Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-10-09

MR SAMUEL: And Mr Taylor will have no need to report to you on anything that he does.  Am I right?  Any activities that he undertakes.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: If it is about a specific, or the specifics of an operation that I was a participant in, he would share the details with me, but it wasn't necessary for him to report to me in a line of command.

MR SAMUEL: And if he had to pay the askaris, you would not know about that?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: If he were to pay the askaris, I would not necessarily have known about it, but then, can I just make the following comment?  Rewards of R7 000 were not paid out because the highest amount that could be paid out which could be approved by the Security Head Office was R2 500 per arrested terrorist.  That was the maximum amount for such person.

MR LAX: Sorry, could I just ask, I'm struggling to hear the translation.  There's a noise going on in the passage there and if you could ask them just to calm down a little bit please.  It's being picked up by the microphone of the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Col Botha are you saying that you don't know whether or not anybody was paid a reward, but you, what you are saying is that the payment of R7 000 would be unusual because the maximum, prevailing maximum at that time for any captured MK or other cadre was two and a half thousand?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR SAMUEL: Thank you.  Now, sorry, Mr Chairperson.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I beg your pardon Chairperson, may I just add something?  That it would have been totally unheard of if a member of the South African police was paid R2 500 for the arrest of a terrorist.

CHAIRPERSON: We've heard in other hearings, Col Botha, that askaris did in fact receive rewards and that normally came from, not normally but sometimes came from CI unit itself, Vlakplaas itself, but in this instance it's specifically put that it was Col Taylor who paid.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You wouldn't know if Col Taylor paid, you wouldn't know whether the funds came from, from which budget they came from, from which account they came from, whether it was the SAP Durban or Vlakplaas.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No, I wouldn't know that Chairperson.

MR SAMUEL: During this interrogation, was Mrs Nthombi, after these beatings, screaming or was she silent during this interrogation?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: There was no screaming.

MR SAMUEL: Well Jimmy will say that he heard Nthombi scream on a continuous basis on being assaulted by yourself and other members that were present at the interrogation.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, what Mr Mbane may have heard, I cannot question, the point is just that the premises were situated 15 metres from a road where there would be pedestrians.  She definitely didn't scream.  There was no noise.

MR SAMUEL: After being beaten for about 15 times in 15 minutes, you say that she did not scream, Sir, and quite hard at that, according to your evidence?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is what I say.

MR SAMUEL: I turn now to page 128 of bundle 1 in regard to the removal of Nthombi's body from the room, the interrogation room, at paragraph 44, Jimmy will confirm that Mr Myeza, Mr Lawrie and Mr Coetzer were the ones that removed the body from the room.  He will further go on to say that the body was wrapped in a blanket.  Have you got anything to say about that?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Negative, Chairperson.  What I can confirm is that Lawrie was involved in the removal of the body along with Sam de Preez.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't quite understand your answer.  You say negative.  Are you saying that the body was not wrapped in a blanket, or are you saying you can't say whether or not it was wrapped in a blanket?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, it was two questions in one.  The first was that there were three persons involved and a blanket.  It is negative with regard to the two persons and the blanket.  I confirmed that Lawrie was the person involved.  There wasn't a blanket involved, on the contrary Chairperson, I cannot even say how she was removed from there, but I don't know whether a blanket was used.  There wasn't a blanket in the room.

MR SAMUEL: Are you saying that you were not present when the body was removed from the room?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.

MR SAMUEL: The leave of the Commission.

MR LAX: Sorry, while you're busy, Mr Samuel, if you weren't present when the body was removed from the room, how can you say who did it or didn't do it, as the case may be?  Your evidence implies that you're dead sure who did it or didn't do it, but you weren't even there.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I was not physically present when the body was removed.

MR LAX: Well on what basis can you say who was there, or who wasn't there?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Chairperson, if I look at the lay out of the premises, it was of such a nature that from the front side one had a view.  If I could describe it as such, if that was the building the yellow section of the cloth was an entrance with a door to the left and the right.  I know that a vehicle had been parked there with the boot facing the entrance and she was brought out.  I wasn't there but I had a view of the events and the activities.

MR LAX: So you were actually there, you just weren't right at that very place, but you observed it?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is precisely what I've said.  That is exactly what I've said.

MR LAX: Well that's not the impression you give us by saying that you weren't there.  Let me explain why I come to that conclusion, because when you were asked about the blanket you said well, you don't know anything about the blanket, you weren't there.  The impression being that you didn't observe it, therefore you don't know what was used.  Now you're saying you did observe it.  Now if you did observe it, what was used?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Mr Lax, I will explain once again, so that you can understand clearly.  The vehicle was parked with its boot facing the opening.  I cannot see precisely whether or not she was wrapped in a blanket or what was used to wrap her with or whether she was just loaded into the boot just like that, but what I did see was that Lawrie and Sam were loading her into the boot and that she was being removed from there in the vehicle.  I saw all these things it's just that I wasn't physically present at the vehicle.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, may I just tell the witness to refer to people by their surnames.  It becomes very confusing if Christian names are thrown in, Mr Chairman, it is confusing to the reader of the record as well.

CHAIRPERSON: So Lawrie and Sam are?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Wasserman and du Preez.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Samuel?

MR SAMUEL: That will be the evidence led by the witness, in this matter, Your Worship, that's all.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR SAMUEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Wills, do you have any questions you'd like to ask the witness?

MR WILLS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairperson.

MR WILLS: Mr Botha, you made your first application which is attached to the papers and commences at page 13 of the bundle, the first bundle.  It was attested by you as being true and correct on the 13th of December 1996.

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: I am referring to page 13 to 29 of the first bundle.  Do you confirm that this is correct?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: I confirm this.

MR WILLS: Is there anything you want to say about this that's wrong with this?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Not as far as I know.

MR WILLS: Well, I have a problem with it.  Unless my interpreter's incorrect, I cannot see any part in this affidavit where you make mention of assaulting the deceased.  Can you point that part out to me?