CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. At the end of yesterday's proceedings questions were being put to the witness, Mr du Preez, by members of the panel and Ms Gcabashe had just concluded and I now ask Mr Moloi if he has any questions of the witness.


MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr du Preez, you said you are applying for amnesty in respect of the assault on Stanza Bopape, which assault led to his death, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: Is that all you are applying for amnesty for?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: When you got involved in this assault, was it for the benefit of the government?

MR DU PREEZ: I believed that it was Mr Chairperson.

MR MOLOI: In other words the government had mandated you to commit assault and benefit there from, is that what you say?

MR DU PREEZ: I believed that by all means, that that information that was needed to fight the onslaught.

MR MOLOI: You were also involved with the subsequent cover-up of the death, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: I was involved Mr Chairperson.

MR MOLOI: Both in respect of the disposal of the body as well as the fake escape scheme that was devised thereafter?

MR DU PREEZ: I can say that I was part of the plan, the mock escape but it was said to me that a decision was taken to get rid of the body. I did not take that decision.

MR MOLOI: When the cover-up was devised, what was the primary consideration? What was actually the aim of coming up with a cover-up like that?

MR DU PREEZ: As I said the cover-up would serve that no information would be made public, that there was another death while detained and that could result in more violence, or that government would be embarrassed because of this death while in detention.

MR MOLOI: Was this discussed by the group involved in the cover-up?

MR DU PREEZ: Do you mean that the implications were discussed?

MR MOLOI: The objective of now devising this cover-up in order to save the government the embarrassment, was that specifically discussed by the group involved?

MR DU PREEZ: I can confirm that, that's why we did it.

MR MOLOI: At which stage was it discussed specifically?

MR DU PREEZ: With the return of Major van Niekerk after he had a meeting with the under-officers it was said that the body must be taken to the Eastern Transvaal where it must be disposed of and that the death must covered up by a mock escape.

My true participation of this discussion of the escape was only later that evening when we came back to John Vorster Square. It was then discussed how we must go about doing this.

MR MOLOI: If the cover-up was not devised and actually implemented, what do you think would the government have done about you as an individual and you as a group involved in this cover-up?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot say.

MR MOLOI: So if the true facts came out and were placed before the government, is it possible that all of you involved would have been charged?

MR DU PREEZ: I do not know, it is possible.

MR MOLOI: And had that been done, is it also conceivable that the government would then use that as information nationally and internationally to show that it was the government that was not prepared to tolerate ...[indistinct] by the members of the security forces?

MR DU PREEZ: It could be a possibility. My feeling was that after higher officials to cover this death up, I never had thought that there could be possible other insights. My belief was that was a decision that was taken and that the attitude of the higher officials, officers and also the politicians whom they reported to, I believed there are no other possibilities.

MR MOLOI: Was it in any way intimated to you that the government, the politicians were apprised about the grand scheme of the cover-up?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Honourable Chairperson, it was not said to me. I was a sergeant at that stage, higher officials do not come to us and say that the politicians were informed.

MR MOLOI: And indeed, do you have any indication that the politicians, the government was apprised of this when it you carried it out?

MR DU PREEZ: No. The statements that the politicians made, they did not say anything about the cover-up.

MR MOLOI: Is it possible then that the government of the day could then have capitalised as it were, on the full disclosure and a decisive action that might have been taken against you and benefited therefrom by indicating to the world out there that they are not prepared to tolerate ...[indistinct] by the security forces?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, could Ms van der Walt just be excused, she seems to have a - I'll take her position Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR DU PREEZ: Pardon me, I cannot remember the complete question. Could you please repeat the questions?

MR MOLOI: The question was in essence, whether the government could not have derived a mileage out of the possible prosecution against you as a group that could have been initiated if the true facts were not hidden from it and thereby benefited much more in the eyes of the world out there. That they would then be seen not to be tolerating any form of ...[indistinct] from the security forces?

MR DU PREEZ: The statements of that time was that any method must be used to fight this onslaught and if they made a statement or if they got mileage from this, that they did not - would then be a contradiction that this onslaught must be fought with all means available and that they would not have made such a statement.

MR MOLOI: So finally just for information, do I understand you to say that in respect of the cover-up following upon the death of Bopape, you do not need amnesty for that?

MR DU PREEZ: No, that is not what I'm saying.

MR MOLOI: But what you do say is that you specifically apply for amnesty in respect of the assault that led to his death, in so many words?

MR DU PREEZ: I ask or apply for amnesty for the assault that led to the death of Stanza Bopape because it is still a crime to kill a person even though it occurred during a dispensation where there was a guerrilla warfare and the whole purpose of the amnesty, to come today and be part of a new country and a new democracy and new viewpoints and to - that is why I ask for amnesty today and not because I believe that what I did, apart from the fact that I thought that I acted, I came here today to put that part of the history in the past, not because I believe it was good and it was war and I could continue.

MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, Miss van der Walt's not present, would you like and adjournment, I see she's coming back.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, maybe if I can get the opportunity to just convey to Miss van der Walt had transpired in the meantime, can we just get a short adjournment for that please?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes alright, we'll have a short adjournment and then you can apprise Miss van der Walt.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you.



ADV DE JAGER: The last questions were about why you applied for amnesty, and I think that the legal people are informed about it, you must just as a layman make sure what the implications are for what you do apply for and what you do not apply for.

There was one other aspect in the questions and you referred to the guerrilla warfare, were you aware at that stage that policemen, and there was no distinction made between which policemen, declared as legal targets of the security forces?

