ON RESUMPTION 26TH FEBRUARY 1998 - DAY 4  

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Good Morning. Mr Rautenbach, at the conclusion of yesterday's hearing, you were still in the process of putting questions to the witness. You may continue.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Zeelie, I immediately want to refer to an incidence that was discussed yesterday. You remember that you were asked with regard to people who would appear in court and that they would now allege that they had been assaulted. Do you remember that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And in some of those cases where people alleged that they were assaulted we've got a situation where some of them had been assaulted and others who alleged that they were assaulted but who weren't. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now considering the people who alleged that they were assaulted, for example electrical shocks, people who made those kinds of allegations, whether it be security, prisoners or just ordinary accused who were being investigated by the detective unit. Would you agree that in many of those cases, let's take the people who were really assaulted, who alleged that they were assaulted, the members of the police force usually denied that the people had been assaulted. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: I just want to say I don't have knowledge or I only have knowledge of security detainees.

MR RAUTENBACH: But you were also in the detective unit?

MR ZEELIE: No I was never part of the detective unit.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's confine ourselves to security detainees, let's say security prisoners, there were cases in internal trials that they alleged that they had been assaulted are you aware of that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now the people who had been assaulted. Would you agree with me that usually the police officers, even in the internal trials, even with regard to people who had been assaulted, they would deny that they had been assaulted. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: So with regard to people who had been assaulted a situation was created where policemen with the normal procedure of court cases then also lied, committed perjury? With regard to the intensity of the shocks that I referred to yesterday, you indicated yesterday and I got the impression that the shocks that were administered to Bopape in intensity was almost the same.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you just tell me, you personally, when you made use of the shock device as the person was interrogated, did you increase the intensity to get answers?

MR ZEELIE: I would not say that it was always increased as I said earlier. The intensity could even have been less. We just gave a single turn and then shock and a single turn and then shock. So it just didn't follow that it would have been increased.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you in any way with regard to Bopape, was it your plan to increase the intensity to get him into a situation where he was forced to talk?

MR ZEELIE: I would not say by increasing the intensity. It could have been that we could just give one turn and leave it and give it one turn but we would have got to the point where we would get the information from Bopape by means of the shock treatment.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was it your plan to increase it later on?

MR ZEELIE: I can't say that but the idea would have been to apply for a longer period.

MR RAUTENBACH: I want to refer you and I'm not trying to say that this differs from what you are saying. This is in Volume 2, page 366, Bundle 6. Now this has to do with an answer you gave during the Section 29 investigation at the bottom of the page. I think it was a Committee Member or an Investigation Officer, Dr Allie. He asks -

And the answer was -

MR RAUTENBACH: Do you confirm that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie what was your idea with the use of the words "He had not yet been given big shocks"

MR ZEELIE: I believe what I meant with that as I have said was that the administering of the shock would have taken place over a longer period of time.

MR RAUTENBACH: "Big shocks"?

MR ZEELIE: The word "big" could perhaps be wrongly used because it can't be a bigger shock. It's the same shock that is administered only over a longer period of time.

MR RAUTENBACH: With respect Chairperson, this is in English, he testified in Afrikaans. We don't know what the Afrikaans words were. It looks like a very strange translation - "big shocks".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes I unfortunately wasn't there so I can't comment. I don't know how accurate the translation is.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, it is surely debatable at the end of the day, I accept that this is a translation. Mr Zeelie, the suspicion on the side of the family is that this was a progressive way of torture that would in the end by means of bigger shocks or whatever methods would have led to it that Mr Bopape died, that he died because of torture. I'm just telling you what the feeling of the family is.

MR ZEELIE: I don't know whether I should say something, that I should answer. It was a statement made, it was not a question put.

MR RAUTENBACH: If you don't want to comment, nothing to be held against you, that's the feeling of the family.

MR ZEELIE: What I can say what I testified earlier, I was of the opinion that he died because of a heart attack.

MR RAUTENBACH: With regard to the fact that you think that might of been a heart attack, I want to refer you to the following testimony. What caused it that you could have thought that it might have been a heart attack? Was it something that happened?

MR ZEELIE: There wasn't something specifically that happened at that stage, at that stage I though that would be the only possibility.

MR RAUTENBACH: Was it just something that occurred to you in your general experience that that could have been the cause?

MR ZEELIE: That was the only reason that I could see.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie it appears from the Section 29 proceedings that something happened that would have caused you to think that. I refer to page 377 it's also in Bundle 2. There is an answer that you gave, it's in the middle of the page, Zeelie, in the last paragraph you say the following: "The fact that this man died so quickly and in such an easy way concerned us and that is why Colonel van Niekerk checked up on the file and while checking up on the file he found this, and this is just hearsay, you will have to ask him the question how he exactly he did this. What he then determined that this person had been to the Princess Hospital for treatment and people with heart problems were treated there. That is why I'm saying that I cannot give you a detailed comment on this aspect." Now the question I would like to ask you about this file. Just before you have this, so what you say in the last paragraph, something you said about the District Surgeon. Now the impression that is created with the Section 29 that in the file with regard to Bopape, there were indications that he had a heart condition. That was not what Mr van Niekerk's testimony was.

MR ZEELIE: That is why I mentioned at that stage it was hearsay and it was a thought that occurred to confirm what I had thought at that stage what could have taken place.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can I just return to your previous answer, do you say that it played a role in information that you got, this hearsay information with regard to what was in the file?

MR ZEELIE: No, as I said my opinion was that that was made on that specific day that he could have died because of a heart attack and as I said, hearsay and that is why I said hearsay information that that could have been the reason same as what I thought previously.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie did you at any stage, this incident that you were quite surprised if we look at the evidence on page 366, did you ever think about it to have a look at the file? Are there any comments that were made by the District Surgeon?

MR ZEELIE: No, I didn't do that.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, you also hear the testimony of Engelbrecht where he said that the medication that Bopape had with him that he helped him to obtain when he came from the District Surgeon was for a sinusitis problem?

MR ZEELIE: I heard that.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to ask you, the discussion that you had at John Vorster Square. There was a discussion that you were present with Colonel van Niekerk that you had with General Erasmus. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you tell us what did General Erasmus tell you during that discussion?

MR ZEELIE: He referred to after he returned from Pretoria.

MR RAUTENBACH: Let's put it in context. As I understand it, Colonel van Niekerk initially contacted General Erasmus.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: He went to his house?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And General Erasmus then went to Pretoria apparently to discuss this with General van der Merwe?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: He then returned to John Vorster Square?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Then there was a discussion during which you and General van Niekerk were present - that was with Erasmus?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Could you just tell us what did General Erasmus say during that conversation?

MR ZEELIE: If I can remember correctly, General Erasmus informed us that Bopape's body had to be transferred to the Eastern Transvaal and that we had to arrange a mock escape there.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is that what you can remember what happened?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did General Erasmus make any enquiries with regard to how it could have happened that the man had died during interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: No, not when I was present, it could be possible that it was discussed with Colonel van Niekerk.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then with regard to the person Bheki Nkosi, I just want to say to you because I wanted to put it earlier but I couldn't make it positive. Can you remember that on the 10th, the Friday, the 10th June, whether we now call it interrogation or not, the testimony is that it was a proper interrogation but were you aware of it that there were discussions between Engelbrecht and Mostert with Bopape on the 10th June?

MR ZEELIE: I was at no stage involved with any interrogation on the 10th June with Bopape.

MR RAUTENBACH: The question wasn't whether you were involved, the question is whether you were aware of the fact that there were discussions.

MR ZEELIE: No I was not aware of any.

MR RAUTENBACH: With regard to the interrogation. Bheki Nkosi says that on the 10th June he was interrogated on the same floor that Bopape was interrogated and during his interrogation Mostert came into the room and he said Mostert grabbed on his shoulder and shook him and he wanted to know something about Bopape. You have no knowledge of that?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: When you transferred the body of Bopape at Bronkhorstpruit, the body was transferred to the vehicle, Van Logellen's vehicle and was placed in the boot. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember what kind of vehicle Van Logellen had?

MR ZEELIE: No I can't remember.

MR RAUTENBACH: The colour?

MR ZEELIE: At this stage I can't remember the colour.

MR RAUTENBACH: Can you remember that you were quite sure during the Section 29 investigation that it was a white vehicle?

MR ZEELIE: It is possible. At this stage I can't remember.

MR RAUTENBACH: Another aspect that I would like to have clarity on with regard to the occurrence book. There was an entry and perhaps you can just explain to us. It is on page -the one that I want to refer to, it's on page 754. That is the entry concerning Bopape in the right hand column with regard to the section or what is meant in the right hand column, it's not quite clear but with regard to meals, there are six. Who enters these meals?

MR ZEELIE: The person who makes the entries is the person on duty at the cells.

MR RAUTENBACH: Who is in charge of the cells. With regard to Bheki Nkosi, the question that arises is that the only information in relation to him that existed according to you, is that he was found in a room that Bopape was in and then secondly that banned literature was also found in that room?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is it correct that Bheki Nkosi was placed in Section 29 detention? Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: And you also read that Bheki Nkosi alleged that he was also assaulted for information?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I read it in his statement.

MR RAUTENBACH: And I don't think it's necessary to really go into this but with regard to who was present at certain meetings you refer to printing errors. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: I just want clarity - are those printing errors or is it a case that perhaps after you read some of the other applications or had been properly consulted that you remembered more and that you realised that perhaps you made some errors in your initial statements with regard to people present?

MR ZEELIE: I accept that it was an error made by the legal representative who compiled the amnesty application. Facts were given to them and our applications were handled by them, it's a large volume and I think that's where the errors came in.

MR RAUTENBACH: You signed it. Probably you did not see it when you signed it?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I also want to ask you, I'm almost at the end of this cross-examining. With regard to Vlakplaas. Were you involved at Vlakplaas?

