=====================================================================
DATE:&#9;27TH OCTOBER 1999
=====================================================================
 DATE:&#9;27TH OCTOBER 1999

NAME:&#9;ANTON PRETORIUS

APPLICATION NO:&#9;AM4389/96

DAY:&#9;&#9;11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------CHAIRPERSON: Good morning to you all. The same Panel that has been sitting to hear applications this week will be sitting for today's matter. Today we are going to hear the application for the following persons, the application of Mr Olifant, Mr Lengene, Mr Nienaber, Mr Steenberg, Mr Moni, Mr Pretorius and Mr J Kok and Mr J F Kok and Mr du Toit.

MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, if I may be so rude, first of all maybe just for house rules, there's a request from all the legal representatives that they be allowed to remove their jackets during the hearing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I thought it was too early to do that, but you may proceed to remove your jackets. Make sure you don't remove anything else other than your jackets, your ties, for instance.

MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, just for the record, I've placed a copy of a death certificate in front of you. It's the death certificate of Mr Moleke Peter Lengene. It's unfortunately only a copy which I obtained from the Department of Home Affairs which will indicate that Mr Lengene unfortunately died on the 7th of February 1999, this year, due to unfortunate circumstances. I also confirmed this with some of the legal representatives who have first hand knowledge about this. Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: When did Mr Lengene's death come to your attention Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, actually during this week I was informed about this and I've asked to obtain a copy of this. Thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What attempts have been made to get legal representation for Mr Lengene's estate?

MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair, if I'm not mistaken, before this Hearing started, the notices were sent out to certain lawyers of the Lengene family, I'm not quite sure who was appearing for Mr Lengene, but that can be obtained quickly, I can find that out quickly who was appearing for Mr Lengene at the moment. I'm not quite sure who is appearing for him now, or his estate.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey were you never acting for, on behalf of Mr Lengene?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, no, I never represented Mr Lengene. I must just add that during the hearing of the Simelane incident where Mr Visser also represented some of the clients, his application was also before the Committee. That was I think in September, some time ago earlier this year, I think during the winter time and it was already at that hearing placed on record that he is deceased, as far as I recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Steenkamp we would appreciate it if you can take urgent steps to ensure that you advise this Committee whether the estate of Mr Lengene is going to be represented or not and afford the members of the Lengene family to make such a decision and communicate that decision to us.

MR STEENKAMP: I'll do so, thank you Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Will legal representatives appearing on behalf of the applicants in this incident, kindly state their names for the record, starting with Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, may it please you. Louis Visser is my name. I'm instructed by Wagener Muller to act on behalf of the following applicants. On your bundle 1 they are number 9 Col Steenkamp, 10 Col Pretorius and 11 Gen Nienaber. I also act, Chairperson, for two implicated persons. The one is Mr A Grobelaar, who is implicated at page 168 and 198 of bundle 1 and Mr Willem Coetzee who gave evidence before you on Monday, he is implicated at page 198 as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Francois van der Merwe, I am acting on behalf of applicants J Kok, J F Kok and W A L du Toit. I also just wish to place on record at this stage that I didn't see the Section 19 Notice for another client of mine, Mr W P Louw, but after consultation and as I have indicated to the Evidence Leader, he's not involved in this incident and therefore would not be regarded as an applicant. Thank you.

MR LOADER: May it please you, Madam Chair. Rory Loader on instructions from Attorneys Lance Friedman. I act for Mr Linda Oscar Moni, who appears as the second applicant on page 1 of the chief bundle. As it pleases.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson. I represent Mr Manuel Antonio Olifant in this matter. I just want to also place on record that I am standing in for my colleague at the firm, Mr Rossouw, who prepared and who assisted Mr Olifant in the preparation of the supplemented application. Chairperson just for also clarity purposes, I will elaborate on that more during the evidence of Mr Olifant, but in the bundle there are three applications, the second one I am instructed by Mr Olifant, he was approached by members of the TRC to whom he made a statement and then this typed version appeared in the bundle. I saw it for the first time when I received the bundles. I also liaised with Mr Rossouw and he hasn't seen it before. What does concern me about that is that it hasn't been signed before a Commissioner of Oaths but the ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: What statement are you referring to? We seem to be having quite a few statements, some of which are incomplete, can you refer us to a page?

MR LOADER: I'm referring to the one starting on page 154 and to 170. Prior to that there's an annexure to the application where reference is also made to the murder of three activists under item 15, that is on page 152. Now I believe that is an annexure to the first application which starts on 146. Chairperson to make it short, I want to say that in view of the fact that my colleague has been involved in drafting a supplementary application, which starts on page 194, my instructions also from Mr Olifant is that that is really the application that he will rely on as to the version, his version.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the one dated the 11th of December 1997?

MR LOADER: Yes, as a supplementation to the one of 1996.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Any legal representations on behalf of the victims?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes Madam Chair. Naars van Heerden instructed to represent the families of the three deceased which are Casius Nceba, Elias...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: May we just write the full names of the victims? Afford us an opportunity to do so.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You may proceed with the first person.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Casius Nceba, I will spell it.

CHAIRPERSON: Spell it.

MR VAN HEERDEN: N-C-E-B-E.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And the second one is Caswell C-A-S-W-E-L-L and the surname is Khumalo. The third deceased is Richard Ngwenya.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to facilitate these proceedings, Mr van Heerden, Nceba has been referred in our documents as Neba and do you know who is, Khumalo, is that Elias or ...(intervention)

MR VAN HEERDEN: No that is Castro, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Castro. Khumalo would be Castro and I take it than Ngwenya would be Elias?

MR VAN HEERDEN; That's correct, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I can maybe supplement it, the first deceased Nceba, reference has been made to a nickname by the name of Ceba, with regards to Mr Nceba.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair.

MR STEENKAMP: Madam Chair my name is Andre Steenkamp. I'll be the Evidence Leader. Just on the question of the victims. I've obtained a full list of all the victims as well as the next of kin with their full particulars. Such document is in the process of being prepared for yourselves and the moment that document is completed, the document will be handed in as part of the Hearing, indicating exactly who are all the victims present here today.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR STEENKAMP: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, you will be appearing on behalf of Mr Pretorius, Mr Steenberg, Mr Nienaber and implicated persons Mr Grobelaar and Mr Coetzee?

MR VISSER: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We have this morning been given a set of affidavits from Mr Pretorius, Mr Steenberg.

MR VISSER: It's Pretorius, Steenberg and Nienaber. They're not affidavits but they will be confirmed under oath yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and Mr Nienaber. I was looking for my copy for Mr Nienaber. I recalled seeing it and somehow it had disappeared. Will these be supplementary affidavits Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, that will be the evidence that will be relied upon before you here today. May I first of all request that the general background to amnesty applications, the Exhibit A which served before you on Monday, can serve in this application as well as Exhibit A?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VISSER: Then Anton Pretorius will be Exhibit B. Steenberg, Daniel Johan Steenberg will be Exhibit C and General Nienaber will be Exhibit D, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VISSER: I intend, Chairperson, to call Col Pretorius first. He is available and willing to take the oath, Chairperson. He prefers to give his evidence in Afrikaans.

ANTON PRETORIUS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Pretorius, you are an applicant in this application and it deals with incidents which took place, as I understand, in Mofolo (M-O-F-O-L-O) in New Canada and Midway or rather Mofolo is referred to as Mofolo, but it can also be referred to as New Canada. It appears that there is some unclarity regarding that, so it is either Mofolo or New Canada and then there is Midway and Kliptown on the premises of the South African Railways as it existed then. On the 29th of July 1989 during which three persons, and we have heard 

today for the first time what their correct names were, namely Casius Nceba, Caswell Khumalo and Richard Ngwenya, they were murdered and two of them, the last two, were taken away and their bodies were destroyed, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: We can find your application in bundle 1 form page 271 to 273 and you deal with this specific incident from page 276 to 282?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Chairperson on Monday an application was made and so ordered by yourself in regard to the amendment of paragraph 7 (a) and (b). May it just be noted for the record that that amendment has already been granted.

CHAIRPERSON: It has been granted. We will grant you one for purposes of Mr Pretorius's application today.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. You have studied Exhibit A and already confirmed it on Monday. Do you once again confirm it as true and correct and request that this be made of application to you?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: Exhibit B which appears before you is a document which was composed in terms of consultations with your legal representatives and you wish to submit this document to this Committee?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct. 

MR VISSER: Do you confirm the truth and correctness thereof?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: Then very briefly I would like to deal with the following aspects with you. This incident took place in 1989 and we are aware, in terms of the evidence given by Mr Olifant in bundle 1 that he recalls it as the 29th of July 1989. Do you accept this?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I accept it as correct.

MR VISSER: Now in your amnesty application on Monday, the evidence was that Col Willem Coetzee was below Col de Jager and that he was your Commander in the Intelligence Unit in Soweto, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And now in your evidence in Exhibit B, you state that you were in command of the Intelligence Unit. When did the position change?

MR PRETORIUS: I'm not entirely certain in which year, but during 1989 I was the Commander of the Intelligence Unit and Col Coetzee and Col de Jager had already been transferred.

MR VISSER: Yes, the point is just that Col Willem Coetzee was then transferred to Security Head Office?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You've already testified and he also testified on Monday that you handled agents and informers and in paragraph 3 you state that you managed approximately 25.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you refer to bundle 1, pages 280 to 287 and 274 to 279 where you give a review of the general political and violence background as you experienced it where you were working in Soweto during that period in time. Is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Do you then confirm paragraph 1 where you deal with the details regarding what you were busy with up to and including paragraph 27, with regard to the general background?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Then just to return to paragraph 18, to highlight this, in paragraph 18 you have summarised the names as they were known to you and these were names of certain MK units or structures in the Soweto area.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you have indicated these names there and as far as it was possible for you, you also provided the names of persons who were involved?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you have indicated these names there and as far as it was possible for you, you also provided the names of persons who were involved.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Nceba, the one victim in this matter and his two comrades, were they part of any of these structures which you have mentioned here in paragraph 18?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct. They were connected to some of the smaller MK units which were operating in Soweto.

MR VISSER: And the problem that you experienced with these units was that there was liaison and linkages between them and the MK units?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Then just to highlight something further, in paragraph 22 you state that during this time in 1989, there were certain no-go areas in Soweto which made policing extremely difficult and which promoted intimidation and violence.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And in paragraph 24 on page 6, you gave a brief survey of the activities of the youths, particularly those amongst the Soyco ranks and their association with MK, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Was one of the problems that you experienced with these persons that they received instant military training within South Africa at that stage?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 26 you stated that pressure was exerted on the operatives in the Security Forces or the Security Police to obtain more information in order to attempt to combat this threat and in 27 you state that you did so by means of false flag operations which meant that you undertook penetrations and infiltrations into these structures which were undertaken by persons who pretended to be MK agents, that is the false flag?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And it is in this sense that Peter Lengene was applied by you also with regard to the group of Nceba?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then in paragraph 28, on page 7, you commence with a description of the activities of Nceba and his unit, as you understood it. They were from Mofolo-North, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And was it your information that they had previously been involved in acts of terrorism or violence?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In what sense?

MR PRETORIUS: There were attacks on police officers or members of the Security Forces as well as council officers.

MR VISSER: Yes. And did Mr Lengene report anything to you in this regard?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And was the involvement of this group in acts of terrorism also confirmed to you from other sources?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What did Lengene say? What was said to him? What was he supposed to do once he had penetrated this group? What were you interested in?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I have summarised this in paragraph 30. Among others I tasked Sgt Lengene to determine what training the members of the Nceba unit had already undergone. That would be military training in order to evaluate the degree of the danger or threat which was posed by the unit, what weaponry they possessed or had at their disposal, who their underground MK Commanders were, in which acts of terrorism they had been involved and what their future plans were with regard to political violence?

MR VISSER: Yes. Very well then you confirm this and we turn the page to paragraph 36 on page 8. Eventually after the successful penetration, you obtained information from this group regarding its intentions with regard to future acts of terrorism, that it was indeed their intention to go over into further acts of terrorism?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And that they were waiting for weapons?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now at a certain stage, pressure came. You have explained this in your statement, pressure came from Nceba and his group that weapons be provided to them by Lengene who had pretended to be an MK member.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you then decide to involve other persons in this operation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And were they Moni and Mr Monyane as we now know?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: That is M-O-N-Y-A-N-E.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I accept that as correct.

MR VISSER: And did they come from Vlakplaas? Were they deployed or seconded to you for duty?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Now without going into too much detail, you deal with this from paragraph 37 onwards? You also decided that in order to maintain the credibility of Lengene, these persons be shown Russian weaponry at least?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And in 37 you then state that Moni and Lengene showed them an AK47 hand grenade and an SPM limpet mine in order to strengthen their credibility?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then at a certain stage there was further pressure on them to receive training and in a hotel room in Hillbrow, according to reports, they were given training in AK47s and hand grenade usage and it was later reported back to you that they had already received such training but not in the use of limpet mines, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And you deal with this from paragraph 38 onwards up to paragraph 41, that is how you deal with these aspects?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now on page 9 you have set out that eventually unbearable pressure occurred. Just to save time, could I lead you through this? The pressure which was exerted by Nceba and his comrades and the danger which originated that Lengene and Moni could possibly not have been trusted if they did not fulfil the requirements for weaponry and the information that Nceba's unit, as we have already heard, was responsible for acts of terrorism and had the intention of committing further acts of terrorism. Did all of this exert any pressure on you and bring about a change to this situation of penetration?

MR PRETORIUS; That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you then discussed the matter with Gen Nienaber who was the Divisional Commander.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: By the way, did you constantly bring him up to speed with the information?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: With the information?

MR PRETORIUS: With the information of operations.

MR VISSER: And did everything take place under his command and with his approval?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: On page 10 you have explained that you and Gen Nienaber considered and discussed all possible alternatives such as court oriented actions and so forth and you even attempted to turn the minds of these people so to speak and that you ultimately came to the conclusion, that is you and Gen Nienaber, that this was not viable at all.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you have set out the reasons for this in paragraph 47, 46 that court oriented action would ultimately mean that Lengene would have to testify and that his identity would then be disclosed and that would destroy his intelligence network.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then with regard to mere detention, you have dealt with this in paragraph 48, do you confirm this?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes. 

MR VISSER: And in 49 you deal with the possibility that you considered of attempting to convince them to co-operate with the police.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You made a point in your application as well as in Exhibit B, to state that it was your information that Nceba himself was blatantly militant.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: And that is why you did not regard it as a viable option to attempt to convince him to co-operate with you?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 50 you have referred to the fact that the information from Lengene was that these persons were waiting for weapons and that it was their intention to go ahead with attacks once they had received the weaponry.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And furthermore, in paragraph 51 you have made the point that they admitted to Lengene that it was their intention to leave the country in order to receive military training overseas.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did the two of you, or did you then decide with Gen Nienaber that the only way to diffuse this situation of jeopardy, would be to eliminate the persons?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Your suggestion was then that limpet mines be used, of which the detonation mechanisms would be delayed, so that there would be no delay, in other words once the pin had been pulled it would explode immediately?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Were you then already aware that you could obtain access to such limpet mines?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: How did you know that limpet mines existed or that one could doctor limpet mines as such in order to have the effect that it would explode immediately once the pin had been pulled?

MR PRETORIUS: In 1987 I myself underwent a demolitions cause, during which I was made aware of the capacity of the technical unit of the police in order to tamper with such detonators, that there would be a zero time delay.

MR VISSER: If we could just cut through to that then, after you had received authorisation and approval from Gen Nienaber, did you indeed then receive such limpet mines from the two Kok brothers in Pretoria?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you tell them anything whatsoever about what you were going to use those limpet mines for?

MR PRETORIUS: No. 

MR VISSER: Did they know about the operation with regard to the Nceba unit?

MR PRETORIUS: They didn't know anything about the operation.

MR VISSER: Very well. What was the reason why you thought that you should use limpet mines in order to do so, instead of another method of elimination? You refer to this on page 11, paragraph 55, among others.

MR PRETORIUS: Do you wish me to read paragraph 55?

MR VISSER: No, let's just cut it short. The use of limpet mines, would this have assisted with the possible suspicion of the police's share in this elimination action?

MR PRETORIUS: Definitely, the idea was then that if we were to use limpet mines with a zero time delay, the media would have received the message that there were problems with this sort of explosive device and that anybody who used such a device in the future, would run the risk of dying once the pin had been pulled.

MR VISSER: And did you hope that this would influence the confidence of activists in the weapons which were provided?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Won't you repeat that Mr Visser, I didn't get that? This would influence?

MR VISSER: The impression was sought to be created, Chairperson, that if it appeared that three persons were blown up, that it would reflect on the reliability of the weapons and we must bear in mind that Lengene pretended that these weapons were distributed by MK, he himself having pretended to be himself an MK member and it was therefore intended that if the news broke that three of these mines exploded the moment the pin was drawn, that it would cause activists to lose confidence in those mines so that they would be hesitant to use those kinds of weapons for future attacks.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was intended to have a deterrent effect?