MR DU PREEZ: ...[No English translation]

ADV DE JAGER: Now if you talk about a war, is a war just fought from one side?

MR DU PREEZ: It is fought from both sides Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: And how did you - if you now talk about warfare, how did you see the situation?

We were part of that war. There were situations where you were on the side receiving and then it could be the opposite side.

ADV DE JAGER: But on the other hand it was also so that it was governed by laws.

MR DU PREEZ: It is true Mr Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: And do you agree that you transgressed those laws?

MR DU PREEZ: That is true.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Jack Ngcobo?

JUDGE NGCOBO: As I understand your evidence you do not recall who telephoned you to bring the device?

MR DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, I gave evidence that I cannot exactly remember who phoned me. My explanation that I gave with that was that it could have been one or two of two specific people, either Major van Niekerk or Warrant Officer Mostert.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And then you had to go first from your house to the police station and from the police station in Sandton to John Vorster Square?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And upon arrival this device was concealed somewhere out of sight in Sandton police station?

MR DU PREEZ: No, Mr Chairperson. If I understand you correctly, the device was in my vehicle and I left it there when I got to John Vorster Square.

JUDGE NGCOBO: No, no, you fetched the device from Sandton police station, did you not?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: At Sandton police station it was concealed somewhere.

MR DU PREEZ: It was hidden in a cupboard.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you knew that it was there?

MR DU PREEZ: I knew that it was there.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You did not have to ask anyone where you could find the device?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And upon arriving at John Vorster Square you left the device in your motor vehicle and you then went to speak to Major van Niekerk? He was a Major then was he not?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you know at that stage that Major van Niekerk was indeed at John Vorster Square?

MR DU PREEZ: As I said, I'm not sure who phoned me but upon my arrival I did see him there. If he phoned me personally I would have known that he was there, if it was not him that phone me and it was Warrant Officer Mostert I would not have known but when I arrived there I did see him or meet him there.

JUDGE NGCOBO: No, no, I understand that you can't recall who telephoned you, but what I want to know is, when you arrived, because as I understand your evidence you left the device in your motor vehicle and you then went up to the offices where you spoke to Major van Niekerk, now what I want to know is, when you left your motor vehicle leaving the device behind and going up, did you know at that stage whether Major van Niekerk was there or can't you recall that?

MR DU PREEZ: I do not know.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Okay. So you simply walked up to, what it the 10th floor?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct. As I said, I went to and see who was there and I gave that in my evidence and when I got there Major van Niekerk was there, he was then a senior person there and that is why I went to him and reported to him.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Why did you leave the device behind in your motor vehicle when you went up for the first time?

MR DU PREEZ: As I said, I first wanted to go and see who was there. As I testified earlier on, it was a discreet action so I would not have just walked in with this device so that anybody could see it.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Who could have been at the police station at that time of the day and on that particular day? Would there be members of the public on that day?

MR DU PREEZ: It could have been possible that there could have been members of the public who had to come and take down statements. Although it was over a week-end, any person who had access to this police station, not any person or anybody could be admitted.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you didn't want those persons to see this device?

MR DU PREEZ: Could you please repeat?

JUDGE NGCOBO: You did not want the person that you've just mentioned, to see this device?

MR DU PREEZ: I did not want any person to see this device.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What about your superiors, did you want them to see the device?

MR DU PREEZ: As I said Mr Chairperson, there was - we first had to see who was there and as it was in the case, Major van Niekerk, Lieutenant Zeelie, Mostert and Loggerenberg, I did not have a problem.

And if there were some of the other senior officers and there was in their presence asked where the device was, I would have gone to fetch it, it was not a problem because then everybody was involved. Like I said, I just found the relevant persons there.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Is there any commanding officer that you wanted to make sure did not see this device? In other words, is there any other senior officer from whom you wanted to conceal this device?

MR DU PREEZ: In the security per se I cannot think of a specific person who I'd like to hide something from. It was a discreet thing, you just did not act on will but when any of the officers of the security branch asked me to bring such a device, then I would have gone to fetch it. But it was once again that they also agreed with the use of that device.

JUDGE NGCOBO: How big is this device?

CHAIRPERSON: If you could perhaps just indicate with your hands and just us an idea of the size of it.

MR DU PREEZ: I would say that the framework, the body of the device is about this size, so I would say about 7cm/8cm and then in it's width, 5cm with a sling connected to this. That is approximately the size of this device. Attached to that are the coils or wires or cords, so it would not make it much larger if it must be connected to a body.

ADV DE JAGER: I think that if you put this device of yours to the front of that table then it could help you to where you must point it and then your reception would be better.

MR DU PREEZ: Thank you.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Having regard to the size of the device that you've just demonstrated, you could easily have put that in a plastic bag to conceal it.

MR DU PREEZ: It can fit into a bag.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And in that manner no-one would have seen what you are carrying inside the bag that you will be having.

MR DU PREEZ: That is so.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes. I understand that subsequent to the events that led to the death of the deceased you then destroyed the device, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Prior to destroying this device, did you discuss that with any senior police officer at Sandton police station?

MR DU PREEZ: Meaning the destruction of this device?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you tell any senior officer, I mean senior who is your commanding officer that you intend destroying this device for whatever reason?


JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you discuss that the destruction, the fact that you wanted to destroy the device with any other senior officer apart from those at Sandton police


MR DU PREEZ: I discussed it with no-one, that I wanted to destroy or that I did destroy this device.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So other officers who had last seen this device where it had been concealed would not have known what had happened to it?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes. Is there any reason why you did not seek any authority from your superiors to destroy this device?

