Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-17

MR MALAN: Well, then the others would not have been set free, the hearing continued, and the question is when he was released, when he got away from the case from which you say you have learnt things out of previous experience, did you then think of him as someone who would continue with his activities, and your answer was then, but there were many other people, it wasn't only him.
	But there were actually only those two people.  So, I am just asking you this question again, did you ever consider when Bhila and Nxiweni were released, that the risk would arise that they would continue with their activities?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: It was a possibility.  I did consider that possibility.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it also true that there were many others who had not been charged?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: And also not caught.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you.  The kwaMashu 3 incident, before I put any questions to you, I have been requested by Mr Filikazi to enquire from you whether you can point to him a spot where these people were killed, so that they can do some traditional rights on that spot.  Are you in a position to do that?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, my evidence was that all of them were shot in the back of the head.

MR NGUBANE: No, I mean the scene where they were shot, are you in a position to point that out?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: The scene?

MR NGUBANE: Yes.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the Investigation Unit knows exactly where the spot is, it has been pointed out by the witnesses to him.  There is no problem in them finding it through the Investigation Unit.

CHAIRPERSON: This is the kwaMashu 3.  There are numerous.

MR VISSER: We all know where it is, well, except myself, I haven't been there, but there is no problem in finding out.

MR NGUBANE: Then that satisfies us Mr Chairman.  When you had information about the activities of the kwaMashu 3, especially about the bombing they were about to execute, when did you hear about that?  You personally?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I myself?  Botha contacted me and told me that the informer had arranged a meeting.

MR NGUBANE: I take it that Botha requested you to come with him, to prevent that bombing to take place, is that correct?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: You wanted to add something?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Botha called me to come and help him with the arrest of the four that we suspected.

MR NGUBANE: So as far as you were aware, the plan was to go and arrest these people, is that correct?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That was initially, when Botha contacted me.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, in other words, the number of people who were expected to come, there were four people expected to come on that day?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Do you know if that would also include Naya Ngema?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: It would have been him as well, he was supposed to be with the group.

ADV SIGODI: He was also expected to come?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

MR NGUBANE: But to make everything clear once more, is it correct that it is not your evidence that Naya Ngema was the person that gave you information about these people, he was one of the people that you intended to arrest, is that correct?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Before you could go to arrest these people, was there a meeting amongst all of you that eventually went there, to discuss the plan?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I can't recall where we all came together.  Botha contacted me and Wasserman and told us to come along.
	I don't know where we rendezvoused before the time, but we moved together or congregated and then moved to Avoca Bridge where the other four would arrive.

MR NGUBANE: With the purpose of arresting these people?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Arresting, yes.

MR NGUBANE: Pardon?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And you intercepted these people, and you put certain questions to them, is that right?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: But you knew all that they were going to do, is that right?  You had information about what they were going to do?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: Why was it necessary to enquire from them about their activities, if you knew what they were going to do?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, if you arrest someone, you would obviously ask them what they were doing.  Even though you know who the person was, you would ask their name and ask them where they were on their way to.

MR NGUBANE: And they told you a lie and you decided to assault them, is that right?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is not correct.

MR NGUBANE: Well, what made you decide to assault them?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, we arrested them and took them to the safe house at Verulam, where we began to interrogate them.
	It was during this process that they were assaulted.

MR NGUBANE: When you interrogated them, well, I understood you as saying that when you asked them about this incident they were going to be involved in, they told you a lie and you gave them a few slaps because you realised that they were telling a lie.  Was that not your evidence?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, that was when they were arrested.  At the house, they tried to repeat this story when we asked for an explanation as to what they were busy doing.

MR NGUBANE: And they told you a lie before you could assault them, is that right?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And you assaulted them in order for them to repeat what you already knew, is that right?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: We assaulted them so that they would produce the true story.

MR NGUBANE: Yes, well, if you knew about this story, was it not out of spite that you assaulted them?  What more did you want them to tell you, because you knew the story?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, it was a test for other questions which we were going to put to them.

MR NGUBANE: And you hadn't put those questions to them to see whether they were going to tell you some information?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: We did put other questions to them, upon which they did provide us with answers.

MR NGUBANE: Was it before you could assault them, that you asked them about the other incidents?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Could you please repeat your question.

MR NGUBANE: About the other incidents that you asked them about, did you ask them before you could assault them, or after you had assaulted them?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: We interrogated them, and if they were telling lies, according to what we suspected to be lies, we would assault them.

MR NGUBANE: So this process of assaulting them, was an ongoing process, if they told you something that you felt was a lie, you kept on assaulting them?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: For how long did this process take place?  Was it a day or six hours, ten hours?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: It was approximately four to five hours.

MR NGUBANE: Can you recall, the question has been put whether they bled at any stage, can you recall?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I can't recall.

MR NGUBANE: When was the decision taken to eliminate them?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: This decision was made on the farm, at the safe house, after they had been arrested.

MR NGUBANE: It was taken at the farm, was it after the interrogation or during the interrogation?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I think that this was during the interrogation.