MR ZEELIE: No I was not.

MR RAUTENBACH: Not at all?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR RAUTENBACH: Did you have any information of Japie Maponya, that is a person who was blown up during a bomb explosion?

MEMBER OF PANEL: Mr Chairman, it wasn't Japie Maponya, it was Oderile Maponya, that was blown up.

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes, I think that's in the record. Yes. Did you have information about him?

MR ZEELIE: Specific information no.

MR RAUTENBACH: Were you aware of the fact, Mr Zeelie, that he was also interrogated about Maponya activities?

MR ZEELIE: If he was detained he would also have been interrogated.

MR RAUTENBACH: Are you aware of the fact that he died?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I read about it.

MR RAUTENBACH: And that he died during so-called interrogation session? The broer of Maponya, the person who died now at the explosion, now his brother died later on, do you know [interruption]

MR PRINSLOO: What is the relevance of this?

CHAIRPERSON: Is this relevant at all Mr Rautenbach?

MR RAUTENBACH: It depends on the knowledge of the witness, the witness says to me he heard about it, he knows nothing more about it, that's the end of the question, I accept that. Mr Zeelie, are you aware of the fact that Maponya's brother died in an effort to interrogate him or are you not aware of it?

MR ZEELIE: No I'm not.

MR RAUTENBACH: I'll leave it there. I want to make a certain remark with regard to what you said about the political situation in 1976. According to you it was a situation where the ANC stood behind the unrest and I suppose you would also concede then that in '76 there was a lot of unhappiness among the largest part of the population?

MR ZEELIE: That is now the Black population?

MR RAUTENBACH: Yes that is correct.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Steenkamp do you have any questions?

MR STEENKAMP: No further questions thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo did you have any re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Zeelie were you aware of a shock device that was held at Sandton?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Zeelie and the struggle that you've referred to that you waged against the ANC when you worked with Bopape did you believe that you were involved in the same struggle as your colleagues?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And after this person had died were you in any way told by your superiors that you should not use a shock machine or any other methods of coercion?

MR ZEELIE: No never.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Gcabashe do you have any questions?

MS GCABASHE: Mr Zeelie, there are a few areas I'm not very clear about. First, is it correct that you were in charge of the bomb disposal section of the investigative unit under the now Mr van Niekerk?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: And I'm specifically just speaking about the period 9th - 12th, 13th June 1988. Alright?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: Now at the time your functions essentially were related to bomb disposal?

MR ZEELIE: That is not correct.

MS GCABASHE: Your functions you are saying included investigating other matters?

MR ZEELIE: I was a member of the investigating unit at John Vorster Square Security Branch.

MS GCABASHE: But on between the 9th and the 12th you were not asked to participate in the interrogation of Bopape, Stanza Bopape. Yes?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: You were simply asked to assist with arresting on the 9th, the night of the 9th?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: And your superiors in the form of the now Mr Erasmus actually asked you to do that?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MS GCABASHE: Who was it who gave you the instruction to go and assist?

MR ZEELIE: It was Major Victor.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you, you're right, you did say that. So you had an instruction from a superior "go and assist with the Bopape matter." That's really what I'm establishing.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: We then get to the telephone calls that were made to Bopape. Did you make those telephone calls as the most senior person who was going out to investigate, arrest this man?

MR ZEELIE: I didn't personally make the calls.

MS GCABASHE: Were you there when the calls were made?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember that I was present but I accept yes.

MS GCABASHE: Now Mr Nkosi in his affidavit says one of the calls that came in was referred to the room next door. Would this have been room 1206?

MR ZEELIE: I really can't give you a correct answer to that but what I know is that at some stage one of the members went to that particular room.

MS GCABASHE: You personally did not go to the room next door?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember that I personally went there.

MS GCABASHE: Do you know if anybody from the room next door was arrested?

MR ZEELIE: If I can remember correctly, there was no one in that room.

MS GCABASHE: Right, now coming back still on the night of the 9th. In your Section 29 testimony you speak of the possibility of having roughed up the people you were arresting had they been resisting. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. In Afrikaans I used the words of "necessary violence"

MS GCABASHE: Now as part of that necessary violence, what exactly would that include?

MR ZEELIE: It would depend on the extent of the resistance. That would now be the violence that could be used.

MS GCABASHE: Now I would really like you to think back and try to remember to what extent you used that necessary violence?

MR ZEELIE: In my testimony I said that I believe or that it is possible that it could have taken place. In my testimony here I was questioned with regard to this particular incident and I corrected myself and said that perhaps I could have said yes and the panel confronted me with this and I said that I believe or rather I said that it was possible but I can't remember whether it in fact happened.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, sorry Ms Gcabashe if I may just interpose. So you can't remember whether or not there was any resistance?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But if one takes the situation, you've got two people, we know the one was lying in bed probably in his pyjamas. There's a knock on the door and a host of armed policemen come in with battledress and bullet proof vests armed with weapons. Would it be reasonable for anybody to infer that there may have been resistance. Could those two people, one of whom was lying in bed in his pyjamas probably, what would have been their purpose to resist that onslaught if I can use the word.

MR ZEELIE: I've already testified that the normal procedure was that the one unit, the unrest people would control the people inside and then I also said that if it was possible that there was resistance it could possibly have been where for example you have to handcuff him that he could resist that. That is what I remember that I told you.

MS GCABASHE: Yes, you see Mr Zeelie, you say in your testimony at the section 29 hearing on page 350, that's volume 2, in relation to a question about assaulting with a fist and this is on the night of the 9th. 350 - it's all got to do with the arresting of Mr Bopape. You say "I would not recall with absolute certainty that I assaulted him with my fists because even at that stage there was no charge laid against me for assaulting him with my fists". Let's just stop there. Had there been a charge laid against you - are you saying you would then have remembered whether or not you had assaulted him with your fists?

MR ZEELIE: No your honour, there was no charge put against me and I would have denied it in any case. That is why I refer to assault with fists because any measure of violence can be seen as possible assault.

MS GCABASHE: Really, but in the very next sentence you say "I do not believe it was a serious assault." Now there was either an assault or there was no assault. You either believe there was an assault and it was not serious or there was just no assault at all. Which is it?

MR ZEELIE: I've already said that I do not remember if there was any resistance.

MS GCABASHE: And you cannot then explain the sentence "I do not believe that it was a serious assault.

MR ZEELIE: What I meant by this, once again, was that only the necessary violence was needed to get him under control.

MS GCABASHE: But the problem is you can't, you can't even explain that necessary violence, you can't give us a picture of what that might have entailed.

MR ZEELIE: Your honour, what I've said in my evidence, I cannot give evidence if I'm not sure what happened, I'm only speculating then.

MS GCABASHE: You see Mr Zeelie because I would have thought that generally speaking when policemen rush into a room as Judge Miller has just set out, there will be some form of violence, however minor, there will be a form of assault and what concerns me as a member of this panel is why this becomes such an issue that it's difficult for you to admit that you would have roughed people up, you would have assaulted them however mildly. I don't understand why you won't disclose certain things that seem to be pedestrian issues.

MR ZEELIE: I explain at various and I said it was possible that it could happen.

CHAIRPERSON: The fact that those policemen who went into that room were dressed in bullet proof vests and they went in there in fairly large numbers, did you believe that the inhabitants of that flat may well be armed? Maybe with automatic weapons?

MR ZEELIE: I would have answered yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So if you went in there, would there not have been any intention on part of these policemen dressed in bullet proof vests to overcome them, to stop them from getting to their arms? Did that happen?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I do agree with that. They went ahead, I cannot say with certainty how they acted precisely.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you in the forefront. You were the leader. Were you the first in the door when you went into the flat?

MR ZEELIE: You mean when the person was already taken into custody?

CHAIRPERSON: No, when the door was opened of the flat.

MR ZEELIE: From the unrest members was there first and it would have been them.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Zeelie, may I just clarify one aspect. You see at page 150 of the record you are said to have said the following: "I do not believe that it was a serious assault." Now what you've just told us this morning is that what you meant by that statement is that you were referring to the necessary violence?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. What I meant was that if it happened it would not have been a serious assault.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you say at that enquiry that "I do not believe that it was a serious assault." Did you say that?

I don't want you to tell us what you meant, I just want to find out whether the words which appear here, which are attributed to you. Did you make that statement?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot precisely remember what my Afrikaans version was. You've got the document in front of you and that is what you see. I cannot at this stage what was my true Afrikaans version at that stage.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I'm not asking you what you may have said in Afrikaans, but what I'm asking you is as far as you can remember, is what appears on this record an accurate reflection of what you said on that occasion?

MR ZEELIE: Your honour I said I gave my evidence in Afrikaans. I would like to help you with an answer but I look at an English version here now and if I can listen to the Afrikaans version then maybe I could honestly answer you.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me ask the question again. What stands on this record, is this an accurate reflection of what you said on that occasion?

MR ZEELIE: I had no opportunity to test this English version against the Afrikaans version in which I gave my evidence.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I take it that you understand English?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

NGCOBO: And I remember yesterday you queried one of the statements made in the affidavit of Mr Nkosi. Is that right?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Now what difficulty do you have in telling us whether as this sentence stands, does it correctly reflect what you said on that occasion?

MR ZEELIE: As I said to you, I have got no problem with it but you made a direct statement to me that was translated into English, a direct - to give a direct answer, I have to listen to what was my Afrikaans words at that stage.

MR DE JAGER: Could I ask you then, let us forget what was said in Afrikaans at that day, is what is standing here a correct version of the facts as you remember them of what happened that night?

MR ZEELIE: There are a few places.

MR DE JAGER: We would like to deal with this phrase now. We would like to deal with this specific phrase "I do not believe that it was a serious assault."

MR ZEELIE: I say that it was possible that I could have said this.

