence and I'm not going to permit that you know, Mr Coetzee's two companions in the previous application. Their names haven't figured here at all so I want you to know now that Tshikalanga and Nofomela will not be, I will not be calling them to give evidence. Are you calling any other witnesses.

MR MOOSA: We wouldn't be calling any other witness, as I say it would depend on whether Mr Coetzee is giving evidence and the question of Mr Danster would then be relevant as well.

CHAIRPERSON: No no no whatever they do I'm finding out whether you are calling any witnesses.

MR MOOSA: Yes I think I'm clear on that, I'm not calling any witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling witnesses Mr Valus.

MR VALUS: Yes Mr Chairman I would apply to call and I intend to call Mr Danster.

CHAIRPERSON: You intend to call him. Is he available.

MR VALUS: He is available, he will testify by means of an interpreter, his mother tongue is Xhosa.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: Mr Chairman I don't intend calling any witnesses, I'm in the hands of the Committee as far as Mr Coetzee is concerned, I leave it in the hands of the Committee to decide. If the Committee has clear views on that then obviously I'm in your hands, if the Committee wants to be addressed on that, then obviously I'll address the Committee on how I assess the situation to be.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. My Committee has decided that we'll adjourn now and resume at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. By that time we will make known to you Mr Jansen whether the Committee wishes to call Mr Dirk Coetzee or not.

MR JANSEN: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman before you adjourn, I don't want to interrupt you but before you adjourn would you indulge me in just making one further point about Mr Coetzee please for your consideration in deciding whether you want to call him or not. Mr de Jager has offered a piece resolution here, and that is on the basis that if Mr Coetzee is not called his evidence won't be taken into account in this application and these applicants evidence won't be taken into account. That seems to us to be an eminently fair position but the problem is now Mr Chairperson...(intervention)

ADV DE JAGER: I didn't suggest that, I said we can't take into consideration if he's not called because then he's not being cross-examined in this case and vice versa, your people weren't cross-examined in his application so we can't use your evidence against him without affording him the opportunity.

ADV VISSER: I expressed myself badly but that's exactly right, the problem now is that the matter has now changed because Mr Jansen has now cross-examined our witnesses. I just want you to bear that in mind in your decision Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: This is a cricket game here where he's batted and you want a chance to bat. He's cross-examined your witnesses and therefore you want a chance to cross-examine his.

ADV VISSER: It really goes a little further than that, it goes to the root of the question of evidence and the acceptability of ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: We will deal with that tomorrow morning.

ADV VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Then we'll arise and adjourn and resume again tomorrow morning.