DATE: 14-07-1997

NAME: JEFFERY T. BENZIEN

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Inthanga, are we ready to proceed? Yes?

MS INTHANGA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Will Counsel place themselves on record?

ADV COOK: Adv Gustav Cook for the applicant.

MR PAPIER: My name is Tasmil Papier, from the firm Papier Charles and Associates, appearing on behalf of the Kriel family, opposing the application and I am assisted by my colleague, Vincent Saldanha from the Legal Resources Centre.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Cook?

ADV COOK: I would like to refer you to page 1 of the application, that is the application of Mr Benzien. The first page is only the formal information which is before you and I would like you to turn to page 2 and I will start with paragraph 8(b).

I will ask my client the questions and then he can answer it. Captain Benzien ...

CHAIRPERSON: Has he been sworn in?

JEFFERY BENZIEN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY ADV COOK: Mr Chairman, may I proceed. I refer you to paragraph 8(b), Mr Benzien. Would you please read that out for the Committee, your force number and your date of appointment and then your personal particulars. I think there is a problem with his microphone.

MR BENZIEN: Chairperson, my force number is 0080113/5, my date of appointment in the South African Police was the 31st of December 1976. I was a student in the police, it is now the Police Services, from the 1st of January 1977 to the 1st of June 1977.

I attended the Training College of the South African Police from 1 June 1977 to 31 December 1977. I was initially attached to the Uniform Branch in Cape Town from 1 January 1978 to 1 June 1978, after which I was transferred to the Detective Branch in Cape Town, where I was from the 1st of June 1978 to 1 June 1979.

I was then transferred to Murder and Robbery Unit, stationed at Bishop Lavis, from 1 June 1979 to 1 June of 1986 after which I was transferred to the then Security Branch in Cape Town from 1 June 1986 to 1 June 1990.

During my service with the Murder and Robbery Unit in Bellville, I apologise, from the Security Branch, Cape Town I was retransferred to Murder and Robbery, Bellville South, from the 1st of June 1990 to the 31st of December 1992, and after that, I was transferred to the Police in Stanford as a Station Commander, and that was from the 1st of January 1993 to the 31st of March 1994, and I am currently employed at the Airwing of the South African Police Service, Cape Town and I was promoted to the rank of Captain with effect from the end of May of this year.

ADV COOK: Chairperson, before we continue, there is something which my client would like to say to the Committee and to all people whom he has harmed. It is an introductory statement that he would like to make before we continue, and I am asking for your time and your patience so that he can read it out to the people.

CHAIRPERSON: He may do so.

MR BENZIEN: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

JUDGE WILSON: Have you got copies of it?

ADV COOK: No, these are not copies that I want to hand in.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Cook, the reason why we are requesting copies, is that we now have to take notes, and this is a document which he is reading.

If you can give us copies, it just expedites our work, otherwise we have to sit here and take notes of everything that he says whilst he reads from a document.

ADV COOK: I understand your problem, unfortunately I haven't made copies because it isn't really a document which I want to submit.

It is actually if one can call it that, a speech which he wants to make, which forms part of the application.

CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed.

MR BENZIEN: Thank you Chairperson. Before I start with reading out of my application, I would like to mention the following:

Firstly, I apologise to any person or persons whom I have harmed and I specifically apologise to the families of Ashley Kriel for the death of their son and brother. Although I deny that I killed him unlawfully and wrongfully, he did however die as a result of an action on my part and for that I apologise.

Life is precious and judged ex post facto, and based on today's political situation of reconciliation, his death was unnecessary.

Further I also apologise to the people whom I assaulted during interrogation, namely Peter Jacobs, Ashley Forbes, Anwar Dramat, Tony Yengeni, Gary Kruse, Niclo Pedro and Allan Mamba.

Director, Gary Kruse contacted me last week and we talked about reconciliation. In the position which I am sitting here today, the persons whose names I have now mentioned, have come to me and have shaken my hand and wished me all the best and I think Mrs Forbes, I know her as Mina Pandy, I would like to thank her very much for her attitude. It has strengthened me in this difficult position which I find myself.

ADV COOK: Mr Benzien, before you continue, please slow down for the sake of the interpreters.

MR BENZIEN: I will do so. According to what I heard this morning and last week, I believe there is no question of any bitterness amongst these people. As Director Kruse mentioned, Jeff, we are all now on the same side.

They also told me that they wouldn't oppose my application and I will be eternally grateful to them for that. It is now reconciliation, forgive and forget at its best.

It should also be mentioned that about a year ago, Jeremy Vearey who is now a Senior Superintendent in the South African Police Service, Information Unit, he approached me and asked me to join his Unit.

My answer to Senior Superintendent Vearey was I would consider it if it has nothing to do with politics. In my application I apply for amnesty for perjury in that I hadn't spoken the truth during the court proceedings and also as a result of the assaults which I have committed on Gary Kruse, Mr Yengeni and the rest, excluded the Ashley Kriel incident.

The question which could now be asked is why my application now should be believed? Superintendent Liebenberg and myself are the only members of the Terrorist Tracking Unit who applied. I was the first one and I did that voluntarily.

I cooperated with the Truth Commission from the outset. On the 8th of April of this year, I met members of the Truth Commission and I approached them of my own free will and I wasn't subpoenaed to attend proceedings.

I cooperated with the Investigation Unit, that is the Investigation Unit of the Truth Commission and was interrogated or questioned by them almost a whole day and I have declared myself to be willing to provide further information. A further date, the 23rd of April, was arranged with my legal representative and that date did not materialise and that was not due to my fault.

In letters to the Truth Commission, I declared myself willing to, should I be provided with the necessary information, to further assist the Committee. Unfortunately that never happened.

The fact that Director Kruse is not opposing my application also indicate that they forgive me and accept my version as correct. Since Ashley Kriel's death, I stand by my version of the fact that his death was an accident, a formal judicial inquest was held and there my version was accepted.

During the inquest Ashley Kriel's family were represented by one of the top Advocates and evidence was led on their behalf. A Pathologist appointed by the family, could not contradict my evidence and I stand by my version and I say that it was true and correct.

To conclude, I would once again like to say to the family and all the men and women whom I harmed, I would like to apologise to them, thank you Chairperson.

ADV COOK: Mr Chairman, I refer you to the application, page 2, paragraph 9(a), there the applicant distinguishes between two periods, namely (a), his period at Murder and Robbery at Bishop Lavis from 1986 and (b), his period at the Terrorist Tracing Unit, from the middle of 1986 to 1990.

If you turn to page 3, under A, period at Murder and Robbery at Bishop Lavis. When the application was drafted, my client made it very clear in his application and I am sure you would have gone through it, mentioned that due to a lack of recollection and the fact that he received no information from the Truth Commission, he was not able to give the Committee enough information and that he could not apply for amnesty for any incidents which include any delicts.

Mr Brink, who is to the right of me here, gave me a transcript last week, this is a transcript of the Sithlahya incident and you will see the nature and particulars on page 3 and following pages, once again, that incident my client cannot remember and therefore he cannot apply for that.

After studying the transcript of the Sithlahya matter, there is only one sentence on page 2 where Mr Knipe is mentioned as having been involved in the assault on Mr Sithlahya. My client is not implicated in any way in that transcript of Mr Sithlahya.

This information came to the fore during the questioning by the Investigating Unit of the Truth Commission and there it was mentioned to my client that he was implicated.

You will see in the application, second last page, I applied for a copy of any statement which implicates my client, which the Investigating Unit might have in its possession. I don't know why, but they never provided me with any particulars, until Mr Brink read the application and saw that we had problems with information and he then gave us the transcript.

I accordingly want to bring it to your attention that this whole period during which my client was at Murder and Robbery, had nothing to do with politics. So there is no question of my client applying for amnesty for any delict committed with a political objective in this period.

He denies categorically that he assaulted Mr Sithlahya in any way, he categorically denies that in this period at Murder and Robbery, he assaulted anybody, whether with a political motive or a common criminal.

So I would like to ask you to ignore this period so pages 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, we can actually delete.

JUDGE WILSON: Page 3, 4, 5, 6 of what?

ADV COOK: And 7 of the application, we can scrap that. We will continue with the application on page 7, under B - Period at Terrorist Tracing Unit Security Branch.

MS KHAMPEPE: Should we therefore disregard the whole of A and only concentrate on the period B?

ADV COOK: Indeed, yes. If we all have the correct place, I will continue. On page 7, under B, 9(a)(1). Mr Benzien, during your period at the Terrorist Tracing Unit, for which deed or deeds are you applying for amnesty.

MR BENZIEN: Chairperson, assaults, tortures, perjury committed during this period mentioned below, vis-a-vis suspects who were arrested and questioned as well as the death of Ashley Kriel.

I also now apply for the cases which due to lack of recollection, I can't remember. If I am given sufficient information by the Commission, I would like to help the Commission. The period relevant here is the middle of 1986 until 1990, when the ANC was unbanned.

The places, the whole of the Peninsula.

ADV COOK: If we turn to page 8, subparagraph (4), Nature and Particulars.

MR BENZIEN: I start there with Ashley Kriel. I stand by my statement which I made in the inquest, 23/87 and dated the 15th of July, 1987.

The reason why I am now applying is as follows: This is an open and democratic forum in the new Republic of South Africa and I hope that I will be able to convince the families that I am speaking the truth.

Hopefully this forum will convince the family that I am speaking the truth.

ADV COOK: Chairperson, I am told that we first have to deal with the assaults and the torture, namely number 2 and then we can deal with the incident of Ashley Kriel at a later stage. I don't know what the reason for that is, but if it pleases you, then we can continue like that.

CHAIRPERSON: I think you should do it the way it is most convenient to you and your client.

ADV COOK: They didn't give me a reason why we should do it the other way around. Perhaps if she can tell you, I would like us to continue based on this format, otherwise we are going to be jumping around, but if she can tell us the reason why, then I will abide by that.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Inthanga, is there is any reason why you think you should proceed on that basis?

MS INTHANGA: The victims Mr Chairman, asked that the torture incidents be heard before the Ashley Kriel incident, but if it is going to be convenient for Adv Cook to go ahead in that manner, then he can proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Let us proceed.

ADV COOK: I don't have a problem with that, we can continue along those lines. As far as point 2 is concerned, dealing with the assaults and the torture, you can then start reading that.