MR VISSER: Yes, yes indeed. We've heard this evidence in other matters, I can't remember exactly which. I'm not sure whether you were involved in those matters but apparently this was something which did play a role with the Security Police at the time, from time to time, but this was part of the reason why the limpet mine procedure was chosen instead of another method.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Very well. You then received authorisation and if we may go over to the action itself on page 12, you have set this out and you confirm that you conveyed the information to Olifant and Lengene and Moni and Monyane, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you informed them that limpet mines would be used and that they were to arrange, that would be Lengene and Moni, that the activists would agree to place this on cupboards in order to prevent any great economic damage.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is it correct that you went to form an identification with all these other persons, including Mr Steenberg and this is in paragraph 16, in order to determine where it would be the safest to plant these limpet mines?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Is it also correct that Lengene then departed, perhaps with Moni and that later it was reported back that the activists were satisfied with the idea of what they were supposed to blow up?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: If we could turn to page 13, Chairperson, we attempted to set out a little schedule there, because I keep on getting confused as to who was where and when. There you have set out the three points, New Canada, Kliptown and Midway where the exchange points on the lines were the targets.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In the second line you have included the name of every victim at the place where he was supposed to go to.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And below this would be the names of the persons who were supposed to accompany them, that would be Moni, Lenyene and Monyane and every one of them had to accompany one of the persons above.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And furthermore you arranged that Olifant, Pretorius and Steenberg, it says Steenkamp there but it should actually be Steenberg and yourself would accompany in order to undertake observation.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: At a certain stage you heard an explosion and you returned to safe premises which you used which we know was on a farm by the name of Geis, G-E-I-S, at Zuurbekom.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You then received reports.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And is it correct that the reports indicated that Elias and Castro, their limpet mines had not exploded?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And that Moni and Lenyene had respectively shot Castro and Elias dead with AK47 machine guns?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Before these persons departed to the scenes where the limpet mines would be placed, did you furnish them with AK47s?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I gave an AK47 gun to every one of them.

MR VISSER: What was the purpose behind this?

MR PRETORIUS: It was in order to give them more credibility and to enable them to protect themselves against these persons if anything should happen.

MR VISSER: Very well, we'll return to that shortly. Once you had heard that only one mine had exploded and that two of the persons had been shot dead, what was your reaction to this?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I was tremendously shocked because I had not expected this to happen. 

MR VISSER: What was it that upset you about it? What did you think would happen next?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I was shocked because I had no doubt for a second before the time, that the mines would not go off and I'm reading from paragraph 68:

&#9;&#9;"If the limpet mines had detonated, we would have had no problems with the suspicions which would have originated regarding the involvement of the Security Police, in other words it would have covered up our action with relative certainty. When I realised that the mines had not detonated, I realised immediately that preventative action would have to be taken against exposure."

MR VISSER: In other words, you were immediately concerned that the police, who would examine the scenes, could come to the conclusion that there was police involvement?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Then I also want to put it to you that Mr Moni as well as Mr Olifant have stated that they recall that you issued an order beforehand that if the mines did not explode, or if the pins were not pulled by the activists, they had the order from you to then shoot dead these persons with the AK47s. Now what do you say about that impression?

MR PRETORIUS: I read from paragraph 69. 

&#9;&#9;"I do not wish to state that the persons who shot, acted incorrectly. If I had foreseen that the limpet mines would not go off, I would probably have issued the order to them to then shoot the activists dead. The objective of the operation was then to eliminate the three activists. I would also accept that I probably said something to them which could have brought them to the conclusion that I had instructed that shots could be fired if something went wrong. Furthermore the facts that they had received AK47s would have contributed to that impression.

MR VISSER: Therefore the short answer is that by word or deed, you cannot deny that you created the impression that it would have been expected of them to shoot and kill these persons if the limpet mines had not exploded.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand your response. Did you or did you not advise Moni, amongst others, who has been very precise on this point, that you told him that if the limpet mine shouldn't detonate, he should proceed to shoot at the activists involved with that particular target?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I never foresaw that the mines would not go off. That is the first point that I must make. I was 100% convinced that the mines would go off. What I did say was that if something went wrong they could use the weapons, that is what I said.

MR VISSER: And from that they would have drawn the inference?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes and I accept that they inferred from that that I said that they could shoot if the limpet mines didn't go off.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, Mr Visser.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, may I just follow up on this? If something went wrong, what did you mean by that phrase? What could have gone wrong?

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, we were afraid, as I have stated on a previous page, I stated that there may have been other members from Nceba's group who came to the scene. Something could have gone wrong. The members who accompanied them could have been overwhelmed by these persons and their weapons could have been taken, but I must tell you in all honesty that I really didn't believe that the limpet mines would not work.

MR MALAN: Very well. Thank you.

MR VISSER: Very well. I will then continue on page 14, paragraph 71. You then issued an order and you went with Steenberg and Moni and Lengene and Olifant and Monyane to the scene where the shooting had taken place, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 71 you say that you went to pick up the body of Castro near the railway line in Kliptown first, what did you then do?

MR PRETORIUS: We loaded him into the back of the minibus and took him to the road. There was a bluegum forest next to the road in the Nancefield vicinity where we left the body at first.

MR VISSER: Why did you do that?

MR PRETORIUS: Because we had to go to the second point which was near New Canada and we didn't want to run the risk of being stopped by the police, or trapped with the body in the minibus.

MR VISSER: Did you travel in a red Husky kombi bus?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, it was a kombi bus.

MR VISSER: And once you arrived at New Canada, did you then find the body of Elias there?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And was he dead?

MR PRETORIUS: He was still breathing slightly.

MR VISSER: Did you examine his body?

MR PRETORIUS: It was reasonably dark, but I could see that he was quite severely wounded in his chest area and in the face. I think it had been a shot through the cheek that he had sustained.

MR VISSER: And was there blood on his chest?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he was drenched in blood.

MR VISSER: Was it your impression that he had been lightly wounded?

MR PRETORIUS: No, he was heavily wounded.

MR VISSER: Did you think that he would survive once you had found him there?

MR PRETORIUS: Definitely not.

MR VISSER: Somebody said, and I think that it was the deceased, Mr Lengene, that he can recall that you said something about a hospital, I just need to find the place Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I jog your memory Mr Visser? He said something, you advised the injured activist that you were going to take him to hospital. Did you say that?

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, I cannot recall that I said anything like that and it was not my intention at all to take him to hospital in either event.

MR MALAN: But is it possible that at that stage ...?

MR PRETORIUS: Well it is possible, I was under tremendous pressure, it is possible that I may have said it, but it was definitely not my intention to take this person to hospital.

MR VISSER: It is on page 235, paragraph 53. Now after you had picked him up and placed him in the Husky minibus, did you then go to Nancefield where you picked up Castro?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Now as far as you can recall, when you picked up Castro, was Elias still alive?

MR PRETORIUS: As far as I can recall, Chairperson, he had already died. He showed no signs of life.

MR VISSER: How long did it take you to drive from New Canada to there where the body of Castro was in the bluegum forest?

MR PRETORIUS: It was a short distance, I think it was between 5 and 10 minutes.

MR VISSER: So it was relatively close?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, it was.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose Mr Visser? Where did you start first? Did you start at New Canada or you started at Kliptown?

MR PRETORIUS: At Kliptown. We first picked ...

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you can respond to my questions in Afrikaans.

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, we began in Kliptown, that was where we picked up Castro, then we dropped Castro off next to the road in Nancefield and from that point onwards, we went to New Canada where we picked up Elias, then we returned to Nancefield when we once again picked up Castro. We then had both deceased in the minibus. From that point onwards we went to Zuurbekom, to the farm Geis.

MR VISSER: Chairperson it's paragraph 70 and 71.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm aware of that Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: You then decided, to cut a long story short, that the best thing to do under the circumstances, would be to destroy the bodies, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: And did you then issue orders to the black members telling them what to do?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: What were they supposed to do?

MR PRETORIUS: They had to load petrol and tyres which were on the farm, into the bus and I gave one of them money to buy a few cans of oil on the way, we would stop along the way. 

MR VISSER: And did you then arrive at a place where there was a ditch or a remote place where you placed the bodies in the ditch with the petrol and the tyres that you covered them with, along with the oil and you yourself set them alight in order to destroy the bodies?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you then return?

MR PRETORIUS: I have never again returned to the scene.

MR VISSER: Because it is alleged by Olifant that he heard that you and Col Coetzee, page 198 Chairperson, the second paragraph, paragraph 6 the last sentence, he says:

&#9;&#9;"I heard that Lieut Pretorius and Capt Coetzee",

that refers to the current Col Willem Coetzee,

&#9;&#9;"... of the burned corpses the next day."

Is there any truth to that?

MR PRETORIUS: No, it is not true at all.

MR VISSER: And while we are on that page, Olifant also stated or admitted on that page and on page 168, that Mr Grobelaar was involved or knew about this operation. Could you just tell us who Mr Grobelaar was?

MR PRETORIUS: Col Grobelaar was the Chief Demolitions expert of the Soweto Security Branch.

MR VISSER: Was he involved with your unit?

MR PRETORIUS: Not at all with my unit.

MR VISSER: It is stated that he was on duty that evening. Is it possible?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, it is definitely possible that he may have been on duty that evening.

MR VISSER: Did you inform him about this operation in any regard whatsoever?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I did not inform him about this operation at any stage before, during or after the operation. 

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon. Who received the order to find the limpet mines and to render them unharmful?

MR PRETORIUS: We are getting to that point, that's paragraph 77 Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Alright, I thought that you had omitted to mention this.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you exhausted the implication of Mr Grobelaar, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson. The instructions are that he wasn't involved. I may tell you right now that we didn't, we considered it and we considered also, with respect, that it's not necessary to waste your time. If the Attorney General wants to prosecute him, well then so be it, but we're not going to waste time by calling him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. To the extent that he has been implicated and only to the extent of his implication, you feel that has been properly exhausted?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson, this witness says that he never informed him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Is that in accordance with your instructions?

MR VISSER: And Grobelaar says that he knew nothing about this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed.

MR VISSER: Yes, I don't want to create the impression, my attorney has just checked me on this, I don't want to create the impression that he didn't know about the incident, he obviously knew about the fact that there was an explosion and in fact he also, if I remember correctly, formed part of the investigation team, but what we are saying, Chairperson, is he didn't know of anything unlawful that took place.

CHAIRPERSON: He had no prior knowledge?

MR VISSER: He had no prior knowledge, no.

CHAIRPERSON: And neither did he take part in the explosion.

MR VISSER: No, not at all. You have now said that you hid the corpses and then to give some more detail, somewhere on the road you drove to Krugersdorp and then to Magaliesburg and then in the direction of Rustenburg and you returned, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And when you returned to Soweto, did the police know of this explosion?

MR PRETORIUS: I was on my way back to Protea where the Security Branch Head Office was and one has to basically drive past the railway line and I saw that there were police officials at the scene where the explosion had taken place and for the record I may say that I know for a fact that Col Grobelaar was there at that explosion scene.

MR VISSER: That evening?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that specific evening.

MR VISSER: Did you find Gen Nienaber?

MR PRETORIUS: He was at the office, yes.

MR VISSER: And did you intimate to him that the situation had been concluded?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: You did not refer to it in detail?

MR PRETORIUS: No, there was no time to go into detail.

MR VISSER: One of the witnesses has said that the target, and this was Olifant, page 196, the targets were railway bridges. Now you have already said that the targets were exchange boxes.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Were there some of these exchange boxes which were located at a railway bridge?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, only the one at Kliptown bridge, basically the exchange box was directly underneath the bridge.

MR VISSER: And the other boxes, were they close to bridges?

MR PRETORIUS: No, they were not close to bridges.

MR VISSER: And Mr Moni has said in his evidence, or in his statement, page 66 bundle 1, that electrical power sub-stations would be attacked. Is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: He probably refers to exchange boxes.

MR VISSER: But these were not sub-stations?

MR PRETORIUS: No they were exchange boxes.

MR VISSER: When you returned and you found the police there, did you report anything to them?

MR PRETORIUS: After I had spoken to Gen Nienaber, I told them that there were two limpet mines which did not explode and we had to tell the Technical Unit that we, the Intelligence Unit, had knowledge that there were more limpet mines placed on the railway line and these had to be detonated or made safe.

MR VISSER: So you had information that there were three, were to be three explosions and they had to go and look for two more?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Did you play any role in the tracing of the other limpet mines?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Will you please tell the Committee what your role was?

MR PRETORIUS: The explosive, or another explosives expert, the deceased W/O Frans van Tonder, accompanied Col Steenberg and I to New Canada where we participated in the search for the limpet mine, because we were not entirely certain where the deceased had place it and after the limpet mine had been found on the exchange box, Col Steenberg and I proposed that we would go to Kliptown to look for the other limpet mine and render it useless and we did so.

MR VISSER: And Col Steenberg, was he an explosives expert?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: And did he render the limpet mine harmless there?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: And in paragraph 32 you refer to certain offences, conspiracy to murder, murder, illegal possession of firearms and explosives units, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And the desecration of the corpses of Elias and Castro?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Pretorius, if I may refer you to page 16, you have there dealt with certain aspects. We have already dealt with the aspects with regard to the farms of the deceased, that Olifant has said that he has heard of. Mr Olifant also intimates on page 199, paragraph 10(c) that he received a bonus for his involvement in this operation. Do you know anything of this?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, I did not pay any bonus to him. From time to time, I gave operational funds to them and if he regards the funds that I gave him for operational work as a bonus for this operation, then it is his impression, but the day when I gave him money, I told him, I did not tell him that this is the money for the work that you have done.

CHAIRPERSON: May I, Mr Visser, just on this point? You say you gave him some funds and they are called operational funds. When were these funds given to Mr Olifant? How soon after this incident?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as I've already said, we undertook several operations which ran in Soweto. I myself had about 25 deep cover agents which I managed and some of these operations were outside the country, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and on a continual basis, I would almost want to say on a daily basis, where for people like Olifant, I had to give operational funds to them, so it may have been anything from the following day to the following week, I am not entirely certain, but I think he may have to tell us about that, but I did not give him a bonus Chairperson, or a reward, because I think I should have given Mr Lenyene as well and I don't believe that.

CHAIRPERSON: With your permission. You say you might have given him some operational funds a day or so after the incident?

MR PRETORIUS: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you recall it, or this is merely speculation?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I would say, as I have already tried to explain to you Chairperson, on a daily basis I paid operational funds to them for operations which they were involved with. It was costs of transport, accommodation costs, so I do not want to deny that I gave him an amount of money, I cannot deny that, because there were literally thousands of cases where I gave Constable Olifant money while he served under my command, but I cannot believe and recall that I gave him an amount of money and told him "This is a bonus for the work that you have done the previous day" or that specific day. I did not do that.

CHAIRPERSON: So there was no suggestion by you that the payment given to him by you was in relation to the incident which had taken place?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Pretorius, I do not understand why operational funds, according to your explanation, which were to be used for transport and accommodation, this would be S&T expenses which would be accepted by him as money which he can use for any personal interest.

MR PRETORIUS: No, I did not say it was personal interest.

MR MALAN: No, I'm saying with regard to the bonus, he received money which, according to his statement, he thought he had to apply for accommodation or for transport costs. On which basis can you tell us that he could have been confusing this matter? You would not have given him money just like that?

MR PRETORIUS: No, I would not have given him money just like that, because there was a proper system according to which we paid out that money at that stage.

MR MALAN: That's correct, that is why I ask you why are you telling us that he could have been mistaken and thought that it was for his personal use, because according to you he could not have thought that?

MR PRETORIUS: No, that's correct when I say that Honourable Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Visser.

MR LAMEY: Just before my learned friend proceeds, I have, during consultation my attention was also drawn to this aspect by Mr Olifant and I have instructions in this regard to place it in a perspective very similar to what Mr Pretorius states, so I just want to put that on record, but I will put it to Mr Pretorius, during cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: You have different instructions from what is contained in the affidavit of Mr Olifant?

MR LAMEY: No, I've got explanatory instructions about that. 

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll not pursue the matter Mr Visser until we have given Mr Lamey an opportunity to put questions which might actually put us in a different picture than we presently are in, so we'll pend this matter until Mr Lamey has been given an opportunity to put questions, either on cross or questions on clarity in relation to this particular aspect of Mr Pretorius's evidence.

MR VISSER: As it pleases you, Madam Chair. I'm just in the process of lifting out all the issues and discrepancies which we found on the papers for purposes of cross-examination and for you to consider. There's one last aspect, I hope it's the last aspect Chairperson. Mr Pretorius, Mr Moni on page 66 and in a further bundle which we received, Chairperson might this bundle be marked bundle 3 perhaps? Oh, I understand there is already a 3, which 3 is that?

CHAIRPERSON: No, it would seem to be an annexure. We have Exhibit C.

MR VISSER: Yes, Bundle 3, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you referring to bundle 3?

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's bundle 3.

MR VISSER: And Chairperson, what I want to do is to refer you in that bundle to page 9, paragraph 7. Mr Moni says, Mr Pretorius, that he believed and he was afraid that when the limpet mine did not explode, that if he did not kill the person, then he himself would be killed. What is your comment to that?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot say what his feeling was. I don't believe that for the period while he served under me, brought him under the impression that I would want to kill him or have him killed, so I cannot say where or he would be able to tell us what gave him this impression. 

MR VISSER: But you say this is not true?

MR PRETORIUS: No this was not true, I did not plan to kill him.

MR VISSER: Did you intimate any such instructions to Mr Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

MR VISSER: And to Mr Steenberg?

MR PRETORIUS: Never, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever say to Mr Olifant that should he not co-operate with your members, your unit, he would be killed?

MR PRETORIUS: To whom would I have said that, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: To Mr Moni.

MR PRETORIUS: No, I cannot recall that I ever said anything like that to him.

CHAIRPERSON: And you did nothing to cause him to harbour extreme fears about you and the people who you were working with, the white Security members?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, no, as far as I know, I did not do anything which might have given him that impression. He may have created another impression of me. I only speak on my behalf. I was not a person who had that attitude. I have many members who can testify that that was not my attitude, who served under my command.

