Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-09-02

MR WILLS: Yes, so on the assumption now that Mr Khubeka had died, it wouldn't have been improbable that somebody put a shot into her head, and I am not suggesting that you did it, put a shot into her head to make sure that indeed she was in fact dead?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: It might have happened, but I don't know about it, I don't know that anyone was shot.

MR WILLS: Yes, I want to turn to your affidavit, I see that you testified to it on the 11th of December 1996.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about the one, the one with the application, not Exhibit F?

MR WILLS: ... Chairperson, with respect, but the one in the Bundle, I think it is ...

CHAIRPERSON: Page 42, the application commences on Volume 1.

MR WILLS: (Microphone not on)

MR LAX: Your microphone Mr Wills, sorry.

MR WILLS: .. to 53?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR WILLS: Yes, I see you signed your affidavit on the same day as Wasserman and du Preez and Botha signed his on the 13th?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Yes, I signed my statement on the 11th, my application.

MR WILLS: And that was the same day as du Preez and Wasserman?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLS: And it was before the same Commissioner of Oaths, Masia Jakoba de Wit?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR WILLS: So I assume you were together at the time?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR WILLS: And from your affidavit it is clear that you had read Botha's affidavit?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR WILLS: So it is clear that you all spoke together and formulated your position prior to signing these affidavits?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR WILLS: Yes, now you say in your affidavit in answer to paragraph 9(a) - sorry, if you can just bear with me, Mr Chairperson, yes, 9(a)(iv), that you have read the affidavits of Col Botha and if that could be translated, I associate myself with this.

MR VISSER: But there is another problem with the translation, there is nowhere a reference to an affidavit here.  He is talking about an application.

CHAIRPERSON: It says
"... I have read the application of Col H.J.P. Botha and associate myself therewith."

MR WILLS: Thank you.  Now were you advised that you had to fully disclose everything you knew about this event prior to filling out this application?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR WILLS: Now, you see, what I found strange about this whole set up was that in these original applications there is no mention, the only person who mentions anything about a beating is Mr Mbane, but clearly the four of you in the Durban Security Branch, don't mention anything about an assault, can you explain that?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Yes Chairperson, these applications were made at a very late stage, there was much work to do.  There was no time to go into detail with regard to these applications and I think that we explained it as such within our applications.  At a later stage the detail would be summarised.

MR WILLS: But you have said in your evidence with respect, that you knew you had to fully disclose everything, you have testified ...

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MR WILLS: You have testified to the effect that in your own opinion the assault that was perpetrated against the deceased had bearing on her death, but you chose in this application which is under oath, to not disclose that?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is how it occurred, yes.

MR WILLS: Well, I put it to you that you purposely failed to disclose that, and it is only because there is the prospects of facing the evidence that a body was found and once you came into contact with the affidavit of the Vlakplaas people where this assault was mentioned, that you decided to tell the truth?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is not correct.

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

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wills.  Ms Thabethe, sorry, do you have any questions?

MS THABETHE: Yes, Mr Chair, thank you.  Mr van der Westhuizen, in previous applications, not necessarily this incident I have realised a certain pattern with the Security Branch people.  What would happen is that someone
would be abducted or arrested illegally, would be questioned, okay, let me start afresh, someone would be abducted right, with the help of an askari or an informer, right, and then he would be brought in or she would be brought in, interrogated and it would either be a situation where she cooperates or he doesn't cooperate.  Now take for example in the Deon Cele matter, M.K. Tekere and the Shabalala and Ndaba incidents, it turns out that the people who were brought in for interrogation, they were interrogated, they didn't want to cooperate and eventually they were killed, to protect also the askaris or the informers that were involved in the arrest.  Now, in your evidence, you have indicated, okay, is that a correct reflection or is that a correct way that the Security Branch worked, would you say?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: No, I wouldn't say that.

MS THABETHE: If you don't say that, what would happen if a person does not cooperate with you, what would happen to that person, especially where an askari was involved in arresting that person, would that person be released?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Not necessarily.  It had happened that persons had been released, others were detained in terms of Regulation 29.   There were quite a few other methods, it wasn't necessary for the person to be killed.

MS THABETHE: Well, like I say, I have mentioned three cases where this happened, where this was followed, where this pattern was followed, where a person would be killed to protect for example in the Shabalala/Ndaba matter, Shabalala was killed to protect Mr Ndaba, correct?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct, yes.

MS THABETHE: Also in the Deon Cele matter, Deon Cele was killed to protect I think it was Kakana?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: I wasn't involved in the Cele matter.

MS THABETHE: Okay, let me continue any way.   In your evidence, you have indicated that Khubeka did not want to cooperate with the questioning or she did not want to be turned into an informer?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: That is correct.

MS THABETHE: What would have happened to her if she didn't want to cooperate as an informer?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: She would probably have been detained in terms of Regulation 29.

MS THABETHE: And is it a possibility that a decision might have been taken as well to kill her, to protect the askaris that had arrested her?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: No, I don't believe that that would have happened.

MS THABETHE: But you would agree that in other cases it had happened?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: Yes, it did happen as such in one case in which I was involved.

MS THABETHE: And with regard to the assault, wouldn't it be consistent with your evidence that she failed to cooperate and therefore she was assaulted for that, wouldn't that be consistent with your evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I don't quite understand, I thought the evidence of Mr van der Westhuizen was that he felt that the assault was unnecessary, he couldn't justify the behaviour of Mr Taylor.

MS THABETHE: I must have missed that evidence Mr Chair, I am indebted to you.  Let me move on.

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't know why she was being assaulted in fact.

MS THABETHE: But I guess Mr Chair, my question is if she did not cooperate, didn't that justify her being assaulted?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: No, I don't think it could justify an assault.

MS THABETHE: But wasn't that the practice that if someone didn't cooperate, she would be assaulted?

MR VAN DER WESTHUIZEN: It has happened yes.  It has happened.