MR BENZIEN: Reads:

ADV COOK: 9(b). Captain Benzien, was any person injured, killed or was any property damaged as a result of your acts?

MR BENZIEN: As far as I can remember nobody, except for Ashley Forbes who sustained a bloodied nose and damage to his eardrum, was injured.

ADV COOK: 9(c)(1), the names of the victims?

MR BENZIEN: Ashley Kriel.

ADV COOK: And 2?

MR BENZIEN: Peter Jacobs, now a member of the South African Police Service, Security Branch Cape Town. Ashley Forbes, unknown, I don't know where he is working now. Anwar Dramat, a member of the South African Police Service, Security Branch, Cape Town.

Tony Yengeni, ANC MP. Gary Kruse, Director Commanding Officer Ministerial Security S.A. Police Service, Pretoria. Niclo Pedro, whereabouts unknown and Allan Mamba, member of the South African Police Service.

ADV COOK: Mr Chairman, if we can turn to the next page, to page 11, 10(a). Captain what political objectives did you want to achieve by means of your acts?

MR BENZIEN: The protection and maintenance of the previous government and constitutional dispensation and to prevent the community losing confidence in the government as a result of intimidation and fear.

The averting of the onslaught from the ANC/SACP alliance which was aimed at overthrowing the previous government by violent means and destroying the constitutional dispensation.

As a member and/or supporter of the National Party, everything was done to promote the confidence of the voters in the National Party and to prevent the ANC/SACP alliance and other organisations who wanted to overthrow the government by violent means, to prevent these from enlarging their political power base.

And further to combat the threat posed by the communist expansionism and to ensure that the Security or the South African government and Security Forces, not be overwhelmed by those elements.

To fight for the continued existence and preservation of what I saw as a normal Western democratic lifestyle, to protect South Africa against a communist take over or alternatively to prevent the country and its people being overcome by a series of attacks, both military or political in nature for instance, international sanctions, boycotts and isolation.

These were also seen as being aimed at taking over the country and the government. To fight for the right of myself, my family and the general public to continue to live in South Africa in the way that our forefathers lived, with special reference to our heritage, background, culture and political lifestyle.

And to try to preserve everything created on the South African soil mainly by Whites, to preserve this and to maintain the status quo in terms of what we in the Security Forces, saw as the normal South African lifestyle.

ADV COOK: Page 12 (b). What was your motivation why you regarded these acts as an act associated with an political objective?

MR BENZIEN: Until the middle of 1986, I was a Detective at Murder and Robbery at Bishop Lavis. I was temporarily transferred to the Security Branch in Cape Town. My Commanding Officer at Murder and Robbery gave me instructions to go to the Security Branch and report there.

There I acted as an investigator of people contravening the emergency regulations and I was involved there for plus minus one year. During this period, the need arose in the Security Branch for the tracing of terrorists who had been trained abroad and who were operating in the Peninsula.

I did not take part in the decision making process due to my junior rank. I only learnt of these things from my Commanding Officers. I was informed by Brigadier Strydom, then Head of the Security Branch, Cape Town, that I would be permanently transferred to the Security Branch and specifically the Terrorist Tracing Unit.

The Unit was stationed at Culemborg, Cape Town. The Commanding Officer was Lieutenant, now Superintendent Liebenberg.

The Unit consisted as an Investigating Team of myself, Warrant Officer, now senior Superintendent Nel, Sergeant J.P. van Zyl and Sergeant Kotze.

Lieutenant Liebenberg explained the purpose of the Unit to us as being the expeditious tracing and arrest of terrorists, collection of information and intelligence and the confiscating of weapons and arrest of hangers on.

The modus operandi of the Unit is as was set out above in paragraph ((a)(4) on pages 8 and 9 above.

On the 8th of June 1989, I received a certificate and a medal from the South African Police for my service in the combatting and tracing of terrorists and this confirms my believe that my seniors condoned my acts.

ADV COOK: Yes, Chairperson, if you look at the amnesty application, right at the back, there is a copy of this certificate which the applicant received.

MR BENZIEN: The acts which I committed were indeed acts committed with a political objective because as a member of the Security Forces of the State, I within the cause and scope of my duties and within the cause and scope of my express or tacit authority, acted in a bona fide manner with the objective of combatting the ANC, especially the ANC's onslaught against the country and the government and its attempts to make the country ungovernable.

Alternatively, on reasonable grounds I believed that I was acting in the cause and scope of my duties and within the cause and scope of my express or implied authority. The acts which I committed I answer, based on the following criteria as contained in Section 23 (a) - (f) of Act 34 of 1995.

The motive why I committed these acts was to, in respect of terrorists who were trained abroad and attached to the ANC or MK, to trace these people to arrest them, to collect information, weaponry and also to arrest hangers on.

This prevented further acts of terror int he country and in the Peninsula. The context for these acts was in reaction to political insurrection or disturbance of the ANC. The ANC tried to overthrow the government by military means.

These terrorists trained abroad and were active in the Peninsula, were instrumental to the objectives of the ANC who tried to make the Peninsula ungovernable by means of acts of terror.

The legal and factual nature, as well as the gravity of the offences were per se unlawful and serious. Nobody was however seriously injured or sustained lasting physical or mental harm or damage as far as I know. Ashley Kriel, unfortunately was killed.

The objective of these acts, it was aimed against the political opponent, namely the ANC. The acts were committed on the orders of my immediate Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Liebenberg.

The Security Forces served the government of the day and the National Party of which I was a member. I also acted on behalf of or with the express or tacit approval of the Security Forces and or the National Party.

The mere fact that the Terrorist Tracing Unit continued to exist for five years until the unbanning of the ANC, in 1990, and I received a medal and a certificate for my service, I believed on reasonable and bona fide grounds that I was acting within the cause and scope of my duties and within the scope of my express or implied authority.

The relationship between the acts and the political objectives pursued are defined and described more particularly in (9(a) and 10(a) and (b) above.

ADV COOK: Mr Benzien, did you benefit in any way financially or otherwise?

MR BENZIEN: No.

ADV COOK: 10(d), not applicable. 11(a), was the act or acts committed in the execution of an order of or on behalf of or with the approval of a particular body or organisation - that will be the South African Police?

MR BENZIEN: Yes. This act was carried out on behalf of the relevant Security Force, namely the South African Police and by implication the then government of the day.

I believed on reasonable grounds that I was acting in the cause and scope of my duties and within the scope of my express or implied authority because I received the order or approval for the act from a senior member of the Security Forces.

ADV COOK: 11(b). The name of the person who gave you the order?

MR BENZIEN: My immediate Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Liebenberg.

ADV COOK: 12, not applicable. 13 is unknown. Chairperson, all that now remains is the application in respect of the death of Mr Ashley Kriel, but I will stand by what I have now said and I will hand over to my colleague and she can then do the questioning in respect of that. We have decided to split it up into two parts.

CHAIRPERSON: I think Mr Cook, you better just complete your version, your clients case so that we don't split this case into two parts unnecessarily.

ADV COOK: As it pleases the Committee. I ask you to return to page 8 of the application. Nature and Particulars - 1. Ashley Kriel.

The applicant says that he stands by his statement which he made in the judicial inquest, 23/87, dated the 15th of July. What was the outcome of the inquest, Mr Benzien?

MR BENZIEN: The Chairperson of the then judicial inquest found that I was not liable in law for Ashley Kriel's death.

ADV COOK: Mr Ashley Kriel's family, were they represented at all by a legal representative during the inquest proceedings?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct. If I remember correctly it was Adv Jeremy Gauntlett.

ADV COOK: Did Mr Gauntlett adduce any evidence on behalf of the family?

MR BENZIEN: He cross-examined me and he also led the evidence of an independent Pathologist and an independent ballistic expert.

ADV COOK: The evidence of these two experts, did it contradict your evidence in any way?

MR BENZIEN: I can't remember exactly but I think it was in line with the evidence adduced by the State.

ADV COOK: If you can look right at the back of the application, document A1, Athlone GDO23/87. If you have that, then I would like to ask my client to read it out.

Captain Benzien, please continue with reading out your statement there.

MR BENZIEN: Chairperson, I would like to mention that this statement was taken down on the 15th of July of 1987, so that there are some minor particulars which aren't strictly correct, I am no longer Detective Officer. May I continue?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Sir.

MR BENZIEN: I am number W80113K, in the South African Police, Detective Warrant Officer, stationed at Cape Town.

On Thursday, the 9th of July 1987, at 13h35 I was on duty, I was sober and clad in civilian dress. I was accompanied by number K173415M, Sergeant A.D. Abels of the Security Branch in Cape Town. On the instructions and orders of our Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Liebenberg, Sergeant Abels and myself went to Albermarle Road 8, Hazendal, Athlone.

Our task was to do surveillance of the grounds there, to determine whether the trained ANC terrorist, Ashley Kriel, was hiding out there. We only had information to the effect that the abovementioned terrorist could be in the house or in one of the adjacent houses and therefore Sergeant Abels and myself, approached the house on foot whilst other members of the Security Branch waited out of sight of the house.

Upon arrival at the abovementioned address, I saw that there was a gate in front of the door and this gate was locked with a padlock. Sergeant Abels and myself then walked around the back of the house to the back door. I requested Sergeant Abels to knock on the door to determine whether anybody was home.

After a couple of minutes, a Coloured man opened the door. The Coloured man held a jersey and a towel in front of his trousers, his right hand was covered with this jersey and a towel and his left hand was pressed against his covered right hand.

I immediately recognised this person as the wanted terrorist, Ashley Kriel. I identified myself to Ashley Kriel as a member of the South African Police. Kriel immediately made an upwards motion with his covered hands. At the same time, he tried to run into the house.

I threw both my arms around Ashley Kriel's arms and chest, trying to pin his arms to his body. He resisted furiously and battled to free himself. I suspected that he had either a firearm or a handgrenade in his arms under the jersey and the towel.

Sergeant Abels assisted me and we managed to restrain Ashley Kriel, who resisted. During this struggle the towel and the jersey fell and I saw Kriel holding a firearm with both his hands in front of him, and he tried to raise it.

We had already fallen to the ground during the struggle, and we tried to pin down to the ground. I succeeded in getting the firearm from, loosening it from his grip, it was an automatic pistol and I hit him on the forehead, quite a heavy blow and this wound bled freely.