MR VISSER: But in any case he was a Vlakplaas man?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he was from Vlakplaas Honourable Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, on this point I assume you have had insight to the bundles and I don't know whether you read the entire statements of Moni, Lengene and Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: So with regard to the recruitment of askaris and the Vlakplaas background.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I studied it very quickly.

MR MALAN: Would that not have been a reasonable general feeling that he had?

MR PRETORIUS: But then it would have been his attitude towards Vlakplaas because Moni, at that stage, served under my command for a month. I did not, it was a testing period that he worked under me and he will be able to testify that afterwards, because Vlakplaas wanted to chase him away and I was the person who took him under my wing because he performed well and I was satisfied with him.

MR MALAN: Very well.

MR VISSER: Mr Pretorius, you confirm your political motivation for your participation in this act from paragraphs 87 to 90, is that correct?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then you request amnesty as it has been previously indicated. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Does that conclude your evidence in chief, Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van der Merwe, maybe we should start with you before going to Mr Loader.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Madam Chair at this stage there is a single aspect which I just need to get some instructions from my clients. I wonder if I could just maybe fall into the last, into the queue, with your permission?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You will be last. Mr Loader, do you have any questions to put to Mr Pretorius?

MR LOADER: I just have one or two aspects, if I may, Madam Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOADER: So the first just deals very briefly with the question of whether there were, maybe I should put that to you in Afrikaans, whether there was indeed no specific instructions to Moni and the other two members, to use their firearms to kill these persons if the limpet mines did not explode and what you have said in your evidence was that:

&#9;&#9;"I never foresaw that the mines would explode. I said if something goes wrong they must use the firearms."

MR LOADER: In other words you can recall that you indeed had told them if something goes wrong, use the weapons.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, I accept that I had said that.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon. The question was can you recall that you said it, not if you accept that you said it.

MR PRETORIUS: If something went wrong with the limpet mines?

MR MALAN: No, Mr Pretorius, the question was in general. If you can recall, that's the question. Can you recall? The question is, can you recall that you told them "If something goes wrong, use the firearms" or are you just accepting that you may have said so?

MR PRETORIUS: The part that I can recall as I have said, that I can recall that I said "If something goes wrong, use the firearm". That is why I supplied the firearms to them, for that purpose. I don't know if that ...

MR MALAN: You can recall that specifically, that was the question. Thank you.

MR LOADER: I just wanted to get certainty about this because I gained the impression from the statement which was handed up, upon which your evidence is based, that you have said there, "I will also accept that I probably said something to them. Do I accept correctly that you can recall that you did say something that may have gained such an impression, or could have led to such an impression?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr Loader?

MR LOADER: Certainly, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: At page 234 of Mr Lengene's application, Mr Pretorius, he states the instructions having been received from you as follows, that if the limpet mine should not explode, your instruction was to proceed to kill the people who were supposed to have exploded, or to have detonated themselves, by pulling the pin.

MR PRETORIUS: I think that is not true, Chairperson, because I, as I have already said, not for one moment did not believe that the limpet mines would not explode, so I had no reason beforehand to tell one of these persons that "Listen if this limpet mine does not explode, shoot them", that is not true, because in my heart I believed and I was entirely convinced that the limpet mine would detonate.

CHAIRPERSON: What circumstances did you foresee that would have resulted in you saying "If there should be a problem, you must use the AK47", because in your heart you believed that the limpet mine would work as you had been advised they would by the technical division of your department.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson as I have already told you, I gave them the firearms. They had to defend themselves if something went wrong. Something that goes wrong encompassed many things, but one of the things that I can say now honestly, I did not know that the limpet mines would not work. I did not budget for that, I did not make, I did not foresee that, so if I was in the same circumstances as the deceased, or as Const Moni or Const Lengene, with those two, then I also would have shot those persons, because I can think, because they knew beforehand that this limpet mine would explode, the person would be killed and now this person walks back to him, but this person is still alive.

CHAIRPERSON: My inquiry is only confined to what was in your mind, what is it that could have gone wrong for them to be able to use the AK47?

MR PRETORIUS: I think a fright. I believe that they also believed that the mines would go off and they did not foresee that the limpet mine would not explode and that may have been right at that moment that they realised that this person has to be killed, because what does he do now when the person returns and the limpet mine did not explode, because we did not plan this, we did not budget for this, how did he know what to do because I did not know what to do and not any of them can say that there was any such alternative planning which we had made if something had gone wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Loader, you may proceed.

MR LOADER: Thank you Madam Chair.

MR MALAN: Sorry Chair. The question was also, what did you foresee that could go wrong? Did you foresee the possibility that any of the three persons could refuse to detonate a limpet mine by pulling the pin out?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, the information which they supplied to me was that the persons were willing to go and place these limpet mines, they were so pleased to continue that one of the requests of them was that they be channelled the following day for full military training abroad, so I had no illusions that these person were entirely willing to place these land mines or limpet mines and detonate them.

CHAIRPERSON: I share your understanding, because it has been your evidence right through, reading your papers, that there was more than willingness and eagerness on the part of the activists concerned to participate in the operations or in the elimination of the targets.

MR PRETORIUS That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: As they were identified.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader.

MR LOADER: May it please you, Madam Chair. Mr Pretorius and basically one final aspect which I would like to clear up. I have the impression and this may be an incorrect impression that the last part of your evidence, where you have referred to bundle 3 and page 9 thereof, where it is pointed out to you that Mr Moni, in that bundle and on that page and that specific paragraph 7, mentioned that he was afraid that he indeed would be killed if he did not follow the instructions and you have said and your evidence was that you personally did not do anything that may have created such an impression.

MR PRETORIUS: I am convinced, Chairperson, that such a fear was coming from Vlakplaas, so I accepted it and I realised that and I understand that, but Moni cannot say that because I knew him two or three weeks, or a month at that stage, that I already wanted to eliminate him or anything like that. 

MR LOADER: That is exactly what I want to clear up. He does not say that you specifically, you personally, created this impression with him, but what he says indeed, that he subjectively had such an impression because of various factors, not the least of which was his training and his experience at Vlakplaas. 

MR PRETORIUS: No, I agree with that Chairperson.

MR LOADER: Madam Chair, might I just take instructions before I finish? I don't think there's anything.

CHAIRPERSON: What was put to Mr Pretorius, is that correct if you read Mr Moni's response to our inquiry in that paragraph and let me just proceed to read it to you:

&#9;&#9;"This mind set and understanding was inculcated in our client after the period of his incarceration by the SAP to the date of the incident and is still deeply rooted in my mind."

MR LOADER: Yes, indeed Madam Chair, yes indeed and that's quite in line with what I'm suggesting to Mr Pretorius, that this is not a fear which he is alleging Mr Pretorius personally at that stage instilled in his mind, it was inculcated in his thoughts and in his mind from the very beginning when he was first arrested through the whole process of his incarceration and the torture process and his subsequent training at Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. He's turning into an askari.

MR LOADER: Absolutely.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes and his subsequent participation and he's stand within the Vlakplaas unit.

MR LOADER: Quite correct Madam Chair and there hasn't here and there never was a suggestion that that was something for which Mr Pretorius was responsible, but that was a subjective, genuine fear that he held at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LOADER: Thank you Madam Chair. I have nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOADER 

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Pretorius, I would just arrive at certain aspects and I would just like to put my instructions to you in that regard in the total perspective. Is it your clear recollection that Mr Olifant was along with the group during the identification of the targets? Because my instructions in this regard are that Mr Olifant at some stage, along with Mr Moni, because he would lend support to Mr Moni during that time, that he had a look along with Mr Moni where this was so that he could determine his position there, but he was not involved with the group who, beforehand, had identified the targets.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I will concede that if Const Olifant explains it in that manner, I cannot recall every exact minute of the day's events, exactly how it happened. I have tried in the paragraph to which I have referred. We as a group, the idea that I wanted to create there was that all of us were aware where the target points were, I don't know if that clears up your point.

MR LAMEY: Yes, he knows that, he knew that, or he knew where it would be and then the other aspect is, I would like to ask you, can you recall that at a stage Mr Monyane and you had a meeting point and that was the Geis farm, the farm where all of you would return to after the operation?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And before the operation, there was a point, Kiblerpark, that was the official let us call it cover premises, Intelligence Headquarters, if I may intimate it as that. The meeting point after the operation was Geis farm.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Olifant says that his recollection is that when you left there after the operation, there was a delay with regard to the arrival of Mr Monyane. I don't know if you recall that.

MR PRETORIUS: That's possible.

MR LAMEY: And he was given instructions to search for Mr Monyane and then he returned when he did not find Mr Monyane, but in the meantime Mr Monyane had returned and then he left to pick up the corpses and he was not present there when the corpses were picked up from the various points, that is his recollection, but he waited there, if I may tell you in that manner and later the people arrived at Geis farm and he went along to destroy the corpses. I shall return to what his observation was at Geis farm with regard to the corpses. 

MR PRETORIUS: If I understand Mr Lamey correctly, he says that Const Olifant did not go along to the points where we picked up corpses, am I correct in saying that?

MR LAMEY: That's correct.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I would not want to say yes or no, I would say it's possible. You can think that I was extremely shocked when I heard what had happened, that was not supposed to happen and if Const Olifant today says that he did not go along, I will accept it, but I was under the impression all the time that he went along, so I will accept when he says that the version that he gives there that he had to wait for the other person to arrive there, for Monyane, I would accept that, but cannot recall it.

MR LAMEY: Very well. His recollection is that when you arrived at Geis farm with the kombi with the two deceased persons, he says his recollection is that one of them, there were vague signs of life like heartbeat and he was still breathing, but he was unconscious and he was dying when you arrived at the farm.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, what I can recall is when we collected the second person from Nancefield, my impression was that the first person which we had picked up from New Canada, Elias, had already died and if Olifant saw signs of life, that one of the persons was still alive, then he saw it. I cannot speak for what he said, but according to me they were both dead.

MR LAMEY: And then mention is made of someone in some of the other statements, but it is placed in the context that during the transport of the corpses to destroy it, liquor was consumed. I would just like to put it to you, my instructions are that after the conclusion of the whole operation, after everyone had returned, Olifant and the other persons went to enjoy some drinks, but no liquor was consumed during the operation. 

MR PRETORIUS: I did not see anything Chairperson. I saw that there was an allegation made that if a person who says this did do this, then he did this without my knowledge I was not aware of it, but I cannot deny it, that the person had consumed liquor or did not consume liquor.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst on this point, for the sake of completeness and for my own clarity, instead of coming back to this point when we examine you from the bench, may I just find out from you, according to Lengene he says that you first started at Kliptown where you found Castro and Castro was already dead. You then left Kliptown and proceeded to New Canada.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That's where you found that the activist there was still alive.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, there was still breath in him.

CHAIRPERSON: And you loaded him onto the vehicle.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I just needed to have clarity on this and probably just to round off on what has been put to you by Mr Lamey.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct if he says that Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And then the instruction with regard to the shooting, I would just like to say that with regard to this aspect, I have obtained further instructions and these are the following; then Mr Olifant will say that the instruction that he can recall was that if something goes wrong, he says that what he had in his mind was that, for example, if someone refused to pull the pin out or something goes wrong in this regard, but what you are saying is he does not dispute this and he says that and I received my instructions from him, that it was mentioned as a possibility, as I understand the instructions it was a possibility if something goes wrong, they would have to shoot these persons, but it was not as if it was the expectation that this would happen, not the expectation that the limpet mine would not explode, but one of the things that he had in his mind that could have gone wrong was if one of them refused to pull the pin.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson as I have said, I cannot specifically recall that and it was not mentioned there. It may have been in his mind, but nobody mentioned it there as far as I can recall and I did not foresee it as well.

MR LAMEY: Then the question of, or with regard to the issue of Capt Coetzee, Mr Olifant agrees he speaks of Capt Coetzee. He was no longer attached to the unit.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: And he also does not say that Coetzee had knowledge beforehand, what he says is the following, he says at some stage a few days or a week before the incident, he saw Coetzee and if I am not incorrect with my instructions, then he says that at a stage he had to visit Coetzee at his home or somewhere and Coetzee made some joke and said something to the effect that, you would not know of this, I'm just putting this to you and I am putting this on record on behalf of your representatives and Coetzee made a joke saying that the police were looking for him and this gave him a fright and asked questions about him and Coetzee told him, he said: "Do not be concerned, everything is in order and precautions have been taken" and this made him draw the inference that what he said there in his statement, that the bones of the corpses were removed by yourself and Coetzee.

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, as Mr Lamey has indicated now, I was not present where such a discussion between Olifant and Coetzee had taken place, but I can tell you and I think we can call Coetzee as a witness, that Coetzee did not know of this operation up to the day that where I went to Mr Jan Wagener for consultation, he did not know of it, he did not know the circumstances, he did not know who were the deceased persons and he did not know where they were. I have to tell you that the first time that Mr Coetzee realised that there was such an operation was when the Attorney-General's office made him sign a warning statement with regard to these persons, because he came and asked me "Who are these three persons?" because he did not know them and he does not know of any such situation and my attorney Mr Wagener will be able to confirm this, may I just ask him?

MR LAMEY: You and Mr Coetzee were confidants within the Security unit, within your unit, before he was transferred?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Could you not mention it to Coetzee that it had happened and this led to Coetzee's remark which he made to Olifant.

MR PRETORIUS: I doubt whether I would have made any such mistake. You can call Coetzee. I never told Coetzee anything like that. At that stage Coetzee was at Security Head Office and I really saw him very rarely at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I don't want to interrupt your cross-examination, I just do not understand the import of Mr Coetzee's remark to Mr Olifant in so far as this incident is concerned. There is nothing that suggests that Coetzee was going to take precautionary measures as he intimated to Mr Olifant, because of this particular incident. Where is the link? Let's be on the same boat as you and Mr Olifant are. Where is the link?

MR LAMEY: May I just take a moment just to get the instructions?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: That during this conversation with Coetzee, it was to Olifant clear that Coetzee referred to this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, how was that clear? I mean we just want to know how Olifant was able to link those comments to this particular incident.

MR LAMEY: He says Coetzee referred to this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's not what you put to Mr Pretorius, you see that's my problem. That's not what you put to Mr Pretorius. You said there was an inference drawn that the precautionary measures that Mr Coetzee intimated to Mr Olifant were with regard to this incident. You didn't say that Coetzee specifically referred to this incident and said "Don't worry, precautionary measures will be taken to protect you." Won't you just put what your instructions are properly to Mr Pretorius and get his comment and Mr Pretorius, won't you confine your comments to what is relevant?

MR PRETORIUS: Certainly Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: My instructions are the following, that Olifant saw Coetzee days or a week or two after this incident. He cannot recall exactly but it was not long after this incident. Coetzee made a joke to him. He said, "I've heard that the police are looking for you" and it was in relation to this incident that Coetzee made this joke.

CHAIRPERSON: May I be on the same boat with you, Mr Lamey? Coetzee says, "I know that the police" or "I have heard that the police are looking for you about this incident"?

MR LAMEY: Do you want me take instructions exactly as to what ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because we want to know the link.

MR LAMEY: Let me try further, thank you Chairperson. Thank you Chairperson. Thank you for the indulgence. My instructions are the following, that during this conversation, Coetzee said to Olifant, which he didn't realise to be a joke at that stage, he said to him: "I've heard that the police are looking for you."

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: For a matter which Coetzee referred to: "Which you and Lengene and Pretorius were involved" and referred to the killing of people, but he didn't specify further and in more detail than that. He, Olifant, it was say a week or two after this incident, Coetzee also then said after Olifant got a fright that, "Don't worry ..."

CHAIRPERSON: "We'll take precautionary measures."

MR LAMEY: "We have taken care of everything", or words to that effect. He says, Olifant says he drew that conversation back to this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you see what ...(intervention)

MR LAMEY: And he drew also the inference that by meaning that we've taken care of everything, they have fetched the bones of the corpses.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, what you have not put to Mr Pretorius initially is this important link, that Mr Coetzee had said they had been involved in a matter in which he, Olifant, Pretorius and Lengene were involved in.

MR LAMEY: That has now been detailed further when I took instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think you must try and put things, because we're expecting this evidence to be very material. You will be giving evidence on this point, so let's try and put things pointedly to a witness so that we don't come back and say "You did not give a response to what was put to you." Let's try and be pointed in what we put to witnesses. Mr Pretorius, it has now been put to you that a few days or weeks, but immediately after this incident, Mr Olifant went to see Mr Coetzee and in the process of a conversation that took place during that meeting, Mr Coetzee advised Mr Olifant that he had heard that the police were looking for him in connection with a matter in which he, Olifant, yourself and Mr Lengene had been involved in. Do you know, can you comment?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I really cannot comment about any such meeting. I have no comment to make about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you. Then the other aspect is, my instructions regarding Maj Grobelaar, as he put it, did you say it's Grobelaar, was that he was the officer on duty on that particular evening, as Olifant recalls. 

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson, the demolitions expert.

MR LAMEY: He was the officer on duty on that particular evening. Do you have anything to say about that?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot comment on that.

MR LAMEY: And my instructions from him are that when an explosion took place, Olifant says from his experience, the officer on duty would be tasked that if any incident took place or if there was any act of terrorism which was committed, the officer on duty would be involved in it.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And he also states that he also suspects or assumes that Grobelaar was on the scene and that the limpet mines were also removed upon his request. 

MR PRETORIUS: Could Mr Lamey please repeat those because I didn't really hear the last portion of that question so well?

