Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-19

H J P BOTHA: It's a couple of kilometres from Verulam.

JOHN WILLS: Now how big was this farm?

H J P BOTHA: It's a sugar cane farm.

JOHN WILLS: And was it used more or less along the same lines as Vlakplaas was used in the Transvaal of those days?

H J P BOTHA: No, I don't know whether they planted sugar cane on Vlakplaas.

JOHN WILLS: I'm talking about the police operations with respect, Col Botha, I'm not talking about agricultural operations.

H J P BOTHA: No this was an agricultural farm, we only used the house.

JOHN WILLS: The house was used more or less for the same purposes as the house at Vlakplaas?

H J P BOTHA: No, this was a safe-house.  I don't know what Vlakplaas's houses were used fro, this was a safe-house.

JOHN WILLS: What do you mean by a safe-house?  What happens at a safe-house?

H J P BOTHA: It's a house from where, under cover, I can work under cover.

JOHN WILLS: And what else happens at a safe-house?

H J P BOTHA: Briefing and debriefing of informers.

JOHN WILLS: And interrogation of informers?

H J P BOTHA: Usually informers are debrief, they're not interrogated.

JOHN WILLS: What about detainees?  The family I represent, their son was detained and taken to the safe-house so he wouldn't have been debrief.  What would have happened to him at this house?

H J P BOTHA: He was kept safe there.  For safekeeping and custody until we found a solution for the problem of the unfortunate arrest of Ndaba.

JOHN WILLS: Was his apprehension documented in any way, in any records?

H J P BOTHA: No.

JOHN WILLS: Why not?

H J P BOTHA: Because it would not have been to my advantage to put him through the legal books of detention
 because it would have made the whole operation useless of placing Charles back.

JOHN WILLS: Sorry, why did you not detain Shabalala?

H J P BOTHA: For the reasons which I've already testified about.

JOHN WILLS: Please expand.  Repeat.

H J P BOTHA: Chairperson, I take exception to the Attorney's attitude.

CHAIRPERSON: When you say why was he not detained?  What do you mean by that?  I thought he was taken in with Ndaba?

JOHN WILLS: Sorry, I'm asking why was he not officially detained in terms of I think it was Section 29 of the Internal Security Act where records had to be kept of his detention, where he had certain rights and obligations although they were extremely limited at the time.

H J P BOTHA: The reason why Shabalala was not lawfully detained was for the simple reason that ...of Ndaba earlier that day and what followed thereafter at the meeting where he gave the signal that he indicated that he felt his life was in danger and we then had to "arrest" Shabalala as well, All that led to the fact that I could not lawfully detain Shabalala because if I did that he would have access to a visiting magistrate, access to a doctor, the information that Ndaba led to his arrest, he could then convey to somebody and that would have threatened the security of the whole operation and therefore we decided to detain him until we found a solution to this problem.

JOHN WILLS: Why did you not want him to have access to a doctor?

H J P BOTHA: Because he could talk.  He could talk about Ndaba.

JOHN WILLS: Not to cover any injuries?

H J P BOTHA: No.  If he had injuries for whatever reason, that was not the reason for that.  The reason was the protection of an informer.

JOHN WILLS: If my memory serves me well, you've been an active person in the Security Branch for some 13 years, is that right?  So you joined in 1983?  The Security Branch.

H J P BOTHA: In Durban, yes.

JOHN WILLS: And before  that you'd been in Namibia?

H J P BOTHA: I was in South West Africa in the Security Branch from 73 onwards.

JOHN WILLS: So you'd been a Security person for 17 years?

H J P BOTHA: A bit longer than that.

JOHN WILLS: You had, you would have regarded yourself as an expert in that field?

H J P BOTHA: In Security work, yes.

JOHN WILLS: Now obviously in Security work you can't, when you get involved in an operation things don't always go according to plan, so you make alternative plans?

H J P BOTHA: That's correct.

JOHN WILLS: Now what was your alternative plan for the possibility that Ndaba would have raised the emergency signal by touching his head when he was in the conversation in the car with Ndaba, with Shabalala, sorry?

H J P BOTHA: To arrest both of them.

JOHN WILLS: What was your plan?  Obviously you don't just think on that step, you have to think a couple of steps ahead.  What was your plan after you had arrested them?

H J P BOTHA: Then it would have been a matter of detention on the supposition that his life was really in danger and that was the problem.  He wasn't really in danger, it's just that his courage failed him on that moment.

JOHN WILLS: No but the effect was the same.

H J P BOTHA: It wasn't, there was no danger.  We could still have placed him back, it was just that his courage failed him.  If there was a real life-threatening danger in my view then both would have been arrested and detained and we would have worked through the normal channels.

JOHN WILLS: Because you see, I think we're talking at cross-purposes slightly.  As I understand your evidence, what you're saying is that you did consider the prospect of Ndaba raising the emergency signal?

H J P BOTHA: That's correct.

JOHN WILLS: And you planned for that occurrence?

H J P BOTHA: Yes.

JOHN WILLS: And that  your plan for that occurrence was that you would arrest both of them if that occurred?

H J P BOTHA: Yes.

JOHN WILLS: And then you would put them through the normal detention processes?

H J P BOTHA: Yes.

JOHN WILLS: So that was the plan.  That was basically plan B?

H J P BOTHA: Yes.

JOHN WILLS: Plan A would have been that Ndaba spoke to Shabalala and then just left the scene and came back and reported to you?

H J P BOTHA: Yes.

JOHN WILLS: But you had to put plan B into operation?

H J P BOTHA: Yes.

JOHN WILLS: But you didn't put plan B into operation?

H J P BOTHA: A variation, yes.

JOHN WILLS: What was the variation?

H J P BOTHA: The pre-arranged danger signal, well it was firstly that (a) Shabalala knew that Charles had been arrested earlier that day by the askaris and therefore it changed the entire situation.  When he gave the signal and we swooped, the fear which Charles had was not as a result of any suspicion which Shabalala had as towards him, but it was his own fear which led to his courage failing him on that moment.

JOHN WILLS: But what I can't understand is it appears, you wouldn't have know that at the time he put his, Ndaba put his hand on his head, not so?

H J P BOTHA: That's correct.

JOHN WILLS: You only established that later when you were travelling in the car from that scene back to the safe-house?

H J P BOTHA: Yes.

JOHN WILLS: But now the evidence that you've given is clear that the manner in which the arrest was conducted was in such a way that Shabalala would have expected that the only person that was being arrested was himself because no plan was, no blatant show was made in respect of the arresting of Ndaba.

H J P BOTHA: Yes, that's correct.

JOHN WILLS: Now what's the reason for that?

H J P BOTHA: Once again, given the fact and I have respect for the fact that you don't have experience for these kind of operations, so I'll put it like this, when the danger signal or the emergency signal is given, you go firstly to secure the life of the informer, secondly the aggressor would be eliminated firstly or taken away and that is exactly what happened.  Only thereafter was there a determination made that there was no real danger and that changed the picture in my view.

JOHN WILLS: With respect, you are not understanding my question o possibly you are not wanting to answer it.

CHAIRPERSON: I think he has difficulty understanding.