Kriel released his grip for a moment whilst he was laying on his back, and we pinned him down to the ground. I was in a crouching position on his right hand side and Sergeant Abels to the left of him, at his head. I still held this firearm which I took from Kriel in my right hand and with my left hand, I took my handcuffs from my pocket and I handed them to Sergeant Abels, with the instruction that he should handcuff Kriel's hands.

Just after Sergeant Abels had placed the one cuff around Kriel's right wrist, Kriel jumped up into a sitting position and grabbed my right hand in which this firearm still was.

I grabbed my right hand with the firearm out of his grip. He turned to his left, whilst he was still in a sitting position in order to free himself and get up. Sergeant Abels, meanwhile tried to restrain Kriel. I however, realised that Kriel was getting into an upright position and from my position at that stage, which was behind him, because he was turned away from me, I jumped on his back in order to pin him down to the ground once again.

With me on his back, he thrashed in all directions and tried to enter the house. At some stages we were on the ground and other stages we were kneeling or - it as during this stage that I heard a shot. I realised that it was his firearm which was still in my right hand which had gone off.

I realised that Kriel had been wounded and I noticed blood at his mouth and nose. I immediately instructed Sergeant Abels to cuff the deceased's left hand as well, and to guard him whilst I immediately went to my vehicle to get help on the radio.

The struggle couldn't have lasted for more than a minute. At no stage did I cock the weapon and in the struggle, I didn't notice whether it had been cocked.

However, I am of the opinion that the deceased must have cocked the weapon before opening the back door of the house and had concealed the weapon underneath the towel and the jersey.

When I returned to where Ashley Kriel was, it was clear that he was dead. During the search of the deceased's room in Albermarle Road 8, a handgrenade was found under his pillow. This was found by Warrant Officer Nel of the Security Branch and the explosives expert seized this handgrenade.

I seized the deceased's firearm, a .22 star, self loading pistol, number F739725 with seven rounds in the magazine and one round in the chamber of the pistol.

Next to the body, there was one .22 pellet which I seized. After the incident, I secured the weapon myself. I pointed out the relevant points of the official police photographer as well as members of the video unit.

The handcuff on the left hand wrist had been loosened to indicate the position of the handcuffs during the struggle and the body was then taken from the scene by ambulance.

During the incident, my glasses, the left lens of my glasses had been damaged and I sustained light chafing wounds to my elbows and arms and bruised my right knee. I did not receive any medical treatment for my injuries and there then follows the details regarding the oath.

ADV COOK: Captain Benzien, do you admit then that you are aware of the contents of the statement and you've signed it on all the pages?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

ADV COOK: Is there anything else which you would like to add?

MR BENZIEN: If I may mention it once again, I would like to say to the family of Mr Kriel, now that I am older and perhaps know a bit more about the politics of those years, I believe that Mr Kriel acted very courageously.

My purpose was to arrest him and not to kill him. Although his death was a tragedy for his family, I am very, very sorry that he had to die, but the tables could very easily have been turned on that day, the outcome could have easily been very different and it could have left myself and Sergeant Abels being wounded or killed.

And once again, I apologise to the family for his death and I thank God that I, who also have children, also a daughter who is 22 years old, that I was not the person who was killed on that day.

ADV COOK: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV COOK.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Papier, are there questions you wish to put to this witness?

MR PAPIER: There are Mr Chairman. May I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you may do so.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PAPIER: Thank you. Captain Benzien, I see in your amnesty application it is dated the 8th of May 1997, in Malmesbury, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PAPIER: Who compiled it?

MR BENZIEN: My Advocate.

MR PAPIER: The Advocate appearing here?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR PAPIER: It was signed by you, is that correct? Did you swear or was it an affirmation?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct. That is correct.

MR PAPIER: What was it, did you swear or was it an affirmation?

MR BENZIEN: I took the oath.

MR PAPIER: Or can't you remember?

MR BENZIEN: I took the oath, but I see here the certificate was not entered.

MR PAPIER: I see. Where did you sign this?

MR BENZIEN: I signed it with my Advocate.

MR PAPIER: And the Advocate sent it to the Amnesty Committee?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that is correct, I brought it in by hand.

MR PAPIER: I see that regarding Mr Ashley Kriel, on page 8 of your application, you simply just say that you abide by the statement during the judicial inquiry?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR PAPIER: Where did you make this affidavit?

MR BENZIEN: It seems to be that it was the late Lieutenant Segal.

MR PAPIER: Mr Desmond Segal?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR PAPIER: To which Unit did Mr Desmond Segal belong during this time?

MR BENZIEN: I see that he was part of the South African Unit in Guguletu.

MR PAPIER: Was he involved in the investigation of Ashley Kriel or the activity, the incident of the 15th of July? Was he involved in this incident of the investigation thereof?

MR BENZIEN: As far as I know he was an Investigator after the incident, after this incident, he investigated it.

MR PAPIER: What do you mean, what was his association with the Ashley Kriel incident?

MR BENZIEN: The shooting incident was investigated by a member other than a member of the Security Branch.

MR PAPIER: According to your statement, this Desmond Segal was stationed at the Guguletu police station, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: According to the certificate, yes.

MR PAPIER: What did the Guguletu police have to do with this whole matter?

MR BENZIEN: Mr Chairman, about this incident, I can only speculate that this had to be investigated by a Unit not associated with the Security Branch. It was just by chance that he had to partake in this investigation.

It is general practise that during a shooting incident, this incident is not investigated by a member associated with a specific Unit.

MR PAPIER: Your statement of 1987, did you discuss it with anybody before or while making this statement?

Let me help you, specifically with Rudolf Liebenberg or Sergeant Abels?

MR BENZIEN: Possibly not the statement per se but the incident, yes, I think we discussed it.

MR PAPIER: You discussed it?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, possibly.

MR PAPIER: And the other two colleagues, Liebenberg and Abels, also made statements during the judicial inquiry and they were used after you had discussed that?

MR BENZIEN: Yes. If we did discuss it.

MR PAPIER: Captain Benzien, if you look at your statement, this is the judicial inquest. Your Advocate indicated that at the top it says Athlone GDO/23/87, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: Did you make this statement with a view of an informal judicial inquest?

MR BENZIEN: It is possible. It is difficult to say now. I could not determine whether it should be a formal or informal inquest.

MR PAPIER: This number, does it say anything, there is no CR? I just want to determine whether you knew at that stage or whether you have tried to organise that there should be an informal judicial inquest?

MR BENZIEN: From this incident, there should have been a formal judicial inquest. Whether it should have been formal or informal or whether I would have been able to influence it, whether it should have been formal or informal, that was not in my hands.

MR PAPIER: Would you please just listen to three extracts from these three affidavits. Yours, Liebenberg's and Abel's. In paragraph 6 of Lieutenant Liebenberg's statement and I quote ..."1987/07/09, W80113K, Benzien and K173431, Sergeant Abels, I instructed them to go to Albermarle Street 8, in Hazendal, Athlone and to determine whether Kriel really has returned."

This is what Liebenberg said. And I quote in paragraph 3 of your statement as you have already said ..."under instructions of our Commander Lieutenant W. Liebenberg, I and Sergeant Abels went to Albermarle Road 8, in Hazendal, Athlone." Paragraph 3 of Abel's statement and I quote said ..."under instruction of our Commander W. Liebenberg, I and Benzien went to Albermarle 8, Hazendal, Athlone."

Now, would you agree with me that the impression created by these three statements is that Abels, you and Abels were instructed by Liebenberg to go directly to Albermarle Street in Athlone to determine whether the deceased had returned. Would you agree with me?

MR BENZIEN: Mr Chairman, the impression created by these typed versions, but if I can assist the Commission in this regard.

MR PAPIER: Captain, I just want to know yes or no, would you agree that this is the impression created by these statements?

MR BENZIEN: This is the impression, but it is a wrong impression.

MR PAPIER: I see.

JUDGE NGOEPE: We do not have copies of Mr Abels and Mr Liebenberg's statements.

MR PAPIER: I am sorry, Honourable Judge. I might be able to arrange that the investigating team submit that statements, it is part of the inquest proceedings and I assumed that the Honourable Committee would ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: No, we don't and that is why some of us, perhaps don't fully appreciate the point you are trying to make. I suppose somebody will attend to that.

MR PAPIER: If it pleases you Judge.

JUDGE NGOEPE: To the extent that you think you will be able to take us along with you, even though we don't have copies of those statements, you may continue.

MR PAPIER: Thank you Judge, I will do my best. Captain Benzien ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Papier, how long will it take you to prepare these papers if we take a short adjournment at this stage?

MR PAPIER: I imagine Honourable Chair, that it is just a matter of photocopying these documents and it shouldn't take longer than five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we will take the customary short adjournment at this stage and you will call us in as soon as you are ready. We will take the customary break for 15 minutes.

MR PAPIER: As it pleases you.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS FOR 15 MINUTES - ON RESUMPTION.

CHAIRPERSON: Just to avoid causing confusion, these documents will now go in as Exhibits, and we will mark them as Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

MR PAPIER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any choice you have?

MR PAPIER: I have no choice, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, which one do you want? Do you want Abels' to be Exhibit A.

MR PAPIER: Exhibit A.

CHAIRPERSON: And the other will go in as Exhibit B.

MR PAPIER: As the Chair pleases.

STATEMENTS OF ABELS HANDED IN AS EXHIBIT A AND of LIEBENBERG AS EXHIBIT B.

CHAIRPERSON: Just hold it. You may proceed.

MR PAPIER: As the Chair pleases. Captain Benzien, I have referred you to paragraph 6 of Exhibit B, and that is the statement by Lieutenant Liebenberg.

And then I also referred you to paragraph 3 of your statement and your statement is part of your application, and I have also referred you to paragraph 3 of Exhibit A, and that is Constable Abels' statement.

And this, you will remember is related to the instructions you received to go to Albermarle Road 8, in Hazendal, Athlone. My question is therefore did it happen like that?

Did you receive direct instructions to go to number 8, yes or no?

MR BENZIEN: It is very difficult to answer yes or no because if I look at my statement paragraph 4, that is the statement just after number 3, our task was to survey the area around this place, to see whether this trained ANC terrorist was not hiding there, because we had information that this terrorist probably could be in this house or one of the adjoining houses.

And we approached this house by foot. I want to explain here and say, that during the formal inquest this point was repeatedly under investigation and discussed.

MR PAPIER: And the address Albermarle Way 8, after this shooting incident, was that the address which was relevant?