CHAIRPERSON: May I repeat it for you Mr Lamey? Mr Pretorius, what has been put to you is that Mr Grobelaar was an officer on duty that evening and as a matter of procedure, an officer on duty would normally have attended an explosion, if one had taken place.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And because of that practice, Mr Olifant is therefore drawing an inference that Mr Grobelaar must have been at the scene and must have been the one to have removed the limpet mine that evening.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall and the witness Steenberg will testify to this, Col Grobelaar was at the scene where Nceba was blown up. I think Gen Nienaber will be able to confirm this. As far as I can recall, Sgt Frans van Tonder, or at least W/O Frans van Tonder and Steenberg and I first went to New Canada and then after that Steenberg and I went to Kliptown. I don't know how Olifant could have seen this because he wasn't there at the Protea office, so I don't know how it is possible for him to say how the persons were deployed.

MR MALAN: But he's not saying that.

CHAIRPERSON: He's drawing an inference. Would he be correct in drawing such an inference or not?

MR PRETORIUS: That Col Grobelaar could possibly have been on the other two scenes after the time, because he is the demolitions expert. I cannot deny that, I don't know because I didn't see him there, but it is possible that he may have been at those scenes, because he was the Commander of the demotions section of Soweto, so it is possible that he may have been there. On the contrary, I think that he probably was there.

CHAIRPERSON: So it's a reasonable inference to draw in the circumstances?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Then just a further aspect that I want to put to you. Mr Olifant states in his application on page 198:

&#9;&#9;"Before the operation Lieut Pretorius had phoned Maj Grobelaar and informed him of the planned operation."

Let me just tell you what my instructions are because I have also dealt with this aspect with him. He also says that on the evening before the operation was to take place, he heard you speaking to someone on the telephone. Just listen. He said that you used the words "Mr Grobbie, may I go ahead with the operation?" and that is why he states this in his statement.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I deny completely that I discussed this operation with Mr Grobelaar at all. It is possible that I may have spoken to Grobbie that evening, because I myself was also a demolitions man and it is so that there was constant telephonic communication between the two of us, that he may have consulted me about certain things, but I did not discuss the operation with Grobelaar.

MR LAMEY: Then with regard to the final aspect, pertaining to the bonus. In this regard Mr Olifant has also brought it to my attention that he has explained this further in his statement and also during preparation before we came to the hearing. In the course of consultation he has told me the following. Subsequent to the operation a few days later, if it is necessary I may obtain information from him about precisely when, they had to go to Durban. You sent them there for a particular task.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, it is possible.

MR LAMEY: And you gave them money for the purposes of expenses and so forth.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, it is possible.

MR LAMEY: But what you also told them apparently, that would be to him and Peter Lengene, you gave each of the R500 and you told them that you also wanted them to get away from the environment for a little while, due to this operation, so there was a dual purpose underway. They had to perform a particular task there.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR LAMEY: But you also told them to get away from the vicinity for a while.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, perhaps just spend a day longer in Natal, it is possible, I cannot deny that at all.

MR LAMEY: But also that you wanted them to get away from the environment in which they had been due to this operation.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Therefore what he says is that he received money which was also linked to another reason for this operation and that he received further instructions with regard to expenses pertaining to another task. That is what he has told me.

MR PRETORIUS: It is possible that he may have perceived it as such.

MR LAMEY: Very well. Again what I want to ask you is whether or not you made any promises of remuneration or reward before the operation?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

MR LAMEY: So there was no reasonable expectation to be had about anything pertaining to a reward or remuneration for this operation?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

MR LAMEY: And it was expected of a member such as Mr Olifant to carry out the orders.

MR PRETORIUS: As I issued them. That is correct.

MR LAMEY: And that a person in his position also had to rely by and large on your word when it came to the motivation and the political objective which was sought to be achieved?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, those are my questions thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't understand why you asked him whether he had made any promises of reward for this operation. Did you put it to him because you've got different instructions?

MR LAMEY: No, no, it's just to clear something up. I don't have any different instructions in that regard.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden.

MR LAMEY: It is just that the purpose is to place on record that there was no expectancy prior to this operation, not any monetary reward would have motivated Mr Olifant to take part in the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I'm just a little bit confused because that was done after you were busy canvassing the issue of the R500 bonus and it wasn't clear to me whether you were still trying to suggest that indeed there might have been an inducement prior to even the commission of the operation.

MR LAMEY: No, not at all, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That concludes your cross-examination Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Yes, Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Heerden, maybe before you proceed to put questions to Mr Pretorius, this would be an appropriate time to take the lunch adjournment. May I be guided by counsel if it will be convenient to have a 45 minute adjournment? I have previously been warned that the, I nearly said the tuck shop, we don't use such names here, this is Pretoria, the cafeteria is a little slow and doesn't cater for people who are more than five that quickly. Will 45 minutes be convenient?

MR VISSER: Speaking for ourselves it would be fine yes thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van Heerden, on behalf of the victims, would 45 minutes be convenient for victims to have proper lunch?

MR VAN HEERDEN: I think so, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll have a 45 minutes adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair. I think Mr van der Merwe was still in a position to start his cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I thought he was going to be heard last, like after you, but maybe we should afford him an opportunity to put questions to Mr Pretorius before coming to you, Mr van Heerden. Thank you for reminding me of that.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I'll be brief, thanks Madam Chair.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Pretorius I'm just going to put some questions to you very briefly. The first point that I wish to highlight is that my instructions from both Messrs J F Kok and Mr K Kok are that they only gave you their VZD1M switch or three and that they did not provide the limpet mines to you. Do you have any specific recollection regarding from where you obtained the limpet mines?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson. I have the three limpet mines in my possession. It was as a result of weaponry that we had found.

MR VAN DER MERWE: So when you create the impressions in your application that you received the limpet mines from them, was this a mistaken impression?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct. It is not so, I only received the three switches or detonators from them.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you. And furthermore you state in your evidence that you gave an indication to the members of the technical division, the Kok brothers, that this would be necessary for an operation but that you did not discuss the operation with them. Would you agree with me that they were however quite thoroughly aware that this operation would be an operation which was aimed against opponents of the government at that stage, which would then mean liberation movements or members of liberation movements?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I believe so.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Are you aware of whether or not they knew that this operation had been approved on a high level?

MR PRETORIUS: Negative. All that I told them was that I had obtained permission from my Divisional Commander, who was Gen Nienaber. 

MR VAN DER MERWE: Therefore they knew that authorisation from a higher level was definitely extended for this operation.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And then I would also like to state in conclusion that Mr J F Kok confirms the fact that you stated that after the operation you were in contact with him and told him that two of the detonators had not functioned and he also states that you told him and these are my instructions, that this was somewhat of a surprise which had created problems for you on ground level during the operation.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Furthermore there is one final question that I wish to put to you. I see that on page 195 of the record, Mr Olifant states in his statement just half-way past that paragraph:

&#9;&#9;"On the 29th of July 1989, Lieut Pretorius instructed us to remove Nceba and his two friends from society."

Was that language which was ever used by you?

MR PRETORIUS: I don't believe that would have been my language usage.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You wouldn't know where he came upon this language usage?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chairperson, I have nothing further. 

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Mr van Heerden.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair. Mr Pretorius when, for the first time, did you become aware of the existence of Nceba, firstly?

MR PRETORIUS: That there was a person such as Nceba?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR PRETORIUS: A few months before the time already during the regular Intelligence operations.

MR VAN HEERDEN: During what year was this, approximately?

MR PRETORIUS: It may have been a year before the time, or the same year, I'm not very certain. Unfortunately I do not have my old Intelligence documents which would enable me to tell you today but it was quite some time.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What was your information regarding him?

MR PRETORIUS: That Nceba was a member of the Zone of Soyco, Mofolo, that he was quite revolutionary, that he was very outspoken, that he was violent and that during meetings which were covered by the Amakatadra Zone of Soyco, on numerous occasions he had openly stated that he and his members who were with him, were responsible for attacks on the police, council officers, that they had implemented the implementation of no-go areas in Mofolo and so forth.

MR VAN HEERDEN: From where did you obtain this information?

MR PRETORIUS: Deep cover agents as well as informers who were also infiltrated in the Amakatadra Zone as well as the further structures of Soyco and Syco.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you obtain this initial information from the agents and the informers?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How many agents and informers were involved in this?

MR PRETORIUS: In this specific one?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, specifically with regard to Nceba, the initial information.

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, I definitely cannot recall at the moment but it must have been at least two or three, however I am not certain because this took place quite some time ago and I cannot recall precisely how many agents were involved.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And then with regard to Castro Khumalo?

MR PRETORIUS: I beg your pardon.

MR VAN HEERDEN: With regard to Caswell Khumalo, what information did you have? The first time that you became aware of him.

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, I cannot recall the names of the deceased. 

MR VAN HEERDEN: I'm referring to Castro.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, basically the same sort of information, that he was a member of Nceba's group, that Nceba was the senior of the group, so to speak.

CHAIRPERSON: So when did you obtain information about Castro? Was it at the same time when you obtained information about Nceba?

MR PRETORIUS: That which I can recall, indicates that it must have been during the same period of time but I cannot recall the precise date or time today, but it was during that period in time before the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Did the information you obtained about Nceba not occur simultaneously with the information you obtained about Castro?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it simultaneous? Was it from one source?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have already stated Chairperson it could have been more than one but I cannot recall precisely how many agents were at that stage reporting about this person. I cannot recall that today.

CHAIRPERSON: May I find out for my own clarity, I'm not too clear about the difference between an informer and an agent.

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, an informer was a regular person, a civil person who was recruited by the Security Branch or the Security Services then. When we refer to an agent, according to me there are two types of against, one would be the deep cover, those would be members of the South African Police who were operating underground, that is what I mean by a deep cover agent, a member of the South African Police.

CHAIRPERSON: So this would be a person who would have been used for purposes of penetrating?

MR PRETORIUS: Infiltration...

CHAIRPERSON: In this case, where you referred to the deep cover agent, who are you referring to? Can you be specific?

MR PRETORIUS: There was another agent. I can recall his name, but I don't know whether or not I should disclose his name here and I don't know where this person is today and I think if I were to disclose his name, it would be catastrophic for him and his family, if I were to do so.

CHAIRPERSON: He's in the same position as Mr Lengene, isn't that so?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: How different is he from Mr Lengene, this is what I want to find out?

MR PRETORIUS: Mr Lenyene was a member of the force, he was a complete member of the Force who was stationed with the Intelligence Unit. He was not a deep cover agent, he was simply an agent, if we could refer to it as such for that period that he worked on the operation. He was not a deep cover agent and Mr Lengene was used for the flag operation and that is why the deep cover agents were not used in the flag operations. They didn't know about flag operations, if I may describe it as such. 

CHAIRPERSON: I'm still not fully clear about that definition of what you term a deep cover agent, as opposed to an informer. I thought you stated that a deep cover agent was usually a member of the South African Police.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson, who had never been to police college, who had never received any form of police training and so forth and so forth. With Mr Lengene, just for the sake of clarity, I could say that Mr Lengene was also in the same position as Mr Moni, as a former revolutionary who had subsequently joined the police, but he was not a deep cover agent, never, Lengene was never a deep cover agent.

CHAIRPERSON: Was a deep cover agent paid as an ordinary policeman would have been paid?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What qualified him to become an agent, if you say usually they were members of the South African police?

MR PRETORIUS: If I may explain to you Chairperson, a deep cover agent, or we'll refer to the RS programme, I don't know whether or not you have dealt with this during hearings, the RS programme. What took place there was that we, the handlers or the Commanders, would recruit someone. We recruited someone who was interested in becoming a deep cover agent. We would then recruit the person and tell him, "Listen, we want you to infiltrate this organisation or infiltrate that group but we will make you a policeman, although you will never have to go to Police College, you will have no rank", there was no rank connected to it at that stage, nothing, so in other words, his police particulars were on a completely different system from the regular police system.

CHAIRPERSON: And what would be the position of a police informer vis a vis as an agent?

MR PRETORIUS: An informer was a regular person whom we would have recruited, to whom we just said: "We want you to work with the Security Branch" and that person was never a member of the police, he never enjoyed the benefits of membership of the police, he received a monthly payment from the secret fund.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Chairperson. Let us then go to Richard Ngwenya. What information did you have about him?

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, today I cannot give you all the precise details about every person, but the information about all of them was pretty much the same.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he a member of a group?

MR PRETORIUS: He was a member of the Nceba group, according to my information.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How many members were there in this group?

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chair, I cannot recall precisely how many members operated in the AK zone, but it was definitely more than three, much more than three.

CHAIRPERSON: The information that you received from the deep cover agents, am I to take it that you are only referring to one agent?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have stated, there may have been two, but I can recall one specifically in my mind. I can recall one specifically, but there may have been more than one.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you received information from this agent, amongst others?

MR PRETORIUS: And an informer.

CHAIRPERSON: An informer which you were handling directly?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And the information was with regard to the conduct of Nceba, how revolutionary he was and how outspoken he was and stating openly that he was responsible for the attacks on the homes of the police as well as the attacks on municipal officers?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes and that he also had contact with MK, the underground cells of MK.

CHAIRPERSON: Now did this information also include Mr Khumalo and Mr Ngwenya, Castro and Elias?

MR PRETORIUS: If I can recall correctly, then that would be so, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this information confirmed or did you receive information, maybe let me be fair to you. Did you receive this information independently from the various people, your sources, the agent and the informer?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Who initially supplied you with this information, was it the agent or the informer?

MR PRETORIUS: If I had to say today, if I had to recall, then I think that it came from the agent.

CHAIRPERSON: And this agent had been observing the Nceba group, or Nceba himself for how long?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot recall for how long, but it was several months. If I could just clarify this even further, the agent was with these people. That is the difference with a deep cover agent. He lived with the community in Mofolo. He lived there, he operated there, he attended the meetings, he saw what was going on there. He didn't come into the office everyday to report for duty.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he a member of Soyco himself?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, he was a member of Soyco as well.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was the position of the informer, was he not a member of Soyco also?

MR PRETORIUS: Of the informer?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was it necessary, or before I come to why it was necessary to confirm the information received from the agent, how soon after you had been given this information by the agent, did you also get the information from the informer, your informer, about Nceba and his activities?

MR PRETORIUS: If I could attempt to explain to you what happened at that stage? Usually Soyco would have meetings, sometimes on a daily basis or on a weekly basis. We would know beforehand when the meetings would take place. We would also know about the activities which were occurring, then I would arrange for the deep cover agent and the informer to see them independently after the time and that would usually be where the information would either confirm or contradict each other, but I cannot tell you precisely today because there were just so many times that the information flow came my way, that I really cannot recall it because it is too long ago and I no longer have the relevant documents with which I can substantiate this today.

CHAIRPERSON: So you have addressed the question I would have posed. Thank you. Mr van Heerden, I'm sorry to have intervened during your cross-examination.

MR VAN HEERDEN: No problem, Madam Chair. I just wish to clarify the time context with you. When did you begin to see these three persons as a group, in your own mind?

MR PRETORIUS: Which three persons?

MR VAN HEERDEN: The three persons, Nceba, Khumalo and Ngwenya?

CHAIRPERSON: Nceba, Khumalo and Ngwenya.

MR PRETORIUS: That I began to view them as a group alone?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, when did you begin to regard them as a group, because you refer to the Nceba group.

MR PRETORIUS: For the convenience of the application we have referred to the group. The moment that I decided that the existing information from the deep cover agents and the informer could no longer make any further breakthroughs in getting closer to the MK underground people and decided to launch a false flag operation, during which Sgt Lenyene was infiltrated from the outside. 

MR MALAN: I don't know whether or not you understood the question. The question is that you referred to them as the Amakatadra Zone Group and the question to you is, when did you become aware that they were operating as a group? Did you get to know them as individuals initially or as a group?

MR PRETORIUS: As a group.

MR MALAN: In other words, from the very beginning they were regarded as a group?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR MALAN: And you knew that all three were involved in the Zone?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. You state that you could not make any further breakthroughs and that you then decided to launch a false flag operation?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would that be where Mr Lengene came into the picture?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: What information did you give Mr Lengene and what was his order?

MR PRETORIUS: As I've already stated Chairperson, I explained to Lengene what the circumstances surrounding the available information in Mofolo was and that the deep cover agent would have presented himself as an MK man from the outside to this Nceba group, that he was from abroad and he would have to determine what the actual involvement of Nceba was when it came to terrorism and violence, what his connection with the MK people was, who the MK people were with which Nceba and his group were liaising, did they have weaponry, where was the weaponry, what operations were they planning and so on and so forth.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So his task was to determine what the objective of the group was, do I understand you correctly?

MR PRETORIUS: With regard to MK, not the daily politics of Soyco. With regard to their connection with MK underground.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was your primary problem then MK?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that was the main problem.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was your concern not to find out the nature of their connection with MK?

MR PRETORIUS: Among others, yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say among others, what exactly did you want Lenyene to obtain from this group with regard to their connection with MK?

MR PRETORIUS: He was to attempt to determine who the MK persons were who were there, the persons that they were liaising with. Could he obtain their names, or was it possible for him to obtain their addresses? Was it possible for Nceba to lead him to these MK persons because in the past we had experienced that when MK groups were operating within a specific area, they would join up with one another. We hoped that the fact that Lengene had presented himself as an MK man from the outside, that Nceba may have said, "But listen there are other MK people here as well, let me introduce you to them." That was among others, one of the things we were hoping for. Unfortunately it never happened that way.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Were you not also interested in finding out what they were doing with those MK structures they might have had connections with?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that information made clear to Mr Lengene?

MR PRETORIUS: I am convinced that I set it out for him as such, not only on one occasion but upon various occasions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Let us assume, or let me put it like this. Was this an investigation that you launched with the objective on court oriented action, possible criminal proceedings or prosecution?