MR DE JAGER: Let us forget if it was possible that you said it, was there at that specific evening an assault but it was not a serious assault?

MR ZEELIE: I said I could not remember if there was an assault but I tried to put the facts in such a way that if those words were said it's not specific to say that it was not a serious assault but the intention would not have been a serious assault.

MS GCABASHE: Then just to finish off this point. You then go on to say in answer to Mr Steenkamp, same page, the question was "Did he resist arrest?" Your short answer is "Yes."

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: But you are unable to tell us today whether he did in fact resist arrest and as a consequence of that whether he was then roughed up, assaulted, handled with the necessary violence, whichever phrase you prefer.

MR ZEELIE: I explained this whole situation to the panel and questions was put to me and I did answer them and I said there was at various stages asked, questions put to me and I said I could not remember, it is possible and the panel took me up on this and I could have said yes and to conclude your point and the Chairperson told me about it.

MS GCABASHE: Now haven't you refreshed your memory in the last five minutes, just while we have discussed this point. What is the answer to the question? Did he resist arrest?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot remember.

MS GCABASHE: We move from there to the bathroom. Nkosi in his affidavit says that you took Bopape to the bathroom. Were you on of the people who took Bopape to the bathroom?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember that I did that.

MS GCABASHE: Would you know who did take him to the bathroom?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot remember who would have done it if it happened.

MS GCABASHE: Can you give an estimation of the amount of time you spent in the flat that night?

MR ZEELIE: It is difficult to give a specific time of how long we spent or how long we were there. I cannot give a correct estimate.

MS GCABASHE: Mr Zeelie, you continuously misunderstand questions that are put to you. The simple question was an estimate, no precision is asked for, an estimate.

MR ZEELIE: It could have been 15 minutes, could be 20 minutes, it could be longer or less than that.

MS GCABASHE: Do you recall who found the banned literature in the flat?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot remember a specific person who got this banned literature.

MS GCABASHE: As the most senior officer at the place at the time was a report given to you about this literature being found?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MS GCABASHE: Where and when was it given to you?

MR ZEELIE: I believe it was given to me in the flat when Nkosi was also arrested.

MS GCABASHE: Did you see this literature? You personally?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I believe I did see it at that stage.

MS GCABASHE: Did you ask the officer reporting to you where he had found it?

MR ZEELIE: I would definitely have asked him that.

MS GCABASHE: But you can't remember anything else about that?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot remember.

MS GCABASHE: Mr Zeelie, now you have been at great pains to say to us you were not involved in the interrogation of Bopape on the 12th June, certainly not at the time that Mr Mostert and Mr Engelbrecht interrogated Bopape in Engelbrecht's office. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is true.

MS GCABASHE: But, you kept popping in and out or you popped in and out on occasion?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: I did not get your answer to the question put to you, what was your interest in this matter? Why did you keep popping in and out? You weren't seized of this matter.

MR ZEELIE: I have already gave my evidence. I was an officer and I was attached to this case. I was involved with the arrest of Bopape. I already mentioned that the information given to us that he was involved in the Maponya cases. I already mentioned that there were various telexes and cryptos that came across regarding certain explosives in which Maponya was involved in and I believe as officer of such a unit, if I was directly involved by the investigation or not, I have got an interest in the investigation by members who was part of my unit.

MS GCABASHE: Correctly put it was more of a curiosity? You were curious as to what progress was being made?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that is true.

MS GCABASHE: You then participate in discussions. If you look at page 379 of the same record, section 29 record, where you tell us right at the top that you were informed that he was not co-operating. That's not strictly true, you were not informed, it's Mr van Niekerk as the superior officer who had tasked two junior officers with interrogating Bopape. He was the person who was told that Bopape was not co-operating, not you?

MR ZEELIE: Your honour, if I said that, that was the intention. I was present there and not specifically it was said that Colonel Van Niekerk do not want to give his co-operation. I was present and a statement was made that says Bopape do not want to give his co-operation.

MS GCABASHE: You see the other problem I have is, the extend to which your presence at this meeting, at the interrogation itself, could have added value to the work that was being done by your colleagues. How did you add value? You knew very little about this. Mr van Niekerk had been to an in depth meeting with Mr Mostert. Mr Engelbrecht says he was briefed by Mr Mostert before they started the interrogation. You just happened to be there doing your own work and yet you make a contribution to these discussions. What value did you add to these discussions?

MR ZEELIE: I do not understand the specific statement of what value I added. I've already said I'm also an officer of the investigative unit at John Vorster Square. It was an ANC investigation and what was said there I cannot see how I have got no interest in that and what information could have been given, I also had a share in that by making certain recommendations and questions to give to the members to ask regarding certain telexes and other information that we received regarding the Maponya group.

MS GCABASHE: The point Mr Zeelie is, in terms of input you knew very little about this matter. Your colleagues knew much more so in terms of output, you could not have made a positive contribution to the discussion.

MR ZEELIE: I would not put it in that way. With the interrogation every person that makes a contribution makes a positive contribution.

MS GCABASHE: On the same point. Look at page 353, same hearing, 353. We are now on 353. "The terms 'scaring a person' has several meanings, but basically what I wanted to say was that we wanted to get him to tell the truth." Now the evidence we've had before us, Mr Zeelie, is that the man wouldn't talk, he wouldn't co-operate. You are somebody with the least knowledge of what the man is supposed to know of the four people who were there. What truth did you as an applicant in this particular matter, you want to get out of Bopape.

MR ZEELIE: As I mentioned, I some information regarding the Maponya group and this was an ANC terrorist investigation and my previous evidence I said that it was an attack on the system to try and disrupt or overthrow the government and I was part of the investigative team who fought this onslaught and that is why I think I've got just as right as all the others to investigate this person to have a share in this and to make a contribution.

MS GCABASHE: But this is precisely again the point, Mr Zeelie, you simply popped in and out on occasion during the initial interrogation in Mr Engelbrecht's room so you are really not privy to the responses or the questions that were being asked there. You really were not involved in that at all - I haven't finished - you then say you make a contribution to a discussion because you wanted the truth from Mr Bopape. In what manner would you, the individual, have been able to evaluate this truth? I mean, you, the individual?

MR ZEELIE: Firstly, like I wanted to ask this question that if Mr Bopape made certain information available it would have been to my interest because it's logic that if the members report that they are not allowed to give out any information, I can then see it as useless information. But if he gives positive information and on the point that where the members gave evidence that he doesn't want to work with them, he's resisting them, that in the Safety Police and Investigative Unit, I can give a contribution to help these members although the necessary information - to get the necessary information from Mr Bopape from the information that I've got from Maponya - Maponya activities.

MS GCABASHE: The question was how would you as an individual be able to evaluate what this person was saying, if he said anything at all? If he said anything at all?

MR ZEELIE: Once again as I have said, I have knowledge of the Maponya group and should Mr Bopape give evidence that corresponded with the activities in the Maponya group then I would have known it.

MS GCABASHE: But you would also then have had a report at your usual meetings either from your Commanding Officer or your superior, Mr van Niekerk, or in general discussions with Mostert and Engelbrecht. Your presence there at that particular time was totally unnecessary.

MR ZEELIE: No, as I have testified, I'm an officer in the investigating unit and at no stage an investigation would any officer's presence be unnecessary during any interrogation.

MS GCABASHE: Let's come to the idea of the device. Whose idea was it to get that device from Sandton?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot specifically say that it was me who made mention or perhaps Van Niekerk but among us, the five of us we - no sorry, at that stage we were four, it was mentioned that we - that the shock device should be used.

MS GCABASHE: Now, did somebody explain to Bopape how this device worked and why it was about to be used on him? You say you were there?

MR ZEELIE: No I can't remember that anyone told Mr Bopape how the device works and that device was going to be used. But I assume that he could have heard that we were going to use a shock device because it was discussed and that it also is a known fact among ANC members what the shock device is.

MS GCABASHE: Now do you know I had actually assumed that this meeting to consider these options took place in Mr van Niekerk's office. Are you saying this meeting took place in Mr Engelbrecht's office and C.N. Bopape was there, Stanza Bopape was there listening to this discussion?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot say that it was in Colonel van Niekerk's office or in Engelbrecht's office but I can't see why it should be kept a secret that he should not be able to hear that we're going to use a shock device and that we wanted to frighten him. I think that might have been the intention so that he should realise that we are going to use a device to in fact persuade him to give us the information.

MS GCABASHE: Please Mr Zeelie, just assist me in understanding in what happened that morning. You either had a meeting in the presence of Bopape and he was with you in Van Niekerk's office or all of you were in Engelbrecht's office. Which is it?

MR ZEELIE: As I've already said I can't remember precisely. But I can mention that should it had been in Colonel van Niekerk's office then there is also a possibility that Mr Bopape could have heard it because it was directly next to Van Niekerk's office and there was only glass division between the two offices.

MS GCABASHE: Mr Zeelie, slightly different point, please take me through the reactions of Bopape as you wound up that machine, that device.

MR ZEELIE: I did not do it. You said you. As I have already said when you turn the sling then Bopape's body muscles would contract and it also depends on where the ends of the cords are placed on the body and that would determine the specific effect it would have on the person.

MS GCABASHE: Yes and then when you let go, not you, the royal you, the person, I know it was Mr du Preez who actually wound it. When he let go of the handle or the sling what then would happen to the body? Just explain that to me?

MR ZEELIE: As I have testified the body would relax, the muscles would relax where the muscles are contracted it would now go back to the original position.

MS GCABASHE: The man would sweat, he would scream, his eyes would bulge out. What would his reactions be?

MR ZEELIE: No, from experience I've never seen that such a person's eyes would pop out or that he would scream. The contraction of the muscles and while the device is turned he won't be able to scream.

MS GCABASHE: I thought you were going on to explain what would then happen. Those are just examples, what would then happen? It's a totally painless exercise this?