MR BENZIEN: For example, and this was through evidence, we did not go directly to Albermarle Way 8, we came to the house adjoining that house, I don't know whether it was number 6 or number 10.

MR PAPIER: Yes, Captain, my question is, if you look at those three statements and the Commanding Officer gave you instructions, that is what he said in his statement, go to number 8 and you wrote that in your statement, we went to number 8, you corroborated the fact but you also state in the first sentence and say "our task was to survey the land around the site as well as this whole site".

We want to ask what site? I want to say that that was number 8.

MR BENZIEN: I quote again, the address which was mentioned after this incident, was number 8, but there was no information available that we had to go to number 8, in the first place.

We went to the house next-door at first.

MR PAPIER: Thank you. Is it correct to say that your instructions were to survey that area and to determine whether the deceased was not there?

MR BENZIEN: We had to see whether the deceased was in one of those houses.

MR PAPIER: Your instruction was not to go directly to number 8?

MR BENZIEN: If I can give more clarity. They said to - the houses in that street is on one side of the road and I had to go from house to house to determine whether he was there.

It was just by chance that the deceased was in number 8.

MR PAPIER: What I want to put to you is that according to your statement, that is an inaccurate version of what precisely happened there. That is regarding that instruction?

MR BENZIEN: Mr Chairman, I want to put it in this way. I did not go there by myself. I did not go there of my own accord. I acted under instructions to survey that area.

If I had to go to number 8 specifically and not any other houses, I believe that the person who sent me directly to that house, that was Lieutenant Liebenberg, that he would have been sure that that was the correct house, and there would have been a completely different activity.

MR PAPIER: I understand your explanation. Why do you not say that in your statement before his Commission?

MR BENZIEN: I am saying this now.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anything really material that turns on this?

MR PAPIER: I will be submitting Honourable Chair that a number of other inconsistencies will be pointed out to the Honourable Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Are they material?

MR PAPIER: I submit, yes, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE WILSON: And you will bear in mind that this statement was not, as you've just said, prepared for this Committee. This statement was prepared in 1987?

MR PAPIER: Indeed Honourable Judge and I submit with respect with regard to that, that a statement should have been prepared for this Honourable Committee but the applicant has elected to present a defective statement to his Honourable Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we must look at the real contents of the case. Proceed.

MR PAPIER: As you please, Honourable Chair, thank you. Captain, we will continue then. You and your colleague, Abels, what were you wearing, what were you wearing?

MR BENZIEN: We were wearing overalls, from the Cape Town Municipal Sanitary Services.

MR PAPIER: You were disguised?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: Are you saying that in your statement?

MR BENZIEN: I said we were wearing civilian clothes.

MR PAPIER: Are you saying that you were wearing Municipal overalls and that you were disguised, you are not saying that?

MR BENZIEN: No, I am not saying that in my statement.

MR PAPIER: According to your statement, it appears that the reason why you did not go to the front door, was because there was a trellis door with a lock, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: If that was the reason why I did not go to the front door, I accept it.

MR PAPIER: I am asking you. That is what you were saying in your statement, I am trying to understand. I am sorry, paragraph 5.

MR BENZIEN: Mr Chairman, this happened a long time ago. I said that there was a trellis door attached to the front door, I see nowhere that I did not approach that door.

MR PAPIER: Did you go to the front door then? Your evidence before this Committee was that you went to the back door, isn't that true?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, it happened. This incident happened at the back door of the house.

MR PAPIER: I want to establish why you did not knock at the front door? The basis of your evidence is that you only wanted to gain some information, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that is correct. Today I can't even remember whether that trellis door was right in front of the front door or whether there was a little stoep attached to that, where you could perhaps not approach the doorbell at the front door.

MR PAPIER: Right, Captain, the vehicle which took you to these premises, were they also disguised?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR PAPIER: Which vehicle did you use?

MR BENZIEN: I used a little police van with usual registration plates and I also used a label of the Cape Municipality Sanitary Service, Cleansing Branch.

MR PAPIER: Did the Municipality give you assistance, did they provide it to you?

MR BENZIEN: The Municipality did not know what my plans entailed. I maintain that it was only a reconnaissance activity and therefore I borrowed these overalls from the Municipality.

MR PAPIER: They knew you were a policeman from the Security Branch?

MR BENZIEN: The person who provided these overalls to me, was a member of the Municipality. I knew him, I approached him for these overalls, but he did not have any further knowledge.

MR PAPIER: Who was he?

MR BENZIEN: It was a Mr Sterrenberg.

MR PAPIER: Is it correct to say that you were armed with your service pistol, a spade and a piece of pipe when you went to this house in number 8?

MR BENZIEN: At this stage, I would like to say that I carried my side pistol, which was attached to my pants with an overall over that. I had a spade, yes, which was used to clean the manholes and unless I understand you wrong, I can't say that I used the spade as a weapon.

I used this to uncover the lids of the manholes.

MR PAPIER: Did you say this in your statement, yes or no?

MR BENZIEN: I read through this and I see that I am not mentioning the spade. I did not mention the pipe either. I don't know where this pipe story comes in.

MR PAPIER: I am putting it to you that you and Abels went to this house in a fraudulent way, to number 8. Do you agree with me?

MR BENZIEN: I cannot agree with you.

MR PAPIER: Was it in an honest way?

MR BENZIEN: I was busy with the execution of my duties. I was disguised.

MR PAPIER: You wanted to pretend that you were not from the police, but that you were coming from the Municipality, the water department?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR PAPIER: Was it like that?

JUDGE WILSON: How does that become fraudulent? A policeman who is looking for what he suspects to be a terrorist, and you are now suggesting it is fraudulent that he should wear some cover up?

MR PAPIER: Honourable Judge, I am submitting or I will submit at the end of the day that the statement before this Honourable Committee is not a true and honest disclosure of what happened on that day. I submit with the greatest amount of respect that this is a different forum and the families, my clients have come to hear the truth.

The applicant before this Honourable Committee has elected to once again, I submit, place facts before this Honourable Committee which does not amount to the truth with regard to what happened on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Papier, one understands that, but what my brother is saying to you is that perhaps you know, I mean to speak of fraudulent basis, it is a very technical term. I mean fraud is an crime which consists of a number of elements and your argument pre-supposes that the applicant's conduct met all the essential elements of a crime of fraud and that is not necessarily so. Perhaps what you wanted to say to the witness was that when you went there, you purported to be what you were not.

MR PAPIER: Thank you Honourable Judge. The Afrikaans translation is a bit of a problem. Thank you.

Captain Benzien, would you agree with me that you went there to create the impression that you were from the Municipality, that you were there to do maintenance work to the drains and that that fact does not appear in your statement before the Committee today?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, I will concede that. I will concede that I went there in disguise and with all due respect I once again refer to the inquest proceedings, where that was also mentioned.

MR PAPIER: I understand that you then gave Constable Abels orders to go knock at the back door, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PAPIER: You were busy looking into the drains?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: He had to go and knock twice, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: And it was on the second occasion when the back door was opened, correct?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: How far were you away from the back door?

MR BENZIEN: I will concede the statement which I made was not a detailed version of what happened, minute by minute. If I remember correctly, we moved along the side of the house, opened a manhole cover next to the side of the house. Everything seemed to be closed. I looked through, I think the kitchen window, the curtains were nearly down to the window cill, it was dark inside the house and I think that I saw a movement inside the house.

There where the manholes are, next to the house and passed the back door, not in line with the back door, was a garage and next to that or behind that, was another manhole which we opened.

Abels knocked, we moved further. He knocked again. I brought it to his attention that I thought I had seen movement in the house, I wasn't sure and whilst we were standing some distance away from the door, the door opened.

The distance between ourselves and the door, here I have to rely on my memory, it could possibly have been two paces, if I remember correctly.

MR PAPIER: Captain, I am referring to paragraphs 7 and 8 of your statement and I quote ..."after a couple of minutes a Coloured man opened the door. The Coloured man held a jersey and a towel in front of his trousers and his right hand was covered with this jersey and the towel whilst his left hand was pressing up against his concealed right hand."

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR PAPIER: Was that your first image of what you had seen?

MR BENZIEN: Yes. If I remember correctly we knocked and we stood back from the door, we discussed the situation - there was anybody in the house, was anybody going to open. Whilst we were still talking the back door opened and I then saw that the deceased was standing at the door, and his hands were in front of his body with the jersey and the towel covering his hand?

MR PAPIER: So you didn't actually see the door opening?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct. It wasn't as if we knocked and the door was then opened.

MR PAPIER: You see, I want to put it to you that that is not at all the impression which your statement creates to the Committee, it tells a different story.

MR BENZIEN: Well, I don't know what other story it is telling.

MR PAPIER: My instructions are, perhaps you can confirm or deny this, that that door had a handle and also a little lever on the inside?

MR BENZIEN: I can't comment on that.

MR PAPIER: If a person wanted to open that door, he would in all probability have had to use both hands?

MR BENZIEN: I concede that.

MR PAPIER: I want to put it to you that if that was indeed the case, then it would be highly improbable that you could have seen the image which you have stated in your statement?

MR BENZIEN: Your Honour ...

CHAIRPERSON: Unless this stable or whatever it was holding that door, had not been fastened at that stage?

MR PAPIER: Maybe the applicant would be able to assist us with that My Lord.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless there was a witness inside the house who is going to come and tell us what happened?

MR PAPIER: I would leave that there, Honourable Chair. According to your statement Captain, you then said that you identified yourself to the deceased, Ashley Kriel.

MR BENZIEN: Perhaps the statement doesn't read correctly. After I identified him, I didn't immediately then say I was a member of the police. He first came out of the house and I recognised him.

I wasn't sure whether he recognised me. I said a whole lot of things about drains and sewerage blockages and so on. It is difficult to explain to the Committee or to anybody who wasn't in that situation, I had to make a snap decision as to how I was going to act.

Was I going to walk away from the scene knowing that this man was a trained terrorist or freedom fighter. He had something in his hand and the way in which he concealed his hand, was unnatural.

Had I walked away and he recognised me, or became suspicious, he might have if he had had a handgrenade in his possession, used this handgrenade, thrown the handgrenade and if he had a pistol, he could have shot us dead.

That was the worst scenario which I could imagine. You must remember that these are thoughts which flash through your mind in a fraction of a second.

