Amnesty Hearings — Port Elizabeth — UNKNOWN

ADV LAMEY: My instructions are that there two Askaris, Mr Mamasela and Mr Mogoai and one permanent member, Warrant Officer Koole.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: As I've already said in my testimony, there were four Black members of Vlakplaas who were present, one of whom I knew personally and that is Mr Moss because on several occasions together with Brigadier du Plooy, he gave us lectures and that's how I knew him personally.  The others I did not know at all.

ADV LAMEY: Is it not possible that you can be making a mistake about this, that Captain Moss could have come to Port Elizabeth together with the Vlakplaas members and that he was there and that during the course of their stay there that - before this operation, that you had something to do with him but that he was not there on this specific evening?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: No, I'm not making a mistake.  I just want to explain to you, during my identification on the 10th of December 1996, Mr Dumisa Ntsebeza confronted me with a statement that the Askaris came to report to me from Vlakplaas and that I was to have given them instructions concerning their jobs regarding the identification of insurgents.
	I was not involved with the terrorist desk and I denied this to Mr Dumisa, I said that they did not report to me namely Captain Venter.  I did not even know Captain Venter - of the whole team and those who were at Post Chalmers, I only knew Moss personally.  And I also said this to Mr Dumisa as well as to Advocate Chris Mac Adam.

ADV LAMEY: You know of the existence of Vlakplaas before 1985, is that correct?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: Did you know that they - as early as 1980 five years earlier, that they already existed from then?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: Yes, I think even earlier than '80.

ADV LAMEY: And you said that the reason why these Pebco 3 persons were not to be assaulted was that you did not know whether the Askaris had been involved in assaults previously?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's not the only reason he gave, it sounds as if this is the only reason.

ADV LAMEY: Amongst others, the reason?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: In view of their main objective of tracking down terrorists and insurgents, why did you come to this conclusion?  Is the opposite not true, that you would have thought that these persons had been exposed to interrogation and had been present at assaults - during assaults?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: During my career they have never been present before this case, I did not have any knowledge of their abilities regarding interrogation.

ADV LAMEY: You heard that apart from the testimony of what Mr Mogoai and Mr Koole will say is that your co-applicants have referred to what Beeslaar said, that they were at Post Chalmers a day or two after the abduction and that that evening they spent a few hours there and that there was a braaivleis or a barbecue.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I've already said that's not true.  The evening of the 8th everyone was present and I'm going to say it again, it was Captain Venter, Warrant Officer Beeslaar and the four Black members and the next morning they left before the afternoon.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they use two vehicles or did they travel in one vehicle?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: They used two vehicles, Captain Venter was in the Safari Nissan and the Black members were in their minibus.

ADV LAMEY: That first evening you were mainly involved in the interrogation, not so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That's correct.

ADV LAMEY: Are you sure about your testimony that the Askaris parked their minibus in front of the garage?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is what I can recall.

ADV LAMEY: Is there a possibility that this could not have been so?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That might be true.

ADV LAMEY: Because they will testify that it was not so, that they were not given instructions to guard these persons during the evening and that their minibus was not parked in front of the garage door.

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is what I can remember.

ADV LAMEY: A moment please?  Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, am I wrong in thinking that you - last time you put it to one of the applicants that the Askaris did in fact park in front of the garage but that they were not to guard the detainees, didn't you put it that way?

ADV LAMEY: No, Mr Chairman, the gist of the statement to Mr Nieuwoudt - and that was also my recollection, is what - not directly in front of the garage in order to guard them.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but my recollection is that you put it to the witness or rather conceded that they had parked in front of the garage - for what ever reason, but you put it to one of the applicants that the Askaris had in fact pulled up their car and parked it in front of the garage.

ADV LAMEY: I definitely did not, my recollection Mr Chairman is not that I put it in the way that it was directly in front of - in close proximity to the garage because ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Let's clear it.  Where exactly were they parked in relation to the door of the garage, where were they parked?

ADV LAMEY: My recollection from the instructions is Mr Chairman -  but I will just confirm it also again, is that it was some distance away from the garage but let me just make precisely sure.
	The point is - it was during I think the evidence of Mr van Zyl, that he said they were supposed to guard them and the vehicle was placed in front of the garage to create the impression in his evidence that that was the way in which they had to prevent them from coming out of the garage.  And my instructions in this regard is that was not so but I will get instructions as to ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Just get instructions as to whether the car was not parked in front of the garage.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it's confusing now, the way you now put it to the other witness.
	Mr Nyoka, in the meantime you can proceed.

ADV NYOKA: Very short Mr Chairperson.   Mr Nieuwoudt, Mr du Plessis said it was only the three Pebco executive leaders who had to be killed and therefore taken to the airport and you were left with that task, can you tell us how did you manage that feat of ensuring that precisely those three had to go to the airport?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: That is as it was.  I had the instruction that the three people had to - we had to get them together and there was the opportunity and I also gave the instruction to the source to lure the three deceased to the airport.

ADV NYOKA: Do you know precisely what it did in implementing your instruction?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: I gave him the instruction to - that the President,
the General Secretary and the Organising Secretary had to be present and I was assured that Mr Hashe would be present because he spoke to him personally.

ADV NYOKA: He must have told you how he did it, did he tell you how he managed to do that precisely?

GIDEON JOHANNES NIEUWOUDT: He didn't give me any detail, he just reported back to me and he said that he contacted Mr Hashe and that he actually carried out my instruction.

ADV NYOKA: My instructions are that - from Mrs Hashe, she was at home with her husband, there were many other people in the house and Mr Hashe got a call next door in the neighbourhood, he went to answer the phone and the message that he got was that Mr Fazi said he Hashe, Ngoi, Fazi and Malgas must go to the airport - those four, not these three.
	That Mr Hashe, Mr Ngoi, Mr Fazi and Mr Malgas must go to the airport to meet this diplomat but because he and Mr Ngoi had to meet Mrs Blackburn in Utenhage at a meeting, they could not go.  In other words, not those three but four people differently except for Mr Hashe.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you just repeat those names?

ADV NYOKA: It's Mr Hashe the deceased.