MR ZEELIE: I have already testified it is painful.

MS GCABASHE: And you're not prepared to go through the reactions of that individual on that day while you were standing there?

MR ZEELIE: I don't understand your question?

MS GCABASHE: You are not prepared to describe to the Committee what the reactions of Bopape were. What reactions you observed as you stood there?

MR ZEELIE: I have testified on several occasions that this person's body contracted.

MS GCABASHE: You've also testified that he continued to refuse to say anything at all?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: That is why it was wound up three times.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: Now just a - it's a gentle issue, really. Let's finish off the issue of the blindfold. You've heard me ask your colleagues in their testimony what they knew of this. Let's finish that point off. What is the position, Mr Zeelie? Was he blindfolded or wasn't he?

MR ZEELIE: Perhaps I can answer. Mr Steenkamp, if I can remember correctly, on page 354 asked me a direct question whether he was blindfolded. At that stage I answered that is correct. On page 394 I also put it clearly with regard to this aspect and there I put it quite clearly that the person was not blindfolded and the reason why I should have said it was correct because that was normal procedure but here we acted openly, we wanted to frighten him and we wanted to coerce him to give information and he wasn't blindfolded and in detail I explained it in detail on page 394 and the panel accepted on that day what I have said and I wasn't referred to the fact that why did I say that he was blindfolded. The panel accepted my word and that is what had happened.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So, what is the answer?

MR ZEELIE: Who answered what?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Was he blindfolded?

MR ZEELIE: He wasn't blindfolded.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Thank you.

MS GCABASHE: Now we come to your comment about senior officers and their role in all of this. If you look at page 393. In fact it starts on 392. If you have 392, "If you have a Commanding Officer that you can see through your action under his command, you know if something happens he will cover you. That would be the sort of framework within which any investigative officer acted. Similarly with investigating officers who serve under me, they would have acted in a certain way if they knew I would take their part." Now I know you were cross-examined on this point by Mr Visser, Advocate Visser, but can you explain this to me? The assumption here was if you did something that was not proper, that was not right, your senior officer would cover for you. Explain that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I believed and as I have already said I knew that the senior officers would protect me because these acts that we committed weren't acts that we committed to personally get any gain it was done to keep the government of the day in power, it was to get information to keep the government in power. It was information that was obtained to prevent further acts of terror. It was information that was obtained to protect people's lives. I'm trying to look for the right word and that was to cope with the onslaught against the government.

MS GCABASHE: You see, it appears that this is exactly what happened in this particular case. Mr van Niekerk went to see Mr Erasmus, Mr Erasmus went to see Mr van der Merwe and we did have a cover up. So you are right, that they would condone this and cover it up.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: Then my last point was on page 414 on this aspect. Turn to 414.

MR DE JAGER: On this point Mr Wessels, he was Deputy Minister of Order at some stage and he said that he even had some suspicions that something like that could have happened and he asked no questions because he didn't want to know. Are you aware of that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I am, that is correct, that is why I testified yesterday that tacitly approval was given.

MS GCABASHE: To finish off on the point on superior officers on page 414. You say the very Commissioner who you referred to is the same one who issued the instruction with regard to the corpse. So I don't understand again within the context of condonation approval be tested to, or [indistinct] tested as you say. Page 414 line 6. You speak of the very Commissioner?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I believe I referred here to General van der Merwe.

MS GCABASHE: But again here, you are assuming that tested approval, you were not privy to any of the discussions that Mr van der Merwe may have been involved in?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MS GCABASHE: The mock escape. The mock escape. The De Deer incident. Let's come to that. Page 441 of your testimony. Just to confirm for me, this mock escape was planned after you returned from the Eastern Transvaal. That's correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. That is the one that took place, yes.

MS GCABASHE: But the planning actually started off in the car? That's the evidence that has been given.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. On the way back from the Eastern Transvaal.

MS GCABASHE: Who chose the De Deer site? Who chose that particular spot?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember which member chose the De Deer spot or site, it wasn't me because I didn't know that area.

MS GCABASHE: This mealie field that you ran through. Did it have crops?

MR ZEELIE: Not at that stage if I can remember correctly, possibly could have been, it's a long time ago, it could be possible that were some maize that had been harvested and that there were just little stumps standing there, I can't say with certainty at this stage whether there was still some maize or mealies on.

MS GCABASHE: Mr Zeelie, you ran through that field, you should remember whether you had mealie stumps or whether it had all been harvested at that stage. You ran through it.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. It was a long time ago and that is what I said it is possible that at that stage it could have been that it had been harvested already but there definitely weren't any mealies growing before it was harvested.

MS GCABASHE: Then those leg shackles. The intention was that they should make marks as you ran. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that is correct.

MS GCABASHE: Now did you turn back to look at what marks were in fact being made whether the plan was being effective?

MR ZEELIE: What I mean with that and what took place was that I had the one part of my hand and at that stage I let it fall and as you run the other side that fell out of the hand would fall to the ground and as you run forward and then you would pull it to the front and it would then make another mark and then it was picked up again up to the point where I took it off from my ankle.

MS GCABASHE: But anything, any animal, any person could have made any kind of mark on that mealie field?

MR ZEELIE: It would have given a very clear reflection where there would have been very clear footprints in the soft soil and with the footprints you would find these marks and then the inference could be made.

MS GCABASHE: Maybe I just don't have the right type of imagination, Mr Zeelie. The soft soil, it hadn't been raining, we know nothing about the rain. We know it's a mealie field so it's not sandy soil, it's not beach prints. How did these shackles leave marks? What marks were they supposed to leave there and I'm talking about marks that would indicate to investigating officers that an escaped person had run through this field?

MR ZEELIE: I didn't have a look at the marks but that is something that I did at the spur of the moment. It wasn't something that was planned before hand that I would leave these shackles to make the marks. That was while I was running and at the spur of the moment I did it to give it more credibility.

MS GCABASHE: Those shoes did they fit comfortably?

MR ZEELIE: It's possible that perhaps it could have been a size bigger than my feet. If I can remember correctly was Mr Bopape a bigger person than me.

MS GCABASHE: Thank you. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Moloi?

MR MOLOI: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Zeelie, at the beginning of your evidence, you gave us a list of certain qualifications you have. I'm particularly interested in one which could possibly cast some light on you type of evidence. You referred to having undergone a course in giving evidence. I don't know how it was translated in English but I heard it in your Afrikaans to mean "Getuines Liewerings Kurses" , a course in giving evidence. It's one of the things you underwent. Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that's correct. If I can remember correctly it was giving evidence with relation to weapons. Terror weapons. That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And what is the content of it more or less. I don't want a whole course but more or less what did it entail?

MR ZEELIE: It had to do with mostly the identifying of terror weaponry and that is why I said I also did a course in bomb disposal but it had to do with the finer detail of terror weapons and the expert evidence in that regard where there could possibly be questions.

MR MOLOI: And you would then prepare yourself to give evidence in court in order to secure conviction on the basis of this knowledge you had?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. What usually happened, was that weapons that were found in possession of terrorists, it was then placed in front of you in the presence of the accused and then you gave evidence on this about the weapons and he then pointed out to you and he gives his own version and then it is to weigh the knowledge that that person has about the weapons.

MR MOLOI: This occurrence, this causation of death of Bopape is not what you are used to?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: In your experience, when you want to obtain evidence from an activist, you never saw a person dying?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And also you went out of your way together with your colleagues to work out a scheme in order to conceal as it were the fact of his death?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. That was done in that way.

MR MOLOI: Lot's of planning took place and you were also fully aware of the repercussions it may have on you as individuals, on the force and in your words, on the government of the day as well?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: This is an occurrence that would live with you for a long time?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: I suppose it's something that you would not likely forget?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: You would not likely forget in particular the circumstances leading to the eventual death, would you?

MR ZEELIE: Could you just repeat the question please?

MR MOLOI: You would not forget in particular the circumstances leading to the death itself?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: You would need to be meticulous and also span in as it were, your mental and memory resources to remember this incident, it's a once off incident?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And in your evidence here you do tell what happened in great detail. Do you agree?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: You however suffered some amnesia when it comes to the real issues leading to the death. Do you agree?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And it is surprising is it not that you cannot remember the detail which you are supposed to remember in terms of your own evidence that led to the death of Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: I can only testify about what I can really remember and as you can sit and work it out, it's over a long period of time what had happened and questions arise, who, what, where and then you testify about that what you can really, really remember.

MR MOLOI: In this particular incident you put lots of time from the moment the death stepped in. Do you agree with me?

MR ZEELIE: I'm not quite sure what you're asking?

MR MOLOI: From the moment death occurred, you had to work out lots of things?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, there's a lot that goes through your thoughts, your mind, once again how is it possible? And there are many things that you think of.

MR MOLOI: The staging of the fake escape, you had concerns somebody may enquire about his death?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: And also when you prepared for your application for amnesty, you reflected on this issue, you must have?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: You did so individually and you did so jointly with the others, didn't you?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct in collaboration with our legal representatives.

MR MOLOI: You wouldn't necessarily have wound your mind back and said the 9th June 1988 in that flat this and that must have happened?

MR ZEELIE: That is why I've said that it is possible that's

where I wasn't sure, that is correct.

MR MOLOI: No but if this, if, Mr Zeelie, if this was a once off incident and you have seen none like it, it wouldn't be difficult really to recall in detail what happened even if you had to live a hundred years?

MR ZEELIE: I would say that the incident where the death occurred, stepped in, what happened before that, the ordinary arrest, it was an arrest that was really an issue - a West Rand issue - you leave that in the hands of that division and that is why it isn't possible for me to give detail concerning that aspect.

MR MOLOI: Wouldn't the very fact that this was actually not your matter even make you remember more as to look what I went into because of the matter that was not even mine. I could have served as a better reminder, do you agree?