Mr Chairman, may I try to sketch the situation to the Committee. The second alternative was that he would recognise me, that he does not act against us in any way, but as soon as we leave the scene, he then leaves his hiding place and we would lose track of him.

The third alternative, I had to consider as a trained policeman, was must I now as a policeman, irrespective of the risk continue with my arrest of this man and that decision was taken by me in a split second, to try and arrest this man, irrespective of the danger which the situation clearly posed.

I moved to the door, the deceased stepped back a pace. He was standing in the doorway and I tried to squeeze him. At that stage he turned towards me. I was convinced that he realised at that moment that this was not a worker from the Municipal Cleansing Branch.

When I then grabbed him, I told him I was a member of the police and that I was arresting him. I had hoped that he would subject himself to the ... (tape ends)

MR PAPIER: You said that you feared that he might have a handgrenade or a firearm in his possession? Surely that was not the reason why you killed him?

MR BENZIEN: At that stage and at no other stage, there was the intention, I never had the intention at that stage or any other stage to kill him, I wanted to arrest him.

MR PAPIER: You then succeeded in taking away the deceased's firearm from him?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PAPIER: Your colleague, Abels, was present there, he was assisting you, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: Yes. He helped me to apprehend the deceased.

MR PAPIER: What did you do with the spade?

MR BENZIEN: If I remember correctly, the spade was laying on the ground or I in fact now have a better recollection of the spade, as possibly leaning up against the garage wall where the back manhole was.

MR PAPIER: So if I understand you answer, you don't know what you actually did with the spade?

MR BENZIEN: No.

MR PAPIER: Is it possible that you still had the spade with you?

MR BENZIEN: No, no. I am very clear about that. I didn't at that stage have the spade in my hand.

MR PAPIER: Captain Benzien, you hit the deceased against the head intending to render him unconscious, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: Hopefully to render him unconscious, but in any event to put him out of action and I hit him with his firearm.

MR PAPIER: You are big, you are sturdily built, would you agree with me?

MR BENZIEN: As well as old an unfit.

CHAIRPERSON: I am sure he is referring to the period 10 years earlier than now?

MR BENZIEN: Ten years ago, with respect Your Honour, I was 40 years old, 39 or 40 years old, ten years ago.

MR PAPIER: Yes, but your build hasn't changed much, has it? Perhaps you have become older, but at that stage you were probably more fit than you are today?

ADV DE JAGER: I see he is actually glancing at his waistline, Mr Papier.

MR PAPIER: However, were you bigger than the deceased?

MR BENZIEN: In length no, in build yes.

MR PAPIER: And Abels?

MR BENZIEN: Abels could have been the same height, perhaps also a little bit more sturdily built. The deceased was in his early 20's I would estimate and if my information is correct, he had just come from military training camp, so I don't think he was as plump as we were.

MR PAPIER: So he was laying on the ground, and if I understand your statement, you then jumped on him and you sat on him?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: And your colleague ...

MR BENZIEN: I don't know whether I actually said I sat on him?

MR PAPIER: Perhaps you can tell the Committee what happened there, irrespective of what appears in your statement.

MR BENZIEN: To write a statement of what happened during a fight and to actually do so in detail, is very difficult. You have to rely on your memory.

With respect I don't know how many people have been involved in a struggle or a fight, especially of this nature, it is a continuing act of rolling around and there is a lot of motion, and it is very difficult to describe the events in the exact order in which they happened.

I know that we attempted to handcuff the deceased. And a blow which I delivered to the deceased's head, the intention of that was to render him unconscious, but how hard do you hit a person, not to kill him if you are using a firearm?

To answer your question, we were on the ground. I had hoped that he was unconscious and we tried to handcuff him.

MR PAPIER: Yes, and you were sitting on him at that stage?

MR BENZIEN: Next to him, I don't think it was on top of him.

MR PAPIER: And your colleague, Abels, was trying to handcuff him, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: I've just glanced briefly at point 14, this is from a statement which I made about seven days after the incident, point 14 of my statement - "Kriel relaxed for a moment whilst he was laying on his back and I took up a position, a kneeling position on his right and Sergeant Abels to his left, at his head, and we pinned him down to the ground."

I don't mention that I actually sat on him.

MR PAPIER: Can you still remember this incident, or can't you remember it?

MR BENZIEN: I rely to a large extent to the statement which I made then as well as my memory. And I am doing that to the best of my ability in order to assist the Committee.

MR PAPIER: Was it possible for you to actually throw the firearm away or throw it to one side?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, I am sure I could have done that.

MR PAPIER: Why didn't you do it?

MR BENZIEN: At this stage I was grappling with a terrorist. The only weapon which was available in this split second action, was the weapon which I had to hand. I don't think that anybody in similar circumstances should consider actually throwing the weapon away, what purpose would that serve?

MR PAPIER: Yes, well, perhaps Mr Kriel would still have been alive today.

MR BENZIEN: I don't want the Committee to gain the impression that I am cynical. Learned Advocate said that perhaps Mr Kriel would still have been alive, had I thrown the weapon away.

As I said earlier when I apologised to the family, if the tables had been turned on that day, I could have been dead today and not Mr Kriel.

MR PAPIER: Yes, you will agree with me that there was no weapon except for the other weapon which you had in your possession, which was in issue if the original weapon, Mr Kriel's weapon, hadn't been used in the way in which you used it?

MR BENZIEN: I don't think I follow the question.

MR PAPIER: I would try and clarify that. I am putting it to you that Mr Kriel had no other weapons in his possession.

MR BENZIEN: At that stage I couldn't foresee it.

MR PAPIER: And at this stage, is that the case or not?

MR BENZIEN: At this stage I know that he didn't have a firearm anywhere on the premises, but an F1 handgrenade under his pillow in the bedroom.

MR PAPIER: How far away was he from his bedroom?

MR BENZIEN: That handgrenade could as well have been in his pocket.

MR PAPIER: But it wasn't. Let us continue.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Sorry, before you do that. To a question by Mr Papier, you said that what purpose would it have served to throw away the deceased's weapon, but what purpose did it serve to keep it in your hand in stead of throwing it away?

MR BENZIEN: Your Honour, at that stage I was the policeman on the scene, making the arrest. I have just disarmed a person with a firearm. With hindsight and knowing how this tragic experience developed, I could say yes, yes it would have been the best thing to throw the firearm away, but I don't think anybody and I say it with all respect, who is in a situation like that and comes into the possession of the threat's weapon, throws the weapon away to equal the playing fields.

At that stage it was not a case of a boxing or wrestling match.

JUDGE NGOEPE: I understand you, but I thought that you needed the use of your hand badly to overpower, to physically grab this person. It is not a question of actually throwing his weapon away, you put it out of his reach, by just putting it a distance away because you wanted to use both hands to grab this person. Didn't you need to use both hands?

MR BENZIEN: Your Honour, I was fighting him with the firearm still in my hand, in my right hand. My left hand ...

JUDGE NGOEPE: That is what I can't understand. How can you fight somebody with a firearm in your hand? You fight better, to grab him better, if the firearm is not in your hand.

If you put it a distance away, you use both arms to grab the man. You handicap yourself by clinging onto this firearm. This is what I don't understand. Unless, of course you wanted to use the firearm?

MR BENZIEN: Your Honour, as I explained, and with all respect, this whole turmoil was not taking minutes, it was seconds. Why I kept the firearm at that stage, in all probability because then I had the edge on him.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Did you not keep the firearm with the view that you should shoot him?

MR BENZIEN: I don't think at that stage at all, Your Honour. But what was to say, I know we are debating this now and I am - the firearm out of my control could surely just as easily by some or other method, especially if he had somebody else in the house, which it would have not been the first time that two terrorists share the same abode.

JUDGE NGOEPE: Thank you. I understand.

MR PAPIER: Thank you Sir. And you Captain Benzien, you were also still armed with your personal pistol?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR PAPIER: Was Abels armed?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: Abels was standing next to you, that is after you had knocked Ashley Kriel to the ground, unconscious and Abels was busy putting the handcuffs?

ADV DE JAGER: I think it is incorrect to state that he was knocked unconscious, that is not said anywhere in the statement that he was knocked unconscious.

MR PAPIER: Thank you Advocate. According to you Captain, was the deceased at that stage rendered unconscious, was he knocked unconscious?

MR BENZIEN: Not judging by his responses and reactions. He might have been unconscious for a split second.

MR PAPIER: He was laying on the ground after you hit him?

MR BENZIEN: He was laying on the ground and I was standing to his right side and Sergeant Abels behind his head and his two hands were flat on the ground as indicated by the speaker.

MR PAPIER: According to your statement, he then jumped up again. Did he then assume a sitting position?

MR BENZIEN: When Abels was able to put the cuff around the right wrist and tried to pull the left hand closer, he came upright into an upright position, with the cuff still attached to his right wrist.

MR PAPIER: Did you attempt to hit him again, to knock him back again to the ground? Surely that is possible?

MR BENZIEN: It is possible, I can't explain that.

MR PAPIER: Abels was standing there, he could also have hit him or kicked him or pulled him down?

MR BENZIEN: Abels was behind him. There was an element of surprise present. I had hoped that he was unconscious, we were least tense, I don't know if that is the correct expression or word, but perhaps we were not as alert.

We were all on the ground. He sat upright and I assume that if Abels could have reacted quickly enough, he could have done something, I could have jumped on him, but at that stage, it didn't actually happen.

MR PAPIER: Let us move from there Captain. A shot went off?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Just a minute. Before we get to that, Captain you hit the man intending to render him unconscious or out of action?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you succeeded in that because he relaxed for a moment?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was on his back?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you do then? The man was laying on his back and is out of action, exactly as you had set out to do? Why wasn't he handcuffed?

MR BENZIEN: It was at that stage when I took the cuffs from my overall pockets, gave it to Abels and that Abels started putting the handcuff around his right wrist.

His hands were on both sides of his body and Abels managed to get the cuff around the right wrist, and it was when he attempted to get the left hand closer to the right hand, that the deceased sat upright again and pulled the cuff away from Abels so that he only have the one cuff around his right wrist and the whole struggle started again.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the man wasn't even standing, he is laying on his back on the ground? And you said he was pinned down to the ground, on his back and there were two policemen standing on either side of him and the man's body relaxed, surely that would have been the ideal moment to finally restrain the man?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that's what we tried to do, but we didn't succeed in doing that.

