Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-01

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.  It was their decision.

MR WILLS: Yes, but why?  What was the reasoning?  I'm wanting to know, you heard that discussion.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: So that her body could be found.

MR WILLS: Why was that necessary?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, we couldn't anything with the body.

MR WILLS: No, but why didn't you just dump it somewhere else?  I mean there must have been some purpose for dumping it close to her home as opposed to just dumping it in the Tugela River, or dumping it in the Umzimkulu River, I'm wanting to know what the reason was.

CHAIRPERSON: Or seeing that the cause of death was a heart attack, leaving it on a park bench somewhere?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, that was Botha and Taylor's decision.

MR WILLS: Look, I'm asking you, with respect Mr du Preez, you said and your evidence was that there was this discussion that went on between Botha and Taylor and you were present while this discussion was going on, I'm asking you what were the reasons for that discussion?  Why was it decided that she was dumped in this particular way?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: The idea was that she would be found and that the family would identify her and that she would have a normal burial.

MR WILLS: So you're wanting us to believe that the purpose was so that her family would know that she was dead?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: So that she would be found and she would be identified by people in her area.

MR WILLS: But I can't understand because that seems out of sync with the other matters that I've been involved in here in the sense that why was it necessary that you wanted the family to know about her death?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, as I've already said it was Botha and Taylor's decision.  I cannot help if it is out of sync with any other things that had taken place.

MR WILLS: You see, it would seem to me that in line with your intention to distance yourselves from her arrest in any way, that it would be a safer option to dispose of the body in such a way that nobody would ever identify her and that it would be better for example that the story that she had gone to Mozambique would be the one that was circulating because then your operation wouldn't stand any chance of being compromised, not so?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I think it was brought about by the fact that she had died of natural causes.

MR WILLS: No, with respect, that doesn't gel.  It is clear that had her body been found, the wounds from her assault would have been apparent to anybody doing an immediate inspection, not so?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Most probably sjambok bruises would be found on her but it would not have caused the death of her.

MR WILLS: No, I know that.  But had a pathologist or a district surgeon found that she'd been sjamboked, that would have raised suspicion, it wouldn't have appeared to him that she had died of natural causes, it would have looked as if she'd been beaten to death.  Maybe a murder docket might have been opened.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: It is possible, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: Well, it's more likely, with respect, but anyway, I put it to you that you are lying when you say that you wanted to dump the body in such a way that she'd be recognised, or that it would be found out by her family that she had died.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That isn't so, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: I put it to you that you intended to arrest her on that day, that you intended to torture her and to get information out of her and whether or not she died, was irrelevant to you.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is not so, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: I put it to you that her death was expected by you and all the others there and that this would fit in nicely to cover up your operation so it wasn't exposed.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: No, Chairperson, it was not so.

MR WILLS: And I put it to you that despite the fact that you have an obligation, if you want amnesty, to come and tell the truth and to disclose everything here, that you have not done so.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I have told the truth.

MR WILLS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR WILLS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wills.  Ms Thabethe any questions?

MS THABETHE: No questions Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, do you have any re-examination?

MR VISSER: Just one question, Chairperson

MR VISSER: Approximately how far, or first of all, do you know where Mrs Khubeka lived before her death?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: She lived in G Section.

MR VISSER: I ask, do you know where her house was?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And from her house to the place where you left her as the crow flies, would you estimate a distance?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I would say two to three kilometres. Three kilometres, yes.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Visser.  Adv Bosman, any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr du Preez, there are two statements in your statement which are contradictory to me.  It may have been cleared up and your legal representative must point that out to me but you see, you refer in paragraph 7 that an appointment was made on a day that the leader of the group of terrorists whom Khubeka was housing was to be arrested and the later you say, let me just find the correct paragraph, paragraph 9, towards the end:  "We arrested her" and then in paragraph 17, the second line, let me read the whole line to you
"My motivation to execute the instructions of Col Botha by abducting Khubeka..."
Do you see that?  Do you agree with me that it would seem contradictory?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: It is contradictory, Chairperson and this was said afterwards because we knew that she was arrested.

ADV BOSMAN: But when did you receive the instruction to abduct her, because there you specifically refer to the instruction to abduct her?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, after her arrest she was necessarily abducted, or she was taken to the area and I see that as an abduction.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, I'm interrupting you, but maybe it's, on paragraph 17 I think, while Maj du Preez was giving evidence, it was amended to read "instructions from Colonels Botha and Taylor", I got that added in on my copy, I don't know.  Carry on.

ADV BOSMAN: No, my problem is the "opdrag om te ontvoer".

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, because I got the impression that the "opdrag te ontvoer" came at the scene, at Battery Beach after the arrest from Botha but it's Taylor and Botha.

ADV BOSMAN: In other words at some stage you said that you expected her, possibly for her to be there, there was a possibility, so were you under the impression that this was to be a lawful arrest, but then afterwards you found out that your instruction  was to abduct her?  I want to get clarity about this, I do not want to trap you.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is so Chairperson, that afterwards I saw that it was an unlawful arrest.

ADV BOSMAN: And then Mr du Preez, the interrogation of women, did this, was this executed differently to the interrogation of men and I speak of interrogation where violence or coercion was used.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Not necessarily Chairperson, where terrorists were involved, women were not treated any different.

ADV BOSMAN: I don't refer to preference, but wouldn't you use another version of another form of violence, because a woman is physically weaker.  The reason why I asked this is because in a number of matters where I have listened to evidence, I have never before heard of the sjambok method in evidence.  To me it is somewhat strange that a sjambok was used here.