MR PRETORIUS: I would say yes, but at the same time no, because I was in the Intelligence Unit and it wasn't my responsibility to deal with court oriented actions, but in support of the broader Soweto Security Branch, I gathered information, as Gen Nienaber would testify. There was a proper investigation team, which would deal with investigative matters. I was only there to convey information to the investigation. If I might provide a simple example, on such and such a day or in such and such a house, there would be weapons and then the investigating unit would then have taken action, therefore in my Intelligence capacity I could be court oriented so to speak.

MR VAN HEERDEN: For how long was Mr Lenyene part of this infiltration or at least how long did you think he would be part of this infiltration?

MR PRETORIUS: We were aware that this would be for a limited period of time, because it was a flag operation, in other words something that wasn't real or genuine, we presented as MK, we knew that MK was in Soweto, MK operated throughout the entire Soweto, we knew that we had a very limited amount of time but I didn't tell myself beforehand it would be a week or a month, I decided that we would let the thing run and see what would happen, basically a wait- and-see situation, if I might refer to it as such. 

MR VAN HEERDEN: So this was not a long-term project?

MR PRETORIUS: I don't believe that that was what I had in mind because it was impossible to launch such a flag operation on the long term. It was a short-term solution for Intelligence problems.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you know how Mr Lengene infiltrated the group?

MR PRETORIUS: The deep cover agent introduced him to them.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Were you involved in that?

MR PRETORIUS: Definitely. Before the time I gave the instructions to the two persons regarding how they were to go about their work, what they were to say, where they were from, what the deep cover agent would say, how he had found Mr Lengene and how he knew Mr Lengene as an MK man.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So before the time all these matters were clarified?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Mr van Heerden?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Certainly, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Pretorius, if you have recourse to page 232 of Mr Lengene's affidavit, the name of Mr Max Mangazane is reflected there as one of the informers. Who introduced him to Nceba?

MR PRETORIUS: This is one of the deep cover agents that he is disclosing here, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: To your recollection, is this Mr Max Mangazane the person who initiated the meeting with Nceba and Mr Lengene?

MR PRETORIUS: Correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Chairperson. Did you lead the meeting where this person Max was introduced to Lengene? Were you present?

MR PRETORIUS: I don't understand. Are you referring to there were I was debriefing them and told them exactly what to do?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, as far as I know I was present there.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And what was the proposed role of Mr Lengene?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have said several times Chairperson, that he was a man from MK who came from the outside who had to join up with the unit and to be of assistance to the unit and so forth and so forth.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And was this successful, this joining up?

MR PRETORIUS: I think the evidence before the Commission is self-explanatory. It was successful. We did infiltrate them and they believed that these persons, Lengene and later Moni and Monyane were from MK.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How regularly did you see Mr Lengene while this operation was underway?

MR PRETORIUS: As I said, Mr Lengene was not a deep cover agent, he was only an agent. He went in for a period, maybe one hour, three hours, maybe half a day but every evening or every time after he had made contact with the deceased, he came back and reported back at my safe offices of exactly what has happened, so it was many times, on a daily basis.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would Max Mangazane also report to you?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, but under different circumstances. As I have said, he was a deep cover agent, one could not just withdraw from the field everyday, one had to make arrangements beforehand for meetings or telephonically sometimes he contacted me out of his own and said he wanted to see us and then some of the fellow managers or handlers had to be withdrawn from Soweto to see to him. 

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did this happen in this operation, that you had to withdraw him from Soweto? 

MR PRETORIUS: For normal Intelligence purposes, but Mangazane didn't have anything to do with this operation.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Was he only the contact person?

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, the deep cover agent was there to extract political information of what was happening in the Amakatadra Zone, he had nothing to do. These were two separate operations which ran concurrently. He went on his way. He reported information which I wrote down, which I processed and wrote it, he did not have any idea of what the Security Branch command structure, what it's information, where it goes to, who uses it and what they use it for and this is once again the difference between a deep cover agent and an agent.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. You have earlier described what type of information you had about these three persons, can you tell us whether new information came to the fore after the infiltration of Lenyene? Did new information come to the fore?

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, if you - what information do you refer to? Political information that they were still involved in the maintenance of the no-go areas, the patrolling with firearms in the no-go areas in the evenings, this was a continuous process, that information came from deep cover agents and many other sources.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Your statement page 7 paragraph 31, there you mention certain information.

MR PRETORIUS: Paragraph 31.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would you describe that as new information?

MR PRETORIUS: I think so, yes. What had actually happened, when I say new information, was that there was confirmation received by the flag operation that the deep cover agent's information was correct and more information came out so there was confirmation and new information did come to the fore.

ADV MOTATA: If I may interpose, Mr van Heerden? Doesn't Mr Lengene say he had to teach them in the handling of weaponry, even explosives, because if you look at paragraph 31 on page 7, he says you say that they had already received this kind of training.

MR PRETORIUS: Except in the limpet mine. What I can recall Chairperson, I can recall quite well, after we had, or it works in this manner. Firstly these people will say they know hand grenades and they know AK47s and I decided to test these people and on occasion, as I have mentioned in my statement, in Hillbrow at a hotel, a variety of firearms, AK47s, hand grenades as well as the limpet mine were shown to them and during that incident it was quite clear to me that when Lengene reported back to me that these people were already trained in the use of AK47s, they were already trained in the handling and use of hand grenades and they knew the different types of hand grenades, except they did not know how a limpet mine works and they did not know limpet mines.

CHAIRPERSON: The question that is being put to you is the fact that according to Mr Lengene, you instructed him to teach the three activists about the handling of firearms, that would include the AK47 and explosives, that he could only teach them about the handling of firearms, because he did not have any knowledge about explosives. Now what is being put to you is, what is contained in your affidavit suggests that they had already been trained.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereas when one reads the affidavit of Mr Lengene and that is on page 233 at paragraph 47, what he is suggesting and in fact he's saying, not suggesting, is that you instructed him to teach these activists about the handling of firearms.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I cannot recall everything that happened then, it's impossible. With regard Nceba, I can say here with no honesty that he was completely trained in the use of AK47s and hand grenades. It may be that the other two persons, one or both of the persons, were not properly trained in the use of AK47s, not that I can deny that Lengene had trained them in the use of AK47s because they could spend quite some time in that hotel. It is logical the weapons were there. He could have given them a refreshment course, that is entirely possible, because you have to recall that MK, how they worked with the people, these were all crash courses. I don't know how long ago these people had their crash course, but any person who had any knowledge of weapons will tell you that a person cannot undergo a crash course and then handle a weapon, so I would like to say that I agree that where Lengene says that he trained them in the use of weapons, that could be correct, that he did indeed train them, but the fact remains they were already in contact with this type of armaments and they knew exactly how some of these things worked.

CHAIRPERSON: But did you give any instructions to Lengene to train them in the handling of firearms? Did you give such an instruction?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I did, that's what I said, I told him to do it.

CHAIRPERSON: When did you give such an instruction?

MR PRETORIUS; This was the time when, this is after the pressure came from their side and they said that they were looking for firearms. I cannot recall the exact date but this was before the final incident, it could have been a week or a month before that, I cannot exactly recall, that we arranged that they come to Johannesburg to Hillbrow at the hotel room, because I did not want Lengene and I'm not sure whether Moni was there at that stage, that they together go into Soweto so that we lose control over the firearms, so it was in a controlled environment in Hillbrow where this training took place.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you give instructions to people who were already trained in the handling of firearms? Why did you give instructions to Lengene to train them in the use of firearms when you knew at that stage that they already had the necessary training?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, it may be that, because you have to recall, someone comes from outside and he says he's from MK. How do you know he's from MK? Do you just go according to his word? What does one do? I saw this as a further - and to enable him to prove that he was from MK, he comes with his rifles, his hand grenades and his limpet mines, he trains these people and people can see that this man is from MK, he knows how these firearms work, they can see that he does have the weapons.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon. Mr Pretorius, you also earlier said in your evidence that the information that you had was that they were indeed trained in the use of AK47s and hand grenades, but not in limpet mines and you decided to test this and that is why you gave that instruction. The limpet mine - I'm not sure whether there is some confusion - to test the information. Did you not say that?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct yes.

MR MALAN: To confirm it?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, to confirm that they can handle these things.

MR MALAN: And you also said feedback was given to you that they had already been trained and they knew the hand grenades but they did not know the limpet mine?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR MALAN: So this was your information and it was confirmed afterwards?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR MALAN: That's how I understood you, I would just like to ensure that I did not misunderstand you.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood you differently. I thought the reason why you gave them this training, even though they were already trained, was to somehow strengthen this belief that this person was an MK who was trained in the handling of firearms. If you concede with what my colleague is saying, I must have understood you quite differently.

MR PRETORIUS: You are not incorrect, Chairperson, you are correct. This was my second basis. I wanted to create the further impression, because all the time as I've already told you, how does one say that you are from MK? MK does not have an appointment certificate to say that "Listen here, I am from MK", the only way whether one could see amongst others, was to show him firearms like the AK47s, the hand grenades and the limpet mine and then these people could realise but listen, these guys are from MK. That is what we wanted the deceased to realise. On the other side it is correct where Mr Malan says that we wanted to determine in what type of firearms were these persons trained.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is the reason, why should it be so necessary for you to determine whether they are properly trained or not?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, very easily, because those types of firearms in this era, specifically with regard to AK47s and hand grenades, it's not anybody in the street who knew how these work. Everybody has seen an AK47, but it was further confirmation to us of the information that MK people had to have had contact with these persons because they did not pick up this information on the corner of the street, there had to be MK persons who told them how these arms of terror work.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you request Mr Lengene to find out if they had had any training from an MK structure which was operating underground before proceeding to give him the necessary firearms in order to make such a determination?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, as far as I can recall, Lengene told me that these people had contact with MK and MK had already trained them, but they did not want to say who the MK persons are whom they had contact with or where those MK people were.

CHAIRPERSON: So you already knew that they had contact with MK members?

MR PRETORIUS: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: But did they say they had been trained by MK structures in the handling of AK47s amongst other weapons they were able to handle?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yet you proceeded to make this determination by requesting Lengene to teach them on the use of AK47s?

MR PRETORIUS: First to find out whether it was so and to show the weapons to them and to see if they can handle their firearms and if the person makes mistakes and then tell him "make so and make so", unfortunately I was not present in the room where the training had taken place, Chairperson, so I cannot say exactly what happened there. I know Lenyene now says that he trained them, but today I don't know. I had to go according to his word. Did he train them? I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Well in his affidavit he says that he trained them.

MR PRETORIUS: Then I accept that he did indeed train them. But as I have said already, a person who underwent a crash course will be trained over and over and after the 20th time, he'll ask the MK members, "What do I have to do here if this happens?". That is the experience that I have gained in my life, while I worked with information of crash course training.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it also not so, Mr Pretorius, that a person could receive instant training or a crash course as you have put it, not necessarily from a member of the MK, you could receive such a crash course from somebody, not necessarily an MK member? I mean, it was - the period that we are concerned with, which is 1989, was a period when there was a lot of violence. The struggle was being intensified from all angles.

MR PRETORIUS: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was common cause for people to be given training, not necessarily by MK members per se.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct. One crash course training person could give another person a crash course and that's a fiasco.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. The fact that a person was trained in the use of AK47, did not necessarily mean that that person had been trained by an MK structure.

MR PRETORIUS: I will concede that, Chairperson. I was under the impression at that stage and they talked big, that they were in contact with MK and they pertinently mentioned MK.

CHAIRPERSON: You have stated that this is the information you received, amongst others, from the agent and the informer.

MR PRETORIUS: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Who actually came with this information that they would openly advise other people in a meeting that they were involved in attacks on the homes of policemen and the officers of the municipality? I suppose this was the Soweto municipality?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson as I have already said, it is impossible for me to recall all information which I received then, but if I can recall correctly, it was about during - the Amakatadra Zone was one of the most violent zones in Soweto at that stage. The police had no access to that zone. These people were so stupid that they had openly on meetings where they said that "Last night we attacked such and such a place, or yesterday we did this and that and tomorrow we have to do this and that and we have to close this road and if the police pass here we have to dig big holes so that police Casspirs can fall in there and we can throw petrol bombs there", that's how stupid they were at meetings. Me, I have to, as an Intelligence person, I had to sift through this information. Is it true what they're saying, or is it not true what they're saying.

CHAIRPERSON: Why do you say they were stupid in saying such things in a meeting?

MR PRETORIUS: I'm not saying stupid, the Afrikaans word is ... They felt that the Amakatadra Zone was a no-go area. There was no police there. They could do whatever they wanted to and they did what they wanted to do.

CHAIRPERSON: They felt invincible.

MR PRETORIUS: I could say that, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You therefore had some kind of verification method. You could verify the information you received from your agent Max Mangazane and you could verify that information with the source that you were also handling, the informer.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that verification happened quite quickly because both would be attending the same meeting.

MR PRETORIUS: In most cases, the same meetings and so for the Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there any other method that you used to verify the information obtained from both the agent and the informer who would be attending the same meeting, just to ascertain it's reliability?

MR PRETORIUS: I think there was a multiple of things at that stage, Chairperson. You have to recall that there were continuous detentions and if I recall correctly, Nceba himself was detained at some stage. In my initial amnesty application, I have referred to, amongst others, Ramol Grako Molokane, who was a trained MK terrorist. Winnie Pala, Mandla Dlamini. During the interrogation of these persons there was also information which came to the fore that they also spoke of what was happening and as such, in this manner, many people were picked up, not by my unit but by the larger Security Branch and all this information, during intelligence co-ordination meetings, indicated that in Mofolo, in the Amakatadra Zone there were people so in terror and that is why I'm saying in my application, that is where the pressure came from my Commander, from Gen Nienaber and the Intelligence Unit asking us, "Listen men, what is going on in the Amakatadra Zone? Where are the MK people? Who accommodates them? Who assists them?" And that is where I started with the false flag operation, to obtain this information in another manner, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you have answered me, but in a very long way that you had an extensive verification method.

MR PRETORIUS: I beg your pardon, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata.

ADV MOTATA: Before he does, but it would appear you were not successful if you look at paragraph 32 of the affidavit before you, that Nceba personally was not a man who would volunteer information that easily. Lengene was not successful in that.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct. I could not get Lengene so that he could speak in depth about MK persons who operated in that area. He did not want to open up to me, because you have to recall that a person like Lenyene under a flag, cannot directly go to the person because MK did not work so that you can ask a direct question to a person, "Listen where are the other MK guys? What are you doing this evening?" because the moment when you do that, those other persons would become suspicious and wonder, "Why is this guy from MK asking this type of question?"

ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry about that Mr van Heerden.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for indulging us, Mr van Heerden, we'll try and behave as much as possible, it's just that at times the temptation just to ask questions on clarity, emanating from what you would have asked, or emanating from what you would have put to Mr Pretorius, becomes a little too tempting and we can't resist it.

MR VAN HEERDEN: I appreciate that, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR VAN HEERDEN: This Const Moni, is it Mani? I assume he will give us the correct pronunciation. M-O-M-I. You say he proposed, he was introduced to this group, how long after this infiltration of Mr Lengene?

MR PRETORIUS: Once again, I cannot say exactly but it could have been a month, a month and a half after the initial infiltration.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How long was Mr Moni involved with this group?

MR PRETORIUS: Once again, Honourable Chairperson, I cannot say, but Mr Moni may be able to assist me here, but I would say anything from two weeks to a month. I speak under correction here, I am not entirely certain.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did he also try to obtain information?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And he could also not receive any confirmation of any MK activities?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson as I have already said, Moni, up to a limited period, he could receive information. He said these people were already in contact with other persons, or with MK who know how MK underground structures work and how their weapons work and so forth and so forth, but he could not make any headway according to the persons that we were looking for.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Who were you looking for?

MR PRETORIUS: For MK underground units who operated and who were responsible for many acts of terror.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So the investigative terrain was quite broad.

MR PRETORIUS: If you mean broad - I'm not - can you describe wide to me?

MR VAN HEERDEN: You were not looking for a specific person, you were looking for a large grouping.

MR PRETORIUS: No, I would not say that is correct, Chairperson, as I have already said, we knew in the Mofolo Amakatadra Zone there was definitely MK activities because of incidents which was confirmation of the information that there was MK, and today I cannot tell you what incidents exactly there were, so we concentrated on the unit or units who operated possibly in Mofolo and in the larger Soweto area.

MR MALAN: I would like to hear the answer. Did you have specific names for MK members you were looking for in MK?

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage we did not have MK names.

CHAIRPERSON: That's why you were looking for names and possible addresses of such structures,

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: As you have ...(indistinct speaking simultaneously) in your evidence.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: May I proceed, Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may proceed, Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. Your investigation went up to a point and no further?

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: You had this broad suspicion of MK involvement and that is basically where it stopped?

MR PRETORIUS: All the signs were there, as I've already said. It was not just a suspicion. The signs of terror that had taken place in Mofolo and surrounding area that MK was there. There were no suspicions, there was physical evidence of policemen that had died.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose? Are you suggesting that any attack of the police was seen by you as an attack conducted by MK structures?

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, we know that the PAC was also active there but what I mean by that is that acts of terror in Soweto at that stage, specifically the deaths of police officers, I do not want to pre-empt Gen Nienaber's evidence, but there were frightening murders of police officers and at all the scenes it was clear that it was acts of terror and terrorist groups and the information as I've already said, with the exception of the Intelligence Unit's information of persons who were in detention, persons who were arrested, was that MK was largely responsible for these acts of terror but it is possible that the PAC could have gotten in a shot somewhere.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MALAN: Mr Pretorius is it not possible that it was activists who killed police officers, who were not necessarily MK persons?