MR DU PREEZ: I did not see it necessary that I am going to destroy or that I destroyed this device.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me direct your attention to another matter, and that is the putting of the body into the plastic bags. I think the reason that you mentioned was that you did not want to leave behind any matter that might lead to the discovery of the fact that a body had been there in the office or in the boot of the car.

MR DU PREEZ: Specifically in the boot of the car Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And although you had mentioned initially that: "blood as well" but you said that was a slip of the tongue, is that right?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: After the body had been removed from the car that it's transferred onto the vehicle to the Eastern Transvaal, did you go back to the boot of the car to make sure that there was no evidence or nothing that might provide evidence of the fact that the body had been there?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember that I did it Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: But if it had been your concern initially, to make sure that no evidence of any kind is left behind you would equally have had the same concern once the body had been transferred from that motor vehicle, is that right?

MR DU PREEZ: I left it to the driver of the vehicle to make sure that there's no evidence or footprints in the vehicle.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Which vehicle are you talking about now, is that the one to the Eastern Transvaal?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct, the vehicle of Lieutenant Zeelie and in which the body was transported.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So you left it to Mr Zeelie to make sure that there is no evidence that is left in the boot of his motor vehicle?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: To your knowledge, was the deceased blindfolded during the interrogation, during the shocking with this device?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot remember that there was ever a blindfold. According to me he was not blindfolded.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Is it a standard procedure or was it a standard procedure that when this device is being used on a human being you blindfold the individual? Perhaps before you answer that, let me mention that I do understand that practice may have differed from one police officer to the other, but as far as you are aware was there any general practice that was followed?

MR DU PREEZ: There were certain instances where a detainee was blindfolded.

JUDGE NGCOBO: We were told at the beginning of this hearing that there are regulations which prohibit the use of force as a method of interrogation, are you aware of those?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: We were also told that from time to time commanding officers emphasised the fact that when police officers interrogate they should desist from using torture as methods of interrogation. Where you aware of those instructions?

MR DU PREEZ: There were such letters or there was mention made of it.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And we were also told that in view of the previous deaths and detentions, be it occurring in different circumstances, politicians too were uncomfortable about the use of these methods, is that right?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot say if they were uncomfortable with the use of the methods. Earlier on there was mention made of the politicians who did not want to ask questions, is that what you refer to now?

JUDGE NGCOBO: I just want to know whether the politicians, were you aware that the politicians too did not want the police to use these methods, torture for example as a method of interrogation because this might embarrass the government?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot specifically remember that the politicians said something like that. In the letters that were circulated, it could maybe come from them but it was a police letter and not directly from the ministry or something like that.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You did not assume that those instructions must come from above, they would surely have come from above would they not?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson. My interpretation of those letters was to keep up the front. As I witnessed earlier on, during the campaign that, notwithstanding the fact that there was discriminated against the soft targets, that the government wanted to fight this war in a clean manner or within the legal system.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You were aware were you not, that the use of these methods that were prohibited by your employer may well lead to the embarrassment of the employer if it discovered that you indeed used those methods, is that right?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you were also aware that if your employer were to discover that you had engaged in these methods you could be disciplined?

MR DU PREEZ: If it would have been a person outside of the security branch there could have been some repercussions but within the security branch I thought that if it was discovered that or if the device was found in your office that it would not have been said that that device was not allowed in your office. But there was nothing about disciplinary action.

JUDGE NGCOBO: But there were regulations, there were written notices, warnings of the consequences, I mean warning against the use of these methods. That is a fact isn't it?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: How did you hope to achieve, how did you believe that you were acting in the interest of your employer when you were doing what is not only prohibited by your employer but may very well have led to the embarrassment of your employer?

MR DU PREEZ: I believed to obtain information that the government or the former government could place in a position that they could still govern or they could still protect the interest of the people who were usually their targets of attacks, to help them and protect them.

And I believed that through my action I could further the struggle and that is why I acted discretely, that the possibility of an embarrassment would be very slim.

JUDGE NGCOBO: But as I understand the very purpose of the cover-up, it was now to ensure that you save the government the embarrassment or was it not?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So one has a situation where ...[End of tape 1 side A - no follow-on sound] the very act that your employer prohibits. You develop a situation which is likely to cause embarrassment to your government and thereafter you use your very same conduct, your illegal conduct in justifying a further cover-up.

Did you then believe that you were still through acting in the interest of your employer in those circumstances?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes. Very well, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms van der Walt do you have any questions arising from the questions put by the panel?


Mr du Preez, I want to refer you to your application. On page 112, it is volume 1, you testified in relation to questions, that you are applying for amnesty for culpable homicide and that is for the death of Stanza Bopape.

Whilst you were busy with the preparation of the escape you knew that you were busy committing an offence.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And this offence that you planned, you weren't really part of it but you were part of the planning. Did you know that you did this as a result of the death of Stanza Bopape?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it was also on instruction of Mr van Niekerk?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in your application, point 9(a), there you sake for amnesty for: "culpable homicide as well as any other offence or illegal act based on my involvement with this instance"?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What you wrote there you also will then include the docket for the escape and everything that goes along with that?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And that would include also obscuring the course of justice. Now, you were asked if the officers had not helped you and that this offence had not been covered up, if you had been charged then the government would then be able to show to the world how they act against these people. To charge a police officer, that's quite a lengthy process isn't it?


MS VAN DER WALT: The case has to be investigated, the docket has to be handed to the Attorney General before a policeman can be charged, is that correct?


