Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-10

MR MALAN: No, that is not the question, the question relates only to whether you were compelled to implement at the level of Taylor giving the order or not?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: It is very simple Mr Chairman, he is an Officer and I was obeying an order.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, if I may interrupt you, just a moment please. Mr Chairman, may I interrupt, I don't often do this, but in this case with all due respect, the question is not based on the evidence.
	The evidence of Mr Rosslee is quite explicit, in reply to questions by Mr Malan that normal procedure would have been that there would have been prior authorization.  That is the point.
	He now says Mr Chairman, that I regarded the request as an order.  He is now asked but how could you have regarded it as an order if there wasn't confirmation.  Confirmation would have been prior to that Mr Chairman, and that is in line with his evidence and that is the only issue which I want to put straight.

CHAIRPERSON: My recollection is that they would check back with Vlakplaas if they were given orders down here.

MR VISSER: Yes, later.

MR MALAN: The evidence was at that stage very specific Mr Visser, and we can get back to the record if we have to, but we can leave it at the moment, I just want to put to you that my understanding at the time was very clearly, an order of this nature, given by Taylor, had to be cleared, and I am using these words, because this was my question, by Vlakplaas, at the level of Vlakplaas, before implementation.

MR VISSER: That is the point I am trying to make, so we are in agreement Mr Chairman, yes, that is precisely the point.
	It was prior, so putting to this witness that he would not have executed the order unless he knew that thereafter, before he executed the order, there would have been authorization Mr Chairman, maybe unfair to him, that is the only point I am making.  He was saying that, and remember he wasn't the leader of the squad, McCarter was.
	The question, if anything should be, why didn't you make sure that McCarter didn't get instructions.  Perhaps that may be a fair question.

MR MALAN: I don't want to ask whether he would make sure or not.  The question was, Mr Rosslee's evidence or response to the question here was, that when Andy Taylor requested them to eliminate Bhila, that was an order, immediately, to which he was bound.

MR VISSER: I follow Mr Chairman, and that is fair enough.

MR MALAN: Now, my follow up is would you not only have been bound once the order of Taylor had been cleared at the level of Vlakplaas, that is the question?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I considered myself bound Mr Chairman, because number one, Major Taylor was a senior officer giving us the order, that is number one.
	Number two is, I have no doubt that it would have been cleared or referred back to Vlakplaas.

MR MALAN: By McCarter or by Taylor?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Either one of the two.

MR MALAN: Well, if it is Taylor, I mean there is no check if Taylor would have cleared it at the level of Vlakplaas, so really it is the Unit that had to confirm the order at Vlakplaas, that is how I understood the evidence earlier?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is in most cases, on a day to day basis, it would be the Section Commander of Vlakplaas on the ground, that would go back.

MR MALAN: Exactly, and then before implementation you get this request, you are present when the request is made or the order is given.  Did you ever ask McCarter did you clear this at Vlakplaas?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I don't remember Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: You don't remember having asked him that?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: No, I don't.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew quite clearly didn't you, that this order was an illegal order?  It was an order to murder somebody?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: We understood that elimination, yes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And you didn't bother to check with Taylor if he had cleared it?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: No, I hadn't Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: And if I understand you correctly, this was the only incident where you were involved in the illegal killing or assassination of an activist at that level?

MR VISSER: No Mr Chairman, that is not what he said.  The question was whether he shot a person in the other incident and he said no, he didn't.

MR MALAN: All right, sorry.

MR VISSER: There was another application for amnesty which in fact an elimination was ...

MR MALAN: I understood that answer incorrectly, thank you for showing me.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: May I proceed Mr Chairman.  Mr Rosslee, let us just ask one or two more questions about this order.  You can't say whether there was any communication obviously between Taylor and Vlakplaas?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: No, I cannot.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Taylor did not mention to you as far as your recollection goes, that he had cleared this with Vlakplaas specifically?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I don't recall him saying anything about that.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Perhaps we must just put the whole matter in context again.  The Unit of which Major Taylor as he then was, down here, was the Commanding Officer, was that C-Section of the Security Branch?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Is that exactly the same section as Vlakplaas?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Similar anti-terrorist section, yes.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Also referred to as C-Section?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Would Major Taylor then have been a senior officer in the same section as you people were?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Work in the same desk, most definitely.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: All right.  In so far as there had been suggestions that, or evidence might be forthcoming, that Mr De Kock was on that particular point in time, on leave, would you tell us who the second in command was of Vlakplaas at that stage?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I can't recall who the 2-IC was at that specific stage.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Okay.  You were asked about the questioning at the old shooting range.  If I may just ask you a few questions about that.
	Is it your recollection that there was not an interrogation?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: As I said earlier, I cannot remember where I am sitting here now, that the deceased was interrogated.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thinking back, this particular location, did that have facilities for interrogation where one could do proper questioning?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: As I recall, the one side was open, open fencing.  I don't know.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: But there was certainly no formal questioning session, notes taken, that sort of thing?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Not that I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that these people used formal questioning sessions?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I will get to that Mr Chairman.  You are aware of the fact that at the time, there was a thing such as a Section 29 questioning in terms of the Internal Security Act?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Yes, I am.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Yes, just answer.  I want to ask you this, on this level, would there have been any purpose to have questioned a man because he has already gone through the whole Section 29 procedure, the formal questioning, the interrogation leading to the trial, etc?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I doubt that there would have been very much point in interrogating him again.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK

CHAIRPERSON: But the questioning that you referred to, was finding out the address of his friend, wasn't it, no formal interrogation at all?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is what my recollection was when I made the statement Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, I see it is about one o'clock, may I start?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think it will be fair to start you for two minutes.  We will take the adjournment now till two o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: (still under oath)