CHAIRPERSON: But I am baffled, why couldn't you succeed in that? The man's body had relaxed, he is on his back?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, I immediately then took out my handcuffs and told Abels handcuff him. He only succeeded in putting the handcuff around the right wrist and it was then when the deceased assumed a fighting position again.

If we managed to handcuff his other arm, then we would have succeeded.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, how many policeman would you have needed to actually restrain this man, a man who is laying on his back and whose body had already relaxed?

MR BENZIEN: It is very difficult to say how many policemen would have been necessary. But I can guarantee you that experience have taught me that to handcuff a person who does not want to be handcuffed, is no easy job.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the issue is not necessarily the handcuffing, the issue is to restrain this man.

MR BENZIEN: This person didn't want to be restrained.

CHAIRPERSON: But that is exactly why you hit him on the head? We are not arguing about that?

MR BENZIEN: And it did not have the desired result.

CHAIRPERSON: That is exactly what I can't understand. Thank you Mr Papier, you may continue.

MR PAPIER: Thank you. Captain Benzien, can you tell the Committee how many policemen took part in this operation, in its totality?

MR BENZIEN: I can't give an exact number but the people who participated in the Tracking Team, all gathered at Athlone. I would estimate that apart from myself and Abels, there might have been about six members.

MR PAPIER: And they were all part of this operation?

MR BENZIEN: Yes. Part of the operation, if I could elaborate, they were placed at strategic positions. Not in our direct vicinity because bearing in mind that we didn't have the exact address. If these people were in the immediate vicinity, then they could have scuppered the whole operation.

MR PAPIER: Captain, a shot went off?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR PAPIER: Where were you at that stage?

MR BENZIEN: On the deceased's back, whilst he was on his feet and trying to enter the back door.

MR PAPIER: So you actually jumped onto his back with your sturdily built body?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, when I say his back, I mean that I was on his back, my feet was still on the ground. I don't actually know of a better way to express this.

On and over his back.

MR PAPIER: Yes, but you were behind him?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: Will you agree with me that you could easily have hit him to the left or right side of the head, hit him with your feet or Abels could perhaps have done the same? Would you agree with me?

MR BENZIEN: Not in those circumstances, no. We were in or just a little bit before the doorway, my firearm was in my right hand and I held him with my left hand.

I tried to get him to enter the house. I wasn't sure what danger still lurked inside the house.

MR PAPIER: You are right handed?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: Why didn't you hit him on the head with the firearm, that was possible?

MR BENZIEN: I could have hit him on the head with the weapon, I am sure. At that stage and with the necessary powers at my disposal, I could not only have hit him but also shot him.

MR PAPIER: And that is indeed what you did?

MR BENZIEN: The weapon went off in my hand. As crude as it may sound, I believe that when schedule 1 offence is committed, I believe that a court would have found or probably would have found, that I was entitled to shoot him.

MR PAPIER: We are not talking about the court judgement Sir.

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that is so, but it was put to me why didn't I hit him on the head again. I suppose I could have hit him on the head if I wanted to. But it is hard to say what possibilities flash through your mind.

CHAIRPERSON: At that time, did it occur to you that you could have hit him and decided that you were not going to hit him on the head?

MR BENZIEN: Mr Chairman, with all respect, I don't know what I was thinking at that stage Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Do carry on.

MR PAPIER: Thank you Honourable Chair. Did you at any stage aim the firearm at the deceased?

MR BENZIEN: It would be mere speculation on my part. I can't exactly think of that, but it would have been very strange if I hadn't aimed the firearm at him.

MR PAPIER: So you are speculating?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: You are not in a position today to give the Committee a version as to how you dealt with the firearm there, am I correct?

MR BENZIEN: On the contrary, I am prepared to tell the Committee to the best of my ability how I used the firearm without speculating.

MR PAPIER: And you were also not in a position to give the inquest proceedings this explanation, is that not so?

MR BENZIEN: I am not quite what this insinuation is.

MR PAPIER: It is a question, can you answer it or not?

MR BENZIEN: The question is whether I could or couldn't give an explanation to the inquest court. I repeat to the best of my ability, I explained the circumstances to the inquest court, to the best of my abilities and I am doing so here again.

MR PAPIER: You were sitting on Ashley Kriel's back, a shot went off. You felt his body relax?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that is correct.

MR PAPIER: You were convinced that he was dead, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: I don't know whether it was immediately, but I believed that he was wounded. After a while I was able to determine that according to my opinion, he was dead.

MR PAPIER: When the shot rang out, were you still sitting on the deceased's back?

MR BENZIEN: Yes.

MR PAPIER: Did you pull the trigger or did you not pull the trigger?

MR BENZIEN: The firearm was in my hand and I am assuming for the Committee and for the family that my finger must have been on the trigger and if that is the case, the shot went off whilst the firearm was in my hand and for that firing of the firearm I must take sole responsibility.

MR PAPIER: Must I repeat the question, did you pull the trigger or did you not pull the trigger?

MR BENZIEN: I don't know whether I pulled the trigger. If I could perhaps rephrase it, not consciously pulled the trigger.

MR PAPIER: Well, you are still sitting on the deceased's back. What happened after the shot had gone off?

MR BENZIEN: The deceased relaxed and once again I asked Abels ...

MR PAPIER: No, before we come to asking Abels, the deceased relaxed. Did he fall on the ground, you are still sitting on his back, did you also fall to the ground, on top of him?

MR BENZIEN: To the best I can remember, I also fell on the ground.

MR PAPIER: What did you feel, how did his body feel, was it completely relaxed, did it go limp?

MR BENZIEN: It relaxed, yes.

MR PAPIER: Did you foresaw the possibility that he was dead?

MR BENZIEN: Not immediately, because I asked Abels to handcuff the person.

MR PAPIER: That is precisely what it boils down to Captain. The weapon went off, you are sitting on his back, his body went limp, he fell to the ground. Why would you now instruct Abels to handcuff him? Does it make any sense?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, it made sense at that stage. A few minutes, a half minute before that, I knocked him against his forehead, his body went limp, he fell to the ground and we tried to handcuff him.

MR PAPIER: Was that not something which he tried, you shot him in his back and he fell to the ground, he was laying there and you told Abels go ahead, handcuff him?

MR BENZIEN: If you want to put it in that way.

MR PAPIER: Handcuff him.

MR BENZIEN: Yes, we handcuffed him.

MR PAPIER: Was there any reason to handcuff him at that stage, he was laying there?

MR BENZIEN: But half a minute before that he was also laying there when we tried to handcuff him. There I could not decide whether he was dead when he was laying there, all limp, we decided to handcuff him. I couldn't determine whether he was dead or not.

MR PAPIER: Could you only just be standing there, did you kick him, did you knock him, did you keep him down? There was no movement or was there?

CHAIRPERSON: Did everything happen so quickly?

MR BENZIEN: Everything happened so quickly, Your Honour. To handcuff him would have meant less violence. If I understand the person asking the question correctly, his body went limp. Why did you want to handcuff him, and he asked why didn't you kick him?

MR PAPIER: Your evidence is that you were using the minimum violence after having used the maximum violence?

MR BENZIEN: I used the minimum violence according to the situation.

MR PAPIER: You were convinced that he was dead after Abels handcuffed both his hands, isn't that true?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that is right. I am not in a position to give an expert opinion, but as a layman I was sure that he was dead. He never moved after that again.

MR PAPIER: Why Captain did you give the instruction that they should remove the one handcuff? That happened, not so?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, that is correct, it happened like that. That is correct. It was only for documenting this incident.

MR PAPIER: Which documentation are you referring to?

MR BENZIEN: The police or the other Units came to the scene. A video recording was made, photographs were taken, the whole scene was put on film for future court procedures.

MR PAPIER: So why did you not take off the handcuffs completely and you just removed one handcuff?

MR BENZIEN: You would see that it was the left hand handcuff we removed. Directly after this incident, after he was knocked down and the first handcuff was on his hand, then the struggle took place.

If that was wrong, I apologise, it must have been an error of judgement.

MR PAPIER: It makes no sense to the family.

MR BENZIEN: Your Honour, I can't react to that whether it makes sense or not, I only can give evidence to what had happened.

MR PAPIER: Was any attempt made from your side to get medical assistance?

MR BENZIEN: Medical assistance for?

MR PAPIER: Surely not for yourself Captain, for the deceased?

MR BENZIEN: I think an ambulance was called, that was the normal procedure.

MR PAPIER: But you did not arrange that?

MR BENZIEN: It was possible that I could have. During a radio call, where people were informed that a shooting had taken place, an ambulance was called, that was standard procedure.

MR PAPIER: Captain, to which police Unit did you belong at that stage?

MR BENZIEN: I was a member of the Security Police.

MR PAPIER: Were you at that stage aware of the Bonteheuwel military wing of the ANC?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, I knew about that.

MR PAPIER: Were you anyhow part of a special investigation branch under the command of Captain van Braekel?

MR BENZIEN: No, never ever.

MR PAPIER: Never? According to my information you were part of the Unit and you were indeed number 12 on this list. Do you deny that?

ADV COOK: There should be substantiated which document you are referring to. I want to object on behalf of my client. I want to see this documentation.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the relevance of all this Mr Papier?

MR PAPIER: Honourable Chair, the defence is just trying to in fact end off by placing some background before the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but this background doesn't relate to this incident, it is something else, isn't it?

MR PAPIER: As the Committee pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we must try and avoid all that.

MR PAPIER: As the Committee pleases.

MR BENZIEN: With respect Mr Chairman, if it will help the Commission in any way, I have never worked under the directorship of Lieutenant or Superintendent Van Braekel.

CHAIRPERSON: Van what?

MR BENZIEN: Van Braekel.

CHAIRPERSON: Have you finished Mr Papier?

MR PAPIER: Just one last question, if you would permit me Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR PAPIER: I just want to determine Captain, your Advocate wrote a letter in answer to a question and he says and I quote, he addressed a letter to the Commission and this is regarding your application ..."he applies for application for the death of this person, but he had a justifiable grounds, namely lack of unlawfulness or mens rea."

The instruction was only to determine whether the named person, whether he was hiding in this specific environment, is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: Once again I say that the reason why I am approaching the Amnesty Committee, the Commission, the family or anybody else, if they could attach any other interpretation to this situation of Kriel and I see myself as the person responsible for his death and that is something with which I have to live with and I hope the family can forgive me for that.