MS VAN DER WALT: Would it at that stage the 12th of June 1988, would that have cause any change had there been a docket opened against you with regard to the violence that was raging at that time? Would it have decreased?

MR DU PREEZ: No, it would not.

MS VAN DER WALT: What do you think, if a policeman had been arrested, would it have increased?

MR DU PREEZ: That is possible because that would have been

some ammunition for the enemy.

MS VAN DER WALT: And who would then suffer from this?

MR DU PREEZ: It would be the government of the day.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were asked with regard to the destruction of the device and you said that you told no-one but in your testimony with regard to this same question you said that after that incident there were other devices.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And these devices could be obtained quite easily.

MR DU PREEZ: I wouldn't say that they were obtained quite easily but by that I mean that you just go to - not that you could go to a shop and buy one, but a person who needed such a device it would be obtainable.

MS VAN DER WALT: It was also asked to you that your action could have embarrassed the government as well as your employer, what did you believe with regard to the act and then also the superior authority in your work situation.

MR DU PREEZ: I believed that what I did, that it would be accepted by them as part, I won't say as part of my duties but that it was a method to execute my duties.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in the circumstances of 1988, what did you believe when that act was committed? What would your employer have done in that situation where there was a lot of violence?

MR DU PREEZ: That what I had done, that they would have viewed it as necessary and that they would have stood by me.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it was also what they did?


MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

Mr Prinsloo, do you have any questions arising from that?


Mr du Preez, Mr de Jager put to you, with regard to a guerrilla warfare where the police were identified as targets, do you remember that?


MR PRINSLOO: I want to refer you to the indictment in the State versus Tolka, it is Exhibit C and I refer you specifically to the part, it is the summary of essential facts in paragraph, it's in brackets (1) and there specifically the target was on the 18th of March 1988, three police officers who had been shot dead, Bane Mope, that is in the indictment so I don't have to spell it, Andrew Mpashlela and Nelson Penjani and then also two people were wounded in the same incident.

Then I want to show you the number of people, and then on the next page 10, sub-paragraph 5 and there was also an attack with a handgrenade on a house of police constable, Ronald Malahutsi.

And in paragraph 6 there was an attack where Constable Kalele in Mamelodi his child of one year old was killed by means of a handgrenade.

And then on the next page, I'm only referring to certain ones, in paragraph 10, it's roman 10, it was also an attack on a member of the police and that was on the 4th of June. From the 18th of March up to that point they were all policemen who had been targets, was that according to you part of the onslaught?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What was the effect on the morale of the police, those kind of attacks?

MR DU PREEZ: It had a negative effect on the members and their families.

MR PRINSLOO: And these attacked that I have pointed out to you specifically, they were all members of the black community, members of the police?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr du Preez, with regard to your investigation, I want to repeat the question, as far as it concerns you with your action in this particular instance, if the police had gone and made this case public, what would it have done with regard to the morale of the police if you had no been charged whilst you say it was done on behalf of the government to keep them in power?

MR DU PREEZ: It would have a very negative effect on the morale of the members.

MR PRINSLOO: The fact that death and detention, how would that have been received if that had been made public by the ANC and other people?

MR DU PREEZ: There would have been revenge attacks, mobilisation of the masses. There would have been strong criticism against the government, not only in the country itself but also internationally.

MR PRINSLOO: And this was only a few days before the 16th of June where there would have been certain commemorations. There was already testimony that there would be revenge. That was reasons given by witnesses, do you agree?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is so.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you believe at that stage that the decision that was taken was the right course to follow and this was not report it and the whole question of defeating the ends of justice and what you did by torturing a person in that way, did you believe that was right in the execution of your duty?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I believed that.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please Mr Chairperson.

It was also put to you that you knew that you may not assault people, that was what the rule said?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: But that is why you're applying for amnesty today isn't it?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: You also said, regarding the vehicle that Mr Zeelie would have used, that you covered the body and you believed that it would not leave any remains?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you believed that nothing would be left in the vehicle?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.


CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you have any questions?


To continue where Mr Prinsloo stopped. Mr du Preez, Exhibit D is also serving where acts of terror are put out from March 1988 up to early in June 1988 and there is also a summary made on page 2. Is it your experience that civilians were killed in acts of terror?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: I read that according to statistics during this period six women, four children and a few civilian men had also been killed in acts of terror. Was that the type of situation that you were used to, in which you worked?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: People who had been wounded civilians were in this period 160 women, 33 children and 210 men, is it your experience that those were only white people who had been injured in this way?


MR VISSER: What was the relation of people who had been killed and wounded?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot a percentage but I think that there were many more black people.

MR VISSER: And although you were not a member of the security unit at that time, we know that the security branch was obliged to maintain internal security according to the Act.

MR DU PREEZ: I was involved in the security branch during 1988.

MR VISSER: My apologies. My question is, it was their duty according to the Police Act to maintain internal security?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And did that include the protection of the community, that people should not be killed and injured by means of acts of terror?


MR VISSER: And in this period Mr du Preez, according to the statistics here, there are 17 members of the security forces who have been killed?


MR VISSER: And 98 who had been injured?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And of course if one today talks about the violence of the past then it would be light years away from the practical experience that you had on the ground at that stage, where you had to look for pieces of evidence amongst bodies that had been blown to pieces and perhaps one forgets too easily what the circumstances were under which you people had to work. Do you agree with that statement?

MR DU PREEZ: I agree.

MR VISSER: And in the struggle Mr du Preez, let's call it by name, in this war it was a war in which no sympathy was given or asked.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: On the one hadn't you had, on the one side you had the security forces, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And their legal duty, as it was put to you repeatedly, was to maintain law and order and to keep the government in power.