MR ZEELIE: I agree and that is why there would be differences between the Section 29 questioning and the questioning taking place here where there was criticism raised. But it is so that the more you sit around a table, the more you discuss the issue things come to light and then you can remember, yes it's possible and then you can testify about it.

MR MOLOI: Mr Chairman I notice it's eleven, I wonder if it's not opportunity to adjourn now?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes this is a convenient time we'll take the tea adjournment.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: (s.u.o.)

MR MOLOI: ...were brought into this matter of the rest of Bopape and the interrogation but you were not actually involved in this matter were you?

MR ZEELIE: Could you just repeat please?

MR MOLOI: Bopape was just brought in, you were not involved, so to say, it was not your case.

MR ZEELIE: Yes I would just like to explain further. I was not part or I did not - I wasn't involved in the interrogation.

MR MOLOI: And also the arrest you were just called in to lend a hand.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I was just busy to complete the previous question or answer. I repeat again I was not directly involved with the interrogation but the previous question that was asked, what was my interest with this interrogation on that specific day, I would just like to add that as I have given evidence I was involved with the disposal of the bombs.

MR MOLOI: Have you finished now?

MR ZEELIE: No not yet and my presence at the interrogation could at that stage have been very necessary where the relevant person Bopape could have given information regarding bombs or any other weaponry and I could then in that regard make a positive contribution. Thank you.

MR MOLOI: But the fact remains and which was a short question it was not your case?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I was not the investigative officer.

MR MOLOI: The 12th June you were present when you saw him dying when you - when he was tortured?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: Did this make an impression on you?

MR ZEELIE: Please repeat?

MR MOLOI: Did the fact of his death make any impression on you if at all?

MR ZEELIE: The fact that he died?

MR MOLOI: More so in that fashion?

MR ZEELIE: I was shocked I was surprised that he died.

MR MOLOI: And if this person, that you see dying, resisted arrest just a few days before that, surely that would be something that would remain registered in your mind, wouldn't it, at that moment?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot with certainty say that it would have been - come up with me if he did resist this arrest.

MR MOLOI: And if this person that you see dying now was hit by yourself with a clenched fist a few days before that would surely come back in your mind?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

MR MOLOI: And that fact would be indelible actually in your mind?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct but I have testified that I did not attack him with my fists.

MR MOLOI: And if you had treated him in any other manner other than hitting him with a fist that would also be registered indelibly in your mind if at all you cared.

MR ZEELIE: It was not specifically, as I testified earlier on, the evidence was that when he died that is something that stays with you but not necessarily be the things surrounding his arrest.

MR MOLOI: Mr Zeelie is it not so that whenever reference is made to any possible excess, the police and you in particular, might have engaged in, then your memory deliberately fails you?

MR ZEELIE: I do not understand your question.

MR MOLOI: Don't you find it convenient then to forget or fail to remember whenever there is reference made to any excesses that you might have engaged in?

MR ZEELIE: No the evidence that I gave you was the truth and nothing but the truth.

MR MOLOI: You give us in detail what happened, what reaction Bopape showed during the application of the shock treatment?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: Yet your memory cannot tell you that you applied force on him or not?

MR ZEELIE: I've already given evidence that I cannot remember that there was violence used against Bopape during his arrest.

MR MOLOI: You can also recall without effort that you went to Krugersdorp or Roodepoort, you had an assignment to do other than attending the briefing session that was given there?

MR ZEELIE: That is why you will see as I testified earlier in the Section 29 interrogation, I could not remember those facts but it came up. I could remember it later on and I gave evidence or I testified about it.

MR MOLOI: But those issues that really matter, you find convenient not to remember?

MR ZEELIE: I do not agree with that as I testified, the arrest is one event that happened and the interrogation on the 12th is another event that took place.

MR MOLOI: Surely if two or three days prior to a person's death, if you had done anything to him it would be an easy matter to remember? That's now him then?

MR ZEELIE: Not necessarily.

MR MOLOI: Do you mean you could also forget that you had any dealings with him a few days before his death?

MR ZEELIE: That I what with him before his death? I was involved with his arrest but the finer details one not always can remember and you can forget certain facts, as like in this panel some of the questioners forgot some of the questions and then repeat them.

MR MOLOI: Mr Zeelie application of force on a person is not a minor issue or is it to you?

MR ZEELIE: It is the measure of violence applied. Resistance of arrest happens a lot during arrests but you cannot always remember those facts. Once again I have to mention this was a West Rand investigation. We helped and West Rand at that stage took that person away. Those are facts that you shared in, but that you cannot always remember the details.

MR MOLOI: Now thank you, you have said now what you wanted to say but can you now reply to my question?

MR ZEELIE: Could you just repeat again please?

MR MOLOI: Application of force in whatever measure on a person cannot be a minor issue or is it to you?

MR ZEELIE: Not necessarily.

MR MOLOI: What's that supposed to mean?

MR ZEELIE: I can once again mention I was involved in various cases and I did answer them correctly - the questions of yesterday. I know that a person was attacked, if I was personally involved and with respect I cannot in how that person was attacked in detail. And that is the same for this case. I cannot give evidence to you because I think that it happened in this way and it's my right that if I cannot remember, with respect I can then say to you that that part of the investigation I cannot remember. You want me tell the truth and I did tell the truth and I keep on saying to you that I cannot remember those parts.

MR MOLOI: If I must work from your own story, this is not something that you have seen before - that a person dies in the circumstances you have described. Do you agree with me?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR MOLOI: It cannot be associated with the many other instances where force was applied to any person that really cared?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct. I agree with that but that is why I separate these two instances, the one is the arrest, it's an ordinary arrest and the second case is where the person was interrogated and he dies and that is that part that stays with you.

MR MOLOI: And this arrest must have been unique to you?

MR ZEELIE: The arrest was not unique.

MR MOLOI: This arrest was the first in which you were involved where a person subsequently died. Was it not?

MR ZEELIE: This specific arrest is not, was not brought to me or I could not remember it over the years that the fact died and that remained with me.

MR MOLOI: So it's easier for you to conveniently forget the circumstances surrounding the arrest and the death of the person?

MR ZEELIE: Your honour, with respect, it is not as what you put to me now. I did not forget anything conveniently. You did address me because there was also questions put to me and I said that is correct and you said to me that I must be careful and I am doing this now. Now I say, or tell you, what I can remember and I will only testify about what I can remember and that is why I will stay with what I've said.

MR MOLOI: I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr de Jager?

MR DE JAGER: Do you ask amnesty for what happened during the arrest?

MR ZEELIE: In this specific case?

MR DE JAGER: In this specific case.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. If I read the whole context it is about the death of Bopape, it is attack - assault that led to his death.

MR DE JAGER: It is an assault during the arrest and there was also an assault with the machine. That's two assaults it's on different days, different cases.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, if I could remember that I assaulted Mr Bopape with arrest then I've got no reason or see no reason why I would deny this.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Judge Ngcobo?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Mr Zeelie, you were asked why you were present when the shock was administered to Bopape?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you were also asked to describe your interest in the interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: As I understand how the security branch works they co-operate with one another in obtaining information from detainees?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: There may have been something that Bopape would say which would be relevant to matters that you were then investigating?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: You did not have to have any knowledge of the precise activities in which Bopape had been involved in order to be present during the interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you could have asked him any questions which emanate from the answers that he gave during the interrogation?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: It is - am I correct in saying that - it is therefore not strange to find that a member who is not part of the interrogation unit also take part in the questioning of the suspect?

MR ZEELIE: It is not something that happened in the past. The investigative team, we are one unit and at times this happened a lot that a person who is not directly involved with the interrogation do take part in this interrogation. It happened a lot.

JUDGE NGCOBO: That's not something that's normal procedure as I understand the position, is it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me direct your attention to I think it's page 376 of the record, Volume 2, I think it is. You see, you will recall will you not, that your Section 29 enquiry you were asked about the presence of Mr Mostert during the interrogation of Bheki Nkosi? You will recall that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And the answer of that you gave, well that the answer that is attributed to you is the following: "Yes, firstly, once again, it is unlikely that when two members were given instruction to question one's suspect, that Mostert would also be involved in the interrogation or questioning of course. That does not make sense to me." Did you say that?

MR RAUTENBACH: It's the wrong page Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 376 and the words appear about one third down the page next to the underlined words Mr Zeelie.

MR ZEELIE: I did say it yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Do you still stand by that statement?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I furthermore said I cannot accept that Mostert, I'm not saying that it's not so.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes, I'm coming to the next sentence. You're still standing by that sentence?

MR ZEELIE: I did say it yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And did you went on to say: "I cannot accept that Mostert, I'm not saying that it is not so, I am saying that I cannot accept that because it was not standard procedure with us that he would have become involved in the Syfret matter and Nkosi matter simultaneously whilst they had to, that Syfret would have been involved in the Nkosi matter while he had to question Bopape as well." Do you still stand by that statement?

MR ZEELIE: Yes what I meant was that he was busy interrogating Bopape. What I did not see at that stage or I didn't see the necessity that Nkosi must be there while he was outside with Bopape.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me move onto another aspect. You will recall yesterday that you were asked about whether the deceased resisted arrest. Do you remember that? Do you recall that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And I read to you the answer which was attributed to you in which you replied that "yes he did arrest". Do you recall that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And I think you later on said you are not certain that he did resist arrest?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And when you were asked as to why you stated as the fact that he resisted arrest but in fact you couldn't recall, your answer was: "Well I had been asked about this aspect on many times that's why I ended up giving that answer." Did you say that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Right, now, well you see your evidence at the enquiry commences at page 343. That's when you took the oath, I think thereabouts and the first question, the question which was put to you by Mr Steenkamp was the following: "Did you do anything to Mr Bopape when you were arresting him? Did you arrest him or anything - did you at any stage arrest or assault Mr Nkosi as far as you can recall?" And then your answer: "I would not say I assaulted them, but it is possible that we roughed them up at the time that we arrested them. It is possible they resisted arrest so I'm not going to dispute that much." Is this an accurate description of what you said at that enquiry?

