Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-16

S G DU PREEZ: It was next to the railway line.

MR VISSER: Very well.

S G DU PREEZ: We waited until we heard the explosion and then we departed.

MR VISSER: And we've already dealt with the next paragraph.   Please continue with the paragraph after that.

S G DU PREEZ: The acts and omissions which I have committed, I committed in the execution of my official duties under instruction or from a higher officer whose instructions I was obliged to execute.  I did it as part of the opposition of the struggle and my acts were aimed at the supporters of the liberation movements.  What I had done, I did to protect the government and the interests of the National Party and to combat the revolutionary onslaught.  As such I bona fide believed that what I had done fell within the ambit of my sworn or explicit instructions.

MR VISSER: And you then request amnesty in so far as you have associated yourself with the fact that Mr Ninela had been abducted, as Col Taylor told you, and you also accepted that he was kept in detention unlawfully and you associated yourself with that and the murder of Mr Ninela and the blowing up of his body or any other lesser offence including defeating the ends of justice by you not reporting the incident or any lesser offence or omission which might flow from the fact, is that correct?

S G DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that's the evidence.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Have you any questions to put to this applicant?

MR RORICH: Nothing, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Gabriel?

MS GABRIEL: Mr Du Preez, is it okay if I ask you questions in English?

S G DU PREEZ: That's fine.

CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to ask his permission.

MS GABRIEL: Well, I'm doing the gentlewomanly thing.  Mr du Preez, I want to summarise for you up front the problems that the family has with your evidence and with you application thus far.  You've admitted to killing Mr Blessing Ninela and you've admitted to doing so under very gruesome circumstances.  The process that you have followed to seek amnesty has been through 2 submissions, 2 written submissions.  The first initial one being a statement that you signed on the 11th of December 1996 and the second, the one that is dated the 2nd of July 1999.  Those appear respectively in bundles 1 and 2 and I will return to those.
	On reading your submissions, members of the Ninela family realise that there were many unanswered questions concerning the death of the victim and so it's their contention that you, I want to summarise our arguments up front.

CHAIRPERSON: What about putting questions?

MS GABRIEL: I will, once Mr du Preez knows the angle that we are operating from and that is that there has not been a full disclosure in this case.

S G DU PREEZ: I deny that, Mr Chairperson.

MS GABRIEL: Let's then begin with bundle 1 and I want to refer you to page 4 of bundle 1 and that would be the written submission of Mr Taylor.  At that point you submitted a contemporaneous submission and I refer you to page 19.

CHAIRPERSON: Of the same bundle?

MS GABRIEL: Of the same bundle.  Can you explain to the family members why it is that you did not decide to distinguish Taylor's evidence at that point in time?

S G DU PREEZ: My Chairperson, at that stage I had not read Taylor's statement or discussed the matter with him.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS GABRIEL: A few minutes please, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MS GABRIEL: So at that point you were basically applying for amnesty without fully understanding the reasons why you were applying for amnesty?

S G DU PREEZ: I'm not sure - we knew what the reasons were.  Are you referring to this specific case?

MS GABRIEL: I'm referring to this specific submission and specifically to paragraph 9(a)(4).  Incident 3.
"The particulars of this incident are very vague due to a lack in memory, or loss in memory.  I am currently busy doing research in order to be able to disclose the details in as full a manner as possible."

S G DU PREEZ: That is correct.  At that stage I could not recall all the details of this incident.

MS GABRIEL: So subsequent to making this submission, you then went out and researched the death of Mr Ninela, is that correct?

S G DU PREEZ: After that I discussed it with Wasserman again and then long after this I read Taylor's statement.

MS GABRIEL: Did you discuss it with Taylor?

S G DU PREEZ: I did discuss it with Taylor.

MS GABRIEL: What kinds of research did you do to familiarise yourself with the elimination of Mr Ninela?

S G DU PREEZ: I only spoke to Wasserman and Taylor about this matter.  That was the only work I had done.  I did not go back any further, I did not have any documentary things to research.

MS GABRIEL: Can you explain why that was?

S G DU PREEZ: Well, there was no documentary evidence made about this.

MS GABRIEL: But you have just admitted that there are indeed documents available, implicating Mr Ninela, that were provided by members of Mr Ninela's family.

S G DU PREEZ: These documents, as I have already said, I saw for the first time last Thursday.

MS GABRIEL: Didn't you think it was necessary to conduct further investigation?

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the fact of the matter is that all he did was he consulted the people with whom he had been involved, that was Wasserman and Taylor.  That's as far as it went.

MS GABRIEL: Well, it's the family's belief that you deliberately withheld information from this Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell them, what information did he withhold?

MS GABRIEL: I'm going to run through very quickly with you the evidence that will be led by the family.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about evidence that he withheld, isn't it?  Not some general statement that members of the family are going to make.  I think you are confining yourself to non-disclosure by him and you're going to put to him, this is what you failed to disclose, a, b, c, d, that he failed to disclose.  I trust that's what you are about to do?

MS GABRIEL: I'm going to try to confine it to those specific points, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes please.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chair, there has been a large, a lengthy period of investigation that has been carried out by the deceased's family and it has come through in bits and pieces and we will present that evidence to show that there was a definite relationship between the Security Branch and Mr Ninela and that very specific events were of vital importance in the relationship that were not revealed in the amnesty applications.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MS GABRIEL: The first sets of evidence that we will lead, relate to statements from Sefiso Kunene, Sebelo Ngobese and Kevin Qhobosheane and these relate to Mr Ninela's union activities and specifically to a house in Inanda at which weapons were found.

S G DU PREEZ: I cannot remember the incident in this nature.  At this stage Mr Chairperson, I was working in the terrorist section and the activities of the unions was not my business.

MS GABRIEL: You see Mr du Preez, it's as a result of those weapons that Mr Ninela was actually detained in terms of the Internal Security Act.  May I refer you to bundle 2, and specifically to pages 71, 72, 74, 78(a), these documents refer to your involvement in the interrogation of Mr Ninela as a result of those events.  Now is this something that you would likely forget or would have this Committee believe that you forgot?

MR VISSER: With respect Mr Chairman, the witness did say he did not interrogate Mr Ninela.

CHAIRPERSON: But it's now been put specifically.

MS GABRIEL: Can you offer any reason as to why Mr Ninela would want to implicate you falsely in a very lengthy series of documents?  You don't deny that he is referring to you?

S G DU PREEZ: I did see that he was using my name and I was the person who arrested him.