JUDGE WILSON: That letter you have written, who was it addressed to?

MR PAPIER: To the Commission, Honourable Judge. It is a letter that is addressed by Captain Benzien's legal representative, the Honourable Advocate, addressed to the Amnesty Committee.

JUDGE WILSON: To the Amnesty Committee, because we haven't had it put before us?

CHAIRPERSON: What is the date of that letter?

MR PAPIER: The 5th of June, 1997.

CHAIRPERSON: Any way, have you any other questions?

MR PAPIER: Just one ending statement Honourable Chairman. Captain Benzien, I am putting it to you that this application and your version put before the Committee, does not form part of this amnesty application. I thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Was that correctly translated from Afrikaans into English?

MR PAPIER: I didn't hear the translation, Honourable Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I understood the interpreter to say that you are putting to him that his version did not form part of the amnesty application?

MR PAPIER: No, no. May I repeat that in English?

CHAIRPERSON: yes.

MR PAPIER: I put it to you that your version of events does not seem to disclose an act with a political motive and in the view of the family for which you are entitled to receive amnesty.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand.

MR PAPIER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: That is a legal submission.

MR PAPIER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PAPIER.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any questions to put to this applicant?

MS INTHANGA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Please do so.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS INTHANGA: Mr Benzien, would you be able to tell us as to whether throughout the struggle, did you at any time enter the house or did it take place outside the house?

MR BENZIEN: Excuse me, could you just repeat? Enter...?

MS INTHANGA: I want you to explain to the Committee as to whether throughout the struggle that you had with Mr Kriel, did this take place outside or inside the house, where exactly did this take place?

MR BENZIEN: In the proximity of the - the whole incident took place in the proximity of the back door and at the furthest just through the threshold, Sir.

MS INTHANGA: When the family visited the house on the following day, blood was found in the kitchen, on the kitchen walls and in the bathroom. Could you explain how this could have occurred?

MR BENZIEN: I have no idea where this alleged blood was found, if any was found, Sir. If I may, but it would be a speculation.

Maybe the defence would know better, wasn't that house still under police guard for a number of days after the time for investigation purposes? It is speculation Mr Chairman. Maybe the parents of family could say if they had been in that house within a day of the incident.

I am not sure.

MS INTHANGA: Understanding from your evidence that you have given before the Committee, you never intentionally killed Mr Kriel, is that so Mr Benzien?

MR BENZIEN: That is absolutely correct, Mr Chairman.

MS INTHANGA: Would you then say, you at the time, or after the incident, you regretted the death of Mr Kriel?

MR BENZIEN: I have regretted the death of Mr Kriel from that day until now.

MS INTHANGA: There is also evidence that a poster with Mr Kriel's picture was hung in your office with a cross marked on his face and the words "one down to go". Do you recall that poster Mr Benzien?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct Your Worship.

MS INTHANGA: Do you remember when did you ever use that poster or did you refer that poster to any of the people you interrogated?

MR BENZIEN: I acquired that poster, somebody brought it to our office. During the period running up to the funeral of the deceased, those posters were displayed on the poles.

I had a reputation to live up to when interrogating the terrorists, freedom fighters. I admit that it was surely in very bad taste to have it up there, but in a certain sense it also helped with my interrogation to instill fear into the persons who I interrogated.

MS INTHANGA: Okay. How can you reconcile the use of that poster with the fact that you say here today, you regretted the death of Mr Kriel?

MR BENZIEN: For the death, excuse me, of any human being and in this case, Mr Kriel, that is something to be regretted.

The poster as I say was in bad taste. When I think about it, it should not have been there and to do that, I did not portray the professionalism that I should have had as a policeman.

MS INTHANGA: Mr Benzien, what is this reputation that you had to live up to?

MR BENZIEN: Excuse me Ma'am?

MS INTHANGA: What is the reputation that you had to live up to?

MR BENZIEN: As a member of the Anti-terrorist Unit, employed in many interrogations, the - I tried to portray as a hard, callous person.

MS INTHANGA: Okay. During your introduction speech, you mentioned to the families that they must understand that during the incident of the struggle you had with Mr Kriel and when Mr Kriel got shot, that the tables could have been turned on that day. What did you mean by that?

MR BENZIEN: In a nutshell, the result could have been very much different and I could have been the person, or Mr Abels, could have been the persons that were killed.

ADV DE JAGER: At that stage, do you know what the policy of the ANC was towards policemen?

MR BENZIEN: All policemen were legitimate targets Sir.

MS INTHANGA: In that statement would you agree with me that the shooting or the killing of Mr Kriel in that incident, prevented your deaths or any injury to you and Mr Abels?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, I concede that.

MS INTHANGA: Okay. You mentioned that you worked with six other members on the investigation of Mr Kriel. Were there any other police on that day during the time you entered Mr Kriel's house, were there any other police around the area or in the vicinity of his house?

MR BENZIEN: As I understand it, they were in the proximity of the scene, but not in the immediate proximity.

MS INTHANGA: That would be besides the six people you mentioned here?

MR BENZIEN: No, I am referring to those, the rest of the team.

MS INTHANGA: Oh, okay. Thank you Mr Chairman. No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS INTHANGA.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

ADV COOK: No re-examination Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV COOK.

MS INTHANGA: Excuse me Mr Chairman, the victims of torture by Mr Benzien would like to put some questions to Mr Benzien, if they can be allowed by the Committee?

CHAIRPERSON: Who would like to do that?

MS INTHANGA: The six victims, they have attended the hearing and they would like to put questions. Victims who were tortured by Mr Benzien.

CHAIRPERSON: Would they like ...

MS INTHANGA: To put questions to Mr Benzien.

CHAIRPERSON: Would they like to do that through you or would they like to do it themselves?

MS INTHANGA: They would like to do that themselves.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, do they have a spokesman, is there somebody here who speaks on behalf of the victims?

MS INTHANGA: They will speak themselves individually.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Let them come forward one by one and put their questions to Mr Benzien. What is your full name?

MR YENGENI: My full names are Tony Sitembiso Yengeni.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Yengeni, you may put your questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR YENGENI: The first question I want to pose to you Mr Benzien, is can you tell the Commission the circumstances surrounding my arrest and subsequent transportation to Culemborg?

MR BENZIEN: If you an bear with me, dates and times, I cannot remember correctly. I know you were arrested in the evening near the, I think it is the Western Province Tennis Club, near Rondebosch police station. You were in a telephone box.

MR YENGENI: Can you remember the identities of the policemen who apprehended me?

MR BENZIEN: I think I was the first person at the telephone, if I am not mistaken. Where you were in the telephone, there was another person in the passenger seat of the motor vehicle, that you reputedly arrived with.

At that scene was Liebenberg, then I think Sergeant Bellingham. I was there. I think Goosen. I am speaking under correction.

MR YENGENI: Why were you there and what was the purpose of you being there at that time at that particular place?

MR BENZIEN: As members of the Anti-terrorist Unit, we had received information that you would be in that proximity on that evening.

MR YENGENI: Where did you receive that information from?

MR BENZIEN: From Lieutenant Liebenberg, who was my Commander.

MR YENGENI: Can you tell the Commission where Liebenberg got that information from?

MR BENZIEN: Your Honour, I was never privy to the methods or where the information actually came from.

MR YENGENI: Okay. Now, when we got to Culemborg police station, do you remember then what happened?

MR BENZIEN: I know that I interrogated you and I placed the wet bag over your head and I smothered you.

MR YENGENI: Before you put the wet bag on me, do you remember what else happened Mr Benzien, other than the wet bag? Do you remember my being molested by yourself and Liebenberg and other policemen?

MR BENZIEN: That may have happened, yes, but I was under the impression that I was interviewing the other gentleman, but if you say that I assaulted you that day, I will concede that I did it.

MR YENGENI: Now, you have given the impression that your torture expertise allowed you to get information from your - those who were being tortured by you within 30 minutes.

MR BENZIEN: With respect, sometimes sooner, but not necessarily longer than 30 minutes.

MR YENGENI: Was this an expertise you acquired through practise or were you trained for this expertise?

MR BENZIEN: I was never trained officially of it. I had heard about it and whether a person can say you can apply this method well or not well, I would surely have to say myself, that I applied it well and with caution. I was very cautious of the method and tried not to have party to somebody else doing it in my presence.

MR YENGENI: Why did the Security Branch choose you specifically to apply this method on MK guerillas? Why you and not somebody else? Why are you the consistent factor in applying these factors to MK guerillas and Commanders?

MR BENZIEN: Mr Yengeni, today in a new South Africa I can sit here and tell you in all honesty, that I was used by the then Security Branch.

Members of my Unit received recognition for their services rendered. When it came down to getting the job done, I was the person who did it. Maybe I was to patriotic, to naive or anything else that you would want to call it.

But I think even you and the rest of your people sitting there, would admit that I was the person that rightly or wrongly knowing that the information that I could glean from you and your members, could take especially explosives out of the community, which would be used against the public at large. Mr Yengeni, with my absolutely unorthodox methods and by removing your weaponry from you, I am wholly convinced that I prevented you and any of your colleagues and any one of them that ever had an explosive device in Cape Town, I may have prevented you from being branded murderer nowadays.

The only person I can unfortunately not say to, is one of the comrades here whose methods led to the death of an innocent Black person who was foraging in a dirt drum for food. For what I did to you and your comrades, I apologise. I sincerely apologise.

But in the spirit of reconciliation, we lived in a different era, we were enemies then. I have not fled the country, run away from the Police Force, I am still a policeman and trying to serve my community to the best of my ability. And that is the reason why I out of my own free will have approached this Commission to see if we can't build, and forget about the hardships.

I know you've got hardships, the people in this hallway believe and now that I am older, I believe that you had - it was illegal, it was not sought for, each person had to have his place in the sun in South Africa and I sincerely hope that, but if I may just indulge the Commission for a further few minutes- I am married and have two children.

Since my son was in Sub B, he was a little boy of six years old, my daughter was in standard 5, I think she was about 12, for weeks my children could not play in the normal ambit of other children. Because of my work with the Security Branch, they had to travel under police escort to school, they could not play on the playground with the other children. They had to be put in the principal's office all the time, under guard.

My house windows had to be barricaded with cupboards. Every night a wet blanket had to be put in the bath, available where my younger children could get hold of that in the case of grenade attacks. You are surely aware that I was transferred as the Station Commander at Stanford because not only were my nerves shot, my wife threatened divorce if I did not get out of Cape Town.