MR ZEELIE: On what page is that?

JUDGE NGCOBO: 349 at Volume 2.

CHAIRPERSON: It's about two thirds down the page.

MR ZEELIE: Yes we did talk about this aspect but I said that the answer that I gave there...[intervention]

JUDGE NGCOBO: I think that at this stage I just want to confirm that what appears there is an accurate description of what you said?

MR ZEELIE: I'm a bit confused because I wasn't at the specific page when you asked this question. If you could continue with that?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Let me see whether I can clear up any confusion. In response to the question by Mr Steenkamp as to whether you did anything to Mr Bopape or to Mr Nkosi at the time of the arrest. Your answer was: " I would not say that I assaulted them" I'm reading now at page 349. "But it is possible that we roughed them up at the time that we arrested them. It was possible that they resisted arrest so I am not going to dispute that much." Did you say that?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And then on the next page which is 350, you then ask specifically for the first time now by Mr Steenkamp, "Did he resist arrest?" And the answer was yes.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Where does it appear on this record, that is before the part which is that I've just read to you, where you were asked about resisting arrest?

MR ZEELIE: I do not understand. I really don't understand.

JUDGE NGCOBO: In order to explain yesterday why you admitted that Bopape resisted arrest, you said you gave that answer because you had been asked many times whether he had resisted arrest?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And what appears on this record is that you were the first person to bring up the issue of resisting arrest. No one else had asked you in this record. So I want you to take - to show me on this record before this proceed, where does it appear where those questions were put to you in regard to resisting arrest.

MR ZEELIE: I referred to the attack, that was assault, that was mentioned earlier on and that is where I got to the point of the resistance of arrest.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Well perhaps you don't understand my question. Your evidence was that "I said that Bopape resisted arrest because I had been asked many times whether he had resisted arrest prior to that, prior to my giving that answer." I want you to tell me to show me where prior to your answer are those persons in regard to resisting arrest?

MR ZEELIE: On the question of Mr Steenkamp he talked about arrest or assault and that is why we brought this thing in of possible resistance against arrest to bring it in connection with the word assault or [intervention]

JUDGE NGCOBO: But that was the first question that Mr Steenkamp asked you though, was it not?

MR ZEELIE: That he asked me about the assault?

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Zeelie if you take a look - sorry - if you take a look at your evidence it commences on page 343 and then there's a discussion about subpoenas etcetera and the first, right up to page 34,7 it's the discussion between the chairperson and your representative, Mr Prinsloo. Not talking about anything about the merits of the matter that occurred on the 9th, 10th, 11th or 12th June and then the questioning of Mr Steenkamp of yourself starts on page 348. That's the first question put by Mr Steenkamp. He asked "Did you have 26 years in the Police Force?" "Yes". So there's from the statement where you said that he resisted arrest is made on page 350 so that's two pages of evidence before that statement was made. I think what Mr Justice Ngcobo is asking is yesterday you said you gave that answer out of frustration basically because you'd been asked on many occasions did he resist and eventually to get it off your back you said yes he did. But now that must have happened in these two pages and what is being asked is whereabout?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I understand what you mean.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not there is it?

MR ZEELIE: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: It's not there is it?

MR ZEELIE: I do not understand what you're saying now.

MR DE JAGER: There is no mention in this record that you ever in the past was asked if he resisted his arrest?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR DE JAGER: It was the first time that you were asked this question in this record and you said yes and yesterday in explaining the matter you said that the reason why you said yes was because he asked you repeatedly and now what is put before you, that explanation of yours does not hold because it has not been asked you in the past?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. Except the fact that mention was made of the assault, because of that reference or statement that was made, I used the word resistance.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So in other words the explanation that you gave to us yesterday was not true. Is that right?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I want to move on to one other aspect and that is the blindfolding. As I understand your evidence now it is that at the time when you gave the answer to the effect that he had been blindfolded, you believe that indeed he had been blindfolded is that right?

MR ZEELIE: I earlier once again, I put it clearly. It was a direct question and perhaps I then indirectly gave a direct short answer. It was practice that the person was blindfolded. It was a quick question, I answered and I corrected myself at a later stage.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I see. Because it was a quick short question, you gave a quick answer which happens to be incorrect?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Where did you correct yourself, will you show them the record?

MR ZEELIE: It's on 394.

JUDGE NGCOBO: 394, yes. What about - would you just read the relevant passage?

MR DE JAGER: Approximately the 10th line approximately where the second blank line is?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What you're really saying here as I read your evidence, it is just that he had nothing in his face, his face was not covered?

MR ZEELIE: Yes. That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you at any stage of that enquiry go back to the answer that you gave and said when, wait a minute, that was an incorrect statement that I made?

MR ZEELIE: No, but I was never asked why I'm saying this now.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Now your explanation for making this statement is that it was a quick question?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. I instinctively answered because it was the normal procedure and because this was a question that gave more direction, I could give a better answer with regard to what in fact happened.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yesterday you furnished us with the two page document in which you set out somewhat very accurately on can gather, you know, the arms, the quantities of the arms that you had recovered, is that what this is about?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: That is Exhibit H.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And over how long a period did you recover these?

MR ZEELIE: I just want to mention that this was over a period, I was trained in 1980 in bomb disposal, it was approximately from 1983 onwards but then I also have to mention that I made this survey from statements that I had at my disposal and I also want to mention the Pastoors investigation and many more of this weaponry was found and it would in fact be a much higher number.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Oh yes I'll accept that. There's no question about that. I'll accept that but I think the point I want to make here is that you compiled this list in preparation of these hearings, is that right?

MR ZEELIE: Since we had this hearing I went through it and I made this list.

JUDGE NGCOBO: This was in preparation for these hearings?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: What investigations, if any, did you make in order to remind yourself as to what precisely happened in and around the death of the deceased?

MR ZEELIE: I have no documentation that I could refer to regarding the facts. With this I had documentation before me.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Did you try to sit down with your colleagues and try to refresh one another's memories to what happened?

MR ZEELIE: At some stage we got together and we tried to discuss it to get the facts together and therefore each one came here and gave his version as he could remember it otherwise we would have had a version that would have been exactly the same.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes. You've talked in somewhat greater detail about what you described as a total onslaught by the ANC?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you - I think you mentioned that you regarded yourself as some kind of a buffer against this onslaught?

MR ZEELIE: I didn't consider myself to be that. I did my duty, I did what was expected of me, what my seniors expected of me, the police force expected as well as the government expected of me.

JUDGE NGCOBO: The people that were fighting the ANC, they were seeking to overthrow the Government of the time by violent means, that's what you believed?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. That is what I also experienced.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes and they were prepared to engage in any means in order to achieve their objective?

MR ZEELIE: Would you please repeat that?

JUDGE NGCOBO: They were prepared to resort to any means in order to achieve their objectives?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: On the other hand, as a servant of the Government of the time you were also prepared to resort any means possible in order to arrest that onslaught?

MR ZEELIE: I was prepared to arrest people, to fight against the total onslaught.

JUDGE NGCOBO: And you were prepared to torture people in order to get information?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Were you prepared to kill in order to achieve your objective?

MR ZEELIE: I never had the intention to kill anyone.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I understand from what you said yesterday that as you are giving evidence now, you honestly believe that Bopape died of a heart attack?

MR ZEELIE: That is my honest opinion and I also went as far to say that I would give anything to have the body of Bopape come to the fore so that the evidence that we have given, the testimony, so that it can in fact be confirmed that he died because of reasons that we could not foresee at that stage.

JUDGE NGCOBO: So you had nothing to do with the death of the deceased?

MR ZEELIE: No that is not what I said. It is something that we did not foresee. I did not see that he would have in any way envisaged that he would die because of the shocks.

JUDGE NGCOBO: I don't understand what you're saying. You believed that he died because of a heart attack.

MR ZEELIE: That is the only inference that I could have made to give me some peace of mind that that was the case.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Why do you want amnesty then?

MR ZEELIE: Please repeat.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Why do you want amnesty?

MR ZEELIE: Because the person died.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Yes?

MR ZEELIE: A murder case is opened and that is why I'm asking for amnesty.

MR DE JAGER: What do you think caused the heart attack?

MR ZEELIE: I can just draw some conclusion and say that it was shock but as I have said even a very fit man can also suffer heart attack.

JUDGE NGCOBO: Thank you Mr Zeelie, I have no questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Prinsloo do you have any questions arising?

FURTHER EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. In relation to questions that Ms Gcabashe put to you and also questions by other members with regard to the assault on Bopape during arrest, had Bopape been assaulted by you, he would have had opportunity while he was in the cells to lay a charge against you?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. And that is why I said in the first affidavit that if I had assaulted him he would have laid a charge against me.

MR PRINSLOO: And another aspect Mr Zeelie, if he had been taken to the District Surgeon for examination in terms of his detention under Section 29 then he would have had the opportunity to complain that he had been assaulted?

MR ZEELIE: Yes he then has the opportunity to complain and lay a charge.

MR PRINSLOO: According to your experience did the District Surgeon, did he ask such detainees whether they had been assaulted?

MR ZEELIE: Yes those are questions that are put to the detainee.

MR PRINSLOO: And was there any litigation by someone that Bopape had alleged that?

MR ZEELIE: No, no such allegations were ever made against or questions asked to me by any person.

MR PRINSLOO: The banned literature that was found in Bopape's flat, would the person who have found it would he make a statement about it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes. That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And the people who were involved with that was it your office or West Rand?

MR ZEELIE: That would have been West Rand.

MR PRINSLOO: Should such a docket still exist it would be with West Rand?