MR PRETORIUS: That was also possible, Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Did you have any information that police officers were killed primarily by MK persons, or did you have other information?

MR PRETORIUS: As I have said, unfortunately I do not have the statistics before me here, but there was a large onslaught of MK on the police. Some of the persons were arrested and there was an onslaught by ordinary politicians who were ANC orientated, who were also involved in the attacks on police officers and council members, so all the information was there.

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you.

ADV MOTATA: If I may, just there, Mr van Heerden. But wouldn't we as South Africans, understand the situation much better? That if you regarded the two groupings in the country, white and black, that generally the black community would just be against the white community and particularly the police? It wouldn't just be that you are ANC orientated, but because of the treatment the other metered against the other, so it would not be precise if somebody says, "people who were against the police, were necessarily people who were politically orientated". Would that not be a fair statement?

MR PRETORIUS: I am not entirely certain Honourable Chairperson, what the actual ...

ADV MOTATA: The impression which you wish to create is that people who fought with the police were people from the ANC's camp. My question to you, was it not the current political situation in South Africa that most of the black people were against white people and they were against the police because this conveyed what the apartheid regime had carried on that stage about black people, would it not be fair if I put that to you?

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, I would not want to enter into a political discussion, but as I am trying to tell you here, is that the information that was on the table at that stage was because of Intelligence information, information from other regions, information from persons who were arrested and who were detained, persons who made confessions, it was clear to us that MK were the leaders of violence and terrorism in Soweto against the State dispensation, against the Security Forces and against their own community in Soweto. That was so. I will concede that it may be that an ordinary person on the street was angry at the police, but these were singular matters. Usually in that case the person was arrested, but MK was another story entirely. They were sophisticated, underground, clandestine, that's how they operated all the time, that is why the police could not find them all the time.

ADV MOTATA: Now wouldn't you say, because you were in the Intelligence, why I'm asking you this question is in all fairness to you, because we had in Soweto the Soweto Civic Association which played a larger part in that they tried to make life better for the people of Soweto and the people clamped hard on the Civic Association.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

ADV MOTATA: And when they wanted to present their white paper at Orlando Stadium, they were actually burned and some of them were detained like Dr Motlana. Would you say Dr Motlana was forced by the ANC orientated idea that he wanted to better the lives of people of Soweto for instance?

MR PRETORIUS: With all justification, Chairperson, as I've already stated, I do not wish to enter a political debate. I understand that things went wrong and that is why today there is a new State dispensation, things went wrong and I'm one of the first who would admit to this, that things indeed went wrong, that things did not go according to plan, but I was not the Legislature at that stage, I was not in a position of power, I was simply an employee of the State, I simply carried out orders to the best of my ability. I was trying to protect the lives and liberty of people and particularly those in the South African Police.

MR MALAN: Mr Pretorius, if I have listened to you correctly with regard to all the evidence and I think that this joins with Mr Motata's point, your perception was that all resistance to the existing dispensation was co-ordinated and led by the ANC. Let us forget the PAC for the moment and the MK was the driving force behind this, that was your perception.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that was my perception.

MR MALAN: And that is what your evidence is before us now, more or less? So you don't have the perception that there was just a political awakening which had nothing to do with organisations and that is the question which is being put to you.

MR PRETORIUS: No, I understand that there was a political awakening and how it originated and what led to the political inspirations of people. Yes, I agree, if that is what Mr Motata has said, then I would agree.

MR MALAN: But he refers to this separately from the ANC as a group. 

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I agree.

MR MALAN: Did you also perceive it as such at that stage?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR MALAN: Was there a valid set of political grievances which had absolutely nothing to do with an organisation?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes. I may have misunderstood you and I apologise for that. If that is how you want to put it, then I agree.

MR MALAN: Then to follow up. From those ranks of non-political party affiliated aggrieved community members, was there also not acts of violence which emanated from that sector?

MR PRETORIUS: That was not my division.

MR MALAN: But your division was aimed specifically at information about the ANC and the PAC and their involvement. It was an intelligence function specifically.

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, on various pillars, 

MR MALAN: But you did not have any aspects with regard to the regular civil political organisations or aspirations?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Then that would explain your evidence, the way that it is chronologically and logically presented.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. So at a stage we reached the point where the investigation could not go any further?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And you took further steps because the investigation could not progress any further and my question to you is, why didn't you simply cease the operation?

MR PRETORIUS: Very simple to answer Chairperson. If I had simply ceased the operation right there and then and withdrawn and I think that I have stated this somewhere in my application, what we were dealing with here were persons who at that stage already knew precisely how military weapons functioned and I was still convinced that they had contacted MK in Soweto and that they would have been in a much better position to commit acts of terrorism. They could leave the country and then receive thorough military training of 6 months to a year or so and what would I have done then? In other words, the onus rested upon me. I could not simply have left these people like that.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And according to you they had acquired special skills then.

MR PRETORIUS: If you want to put it that way, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As a result of your having given them special training in the use of the limpet mine?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: When you proceeded to do that, if I may with the leave of Mr van Heerden, this is something which has really been worrying me, you already knew, at least from your version which differed from Mr Lengene, that they had training in AK47 but not in the use of limpet mines. Having that kind of information at your disposal, why did you proceed to train them and there was nothing to suggest that Mr Lengene was making any headway with regard to the information relating to the particulars of the MK structures they might have been working with, yet you proceed to give them special training in the use of limpet mines, making them more dangerous to you as a police force?

MR PRETORIUS: The limpet mine training, perhaps you have misunderstood me, you must remember that the limpet mine training took place at a different stage. It was only after the decision, after I had cleared it with Gen Nienaber that we could launch an operation, that I sent the people back to be trained with the limpet mines.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand your evidence quite correctly in that regard. They had to be trained initially in the handling of AK47s. Later on Moni was brought into the picture to give them training in the use of the explosives.

MR PRETORIUS: The limpet mines, yes, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you proceed to do that? There was nothing to suggest that Mr Lengene was making any headway or progress with his infiltration?

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, but that is why, if you look at my explanation, it was after I had been to Gen Nienaber and told him that we had a problem. I have set out a number of options which had to be considered, were we to arrest the persons and if we arrested them, they would be released the following day, or we could detain them for 5 or 10 days, but in either event they would be released at some point. We did not have sufficient information for the investigating officers so that these persons could be charged in a court of law. We didn't have enough physical evidence to obtain these persons so that we could charge them in a court of law and only after I had spoken to Gen Nienaber and said, we're going to have to do something because we can't simply leave these people like that and it was then decided that I could continue, the idea with the limpet mines was to go back and train these people with limpet mines because we already had the plan to kill them.

CHAIRPERSON: So the reason why Mr Moni was brought into the process of infiltration initiated by Mr Lengene was because you had already conceived this plan of how to dispose of the activists, is that what you are saying?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson. Mr Moni was brought in the first time to be presented to them as the MK Commander from abroad. I thought that if Moni was to be presented to them as the person who had just returned from abroad, these guys would say "Oh well, here we have some other playmates of yours, let's introduce you", but that plan didn't work either and that was the first phase that we attempted to initiate with Mr Moni, to reassure them further and to convince them that this was MK because this was an MK Commander coming in especially from abroad to visit them, so it was a mind-taking situation. We wanted to take their minds, so that they would see that more people were coming in from abroad.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Lengene was actually being correct then when he says that the reason why Moni was introduced was because he, Lengene, did not possess special knowledge about explosives and Mr Moni and Mr Monyane had to be brought in because of their special knowledge with regard to the use of explosives.

MR PRETORIUS: Moni is correct when he says that, but at a later stage, with the training, because it is so, Lengene didn't know how the SPNT limpet mine would function, so he is correct when he says so, but at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: How late was he introduced? I thought you said he was introduced to the group a month or one and a half months after Mr Lengene had infiltrated the group?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, I stand by what I have stated. In other words, the first introduction was not about the limpet mines, the first introduction was, according to my recollection, "I am the Commander of MK from abroad and I have come to see how things are progressing here on ground level". Then we continued. There were a number of visits. I don't know, perhaps Moni could tell us how many times he had contact with them, because I cannot recall and then we saw that these things were also not working so well. In other words, I thought that it would work, I thought that this would be the breakthrough for us to achieve better information but it didn't work.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I am merely trying to ascertain the facts, I'm just putting to you what Mr Lengene has said in his application as the reason why Moni was initially introduced into this infiltration process.

MR PRETORIUS: No, I accept that Mr Lengene said this. Unfortunately Mr Lengene is no longer with us so that he can come here and clarify whether or not this is precisely so and I think that when Mr Lengene compiled the statement, he did not really give all the facts in his statement and I am sure that if he was here today he would have been able to recall what I have just stated.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Chairperson. Did you experience it as a possibility that this group possibly did not have any contact with MK members?

MR PRETORIUS: No, Chairperson, there was too much information which indicated that. 

MR VAN HEERDEN: This would then be despite the many infiltration procedures?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: How long was your discussion with Gen Nienaber?

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, I don't know whether it appears as such in my report. We are not just referring to one meeting with Gen Nienaber, I state there that I kept Gen Nienaber up to date on a consistent level. Unless you wish to give me a specific date or time, but I cannot recall how long our discussions were, 3 minutes, 10 minutes, perhaps even an hour.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Were you in the same building?

MR PRETORIUS: I went to see Mr Nienaber at the Protea offices. As it emanated from the evidence, my offices were situated in the west and the east respectively. The one was at Kibler Park, the other one was at Zuurbekom. Those were my offices, so I went to see Mr Nienaber at the Protea Security Offices.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you discuss this specific matter during one specific meeting, or was this also a continuous matter?

MR PRETORIUS: Are you referring to the point where we decided to commit the act?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, to commit the act.

MR PRETORIUS: I am certain that there may have been one or two such discussions, definitely not only one.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And he was up to date with the information as you conveyed it?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you identify this as a problem to him, or did he himself realise the potential problem?

MR PRETORIUS: I think that the General realised for himself, as I reported to him continuously, I also sketched the problematic situation which was emerging and I believe that he must have been able to realise this himself.

MR VAN HEERDEN: In paragraph 51, page 10 of your statement you also say that the unit was ready to depart for abroad to receive military training.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Where would they have received this training abroad?

MR PRETORIUS: With all respect Chairperson, I did not know this.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Didn't you attempt to determine this?

MR PRETORIUS: As I've already stated, we tried to determine all sorts of information. This would have been a priority, among others, but in all honesty I must tell you today that I am not certain of what precisely the information indicated in terms of where they were going, to which country.

MR VAN HEERDEN: So you did not determined it?

MR VISSER: He's just said that he tried, but Chairperson I have a wider objection. Really, I've been listening to my learned friend's questions and one has to ask oneself the question, "Where is he going?" The Amnesty Committee has, in the decision just handed down, implored all legal representative to note the provisions of (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 20 and to contain yourselves and direct yourselves to those issues. I don't even know that my learned friend is opposing the matter or if he isn't opposing. On the meeting of the 5th of February, it was specifically decided by legal representatives, to which my learned friend will be bound, because that was a decision taken that when you appear for victims, you must signify beforehand whether you are going to oppose and if so, on what basis. My learned friend's done nothing of the sort. I haven't interrupted him and I've been sitting here very quietly, but really Chairperson, the question is, we don't see any relevance in any of the questions which my learned friend is putting to this witness and if you're going to allow him, well then so be it, but no relevance at all as to the requirements of the Act. Is he opposing this application, or what's happening here? We'd really like to know, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: With regard to your inquiry whether Mr van Heerden is opposing this application on behalf of the victims or not, I thought you had been brought up to speed with regard to why he is here, that he's here on a watching brief, to make sure that there is full disclosure. Obviously they were not there, they can't say what actually happened, they can listen and make their own determination, whether in their opinion they think there is full disclosure or not. Obviously that is a subjective question in so far as they are concerned as victims and we have our own interest with regard to the requirements of Section 20 (i) as to whether the applicant has met with the requirement of full disclosure. I would have thought that Mr van Heerden would have brought you up to speed with regard to his conditional opposition in this matter.

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson if I may reply very briefly to that, be that as it may, the question is, does that authorise him to ask questions which are totally irrelevant, which have nothing to do with the issue of full disclosure of relevant facts, because these are not relevant facts that he's addressing.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well now that you are coming with that objection, Mr Visser, please let's afford Mr van Heerden an opportunity to respond to your objection.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair indeed there is no formal objection to this application. I've been instructed to represent the three families in this matter. They need to know what happened with the three deceased people and that goes to the basis of full disclosure. To get a full disclosure, one must ask pertinent and specific questions regarding most of the aspects relating or preceding the death of the three people.

CHAIRPERSON: The evidence covered by the applicant already. What is being suggested by Mr Visser is that your questions are not relevant to the aspects of the evidence already covered by Mr Pretorius in so far as we have to decide whether to grant him amnesty or not, in relation to the incident in question.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Madam Chair, I submit it is relevant because the people made a decision to eliminate the three people. My last question was to ascertain what background information Gen Nienaber got from Mr Pretorius.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And I merely tried to determine the background to this order being given.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I will allow that question. You may proceed, Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Last time we paused at the discussions that you had with Mr Nienaber, and that he himself had recognised the problem with regard to these persons. How long before the planned operation did this last meeting take place?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I wasn't afforded an opportunity to reply. That's the problem which I have with this cross-examination. What does it matter how long before, how long the discussion lasted, where it was, who was there? What has all this got to do with the amnesty application before you, with respect?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden, will you respond to Mr Visser? I'm sure there is a point to where you want to take us to.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Madam Chair, I thought you already made a ruling with regard to my cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And on that basis I proceeded asking the next question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now an objection has been raised now about the question that you have precisely put to Mr Pretorius about how long, I didn't even get your question, let me get your question before I can allow you to respond to Mr Visser's objection.

MR VAN HEERDEN: My last question was, how long before the death of the three people was the last meeting with Gen Nienaber.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, what really is it that you are objecting to?

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I'm objecting to a waste of time, but I you're going to allow these questions, I think - I've placed my position on record. I believe, with respect, that I'm well within the decision of the Amnesty Committee's decision in the London Bomb, where legal advisers were implored the stay with relevant issues, it's not happening here, but I'll leave it in your hands.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it is happening Mr Visser, I think we will decide whether there is any waste of time being caused by Counsel or not. Mr van Heerden, you may proceed to put that question.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair. 

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chair, I suspect that on the day before the incident took place, I was with Mr Nienaber and told him that everything was fine, that he didn't have to worry about anything and that everything was going according to plan.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you then make the further arrangements?

MR PRETORIUS: At that stage arrangements in this regard had already been made.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And these were made by you?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct, by me.

MR VAN HEERDEN: That would involve the three limpet mines. Let me just clarify my position for you. It is very important to the family to know what gave rise to the decision to kill these three persons and it is my intention to take a leap to the day of the killing of these three persons. 

MR PRETORIUS: On that day, the day of the incident, if we now refer to the course of the day because this incident actually took place that evening, I already had the detonators in my possession along with the limpet mines. 

MR VAN HEERDEN: Then I will not discuss the specific actions with you any further. We are all aware that the three persons were killed, but I would just like to know, with regard to Mr Nceba, was there ever any post mortem inquest which was held?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And what happened to the remains, let's put it as such?

MR PRETORIUS: Unfortunately I cannot tell you, but what I do know is that the person, Nceba, was given a State burial, buried as a pauper because I did not assist with the identification when the person who dealt with that matter requested whether or not anybody had any information which could identify the person who had died. At no stage did I say, "Yes I know this man, this is Nceba who died". I believe that he was given a pauper's burial by the police or the State.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Do you believe so, or do you know so?

MR PRETORIUS: I think that Mr Nienaber would know.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Well then don't say if you don't know, just give evidence about what you do know. Thank you.

MR PRETORIUS: Thank you Chairperson.

MR VAN HEERDEN: And the other two persons who were later set alight, you were present?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, I was present.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Could you give some indication of exactly where this took place?

MR PRETORIUS: As I've already stated in my affidavit, when we drove from Geis to Zuurbekom, by instruction to the black members was and I'm now referring to Moni, Olifant, Lengene and Monyane, my instruction to them was to drive ahead with their car and that they had to drive for approximately one hour in the direction of Rustenburg, approximately one hour on the road and that if they saw a road which was dark enough, they should simply take it. What I'm actually trying to tell you is that I can give you the direction and the time but they, who drove ahead, would be in a much better position to get to the point perhaps where we dropped off the members in a dry river bed. That is all that I can recall.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you. After the incident, were any searches conducted at the homes of these persons?

MR PRETORIUS: No, not that I know of.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Would it not have been fruitful perhaps to search these places?

MR PRETORIUS: But why would we want to go to the places of those persons? If I had initiated for them to go to the homes, the investigating officer would have asked, "But why is it necessary for me to search the home of this person? Who is he? Where is he?" and in so doing, I would have exposed myself if I had suggested anything like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why would such a search have been conducted, Mr van Heerden? What purpose would have been served by those searches?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Madam Chair, he had information regarding certain activities of the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR VAN HEERDEN: There might have been weapons at the house for instance, but I will leave it there, I won't take it any further. I've got no further questions, Madam Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van Heerden. Mr Visser, do you wish to re-examine?

MR VISSER: Yes, several issues, thank you Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Pretorius, I think that you may have misunderstood a question which was put by the Chairperson. She asked you why you gave the AK47 guns to these activists and you dealt with this on page 12, paragraph 58 and in your evidence in chief you repeated this word for word. Would you just repeat sub-paragraph 4 in that regard?

