Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-09

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Although I did not participate in the assault on Khubeka, I advised that I may be guilty of punishable manslaughter and/or assault, based upon the mutual intention and the fact that I associated myself with the assault.  I followed very little of the discussion, except that which was interpreted to us by van der Westhuizen and Basson or Taylor.  What I understood from the discussion was that she admitted that she had liaised with four externally trained terrorists.  Taylor asked her if she would co-operate with us in order to arrest these terrorists.  She agreed with the precondition that her identity not be made known.  Furthermore she proposed that she would send the terrorists to a point where we would be able to arrest them.

MR VISSER: That she would send them?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That's correct.  It was her proposal to send the terrorists to a point where we could arrest them.  it was not acceptable and we suggested that she make known the addresses and hiding places of the terrorists.  At this point, before she could respond, she began to gasp for breath, grabbed her chest and fell over.  While her body was shaking, she urinated and within seconds she lay dead still.  I was frightened and someone went to fetch water outside and poured it on her because we thought that she had fainted.  She did not respond to the water which I splashed on her face.  She had no pulse rate and W/O Basson brought a mirror and held it in front of her mouth.  There was no breath.  I realised that she was dead, possibly from a heart attack.
	Khubeka was physically a big woman and in my opinion overweight.

MR VISSER: Now when you say big or large, could you give an indication of length?  Could you perhaps stand up and in comparison to your length, give an indication of her size?

CHAIRPERSON: Her height.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: My length is 1,78 metres and my recollection was that she was shorter than me, I would say at least a head shorter than me.

MR VISSER: Thank you.  A head shorter then what you are?  Very well.  And her weight?  Greater ...(intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Your head shorter than her?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Yes, Chairperson.  Chairperson, physically she was a large woman, she was large.  In my opinion 90 to 100 kg.

MR VISSER: Can you recall the clothing that she wore?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No, I cannot.

MR VISSER: Very well, please proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, you said that she grabbed her chest and fell.  Was she sitting on a chair at the time, or was she standing up when she was being interrogated and when this happened?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, she was seated flat on the ground, her legs were folded to one side.  She sat on the floor and after she began gasping for breath, she fell over onto her side.

CHAIRPERSON: So during the interrogation when she was getting beaten with this sjambok etc, she was actually sitting on the floor?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, she was in a seated position consistently.

MR VISSER: Please continue.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before - Sorry, Mr Visser - you say you can't remember her clothing.  Can you remember whether she was wearing a dress or trousers or what?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, I've studied the other statements and I have attempted to recall how she was clothed.

CHAIRPERSON: And you just can't remember?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Honestly, I cannot recall how she was clothed. Her death created a dilemma.  Under normal circumstances the body of a person would be taken to the state mortuary after which the regular legal procedure would be followed.  If one of us were to take the body to the mortuary, there would be forms which would have to be filled in, in which explanations would have to be provided regarding, among others, the identity of the deceased, where and under what circumstances the deceased had died, where the body was found as well as other questions regarding the next of kin of the deceased and so forth.  The person who would take the body to the mortuary would have to identify himself, at least.  The risk that any member of the Security Branch or Vlakplaas would be placed on record in connection with Khubeka, was an unacceptably high risk from the perspective of the requirement of secrecy which was the fundamental basis of our intelligence research.  Furthermore, there would necessarily have been a post mortem inquest with the resultant controversy which it would have created in the press.  If it should appear during the autopsy that there were signs of assault on her body, the controversy would have been even greater.  Through this not only the activities of the Security Branch would have been exposed, but it would have created a tremendous embarrassment for the government.  The danger that this entailed was that the involvement of askaris could possibly be exposed which could lead to the exposure of the activities of Vlakplaas.  	Mbane, Dube and the other informers, who had initially been involved with her, would be identified and this could lead to their murder as traitors.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Gen Botha are you saying from this, from what you've said here in paragraph 29, that the situation was that if she didn't co-operate as you the interrogators desired, she would have to die?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: What would have been the situation if she didn't have that heart attack and she didn't co-operate?  With all these - what would you have done about the assault marks and covering up for the askaris etc?  Would you have kept her in detention for the rest of her life, or what?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, there were two possible options if her untimely death had not intervened.  If she had co-operated and at that point there were already indications of co-operation, even though we differed on how she wanted to do it and how we wanted to do it, firstly we would have left her and she would have co-operated.  In this case we had control because the askaris which had already infiltrated with her, could physically monitor her activities.  Secondly, if she did not agree, it would have been considered that she be detained and we then would have taken our chances by denying that she had been assaulted by us.

MR VISSER: I think the question is more specific, that when you seized Mr Khubeka there at Battery Beach, if she had not co-operated, would you then have considered killing her?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No, Chairperson, at that stage it was not a consideration in my mind.

MR VISSER: Very well, please proceed.  Paragraph 30.

ADV BOSMAN: Before you continue, I would just like to clarify something.  You say that during the interrogation, she indicated signs of wanting to co-operate?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Now if I understand you correctly, then you continuously hit her with the sjambok?  Not you personally.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No, Chairperson, I have already answered this question.  It was not continuously.  If I could just explain once again that, upon a question of Col Taylor, he would for example not have hit her, upon another question, he would have and perhaps if I could just sketch the circumstances, we were present with three persons who were speaking Zulu to her.  The others who were present would say: "What is she saying?" and then either Andy or Kassie or Basson would have said what she was saying and then I would have asked another question and this question would have been put to her and in this matter I could infer what she was saying, that is why we wanted to control how she was going to lead us to the terrorists.  We wanted her to give the addresses, so that we could just act.