MR ZEELIE: Yes it would be in that docket yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Zeelie in connection with the interrogation, that relates to the resistance against the rest that was put by the committee to you as on page 349 and 350. It was referred to the question put by Mr Steenkamp during the investigation. Let's have a look at 349. Mr Steenkamp has three different parts, it's three different questions in one, if you look at 349 towards the bottom. "...[inaudible] while you were arresting him" that's the one question. "or did you at any stage arrest or assault Mr Nkosi or as far as you can recall?" Do you see that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: More than one question in one?

MR ZEELIE: Yes that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then you continue and your answer is "that I assaulted them but it's possible that we roughed them up at the time that we arrested them. It was possible that they resisted arrest." You say that was possible.

MR ZEELIE: Yes. That is correct. That is what I tried to convey.

MR PRINSLOO: What you say that you would not dispute?

MR ZEELIE: What I meant with that was that there was a possibility that it could have taken place.

MR PRINSLOO: The arrest itself, were you assisted during the arrest?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then on the same page, and then Mr Steenkamp says "From the beginning, see my information is you assaulted Mr Bopape by hitting with your fist when you were arresting him. Do you recall that? He arrested arrest or what was the position?" And then he already started with the whole story of resistance of the arrest and then he continues with the long question as it was put: "Can you remember that he resisted arrest and I want to put it quite clear." "I cannot remember it precisely." "If there had been such a resist would there have been a charge?" "No not necessarily"

Mr Zeelie you were also asked the following from a question you answered put by Ms Gcabashe with regard to the death of Bopape that you said with regard to the shock that was administered that he could have suffered a heart attack. Do you remember that?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember it precisely.

MR PRINSLOO: If you said in that context that because of the shock he had a heart attack in other words what I'm saying to you, if he had not been shocked he would have had a heart attack?

MR ZEELIE: Not necessarily. It is possible that perhaps he could also have had a heart attack in any case.

MR PRINSLOO: But if he had been shocked he would also have a heart attack?

MR ZEELIE: Yes it's not about the whole - the shock - or perhaps then the shock that he experienced, not the physical shock by the machine.

MR PRINSLOO: And then another aspect regarding what was asked of you that you believed that the officers would condone this action. Did you believe it in general or did you believe it in this specific case?

MR ZEELIE: I believed that in this specific case where a person is interrogated in an ANC case, a case of terror and a Section 29 detainee. I saw it in that context where a person is being interrogated about internal security and that my officers would there condone my actions in this case.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Zeelie regarding information that is gathered, if Mr Mostert and Engelbrecht had obtained information from Mr Bopape where you were not that investigating officer, would such information have been conveyed to you?

MR ZEELIE: I assume that it would be conveyed to me.

MR PRINSLOO: Why?

MR ZEELIE: As I have already said I was also an officer part of the investigating staff and I can also say that at that stage I was a duty officer and there were telexes that had to be sent away in that regard and that I would also have had to see that.

MR PRINSLOO: In this particular case, you are applying for amnesty on the charge of culpable homicide. That's the only one at this particular case?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: In other words that you caused the death of Bopape because of negligence not with any intention?

MR ZEELIE: No I never had any intention.

MR PRINSLOO: Now if you say you were negligent how do you understand that in that context?

MR ZEELIE: I was negligent because of the fact that the person had died whilst he was being assaulted and this is not something that we envisaged, that he would die.

MR PRINSLOO: No further questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: That you Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt do you have any questions arising?

MS VAN DER WALT: No questions.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman. This does not arise from questions of the Members but you inadvertently skipped me on a previous occasion before.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry about that.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: No I'm sure you didn't do it intentionally Mr Chairman. I just want to say that

you mustn't look for matters arising from questions of the panel. There are two issues Mr Chairman which I have to clarify.

Mr Zeelie, I discussed your testimony with Du Toit regarding your testimony about George Maartens and he told me that this was a case, this detention of Mr Maartens which took place in the early '80's '81, '82 is that possible?

MR ZEELIE: I can't remember exactly which years it happened.

MR VISSER: Let's just quickly finish. Just try and answer the questions. Could it be true that's the question.

MR ZEELIE: I have already said I can't remember.

MR VISSER: So you are not prepared to concede that it might be true? He said that the case of Mr Maarten was a case where they wanted to get the person to give evidence against someone else. Can you remember?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR VISSER: And that the man escaped from custody. Mr George Maarten escaped and General Du Toit said he was in no way assaulted.

MR ZEELIE: He was definitely assaulted.

MR VISSER: You said that you assaulted him but you can't remember how?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, I just put it to you that this is not a case that isn't really relevant but for what it's worth, General Du

Toit will deny that he in any way blatantly condoned it if that man had been assaulted or allowed it?

MR ZEELIE: That is what had happened and that is what I said yesterday. If the committee wishes to then this specific person can be subpoenaed to testify.

MR VISSER: You can give the name to Mr Steenkamp perhaps he call him. In any case regarding the testimony that you gave that General Erasmus on the evening of the 12th June that he had given instruction that the mock escape would or should be done in the Eastern Transvaal. Now please understand me correctly, I'm not arguing that perhaps it could have been a perception that you had or that it was what you thought, that General Erasmus, as he can recall it is that what he said was that the body had to be disposed of in the Eastern Transvaal but that there as never any mention of the fact that the mock escape would be arranged in the Eastern Transvaal. Could that be true, could that be correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is what was conveyed and that is why Colonel van Niekerk discussed the issue with Brigadier Visser.

MR VISSER: And today with certainty, based on your good memory of that, that you can now give the positive answer?

MR ZEELIE: Yes I can.

MR VISSER: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rautenbach.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, with regard to the disclosure of what happened and decisions that were taken I want to ask you the following. The decision to use the shock device, it was a decision as I understand you, by the people who were present?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: All of you?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: The decision to plan escape at De Deur it was taken by all of you? That was at De Deur, not the escape but at De Deur?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, I was busy answering, after the body had been handed over to members of Eastern Transvaal, when we arrived after Brigadier Visser had said that it would not take place in his section, on the way back it was discussed by me, Mostert and Van Niekerk.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, with all the patience that I have, we don't want to hear your testimony right from the start. We have heard that story from different witnesses four times. There is a question put to you. Did you, the five of you, did you sit and decide that it was going to happen at De Deur? According to your testimony it happened there, certain decisions must have been taken?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR RAUTENBACH: Now who decided it, you, all of you together?

MR ZEELIE: The original decision...[intervention]

MR RAUTENBACH: We have nothing to do with the original discussion about Eastern Transvaal, the question was put to you concerning De Deur and just answer the question please? I'm asking you, please don't tire us with a history every time.

MR ZEELIE: That was not I wanted to do, I just want to inform you that we were five people who were involved but even in the vehicle we were only three people who discussed it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, the decision that Bopape had to be taken from the office and placed into the passage was it taken by all of you together present?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, I just want to ask you and I want to put it to you in this way. Why is it that you can't tell us who took the initiative with these decisions? Can you tell us or not?

MR ZEELIE: Because it was in a discussion and I cannot say who specifically said it.

MR RAUTENBACH: Isn't it that not one of you individually want to take the blame for taking the decision?

MR ZEELIE: No that is not the case.

MR RAUTENBACH: And then I want to say to you how can you say that Bopape would not have complained about the initial assault, why?

MR ZEELIE: Because I believe it did not happen.

MR RAUTENBACH: I ask you, you already told me that you never had a look at the District Surgeon's file or report is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, we don't know whether there was a complaint made, a complaint made by Bopape, if there had been a complaint then it would have been investigated and would a statement have been taken from me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Among the members of you, would one of those members have recommended that a statement would have been taken?

MR ZEELIE: I said that if he had complained to explain it, once again, then the case would have been put to the attention by the District Surgeon of the officer who investigates these cases and that officer would have talked to me.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Zeelie, a last point, I got the impression today that you continuously stayed with the whole issue with regard to the assault during the arrest that you can't remember it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR RAUTENBACH: Is it correct that you said the next, the following thing and the Section 29 on page 360 with regard to Nkosi's allegation that you had assaulted Bopape and I now quote, just a moment please, it's page 360, I'm going to read the whole answer to you. "Is this question aimed at his arrest in the flat or at the police station?" "Ja, I just would like to mention that I do know at which stage Nkosi made a statement because such a statement was never brought to my attention at any stage. If he had such facts he should have made them available earlier and it would have been put to me at an earlier stage so I dispute what he says" and before I read the last page I want to go to the previous page. It relates to a question put by Dr Ally where he said that - and it has to do with the fact and then you end your answer with the following: "Certain allegations which I believe had been made for the sake of sensationalism" you would concede that there is now a difference between what you say now and what you said with the Section 29 investigation, is that true?

MR ZEELIE: I said this yes. The reason why I said it was that had I arrested him or assaulted him there would have been a charge or complaint and Mr Nkosi's statement would have been taken and then this would be taken up with me by this specific officer.

MR RAUTENBACH: No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Mr Steenkamp?

MR STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Zeelie.

CHAIRPERSON: Before the next witness is called I would just like to ask the legal representatives - as you know we'll be adjourning a bit earlier tomorrow because some of us have to catch aeroplanes. We don't know how long Mr du Preez the next witness’ evidence will last and we also have the question relating to Mr Erasmus who has indicated that he would like to be excused tomorrow.