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MOLOI: Mr Visser with all respect, I'm under the impression that you are busy giving evidence now and Mr du Preez is just confirming what you say.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I'm busy with cross-examination, I'm not leading the witness in evidence in chief. With respect, I submit that my questions are perfectly in order in terms of the rules of evidence. Of course you may decide that it may effect the value of his evidence, well that's another matter Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you are not leading the witness so you can continue.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. Of course if the witness disagrees with me he can say ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: When I say you're not leading him, I don't mean you're not putting leading questions but you are in a cross-examination situation rather than leading evidence in chief.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, but please, if I do overstep the mark I'm sure you will stop me Mr Chairman.

I was busy saying to you that you were obliged to maintain law and order in order to prevent anarchy and chaos.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct. Maintenance of law and order and then also ensuring internal security, that was something that the South African police, well it was an obligation that was placed on the police.

MR VISSER: Now if we have a look at the other side of this war, the other factions, those who stood against the security forces, did they act according to rules and regulations?

MR DU PREEZ: No, not at all.

MR VISSER: And in the struggle that you had to fight, was it your experience that you always could act within the laws and Acts and regulations in order to maintain law and order and to protect people's lives?

MR DU PREEZ: No, it wasn't possible to always act within the framework of the law.

MR VISSER: It isn't a secret that one of the driving forces of the ANC/SACP alliance was to incite the masses.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And the incitement of the masses often led to violence, killing and also damaging of property.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You also said that at the time when Mr Bopape died, that you were worried that another death in detention would give rise to large unrest.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was it in that context that it should be read, the incitement of the masses, embarrassing the government?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And let's also say something else to each other. Isn't it true that the security forces were already busy losing the struggle, would you agree with that?

MR DU PREEZ: At that stage they experienced extreme pressure.

MR VISSER: And when you then went over to an illegal act, was what you thought that within your competence, it was still to maintain law and order and to protect people's lives?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Is that what you believed bona fide?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, that is what I believed.

MR VISSER: And the aim was to win the struggle?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, and to keep the government of the day in power.

MR VISSER: Now I want to put it to you Mr du Preez, based on questions that Mr Moloi put to you and Judge Ngcobo, you knew that what you did was wrong otherwise you would not have been here to ask for amnesty.

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You also knew that it was wrong to shock people

with a shock device?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, I knew.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. If I may just draw your attention to the fact that my learned friend who acts for Mr Pretorius is sitting quietly in the back there. I don't see any apparatus in front of them and I'm not sure, seeing that his witness has been mentioned in the evidence, whether he might wish to participate in the proceedings here.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm totally unaware of anybody ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: In any even I have no further questions.


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser.

Mr Rautenbach?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Mr du Preez, with regard to your involvement in the situation as the questions have been put by the panel, I have the following facts that I want to go through with you.

In your work situation at Sandton you were under pressure with a lot of work, isn't that the case?


MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember, at that stage were you busy with the investigation concerning the Cosatu House murders?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, it approximately that time.

MR RAUTENBACH: It was a big investigation that needed a lot of manpower, is that correct?


MR RAUTENBACH: So you were under pressure at that time.

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, there was some pressure.

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want to say to you that according to the Sunday Star 3 September 1988, since the 12th of June 1986 up to September 1988 there were more than 18 000 people who had been detained in terms of security measures. How does it sound to you, would you contest it?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I can't dispute it or confirm it.

MR RAUTENBACH: So the pressure was, it was quite a large pressure?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes, it was.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then I want to ask you, your involvement - when you got there, when you got involved with this interrogation, I want to put it to you in the light of what Mr Visser asked you now regarding the circumstances, was there a measure of revenge why you participated?

MR VISSER: Well Mr Chairman, I'm going to object that if it is suggested that I through any of my question suggested to the witness what my learned friend is putting now, I'm saying that that is entirely incorrect.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I don't think Mr Visser suggested that he might have been acting out of revenge but I will allow you to ask the question whether in fact he can, whether by his participation in this was out of revenge and delete the reference to Mr Visser.

MR RAUTENBACH: I agree with Mr Visser, I don't think he suggested that that's what motivated him on the day in question. I think my question is rather directed at something totally different.

Mr du Preez, I referred you to the circumstances in which you worked, it was referred to the methods that had been used by the liberation fighters. I want to ask you the following, at that day when you decided to participate in the interrogation of Bopape, was there a measure of revenge that motivated you to participate in this shock process?

MR DU PREEZ: No, not at all.

MR RAUTENBACH: Second alternative, if you had not acted because of revenge then I cannot understand why you participated. Would you say it was something enjoyable to participate, could that also not be a possibility?

MR DU PREEZ: Chairperson, it isn't fun to be part of an interrogation session regardless of the nature of it, whether it was within or outside the boundaries of the law. It wasn't fun to interrogate a person.

That is not what motivated me to participate, as I have testified. It would be because of a sense of duty, there was an instruction and I executed it.

MR RAUTENBACH: A further aspect, you were asked specifically and you said that if it had been public that it would have given ammunition for the enemy. I suppose you meant that it would have given ammunition to the liberation fighters in general and the world outside, isn't that true?

MR DU PREEZ: That would have been ammunition to the ANC to justify their cause or to try and justify it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Also for the outside world.

MR DU PREEZ: That's correct, there were a lot of allies at that stage.

MR RAUTENBACH: Something that isn't very clear at this stage, his escape, the fact that Mr Bopape escaped but he simply disappeared, that in itself also gave ammunition to the ANC and the enemy, isn't that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: To a certain extent.