That was after the African Youth League threatened to have demonstrations on my front lawn. Yes, Mr Yengeni, I did terrible things, I did terrible things to members of the ANC, but as God as my witness, believe me, I have also suffered.

I may not call myself a victim of Apartheid, but yes Sir, I have also been a victim.

MR YENGENI: What kind of man that uses a method like this one of the wet bag, to people, to other human beings, repeatedly and listening to those moans and cries and groans and taking each of those people very near to their deaths, what kind of man are you? What kind of man is that, that can do that kind of, what kind of human being is that Mr Benzien?

I want to understand really why, what happened? I am not talking about now the politics or your family, I am talking about the man behind the wet bag? When you do those things, what happens to you as a human being? What goes through your head, your mind? You know, what effect does that torture activity done to you as a human being?

MR BENZIEN: Mr Yengeni, not only you have asked me that question. I, I, Jeff Benzien, have asked myself that question to such an extent that I voluntarily, and it is not easy for me to say this in a full court with a lot of people who do not know me, approached Psychiatrists to have myself evaluated, to find out what type of person am I.

There was a stage when this whole scene was going on, that I thought I was losing my mind. I have subsequently been, and I am now still, under treatment, where I have to take tablets on a regular basis.

I have respect for every cadre of Umkhonto weSizwe as I know the situation now. The times when we were adversaries, was a different time. I had the fortune or misfortune of growing up in a White environment in Cape Town.

I did not either through my own stupidity or ignorance as long as I was one of the Whites, the privileged Whites who had an education, who had a house, I couldn't see it being taken away. If you ask me what type of person is it that can do that, I ask myself the same question.

Bearing in mind for want of a better explanation, if you had a bad foot and the surgeon had to cut it off to save your life, then maybe I am trying to soften my conscience by saying that is the person who I was, irrespective how dirty, how mean, how horrible it was, I would do that and it was not and I think, you and the rest of the accused, could say that for the initial interrogation that I did, the day after or the day after that or the day after that, I did not interrogate any one of you with a bad method.

And I think all of you can say that in honesty. My application Mr Yengeni, please tell me if I am right or wrong, my application of the wet bag method was at the initial arrest, until such times as you had against your will, revealed who your contacts were or where your arms caches were. Could you please answer me that, is it correct? Is it correct Mr Yengeni.

MR YENGENI: No. Now, let me proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Yengeni, could I just disturb you for a minute. Are you going to be some time still, because it might be convenient to take an adjournment at this stage?

MR YENGENI: Yes, Mr Judge, I still want to ask a number of other questions still.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Very well, we will adjourn and resume at two o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: Members of the public ought to be informed that the delay in commencing at the appointed hour of two o'clock was occasioned as the result of a large number of documents being placed before the Committee for urgent consideration, relating to matters of the work of the Amnesty Committee.

They had to be attended to and that has caused the delay and unfortunately we could not start at two o'clock. Mr Yengeni, I am sorry if it has inconvenienced you. You may begin.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR YENGENI: (cont)

Thank you Sir. This black bag that was used for torturing me and other people, I note that even if you read the press it is being used extensively, or was used extensively by the police, including in criminal cases to get information.

Now, before you joined the Security Branch you were involved in investigating criminal cases.

MR BENZIEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

MR YENGENI: Did you in any of these investigations, ever use this method to get information?

MR BENZIEN: No, Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: I take it that is in non-political matters what you are talking about?

MR YENGENI: Yes, in non-political cases. Now, this black bag, was it a property that was issued by the police to you?

MR BENZIEN: It was not property issued to me, but normally it was referred to as a prisoners' property bag, Your Worship. In other words, a bag used at police stations for putting loose articles of prisoners' property in.

MR YENGENI: So it was the property of the police?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, it was property of the police.

MR YENGENI: But the Security Branch used it for a different purpose from the one that it was initially, originally made for?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct, Mr Chairman.

JUDGE WILSON: Am I right in assuming therefore that these would be available in just about every police station? Every police station who had police cells in them?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct, Sir.

MR YENGENI: Now, you used this method on me, but before you put the black bag on my head, you blindfolded me. Is that correct?

MR BENZIEN: I am not hundred percent sure, but I could have, yes.

MR YENGENI: Now, I was blindfolded and then the bag was used on me. The point, the question that I want to ask you is I have never seen this bag being used myself on any other person, even when it was used on me, I never saw it.

And I think it would be in the interest of the public and the Commission for you to demonstrate the use of this bag.

MR BENZIEN: Commissioners, it was a cloth bag that would be submerged in water to get it completely wet. And then the way I applied it, was I get the person to lie down on the ground on his stomach normally on a mat or something similar with that person's hands handcuffed behind his back.

Then I would take up a position in the small of the person's back, put my feet through between his arms to maintain my balance and then pull the bag over the person's head and twist it closed around the neck in that way, cutting off the air supply to the person.

JUDGE WILSON: When you say stand, did you stand astride him with your feet on the ground?

MR BENZIEN: Initially feet between the arms.

JUDGE WILSON: Getting the arms spread out?

MR BENZIEN: That's right.

JUDGE WILSON: And your feet ...

MR BENZIEN: And if I sat down and I put my feet out, I could then maintain my balance.

JUDGE WILSON: But your feet weren't, you didn't stand on the person, you stood on the ground and then sat on him?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct, Sir.

MR YENGENI: Now, is it possible for you to do a demonstration of how, I as a victim I would want to see what happened to me.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say demonstration, I mean, has he not described it satisfactorily to you?

MR YENGENI: I also want to see it with my own eyes what he did to me.

JUDGE WILSON: Well, I think the first problem is Mr Yengeni, you have to find a volunteer to play the part of the victim. There are some people behind you indicating they will assist.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Yengeni, you have got somebody who would be prepared to assist.

MR YENGENI: If there is somebody prepared to assist, that is fine. I think Mr Benzien, I would want him to demonstrate to me how, because as he explains it to me, I can hear his explanation, but I would want to be given the opportunity by the Commission to see what he did to me, with my own eyes.

MS KHAMPEPE: What are we going to use for the bag, the black bag?

MR YENGENI: Somebody has put a pillow in front of me, that can be used as a bag.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Will you make somebody available Mr Yengeni. Mr Benzien, you are required to show Mr Yengeni.

MR BENZIEN: I am willing to show Sir. Secondly I have not got a set of handcuffs and I may not be as ...

CHAIRPERSON: Please may we have some order here?

MR BENZIEN: I also may not be as agile as what I was then.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Yengeni, could it be done here in front of you.

MR YENGENI: Yes, a little bit further, there in the middle, so that I can see.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Will you lie down on your stomach please and Mr Benzien, will you show us the position you occupied.

MS KHAMPEPE: We can't see Mr Benzien.

CHAIRPERSON: We will just have to stand and have a look. Bring that bag. Mr Yengeni, can you see?

MR YENGENI: Yes, but what I want to ask just as he is in that position, at what point does he release the bag for more air? How does he know that now I am about to loose, to die, then he releases the bag?

CHAIRPERSON: The question, not what point, how he releases it?

MR YENGENI: Yes, how he releases it?

CHAIRPERSON: Will you just show how you release it? Put it on again. Yes, and now you must show how you release it.

MR YENGENI: How you release it.

JUDGE WILSON: Sorry, could we put on record, I think you pull the bag down and then tight about his neck?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct.

MR YENGENI: Release it.

MR BENZIEN: You would ask him to speak and if he shook his head ...

MR YENGENI: Thank you.

JUDGE WILSON: But when you released the bag, you didn't in fact take it off his head, you just let it go slack around the neck? Is that so? So you could tighten it up as you ...

MR BENZIEN: Sometimes off, sometimes left it there.

MR YENGENI: But the question that I want to ask is at what point do you release the bag to give the person who is tortured, more air? Is there something, are you counting time or is there something that you feel and then you release the bag? What happens, what makes you to release the bag?

CHAIRPERSON: I imagine that when you are in that position, you are asking questions?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are expecting answers?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: And whether you release it and when you release it, would depend upon whether you are getting answers from this person?

MR BENZIEN: Answers and also you would, or I would, release it - the intention was never to (indistinct) somebody, but the possibility, the real possibility was always there Sir. I did realise that.

MR YENGENI: But where there any, was there any physical condition that would make you to release the bag on the part of the person who is tortured?

MR BENZIEN: On occasions people have I presume, and I say presume, lost consciousness, they would go slack and every time that was done, I would release the bag.

MR YENGENI: How did I react and respond to you at the bag?

MR BENZIEN: I think you can bear with me that individually I cannot say how you reacted, I know that after the method was applied, you did take us to the house of Jennifer Schreiner where we took out a lot of limpet mines, handgrenades and firearms. In other words, your reaction as far as if I understand it correct was, was you told us where your weaponry was.

MR YENGENI: The question Mr Benzien is, myself and others if we are under that kind of wet bag and we are being choked by that bag, how do we react at that point? How do we react, what is our physical reaction?

CHAIRPERSON: What happens to the person why he is being choked? Can you describe?

MR BENZIEN: I presume, excuse me Your Honour, the actions of somebody who was suffocating.

MR YENGENI: Can you describe those reactions?

CHAIRPERSON: Would there be any movement?

MR BENZIEN: There would be movement, there would be head movement, distress, all the time there would be questions being asked do you want to speak or what have you and as soon as an indication was given that this person wanted to speak, the air would be allowed back to his person to say what he wanted to say.

MR YENGENI: Would the person groan, moan, cry, scream? What would the person do?

MR BENZIEN: Yes, the person would moan, cry, although muffled, yes, it does happen.

MR YENGENI: And you did this to each and every one of us?

MR BENZIEN: To the majority of you, yes.

MS KHAMPEPE: Sorry Mr Benzien, if you say you did that to the majority of peoplewhat was then the criteria which would be used to determine who would qualify for the wet bag system and who wouldn't?

MR BENZIEN: Ma'am, some of the arrestees at that stage would voluntarily give the information. Those who did not give the voluntary information, I used this method on.

MR YENGENI: Was Liebenberg aware of this system of torture, Your Commander?

MR BENZIEN: I am sure he was, Your Worship.

MR YENGENI: You are sure he was?

MR BENZIEN: That is correct. Although he was not, I must say, available or present on each occasion.