Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-24

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes, Mr Chairman, once I'd been informed that it's been decided that they were to be placed in a river and what my part would be I then prepared, on grounds of that instruction.

MR LAX: And where did you get all that material from?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman at the farm at Verulam, there was an old Hulett's farmhouse, there was much poles, wire, hessian bagging and all of that stuff was at the farm.

MR LAX: Please carry on, sorry to interrupt you.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.  Now did the repercussions that this would have, the fact that Ndaba and Shabalala were to be eliminated on the National Party as explained in paragraph 18, did you reach this conclusion on your own, or where did you get this information?

MR LAX: I was just reminding you to put the mike on, you did it as I mentioned it to you.

UNKNOWN: The concerns raised in paragraph 18.

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Sorry Mr Chair, I just missed the gist of that question.

MR LAX: You're being asked, these concerns that you raise here in paragraph 18 about the way the decision was taken and the basis for that decision, where did you, how did you come to know about these concerns?  Have I put the question correctly?  Did you ...(indistinct- mike not on).

UNKNOWN: Were you personally concerned about the repercussions that the elimination of Ndaba and Shabalala would have on the National Party?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I was aware that there would be repercussions, should it be established what had happened.

UNKNOWN: Were you concerned about those repercussions as stated in paragraph 18?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: What repercussions exactly?

UNKNOWN: Should I read out the paragraph?  Paragraph 18 of his statement.

MR LAX: Mr Wasserman, you can see paragraph 18, it's pretty obvious that there are a whole range of issues contained in it.

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes Sir, I'm aware of the issues but are those repercussions?

MR LAX: Well during the period of time when the negotiations were under way, these revelations would have caused a sensation and would have embarrassed the National Party and the Government.  Those are the repercussions she's talking about.

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes, I concur with that.

MR LAX: Yes, but the question you're being asked is, did you personally have a worry that that in fact would be the result?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes, I did.

UNKNOWN: You were not told this by Mr Botha?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I believe that I was also told this by Mr Botha, but I did further concur with it by myself.

UNKNOWN: How far did you say the safe-house was from the Tugela River?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, distance wise...

UNKNOWN: An estimation will do, Mr Wasserman.

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: 80 kilometres.  80/90 kilometres.

UNKNOWN: So your testimony is that for 80 to 90 kilometres, you drove 80 to 90 kilometres in total silence to the Tugela?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I didn't speak at all to either Ndaba or Shabalala.

UNKNOWN: But you spoke amongst yourselves?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes, we spoke amongst yourselves.

UNKNOWN: What would you say the mood was amongst yourselves as you proceeded to carry out this mission?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: The mood was a sombre mood but we were going at lengths to show that it was not abnormal.  Like that, there was nothing, I'd deem it as a normal trip.

UNKNOWN: That is you wanted to conceal it from the two people you were with, Mr Ndaba and Mr Shabalala?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes, Ma'am.

UNKNOWN: You wanted to conceal it?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes.

UNKNOWN: If the Chair will bear with me.  Now your evidence has been that you did all this in the course of your duties.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman this is really, I haven't opposed or objected to this before, but really it's a question of legal argument.  The learned Commissioner Lax has already put this to Mr Wills before.  It's a matter of legal argument and frankly Mr Chairman, a lot of time might be saved if my learned friends would read the Khotso House judgment, because that is where this issue was dealt with by the Amnesty Committee Mr Chairman.  We're really just wasting time with these questions.  This witness can't answer legal questions.

UNKNOWN: Mr chair, I do not believe that, I would like to know the mind-set of the applicant when he is carrying this out.  Did he believe that he was carrying out his duties, was he aware that the instructions were unlawful in the circumstances?

MR VISSER: I have no objection to that question.

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I was aware that these were unlawful instructions.

UNKNOWN: But you carried them out anyway?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Correct, Mr Chairman.  It was my belief that I was still fighting the war and the conflicts of the past to the best of my ability.

UNKNOWN: What, under normal circumstances, were you required to do when given unlawful instructions by a senior policeman?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I beg your pardon.  Would you just say that again?

UNKNOWN: What were you required to do once given an unlawful instruction?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Usually one would not comply with such an instruction.

UNKNOWN: Why in this case did you?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I saw it as part of my duties in fighting the onslaught that we were faced with at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: The acts were unlawful, they were against the common law of our land, but did you believe these instructions were coming from the government, from the top?  Not directly, but the authority was derived from them?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes, I did so, Sir.

UNKNOWN: No further questions, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS POSWA

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, I do have questions, thank you.

MS THABETHE: Mr Wasserman, at paragraph 10 of your statement, you say that in view of the fact that Ndaba was already a Security Branch informer, you go on and then you say
"I was given to understand that we were not interested in any information which Shabalala might be able to give us."
What does that mean?  I don't quite get the meaning of that statement, "I was given to understand that we were not interested in any information which Shabalala might be able to give us"?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Mr Chairman, I was of the opinion that as Botha was handling Ndaba as an agent, we were not to be, not to go for Shabalala for information as Ndaba was already able to feed on to Botha the information that Shabalala might have been in possession of.

MS THABETHE: When you say we, who are you referring to?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: I'm referring to that unit that was involved.  That'll be du Preez, van der Westhuizen and myself.

MS THABETHE: And who gave you that information that Shabalala might not be able to give you an information?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: That was Botha.

MS THABETHE: Botha?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Yes.

MS THABETHE: So Botha gave you an instruction that you shouldn't worry about Shabalala because you wouldn't be interested in the information that Shabalala would give?

LAWRENCE GERALD WASSERMAN: Not to worry about Shabalala, Ndaba has the information.

MS THABETHE: Right.  Now, my next question is, if Botha thought that Shabalala would not have any information that would be of interest to you, you in plural, why was Shabalala detained in the first place?  What was the purpose of detaining Shabalala, because Ndaba had already given the information and as far as your evidence goes, Botha said you don't need Shabalala.

CHAIRPERSON: Shabalala was detained, wasn't he, to save Ndaba?

MS THABETHE: Sorry Mr Chair, Shabalala was detained to save Ndaba?

CHAIRPERSON: He gave the signal in the car, didn't he?

MS THABETHE: That was the reason for detaining Shabalala?

MR LAX: Do you mean his continued detention?

MS THABETHE: Yes.