MR RAUTENBACH: That choice, namely the choice being the fact of giving ammunition in the sense that someone has died in detention but the police office who had been involved, that they had been suspended and then on the other side that the ammunition given by the fact that the person had escaped and never seen again. Now this choice between the two, that was never left to the politicians, was it?

MR DU PREEZ: I can't say it.

MR RAUTENBACH: That is how I understand the police version. The police decided themselves in regard to this choice, they didn't leave it to the politicians, this is how I understand it. Can you comment?

MR DU PREEZ: It wasn't my decision.

MR RAUTENBACH: As far as you know, was it the police's decision or the politicians' decision?

MR DU PREEZ: I can only say that the police took a decision. I don't know whether they first discussed it with the politicians, I can't say.

MR RAUTENBACH: No further questions.



MR MOLOI: Do you have anything to suggest to you that the politicians were in one way or the other involved in the decision to use these unconventional methods of interrogation? Is there anything that you can point out which can indicate to us that the decision to resort to these methods was something that emanated from the politician but not from the police officers?

MR DU PREEZ: No, I cannot say.

MR MOLOI: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions thank you Mr Chairman.


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr du Preez. I see that it's ten to eleven now, I wonder if it would be convenient - I don't know if the tea has arrived, to have tea at this stage and then start a little bit after tea. Is the next witness going to be Mr Visser?


MS VAN DER WALT: It will be Brigadier Visser but I don't know whether we can discuss it during tea time.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe that might be an idea but would it be convenient now? I think we'll take the adjournment now and then if we can see the legal representatives in my office.



CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you start I see that we are not all present. Perhaps we should just wait a little while.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I take an opportunity while we are waiting, to bring something to your attention?

Mr Chairman, we have received from the Investigation Unit documentation which appears to be the result of their inquiries made in this case. I have clients here Mr Chairman, who believe that there must be many, many documents available that will shed light on many of the issues which have been raised here particularly by members of your Commission.

Our problem is Mr Chairman, that of course we are not entitled or allowed and it wouldn't be in good taste for my clients to make enquiries while there are Attorney General investigations going on and while the statutory Investigation Unit of this Commission has the authority to investigate into these matters.

Mr Chairman, in order to avoid placing people in an embarrassing situation, I would ask you to consider whether you would allow us, my clients for whom I appear, to make enquiries and if possible to obtain documentation. I can tell you Mr Chairman, they cannot believe that the occurrence book and the cell registers of John Vorster Square should be unavailable.

In fact they believe that the occurrence book was available at some stage while investigations into the Bopape matter were under way. Be that as it may, they believe that the Warrant, the Section 29 Warrant in the case of Mr Bopape should be available.

CHAIRPERSON: In fact the file, the detention file. I think it's been referred to as the detention file.

MR VISSER: Yes. We have sympathy and we understand and we accept that many documents were destroyed, we know that as a fact but we would like your authority Mr Chairman, to go and make enquiries of our own.

I can assure you, if I may be allowed to be flippant for a moment, we won't spend the time trying to drag a dummy out a boot of a car or counting crocodiles, we want to go and find evidence which will be meaningful evidence to place before you.

The problem which we have is, particularly for General van der Merwe, it's an embarrassing situation for him to approach the present Commissioner of the Police Services because he will say: "Well look, you know, I would like to help you but can I because there are these statutory bodies which are already investigating"?

If we could have some sanction from this Committee Mr Chairman, on a promise from our side that we will do so with circumspection but just please if you could allow us to make whatever enquiries we might be able to do something might come out of it Mr Chairman. And we would ask you to give us that authorisation.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, it's very interesting to hear the comments of Mr Visser, he's form my side very welcome to do so. I in the meantime have already made arrangements for next week with the assistance of certain of the TRC Investigators who were involved in this matter, to go and look again for these documents. I've already made certain arrangements in that regard. I find it very strange that Mr Visser should make these remarks, maybe know more than us about this. As far as my knowledge serves me not even the Attorney General or his own police investigators could find any of these documents but next week we're definitely going to search again and if necessary we will go to the Commissioner of Police and ask him for these documents or at least some sort of understanding or explanation but at this stage we couldn't find anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what's your attitude as being a member of the Investigative Unit with regard to the request that investigations or attempts to obtain relevant documentation be made by the applicants themselves?

MR STEENKAMP: Sir, in principle I don't have any objection, anything that's relevant for this Commission obviously must be placed before the Committee. I don't have any objection to that Sir.


Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, our attitude, the family's attitude has always been, that if more relevant documents can be obtained they should be put before the Committee and we will obviously welcome any process whereby more documentation is discovered.

The only matter that may become an issue is, I don't think it's in the interest of the parties here that one party goes on it's own in a process of looking for documentation that are contentious. I just think that surely the Attorney General's staff should be somehow involved.

If there are more documentation surely they should be brought here and the TRC should be involved in any process to obtain more documentation. But from our side we will welcome any process that may lead to more documentation.

ADV DE JAGER: Could I say that in the past we had the Ngo matter where the Investigation Team couldn't find any documents and the private attorneys appearing for people got hold of those documents within three hours by going to the police station and asking for it, here in Mamelodi actually.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, I understand what you're saying. If there are more documents they should be brought to these proceedings and I just thought that I can't see anything wrong with the TRC still being involved with any party going on such a process. Those are the views of the family.