MR PRETORIUS:

&#9;&#9;"Sgt Lengene, Cons Moni and Cons Monyane, would everyone be armed with an AK47 in order to give them greater credibility and to enable them to protect themselves against Nceba and his members if necessary. It was also considered that Nceba would arrive with MK members during the operation."

MR VISSER: Yes and that was also...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, unfortunately I can't recall myself verbally, I might have put that question, but I thought I was more interested in why training in AK47 ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: No, that's a different matter.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

MR VISSER: This was a previous question, I'll deal with that immediately now. Perhaps just before I get to that, well, we'll just deal with it now. I know this is two years ago, let us just try to recall the chronology of this. Lengene infiltrated this group?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In the beginning was there any talk of weapons-training, or being sent out for training?

MR PRETORIUS: No, none whatsoever.

MR VISSER: But eventually expectations emerged and they exerted pressure?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: And Lengene conveyed this to you?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then according to your evidence, at a certain stage you suggested to Lengene that he show them firearms?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Was it subsequent or at the same time that you told Lengene to offer to train them in the use of weapons, or was this later?

MR PRETORIUS: If I recall correctly it was later.

MR VISSER: Then Moni and Monyane arrived at the scene.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And now a meeting was to take place in a hotel in Hillbrow?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you then issue any orders that in order to satisfy these persons, an offer of training should be made and that firearms should be shown to them?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And was it after that meeting with the activists, that it was reported to you that they already knew everything about AK47s and hand grenades?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: But then you heard that they didn't know about limpet mines?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now I think you stated this upon more than one occasion, but just to make it clear, you did not give them training in limpet mines in order to make them more dangerous?

MR PRETORIUS: No.

MR VISSER: You already decided with Nienaber that they would be eliminated?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Before they had ever even touched a limpet mine?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct. 

MR VISSER: On page 2, in paragraph 6 you have set out what your working area was.

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You were involved in intelligence collection in terms of your statement with regard to unlawful activities, meetings, terrorism, murders, defections by members of the following organisation, the South African Communist Party?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And all of the others who are mentioned here, African National Congress, MK, PAC, Azapo, Department of Intelligence and Security, Azanian People's Liberation Army, Black Consciousness Movement, MK Military Intelligence, MK Special Ops, Azanian National Liberation Army and the list goes up to 17.

MR PRETORIUS: That's correct.

MR VISSER: In other words you were involved with threats and activities of Liberation Movements and their members?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Were policemen the target of any of these liberation movements as part of the struggle?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes.

MR VISSER: Which liberation movements?

MR PRETORIUS: The SACP, the ANC, MK, PAC, DIA, Apla.

MR VISSER: Yes, you may pause there. It is quite clear that the police, among others, was a definite target with regard to the strategies of the liberation movements.

MR PRETORIUS: Correct.

MR VISSER: Because they were seen as the long arm of the government and that you protected the government?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: I believe those are the relevant issues which have arisen from cross-examination.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: I should have probably not given you an opportunity to re-examine at that time, because I'm not sure if the members of my Committee are going to ask questions, but you will be afforded another opportunity if you wish to take up re-exam emanating from the questions that would have been put to Mr Pretorius by my members. Mr Malan do you have any questions to put to Mr Pretorius?

MR MALAN: I had a question or two but I'm just checking. It has been covered and I think I am covered, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Whilst you are checking, maybe I should just find out from Mr Pretorius, at what stage were you introduced to Mr Moni? When did you come to have Mr Moni coming to your offices and being part of this infiltration operation?

M PRETORIUS: May I explain to you what had happened there, Honourable Chairperson? Col Eugene de Kok from Vlakplaas, the Commander there, had at some stage spoken to me and told me that the Security Head Office wanted to decentralise Vlakplaas, in other words briefly, certain Vlakplaas members had to be redeployed to other divisions and a few of the askaris had to come to Soweto, am I interested in them and that specific day I told him "yes, it sounds like a good option, I am interested in them but I cannot just take anybody, just like that. I would firstly like to see the persons and see whom they are" and it was left there and during the intelligence operation with Lengene, I realised the problem that Lengene could not generate intelligence and I recalled what de Kok had told me and I went to Vlakplaas where I asked de Kok: "Is it possible that I can get two persons from you to work with me and so I can surmise whether this person is suited and if we could get along" and then he gave Monyane and Moni to me and he told the persons, "There you are, go". It may be that I may have told de Kok that I was busy with an operation, a flag operation, an Intelligence operation and that I may use these persons and they might be of great assistance to me but that is where it was left, Chairperson. I don't know whether that answers your question.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. When you first came into contact with Mr Moni, was he in the company of Mr Olifant?

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall whether I met Moni at Vlakplaas or whether Olifant brought him to our offices. I cannot recall that, maybe Mr Moni would be able to assist us.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. During your first meeting - or can you recall what happened when you first made contact with Mr Moni?

MR PRETORIUS: Yes, Chairperson, I explained the conditions to Moni and Monyane that they would be there for a period of time to see if they were suited and I would give them a car and they would assist in the gathering of intelligence and that they would only be there for a trial period, that is what I can recall briefly.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you inform them that one of the operations that they may have to gather information on your behalf, would be the infiltration operation the Mr Lengene was already involved in?

MR PRETORIUS: At some stage I did say it, but definitely not the first day, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you not, right at the beginning, advise Mr Moni that he will have to assist Lengene in training certain comrades in the use of explosives?

MR PRETORIUS: I did tell him, Chairperson, but as I have said, at a later stage I did tell him.

CHAIRPERSON: But not at the beginning?

MR PRETORIUS: Definitely not in the beginning.

CHAIRPERSON: I know it is difficult for you to recollect because of the lapse of time, but can you estimate how long after he had been in your unit, did you make mention of the fact that he may have to assist Lengene in the infiltration operation? Would you say it was just a week, or a few months after he had been in your unit?

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, I would say that it could have been within a week, it could have been within a week that I told him that we are busy with such an operation and that he had to assist Lengene but I really cannot recall, it could have been within a week or it could have been longer, but I cannot recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moni - I think it's only fair that this be put to you to enable you to comment, Mr Moni in his affidavit on page 27 states that you intimated that since the comrades, meaning Mr Khumalo, Mr Ngwenya and Mr Nceba had been trained by him, they posed a danger and you then asked what should be done to these activists. This appears on page 27, paragraph 48, that's line number from the bottom, from line 8.

MR PRETORIUS: Chairperson, I would just like to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have this affidavit? It's basically the same except for - a different page will be on the bundle, on bundle 2.

MR PRETORIUS: Paragraph 48, which line?

CHAIRPERSON: Line 8 from the bottom.

MR PRETORIUS: It's possible that I may have said these words to Const Moni, it's logical that I asked them: "What do you propose, what would be the next step, what shall we do?" So it is possible that I may have asked him, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What I want to know is it possible that you might have said to him: "Now that the activists have been trained, that poses a danger". Is it possible that you might have said that?

MR PRETORIUS: I will concede that Chairperson that I may have possibly said that, because it is logical.

CHAIRPERSON: He also states on page 28, which would be the next page, that you told them that you were going to speak to your friends in Pretoria to supply you with doctored limpet mines and that Mr Lengene had immediately objected to this plan. Is this possible?

MR PRETORIUS: No. If he did object, as you say Chairperson, then he did not object towards me. He may have told the other persons, the other members, but he never told that to me.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata do you have any questions to put to Mr Pretorius?

MR MOTATA: You actually covered the ones I had, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: There was one issue that I wanted to canvass with Mr Pretorius. I just want to quickly go through my notes to see if that has been covered.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, while you're going through your notes, I've received an anxious request that we take a short break. Virtually immediately.

CHAIRPERSON: I can suspect who the request comes from, from the announcer himself. We shall have a five minute adjournment.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, emanating from the questions by the bench, do you have any re-examination?

MR VISSER: Chairperson no, but there is one ...

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, sorry, before Mr Visser proceeds, just in connection with the question as to who collected Moni at Vlakplaas, I intended to raise this with Mr Moni, as far as Mr Olifant is concerned, but now during the further examination Mr Pretorius also touched upon that and I just want to put the version as far as may be relevant in this regard to him. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you acting for Mr Olifant ...(indistinct - mike not on)?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

MR LAMEY: Yes, no I just wanted ...

CHAIRPERSON: I'm not on record, I'm sorry about that.

MR LAMEY: I just wanted to put to Mr Pretorius then in this regard what the version is of Mr Olifant, what he recalls.

CHAIRPERSON: I can't hear you. What is it that you intend to do Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, during the examination from the bench, the questions were raised as to who collected Moni and Monyane from Vlakplaas initially and I do have instructions in this regard from Mr Olifant.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you will put those when your turn comes, then you will be able to put them on record. I don't think there is a need for you to put that to Mr Pretorius.

MR LAMEY: But my instructions are, may I just say this on record, that Mr Olifant recalls that Mr Pretorius arrived with them at the farm when he saw them.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you know, I'm not trying to prevent you from putting that to Mr Pretorius. I do not have that version right now before me, so I think it will be unfair to put that version to Mr Pretorius, when we don't have it on paper. When his turn comes to give that evidence, he will give that evidence. You also omitted when you had the chance, Mr Lamey, to put that version to Mr Pretorius, but for what we can get out of the whole process, Mr Pretorius is clear on this issue, he cannot remember how Mr Moni was brought into his unit, how he arrived, he can't recall.

MR LAMEY: Very well. As I said, it was just touched upon in Mr Pretorius's evidence lately. I intended to put it to Mr Moni and as far as it may have been relevant, I just wanted to put it to Mr Pretorius in all fairness. If it's not ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Well you may proceed to put it to Mr Pretorius, even though you had had your chance, Mr Lamey, to so do, but I think - Mr Pretorius, it is now being put to you by Mr Lamey that Mr Olifant will testify that he's the one who brought Mr Moni to you.

MR PRETORIUS: Honourable Chairperson, as I have listened, the way I understand it, when I arrived there with them at our offices, as I have said it is possible that they drove with me, I just cannot recall, but I will concede that they drove with me to our offices.

CHAIRPERSON: You can't remember. You are conceding because you can't remember? 

MR PRETORIUS: I cannot recall but it is possible.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, you are going to ...

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson, yes. I did neglect to put one issue which was raised by Mr Motata before. Could I ask your permission just to ask an elucidation just on that one point.

CHAIRPERSON: I will reluctantly allow you, as I did Mr Lamey.

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Pretorius, there is a perception that all black people in this country hated the police and wanted nothing to do with them. Was that your experience?

MR PRETORIUS: That is untrue.

MR VISSER: Then what is your experience?

MR PRETORIUS: That many people, literally thousands, while I cannot mention any figures, but there were many people who were favourably inclined towards us and who supported us and assisted us.

MR VISSER: And who requested your support to assist them?

MR PRETORIUS: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Pretorius, I'm happy to announce that you are excused as a witness.

MR PRETORIUS: Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser. 

MR VISSER: Chairperson, this morning informally you raised an issue with myself and other legal representatives as to the sequence of the witnesses. We are quite happy to continue with the second of our three witnesses, if that pleases you now, otherwise if you want to go along with what you suggested this morning, to call others in between, we will abide by whatever you wish to do, but we're ready to go on with Steenberg.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I think you are correct that the Chair suggested the sequence of the witnesses in this incident. It was merely a suggestion. The Chair was also given an impression that counsel was ad idem with her suggestion with regard to that sequence. If that is still the case, we would be happy to have that sequence which would mean therefore that we would have the application of Mr Moni, that would require Mr Moni to be called next as a witness.

MR LAMEY: Perhaps Madam Chair if I might intervene at this stage with your leave, I certainly have no difficulty opening Mr Moni's application at this stage. Given the lateness of the hour though, it is most likely his evidence is to be of a longer duration than that of the other two applicants and perhaps from a convenience point of view, it might be easier to deal with them at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Merwe, are you in a position to proceed with your two applicants?

MR VAN DER MERWE: Unfortunately Madam Chair, I expected, because we agreed that they would be last, that they will be available tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. In that case we shall then proceed with the evidence of Mr Steenberg, with the understanding that upon conclusion of Mr Steenberg's evidence, we will tomorrow be ready to proceed with the evidence of Mr Moni.

MR LAMEY: Absolutely Madam Chair, absolutely. 

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Not to be obstructive Chairperson, but if Steenberg is going to be called now the whole purpose of interjecting another witness seems to fall away. Perhaps we should just continue with Nienaber and get them all finished. But I'll leave it in your hands. Chairperson I call Mr Steenberg.

NAME: &#9;DANIEL JOHAN STEENBERG

APPLICATION NO:&#9;AM4374/96

--------------------------------------------------------------------------DANIEL JOHAN STEENBERG: (sworn states)

MR VISSER: Thank you Commissioner.

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Steenberg, you are also an applicant in this matter, is that correct?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Your application can be found in bundle 1, from 257 to 270 and you deal with this particular matter from 264 to 269, is that correct?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: In your application form with regard to paragraph 7(a) and 7(b) where the question is put whether you were a member or a supporter of a political organisation, you responded not applicable. Is that answer correct or incorrect?

MR STEENBERG: I think I may have amended it to Nationalist Party and then supporter.

MR VISSER: That would be paragraph 7 (a) and (b). Yes, you have given evidence previously in the amnesty application with regard to MK George and MK Brown where this application and it's amendment was granted.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Chairperson we would then ask you for purposes of the present application, to grant a similar amendment to this applicant as in the case of the previous applicants.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will grant the amendment, Mr Visser. Mr Wagener has previously advanced very good reasons why such an amendment should be granted. It is on that basis that we proceed to grant such an amendment.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: May I, just for your own peace of mind, say that in respect of all the applicants that you represent, we'll take it that you will be proceeding to make a similar application and if you just mention, so that we can for purposes of the record, indicate that the application will be granted, without having to go through it.

MR VISSER: Thank you, we're indebted to you Chairperson. With the exception of the amendment which was granted, do you confirm the content of your amnesty application, subject to the evidence that you will deliver today?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: You have done so previously, but do you also confirm the content of Exhibit A and do you request that the Committee would consider and incorporate the information with your application?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You were also mistaken in your affidavit with the date, not necessarily that you're mistaken but you indicated it as approximately 1988/89 while we now have a more specific date from Mr Olifant in bundle 1 page 168, that it was indeed the 29th of July 1989.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct. I will accept that.

MR VISSER: Very well. Then during the period 88 to 89 you were second in command under Pretorius, who has just given evidence and you were in this Intelligence Branch of the Security Branch in Soweto.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you then confirm the introductory evidence which he gave with regard to the general political situation and the situation of violence as well as the situation pertaining to Nceba and his group.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You refer to the relevant paragraphs, that would be 4 to 27 of the General Background and then 28 to 42 of his Exhibit B with regard to Nceba. Is that correct?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, paragraph 4.

MR VISSER: And with regard to you, there was authorisation for this particular action.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you also refer to Pretorius's written evidence, as contained within Exhibit B, in paragraphs 43 to 57.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you were informed about it.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Now with regard to the action, may I just say this, in paragraph 6 you confirmed the content of paragraphs 58 to 65, 67 and 70 to 76 and then also 78 to 80 of Exhibit B of Pretorius's evidence and the summary of his evidence?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you then also confirm up to and including paragraph 12, the content thereof.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: When you undertook the reconnaissance, can you recall whether or not Olifant was present because I see that in paragraph 10 you state that he was present.

MR STEENBERG: I cannot recall it because this is quite some time ago, but I would not dispute the matter. If he says that he was not there, or that he did not travel with us, I know that all of us reconnoitred the places.

MR VISSER: Until this morning when you heard that it was denied that he was there, were you well indeed under the impression that he was there?

MR STEENBERG: Yes.

MR VISSER: As on page 13 of Exhibit B, you accompanied Monyane and Nceba that evening to a point on the Midway railway line.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And what took place there? In paragraph 13 you have dealt with it. Just tell the Committee what you experienced there that evening.

MR STEENBERG: From a distance, I basically monitored the incident and I saw a flash, after that I heard an explosion and I realised that the limpet mine had detonated as planned. Afterwards I withdrew to the safe-house and the prearranged rendezvous point which was at Geis near Zuurbekom.

MR VISSER: Did Monyane travel with you in your vehicle?

MR STEENBERG: No, he travelled separately, I was alone in the vehicle.

MR VISSER: And then you returned independently to Geis.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And it was there that reports were made from which it appeared that the two other limpet mines had not exploded and that those two persons, Elias and Castro, had been shot dead.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What was your reaction to this news?

MR STEENBERG: Strictly speaking, I was surprised because I had expected that the limpet mines would detonate and I realised that in the same way that Col Pretorius has stated, something had to be done to the situation in order to avoid exposure of the entire operation.

MR VISSER: Can you recall whether, before you departed from Midway, that Col Pretorius gave you an order to ensure that if the limpet mine, which Nceba had, did not explode he would be shot dead?

MR STEENBERG: I cannot recall it, but from the circumstances I would have said that someone would have been able to infer this quite easily that something would have to be done because the objective was to kill them.

MR VISSER: And did they receive any weapons to take with them, that would be Moni, Lenyene and Monyane?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct. All of them received AK47s.

MR VISSER: All three of them?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And after you had decided that something had to be done, did you then firstly collect the body of Castro?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, that was near Kliptown.

MR VISSER: And what did you then do with the body?

MR STEENBERG: We took the body to Nancefield and dropped it off on the side of the road so that, because we were on our way to New Canada and if the police were to apprehend us, they would not find the body with us in the vehicle.

MR VISSER: Very well. You departed and you then found Elias, is that correct?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, near New Canada.