I was wondering whether despite the facts that was agreed on at the pre-trial conferences that you had with Mr Steenkamp whether it wouldn't be convenient and I leave it in your hands as well, whether after Mr du Preez, Messrs Visser and van Loggerenberg testify and that would then complete the events that took place on the ground as it were relating to the actual death and disposal of the body. I don't know if that would be convenient and then after that get to the other applicants who - I don't know if that would be convenient - and then if Mr du Preez' evidence finishes early we can then decide whether or not depending on the time to start with the next witness because I don't know how desirable it will be to stop in the middle of a witnesses evidence and then resume on an adjourned date which will be some time in the future?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, if I may respond, in fact it has been agreed that Mr Visser and Van Loggerenberg will complete their evidence before I lead my witnesses so that has already been agreed, the only thing that may have changed that order was during the previous discussions when we didn't know how long we would have next week or whatever the case may be so that in fact has been done and Mr Chairman may we join you in our concern postponing a matter with part heard witness it often creates problems later when he's not available.

CHAIRPERSON: It's not desirable really and it can prejudice the witness in fact. Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: I just wanted to say that the next three applicants are my clients. I would like it that they - we leave it till later - we can continue with the other and that will be completed. Thank you.

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman from our point of view we understand the concerns and we also agree that a witness should not if possible at all stand over in cross-examination however, we would like to see that as much time as possible be utilised. I understand the situation tomorrow but even if we may start a little bit earlier just to see to it that with much time as possible will be utilised but we understand the situation that if we get to a witness and it's clear that that witness will have to stand over it may become necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we'll perhaps be in a better position at the close of today's proceedings to see what will happen and we can discuss it then. Thank you Mr Rautenbach. Yes, thank you. Ms van der Walt?

MS VAN DER WALT: I call Mr du Preez.

MR JOHAN LUDWIG DU PREEZ: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr du Preez, you also applied and your application is regarding Volume 1 from page 112 to 117 is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Like the previous applicant you appear in the annexure A and B?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: I confirm annexure B?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr du Preez, when did you join the South African Police service?

MR DU PREEZ: Since 1966.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are present still in their service?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it was during this time that you were part of the Safety Branch?

MR DU PREEZ: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Security Branch?

MR DU PREEZ: No during 1976 up until 1978 I was involved with the Uniformed Personnel, 1978 to 1987 I was at the Detective Branch.

MS VAN DER WALT: And after that?

MR DU PREEZ: From 1987 up to present I worked for the previous Safety Branch, Security Branch.

MS VAN DER WALT: During the death of Mr Bopape where were you then stationed?

MR DU PREEZ: At Sandton at the Investigative Unit that was resorted with the Security Branch there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is that John Vorster?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Under whose command were you?

MR DU PREEZ: At that stage it was Mr Pretorius.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did Mr van Niekerk have any command over you?

MR DU PREEZ: Major van Niekerk was at John Vorster Square at the Investigative Unit. Mr Pretorius was at Sandton and they had equal ranks and it was part of the security branch it was not my direct section head or unit head.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now on the 12th June that was the Sunday, were you contacted by someone? Do you know who this person was who contacted you?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot say who contacted me.

MS VAN DER WALT: What was the request?

MR DU PREEZ: The request, if I had access to a shock equipment and which I confirmed.

MS VAN DER WALT: What were you supposed to do then?

MR DU PREEZ: That if I had access to such equipment I must take it to John Vorster Square. I left my house, I went to my office in Sandton where I got this device and then left to go to John Vorster Square.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why was there a shock device in Sandton?

MR DU PREEZ: The shock device there was used during interrogation sessions.

MS VAN DER WALT: Good, you then went to John Vorster Square?

MR DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened there?

MR DU PREEZ: Well at John Vorster Square I got access into the building, I went to Mr van Niekerk or Major van Niekerk, I reported to him where he asked me if I brought the device with me - I said yes. I then went to my vehicle to go and get the device. When I got back Mr van Niekerk told me that there is a detainee who does not want to work with them, co-operate and they want to frighten him in order to get the information from him.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did he at any time mention what information they need from Mr Bopape?

MR DU PREEZ: He did explain to me in general that this man was a member of the terror group, terrorist group, so-called Maponya Group and that they want to interrogate him regarding his participation or the doings of this group.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you have any knowledge of this group?

MR DU PREEZ: Sometimes there were circulars or articles were sent to different branches regarding well known groups and I had heard of this group and I knew they existed. There was also in the media, mention was made there and there was photographs in the Sunday papers after the leader of this group killed himself during a terror act in Pretoria.

MS VAN DER WALT: After Mr van Niekerk said to you that they want to frighten Mr Bopape what did you say?

MR DU PREEZ: I prepared the shock device meaning that I insured that the electrical cords that's attached to this device is properly fastened and that the points of the device was covered meaning that is was covered with material. I also dampened these points and while I was busy with that, there was an old wooden chair that was in Mr van Niekerk's office. I took that to the passage, I put it in the passage. Mr Bopape was then taken from the office, he was asked to take off his shirt. He then sat on this chair and with velcro bands or strips he was then fastened onto this chair.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you soak these point in water?

MR DU PREEZ: Water is a conductor for electric current and when the points of these wires is covered then a current cannot go through them that is why the material is soaked in water and the water is then the conductor.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why was the points covered in cloth?

MR DU PREEZ: The shocks or the points of the wires results in small burning marks on the body. If the shocks are administered, that is why the points are covered so that afterwards there would be no visible signs of what happened.

MS VAN DER WALT: You then mention that Mr Bopape was taken from the office. Did you see him?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes I saw him when he came out of the office.

MS VAN DER WALT: You were not involved in the interrogation that was before that but when you saw him could you see if he was injured in any way?

MR DU PREEZ: He had no visible injuries.

MS VAN DER WALT: And did he walk by himself?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes he did.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did he appear normal?

MR DU PREEZ: He did appear normal to me. I cannot really remember if there was any things that stood out. If he did not appear normal I would have remembered it today.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened then after he was tied to this chair?

MR DU PREEZ: They did all the preparations. After the preparations was completed I took the shocking device. Mr Engelbrecht used the conducting cords or managed them. I stood from them a metre, metre and a half and I started to turn the sling of the shock device.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you tell this honourable Committee that this turning of this device, how does it work? Is it only once or can you describe it to us?

MR DU PREEZ: I would just like to ask do you mean that a circular movement one turn?

MS VAN DER WALT: You said that you turn the shocking device. What do you mean?

MR DU PREEZ: I had the object in my hand and I turned this sling in a circular movement and it was connected to a coil and it goes round a point and by turning it, you turn the coil and that generates the electricity or the power.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you do that a few times after each other?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you show with your hand in a circular movement?

CHAIRPERSON: He indicates with a circular movement of the hand going around. How many times Mr du Preez, two or three times that you indicated looked like two or three but if you could do it again?

MR DU PREEZ: A circular movement two or three times I cannot really say. A few turns. Sorry?

MS VAN DER WALT: You can then continue.

MR DU PREEZ: I turned it, I started turning it two or three times and meaning one turn, another one, not continuously, generation of electrical current but only in short stages. I stood there to give the person an opportunity that if he wants to or if he shows that he is willing to answer the questions or to give his co-operation that he will then get that opportunity.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did anyone talk to him after the first few turns?

MR DU PREEZ: They did ask him if he is willing to co-operate. I don't know who put these questions to him, I did not talk to this person.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes and was there any reaction from Mr Bopape?

MR DU PREEZ: There was a negative reaction from him.

MS VAN DER WALT: What do you mean by that did he answer or did he keep quiet?

MR DU PREEZ: I cannot specifically say if he answered or if he just kept quiet I think that it was one of the two because I continued with the shock device applying shock.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, you can continue.

MR DU PREEZ: Then I applied it again, I did it again and once again there was no positive response and after a third or fourth time after this process was repeated I saw within the administration of these shocks I saw that his upper body and his head was hanging. It looked to me as if he wasn't conscious, there was a difference because previous times he sat upright. It was strange to me, Mr van Niekerk said there was something wrong. He put the machine down and I helped to - I went to him and I freed him from the chair and I saw that there was no reaction from him. We put him down on the floor on his back and I then administered CPR and I tried to resuscitate him, it was not successful, I had got no reaction from him, there was no indication that he was beginning to breathe again. I just want to mention that when he was put down on the floor it was as if I could not perceive any breathing and that is why I started with the CPR or mouth to mouth resuscitation.

MS VAN DER WALT: What happened then?

MR DU PREEZ: If I can remember correctly, Major van Niekerk felt for the pulse, he could not feel anything and I realised then that Mr Bopape was possibly dead.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes and what did you do then?

MR DU PREEZ: We realised that there was great implications because of this, because of his death and we decided then to -the Branch Commander of the Security Branch, Brigadier Erasmus now General Erasmus, to contact this person and to tell him what took place.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you realise that there would be great implications? What implications?

MR DU PREEZ: The implications to what I can refer to is death while detained. It was a political detainee. The 16th June date was just four days away and in the past it was a date where actions were taken against the government - protests, attacks in that period of time and this death could have resulted in an intensifying of actions aimed at the government of the day.

MS VAN DER WALT: During that time in June 1988 what was the situation regarding the general violence and the unrest?

MR DU PREEZ: I can mention that during the '80's from 1985 there was an increase from an escalation in the violence from the ANC side, from overseas and the organisations locally. There was to bring stability back into the country in order for a normal living standard so I can say that during that time there was a great onslaught, not just from the ANC but also from it's alliances locally.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you say that this death while detained could have worsened the situation?

MR DU PREEZ: Yes according to me it would have.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you. Chairperson I see that it is one o'clock and that this might be a convenient time to adjourn.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, I agree with you, we will take the lunch adjournment now.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, yes Ms van der Walt you can continue please.

MS VAN DER WALT: Chairperson, during the adjournment Mr Prinsloo pointed it to me that Mr du Preez' full names are not on record if we could perhaps just place that on record please?

CHAIRPERSON: Du Preez, could you please give us your full names?

JOHAN LUDWIG DU PREEZ: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr du Preez in your testimony you were at the point where you applied mouth to mouth resuscitation and then you realised that Mr Bopape had died. What happened then?

MR DU PREEZ: After it had been determined that Mr