ADV DE JAGER: But any party, you yourself would be entitled as a representative of a party to try and obtain documents legally, not illegally but legally. If you can get hold of them and make copies of them or tell us and we could issue subpoenas, ask us to issue a subpoena we'll get the documents.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, I agree with that. I think at the moment we're talking about a department like the police department, a State department and maybe the situation is a little bit different. I don't know whether - maybe Mr Visser and - maybe we are not as far apart as it might seem.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Rautenbach.

Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I'm in a similar situation as Mr Visser. I've in the past also requested Mr Steenkamp for documents and he assured me that the documents which he has are the ones he provided us with but I'm also in possession of information that for instance, the occurrence book was a recently as last year still in the possession of John Vorster Square and this occurrence book seems to have disappeared.

So someone must have made photocopies of this book and the cell register must be there as well, as Mr Visser indicated. There are also other documents with regard to the, for instance certain investigations that were conducted for these dockets. And likewise we would like to ascertain what happened to those documents.


MR PRINSLOO: We ourselves did not want to go to the police and make enquiries at this stage whilst the TRC was in the process of collecting information and not to interfere with any investigation that was conducted by the Attorney General and so on Mr Chairman. So we'd like that support.

And we've also discovered in the past in a similar situation, that there were documents and some of the documents were actually taken by some of the interested parties without our knowledge. And there seems to be no control as far as this is concerned, no record of who takes documents and what happens.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Mr Prinsloo.

Miss van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: I've got nothing to add.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, it would seem that certainly in principle, there's no objection. There may be certain practical difficulties such as raised by Mr Prinsloo and Mr Rautenbach, as to control.

Obviously this Committee or this panel certainly would want to have any relevant document before it and we've heard of quite a few documents which should be before it but which aren't, such as the occurrence book, the detention file which contains the District Surgeon's report etc.

There's quite a few of those documents that are not present that should really be here and I think all the parties concerned would like to have those. I'm certainly not suggesting anything but one doesn't want the situation that if an interested party or whatever is given carte blanche to make that investigation and obtain documents from authorities directly, that is these are obtained then they disappear type of thing or get edited or whatever.

I'm just thinking of a way in which documents can be obtained by applicants in a manner in which the Investigative Unit through Mr Steenkamp and his colleagues etc., can be informed and they can be disclosed to the other parties timeously before they're produced at the hearing.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, clearly, clearly that is what will be done. The only thing that we are not going to do is to try to embark upon an investigation together with the Investigation Unit and the Attorney General because we've gone that route before in the sense that what we have before us.

We believe we can do better, we may be wrong but Mr Chairman, of course there will have to be certain ...[indistinct] and one of those will be that if one of the people for whom I appear for example, finds the occurrence book, is that he will not remove the occurrence book but will make photocopies of it and we will then of course divulge that information to you as to the whereabouts of the book so that you can ask for it because we certainly won't have any authority even if you gave us that authority.

We wouldn't have authority which would be sufficient to obtain the original documents. What we'll do, the best we can do is obtain photocopies and the information as to where those documents may be found by the Investigative Unit.

So that much clearly should be the rule, that none of the parties should remove any original documentation from wherever they are obviously.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I think the cause proposed by Mr Visser does seem to make sense but I think one ought to be mindful of the fact that some of the documents that are receive here may well be contentious. We've heard the evidence that some of them have been falsified to a certain extent and one doesn't want to get into a situation where the applicant obtains a document and there is a suggestion that because the applicant happens to have gone there alone, that document has in one way or the other been interfered with.

Perhaps there has to be a way of - I'm not too sure that the parties cannot cooperate in that regard in that they approach whoever needs to be approached jointly so as to avoid any kind of situation like that arising.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, ideally of course, that would be ideal but practically if we have to line with all the other interested parties the whole idea is stillborn, that is our view.

We either do it and find something or we don't find something and I think you could have enough faith in us to act professionally about anything that we will discover, with great respect Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Pardon Mr Chairman, may I have your indulgence. In view of what Mr Visser said, I support his view in as far as that is concerned Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to address the concern raised by my bother Ngcobo Jay, what would be the attitude of the applicants if authorisation was given for them or for their representatives to make enquiries as to the existence and whereabouts of relevant documents and that once the existence and whereabouts, or the whereabouts of the relevant document is established that the Investigative Unit through Mr Steenkamp be informed?

MR VISSER: We will certainly inform them Mr Chairman, but as long as we are entitled to go there and make photocopies ourselves so that we know.


MR VISSER: Of course we'll inform them.

MR STEENKAMP: I can just say that the copies of the occurrence book which we have in our bundle, was not made by ourselves by out of any occurrence book. I think that was the implication of Mr Visser's ...[intervention]

MR VISSER: No, no, no, I didn't imply ...[intervention]

MR STEENKAMP: Please, just give me a minute please. We got these documents from other attorneys because we couldn't find the original documents, that's what I want to place on record. And secondly Mr Chairman, we will make every effort to get those documents in good and give it to the Chairperson.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, we are still against any process where one party goes on it's own and go into documents and to leave any space for later suggesting to any party that they could have been selective or whatever. It shouldn't be allowed, it shouldn't happen and the process should be overseen. That is our attitude and this is the way I'm putting it forward.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Rautenbach, there's no way we could tell a party not to do whatever steps he may think necessary to obtain evidence. We haven't got the authority to tell one: "You can't go and find it".

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, if it is about documents, for instance documents in the possession of the South African Police Services, as far as that situation is concerned we believe that, we don't be involved, we don't want to be present, we don't want to accompany them. Our attitude is merely that someone from the TRC should be present, that is the only suggestion we are making.