MR VISSER: And what was your impression? Was it your impression that he was still alive?

MR STEENBERG: I cannot say that because I was under the impression that he was dead.

MR VISSER: Did you examine him in any way in order to determine whether or not he was dead?

MR STEENBERG: No.

MR VISSER: You then returned to the farm Geis, is that correct?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, that was after we had once again collected the other body near Nancefield.

MR VISSER: Very well. And then at Geis you loaded certain things such as petrol and tyres.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then you departed in the direction of Rustenburg.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Can you recall who drove ahead?

MR STEENBERG: The other members with the exception of myself and Col Pretorius, drove ahead and we issued them with a radio so that if they would run into a roadblock they would be able to notify us so that we could perhaps take a detour in order to avoid being apprehended by such persons in a roadblock.

MR VISSER: And find you then with the two bodies?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You arrived at a certain point where there was a dry river bed.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And the bodies were placed in the river bed with the tyres and the petrol and they were set alight.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Afterwards you returned. Where to?

MR STEENBERG: We returned to Midway or actually Soweto. We saw the activities taking place at the Midway explosion scene. I cannot recall precisely where we waited, but afterwards we told the people that we had information that there were a further two limpet mines at other points. We then went to assist Frans van Tonder in searching for the limpet mine at New Canada. We found it and after we had found it, Col Pretorius and I went to Kliptown section. We looked for the limpet mine there at the exchange box, after which I diffused the bomb by means of a control detonation.

MR VISSER: Are you also a demolitions expert?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you ever return to the place where the bodies were destroyed?

MR STEENBERG: No, I will never be able to find the place again.

MR VISSER: And on the evening when you were at the various scenes, for example at Midway and Kliptown and New Canada, did you see Grobelaar there?

MR STEENBERG: Yes, he was at the scene at Midway, but I cannot recall whether he was at New Canada. It is possible that he was there.

MR VISSER: But he was definitely at Midway as far as you know? He was aware of the operation to eliminate these three activists.

MR STEENBERG: No, not at all. He was definitely not aware of it.

MR VISSER: Because you say in paragraph 26 that you realise that you have made yourself liable for a number of crimes and delicts such as defeating the ends of justice, conspiracy to murder, murder, accessory after the facts, illegal possession and application of firearms and explosive devices and possible other crimes and delicts.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: What do you have to say about the allegations of Olifant, that he received money. Chairperson, I wonder whether that issue hasn't been sorted out? The issue of the money, I think that's been sorted out. Thank you. And then you have also set out in paragraph 29 to 32 what your political objectives were that you sought to achieve.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And how you perceived your situation during the struggle of the past.

MR STEENBERG: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you then request amnesty as it has been set out?

MR STEENBERG: That is correct. 

MR VISSER: As it pleases you, Chairperson, nothing further.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr van der Merwe.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you Madam Chair, I have no questions for this witness.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader.

MR LOADER: May it please you Madam Chair, there's just one aspect and that again relates to; 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LOADER: Mr Steenberg, your knowledge surrounding whether or not specific instructions were given inter alia to Mr Moni and Mr Lengene and Monyane, as to what ought to be done in the event of the limpet mine if it would not to detonate. What were the specific instructions that you recall?

MR STEENBERG: I never heard Col Pretorius tell anybody that if the limpet mine did not detonate, the people could be shot, but seen in the light of the fact that these persons had been issued with AK47s and in the light of the fact that it was our objective to kill these persons, to me there is a reality that these persons may have assumed, or that they may have deduced the idea from something that Col Pretorius said. I cannot testify and say that I actually heard Mr Pretorius say, "Listen, if the limpets don't work", just as he gave evidence previously, the limpet mines had to work. There wasn't any question about that according to me. Because the limpet mines had not worked, I was just as surprised as anybody else to hear that they had malfunctioned. I never thought that the mines wouldn't work, but I never heard Pretorius tell anybody that if the limpet mines malfunctioned, they could shoot these persons, but I accept this in the light...

CHAIRPERSON: If an opinion is being sought from you, such a question will be put to you, otherwise just confine yourself to the question that has been put to you. You did not hear any instruction from Mr Pretorius in this regard, that's what you have to say.

MR STEENBERG: No, I did not hear anything like that.

CHAIRPERSON: Confine yourself to questions being put to you. If an opinion is being sought from you, counsel will indicate that he wishes you to give an opinion and if you think that it's a reasonable opinion for your to formulate we'll allow him an opportunity to seek that kind of opinion from you otherwise we only want facts.

MR STEENBERG: I take the amendment to heart and I will not go off like that again.

MR LOADER: In other words, am I correct in assuming that if you were shocked about what had happened after the incident, you were not really shocked about the fact that the activists were shot dead, but you were more shocked about the fact that the limpet mines had malfunctioned, is that what shocked or surprised you?

MR STEENBERG: Well I cannot really give a yes or a no answer here, may I just say something? I was shocked by the circumstances which led the limpet mines to malfunction and created a whole new set of circumstances, that was the reason.

MR LOADER: If you'll grant me a moment Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may be granted. Whilst counsel is still trying to get further instructions from Mr Moni, may I just find out, during your evidence in chief you were quite firm that Grobelaar did not know, nor was he aware of this operation for which you are now seeking amnesty. How sure are you? How do you know that he wasn't aware? Did you discuss this with Grobelaar subsequent to the occurrence of this incident?

MR STEENBERG: No, because if he had known about it, one would have realised that by means of his conduct or something that he had said and by nature of the situation we would not have cleared any such matters with him because he was basically a Commander just like Pretorius, on a relatively equal level even though he may have had a higher rank. It wasn't necessary for us to have any clearance from him, or any approval from him for such an operation. I would say no,, because no mention was made by him or by anybody else that he knew about it and it was never told to him in my presence.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR LOADER: I'm indebted, Madam Chair. I don't have any further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LOADER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Loader. Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Mr Steenberg are you aware whether Mr Grobelaar was the officer on duty that evening?

MR STEENBERG: I cannot say.

MR LAMEY: If he had been the officer on duty, don't you think that he must have known what was going on?

MR MALAN: Mr Lamey didn't you deal with this with the previous witness. Is it really necessary to put this hypothesis to this witness once again?

MR LAMEY: Very well, I will then leave it at that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey we don't want to interfere with your cross-examination but what value will his response be, I mean he is a junior officer. You've put this hypothesis to a person much senior, the person who was his Commander, Mr Pretorius.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: We just don't want to be unfair and interfere with your cross-examination, by the same token, we just don't want to allow what would ultimately be of no value to us in ultimately deciding whether to grant Mr Steenberg amnesty or not, particularly where this issue has already been appropriately covered with Mr Pretorius.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson. But you did not have any personal knowledge, whatever you say with regard to the knowledge of Grobelaar, that as far as you know he did not.

MR STEENBERG: Yes, that is so, Chairperson.

MR LAMEY: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you Madam Chair, I have no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan, do you have any questions to put to Mr Steenberg?

MR MALAN: I don't have anything, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata.

ADV MOTATA: I've got none, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you wish to re-examine at all?

MR VISSER: Yes, but I have no questions Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Steenberg, you may step down as a witness.

MR STEENBERG: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser I know I have indicated to you that I will prefer to go along with the suggestion I shared with you earlier this morning, but considering the fact that we still have an hour, it's 4 o'clock, we are going to request the indulgence of our translators to afford us an opportunity to stay a little longer. I don't think the evidence of Mr Nienaber is going to be that long, so we would be happy if you'd proceed and complete all the applicants for whom you appear.

MR VISSER: Certainly, Chairperson. I take it that all my colleagues are also available to sit after 4, I'm not sure, but they will object if they're not. Could I call Gen Nienaber?

NAME:&#9;SAREL PETRUS NIENABER

APPLICATION NO:&#9;AM4391/96

--------------------------------------------------------------------------SAREL PETRUS NIENABER: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: General you are an applicant for amnesty in this matter. You amnesty application is embodied in bundle 1 page 314 to page 322 (where you deal with this matter 315 to 317) is that correct?

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In your amnesty form you have also referred to paragraph 7(a) and (b) as not applicable, the same amendment to be granted in this case as well. 

CHAIRPERSON: Accordingly done.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. Do you confirm the contents of Exhibit A that you have studied and do you request that this be incorporated into your evidence?

MR NIENABER: I do so.

MR VISSER: And you have Exhibit B which is the evidence before this Committee. Do you confirm the correctness thereof except for certain mistakes which we will point out momentarily?

MR NIENABER: I do so.

MR VISSER: You have referred in January 1988 you were appointed as Divisional Commander of the Security Branch Soweto. Is that date 1988 correct?

MR NIENABER: No Chairperson, that is not correct, it was in 1989.

MR VISSER: And below you was Pretorius in the Intelligence Division?

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You have heard the evidence of Col Pretorius and you have beforehand had opportunity to read his statement. You say in paragraph 5 that you agree with these statements from paragraphs 4 to 27 of Exhibit B is that correct?

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In paragraph 6 you were also referred to the slaughter amongst police officers that you experienced during that time and you have said you have no statistics to support you but according to your memory two police officers on average died in the area of Soweto?

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: In general, van der Merwe's evidence which was heard by the original Amnesty Committee on page 3 of the Judgment of Brig Cronje, Gen van der Merwe said that during the struggle of the past 989 police officers were killed country wide. Would this concur with your impression of what was ongoing at that stage?

MR NIENABER: That is correct. 

MR VISSER: With regard to police officers?

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You have referred to the intelligence which the Security Branch depended upon and which you have referred to instances which gave rise to penetration operations which you referred to as false flag operations with regard to Mr Nceba and his unit and the members whom we are aware of here now. Do you confirm the information in Exhibit B, paragraph 28 to 42?

MR NIENABER: Yes, I do, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you say, according to the information that you had, you say in paragraph 11: "It was clear that the AK unit in Mofolo, Amakatadra was a hard nut to crack." Is that correct?

MR NIENABER: Yes, that is so.

MR VISSER: And the persons amongst whom Mr Nceba and of course his comrades you regarded as trained terrorists?

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And that information was indeed confirmed later by Mr Peter Lengene that they indeed received training in the use of AK47s and hand grenades, is that correct?

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You gave authorisation for this action. You have listened to the evidence of Col Pretorius and you confirm his evidence in Exhibit B and in your paragraph 14, paragraph 44 to 57.

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you agree with him word for word as to what you had considered court orientated action, the possibility of a turning their heads and the regarding of the potential danger and all other options which you considered.

MR NIENABER: These were all the options we considered, yes.

MR VISSER: And did you come to the conclusion that in order to combat the danger, there was no other option than to eliminate them?

MR NIENABER: That was my opinion.

MR VISSER: And you say that in paragraph 23?

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You then gave the instructions and you left the execution thereof to Pretorius.

MR NIENABER: I left the execution entirely to Pretorius.

MR VISSER: Did he beforehand propose to you that the operation be executed with limpet mines, of which the delaying mechanism or the detonators were tampered with.

MR NIENABER: That's correct.

MR VISSER: Did you agree with that?

MR NIENABER: Yes, I did.

MR VISSER: And this was to prevent any suspicion and to act as a deterrent.

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: But these were aspects which came about after you had decided on the elimination, is that correct?

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And consequently you don't know anything of the practical execution of the operation and briefly it was reported to you, you say in paragraph 27 that one limpet mine had exploded. You cannot recall what the particulars were which were conveyed to you, but you know the operation was concluded.

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: If it was not completed successfully, you accepted that you would have heard of this.

MR NIENABER: Yes, if it was not successful, I would have been informed.

MR VISSER: And then consequently you made yourself guilty of the offences which you have described in paragraph 29 with regard to Grobelaar. Are you aware whether he was involved in the operation?

MR NIENABER: Not at all.

MR VISSER: As far as you know.

MR NIENABER: Yes.

MR VISSER: And then in paragraph 32 to 35, you mentioned your stance with regard to how you experienced the situation during that time and what your political motivation was. Is that correct?

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And then you request amnesty.

MR NIENABER: That is correct, Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr van der Merwe.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I have no questions Madam Chair thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Loader.

MR LOADER: I have no questions Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR LOADER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: No questions thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van Heerden.

MR VAN HEERDEN: No questions thank you Madam Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan

MR MALAN: Chair, I just want to cover one aspect. In your evidence summary you say that paragraph 27, that Col Pretorius had reported to you that only one limpet mine had exploded and that Nceba had died.

MR NIENABER: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Did you not ask him what happened to the other two?

MR NIENABER: I was afraid to ask him,

MR MALAN: Can you explain that to me?

MR NIENABER: I accepted that the other two persons had died, but I did not know how.

MR MALAN: So you accepted that they had been shot?

MR NIENABER: No, I accepted that they were dead, but I did not know that they were shot.

MR MALAN: Because in your application on page 7, you put it as a positive that you were not aware that the other two persons of the unit had been shot dead.

MR NIENABER: I was actually not aware and I was not informed but I had a good idea that they were dead and how they had died, I did not know, I did not ask. 

MR MALAN: It is a strange world. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Gen Nienaber, why would a person in your position be scared to make inquiries about the other two persons who were part of the order that you had given Mr Pretorius? Why should you be scared to ask what had happened?

MR NIENABER: Honourable Chairperson, it is so that we acted entirely illegally, I did not even have the authority to give that authorisation. This was entirely unlawful and I did not want to complicate matters even further if there were any problems. All that Pretorius told me was that: "I sorted out this story" and I accepted thereby that he had sorted out this thing and what I thought by that was that the persons had to be killed as originally believed that we had to do, that we had to eliminate them and that they had been eliminate. In which manner, whether it not be by land mines, then it must have been in another manner and I did not want to ask him because it was an illegal story and I could cause further trouble if I knew exactly what had happened.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that you left the execution of the operation to Mr Pretorius. That I can understand, but what I still don't understand is, why should you not proceed to find out how the operation was executed, now that you knew how one person out of three had been eliminated.

MR NIENABER: Honourable Chairperson, I must tell you that I just did not ask him, however strange that may sound, I did not ask him.

CHAIRPERSON: That's strange, isn't it?

MR NIENABER: ...(indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: What's even stranger is what you have just intimated, that you didn't have authority to give such an order. Who was authorised? Who should have given such an order to have these persons eliminated, if not you? Who should have been the right person to have issued the order?

MR NIENABER: I believe no one. No one had the right to give such an order, it was unlawful.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you are saying you didn't have authority to give such an order because you had no right as a human being to take the life of another human being? Are you saying that in those terms?

MR NIENABER: I think I quite agree with you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but now I'm interested in the chain of command. Let's come back to the chain of command. Were you authorised, were you the person to have been able to give such an order, were you the right person?

MR NIENABER: Yes, I would be able to have given that order.

CHAIRPERSON: Now your order was based on the information that you had obtained from Mr Pretorius and no one else?

MR NIENABER: Correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Mr Pretorius a reliable person?

MR NIENABER: Yes, he is a reliable person.

CHAIRPERSON: For how long had he been working under your command?

MR NIENABER: Well I arrived there in 86 and then I was second in command there, so to 89 it's about ...

CHAIRPERSON: Three years.

MR NIENABER: Three, four years.

CHAIRPERSON: So you trusted that what he said about his information and how he had tried to infiltrate, would be honest and reliable?

MR NIENABER: Correct, correct, because he usually gave me briefings on all aspects, not only on this specific.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You may respond to me in Afrikaans if you are more comfortable.

MR NIENABER: I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: How many times, to your recollection, had you been briefed about the activities of this group, the Nceba group or as it has been previously called the AK Zone unit?

MR NIENABER: I cannot tell you exactly Chairperson, but let us say for at least four, five, six times from time to time I was briefed. 

MR MALAN: Fortnightly?

CHAIRPERSON: Were the briefings done by Mr Pretorius directly to you?

MR NIENABER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware of the system of verification Mr Pretorius was using in verifying the information of his sources, that would include the agents and the informers he was using?

MR NIENABER: Yes, yes I knew about that.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you aware that Mr Pretorius had caused Mr Lengene to infiltrate the so-called Nceba group?

MR NIENABER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know how many members constituted the Nceba group?

MR NIENABER: I don't know how many members the whole unit encompassed but I only knew of three and it was this three that had been killed here.

CHAIRPERSON: But at all material times, at all briefings you were told of these three members that Lenyene had infiltrated?

MR NIENABER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you told of the danger they posed in the township or the so-called AK Zone?

MR NIENABER: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And it was as a result of the two to three briefings that you've referred to that you became aware of the activities?

MR NIENABER: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Motata.

ADV MOTATA: I've got non, Chairperson, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And re-examination Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: Very briefly Chairperson.

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: General is this the only amnesty application or the only incident for which you apply for amnesty?

MR NIENABER: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was this experience, was this an unpleasant experience?

MR NIENABER: Yes, it was.

MR VISSER: Did you want to know in finer detail?

MR NIENABER: No, I would like to forget about it entirely.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nienaber you are excused as a witness. 

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR VISSER: The question is are you going to excuse us Chairperson?

MICROPHONE TURNED OFF

MR VAN HEERDEN: No I'm afraid not Madam Chair, I think it's the late hour that makes us do things like that.

CHAIRPERSON: You can be assured that my eyes are never affected by the lateness of the hour. This will bring us to the day's close of our proceedings. We'll commence tomorrow at 9 o'clock. Is that convenient to everyone?

Thank you. Will that be convenient for the victims, Mr van Heerden, if we commenced at 9 o'clock?

MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure? Just find out.

MR VAN HEERDEN: They were present at 9 today.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll adjourn now and commence tomorrow at 9 o'clock.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