MS GCABASHE: And if I might add to that, then they can agree on the selection of documents or pages to be photocopied. I think it would difficult if we found that the applicants X number of pages and the TRC Y and they just didn't related.

I'd be much happier if one set was copied at one particular time. So if the applicants can assist us by identifying the whereabouts of these documents and the TRC then copies, even if it's the whole book if that becomes necessary, that would be a more objectively managed process.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The panel just wants to discuss it briefly, we'll be five minutes

MR VISSER: If I may just reply to Miss Gcabashe's last statement. Mr Chairman, we are a year and a half down the road with the investigations in this case and basically we've got nothing before you. My application is very clear, allow us to do investigations with your blessing and let us see if we can find something.

If you're going to order us to have to correlate out activity in this regard with the Investigation Unit, Mr Chairman with great respect, then we may find ourselves in the position where we can't do what we want to do.

And we will produce the fruits of whatever we find or don't find, to you through the Investigation Unit through Mr Steenkamp but we are not going to do this investigation together with the anyone else but ourselves.

MR MOLOI: What is the difficulty of the applicants if any, in doing this in conjunction with the TRC Investigating Unit?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, have you looked at the report of the Investigation Unit? That is a report which one would expect in a criminal investigation by criminal investigators, this is not an investigation with great respect, you've asked me the question and I'll tell you, this is not an investigation in terms of the provisions of this Act, this has only one thing in mind and that is

to discredit the versions of the applicants.

This investigation report goes as far as to recommend to you that the amnesty applications be refused and that the applicants not be believed. We can't do an investigation together with people like that Mr Chairman.



CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. The panel during this short adjournment has considered the application made by Mr Visser and also the representations made by the legal representatives of the other parties and has arrived at the following decision:

The parties are authorised to make enquiries regarding the existence and whereabouts of documents relevant to this hearing.

It is ordered that should the whereabouts of such a document be established, that such document if it is an official document not be removed either in whole or in part from the place where it is found or in any way damaged or interfered with and that the Investigative Unit of the TRC be informed of it's whereabouts forthwith.

It is further authorised that should the whereabouts of such a document be established, that the legal representative of the parties be authorised to make a photocopy thereof. Such copy to made in the presence of the official having custody of that document.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman, that covers the matter. As it pleases you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know now if circumstances have changed from our discussion that we had during the tea interval regarding the continuation of the hearing at this stage.

It was indicated that it would be undesirable for the evidence for a witness to - in our view, for the evidence of a witness to commence and if the evidence in chief not be finalised before the adjournment to a date sometime in the future, the 1st of June, for the evidence in chief to continue at such a later stage or that the evidence of the witness be interrupted by a long adjournment during the course of cross-examination. It was our view that we could commence with the evidence of Brigadier Visser because - well certainly at the tea interval, we were of the view that it was most likely that his evidence in chief would have concluded with by the time we have to adjourn today.

I don't know now that that is possible seeing that we have no lost a further period of time because of the consideration, the making or and the consideration of this application. I don't know what the views of the parties are, whether we should commence now or we should adjourn at this stage and resume on the 1st of June?

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson with respect, I want to suggest to you that the evidence in chief of Brigadier Visser will not be completed and I think that the time which is still at our disposal will not be sufficient and that it would not be right for the application to be interrupted for such a long period, almost three months. I would request that it should now be postponed.

MR VISSER: I have nothing to say Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Nothing to add.

MR RAUTENBACH: I have nothing to add, we are in the hands of the Committee on this point, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I have nothing to add. I've got something else but I'll wait until it's my right time. I just want to place on record with regard to documents, that I received the original Occurrence Book of the Roodepoort Police Station, SAP10. It's basically dealing with the date 03.06.88 till 12 July '88.

Mr Wagener was informed of this Occurrence Book although I don't think Mr Prinsloo or Miss van der Walt was informed. The document is available for perusing or copies at this stage. That is the first thing.

Secondly Mr Chairman, regarding the documents: "Investigation Reports", I just want to put it on record that during the pre-trial minutes I pointed out to all the parties concerned that I do have these reports in my possession and they are available. There was a specific request from Mr Visser personally that these documents must be made available, that is why I included them in the bundle because it was a request of Mr Visser, not myself. Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It would seem then that the evidence in chief of the next witness will not be able to be concluded within the time that we have available today, bearing in mind as indicated yesterday we will have to be adjourning early today.

In the circumstances the matter is postponed for it's continued hearing to the 1st of June 1998 and the matter has been set down for the period 1st of June to the 10th of June which we certainly hope that the matter will be able to be concluded within that period.

I'd just like to indicate that the long adjournment of the matter was unavoidable because of all the parties involved and the logistics involved and that was the soonest date that was available for all persons involved in the hearing.

Sorry Mr Steenkamp, is there any indication where the venue will be of the continued hearing on the 1st of June? Do you know that at this stage or will we be advised later of that?

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I think there's a bit of a practical difficulty but I will inform all the parties and the panel concerned timeously.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. It would be - just my own personal view, good if it could be continued at this venue which is a very nice venue and I think it's suitable for a lot of people who are attending the matter.

MR STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, we will make every effort to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The matter is then adjourned but I would like to, just before rising, thank the interpreters for their long and hard work that they've rendered this week, thank you very much.

I'd like to thank the persons responsible for setting up the hall for the sound system. I'd like to thank the caterers and everybody else who assisted us for being here and I'd like to thank all the people who have come and listened and all the legal representatives and parties for their participation, thank you.

The matter is then adjourned to the 1st of June 1988.