Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-12

CHAIRPERSON: Quite right, for example the precise extent of his participation.

MR VISSER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Must come from him.

MR VISSER: Yes, certainly, Chairperson.  Thank you, Chairperson.  If I may turn to page 41 Chairperson, we again refer to the question of the abduction.  In our minds we're not entirely certain what the legal position is of a man who finds somebody and he comes to the conclusion in his own mind that the man must have been abducted and he associates himself with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, I don't know whether one can go to that extent.

MR VISSER: Well technically it might be argued by the Attorney-General that he therefore became associo criminus in the abduction itself.  We're not entirely certain what the legal position might be but perhaps ex abundanti cautela, Chairperson, we should ask you to consider A on page 41 in the case of Vorster as well as this witness and Mr Wasserman, for what it might be worth, but clearly they realised that he was not in legal detention and therefore B would be relevant, C would also be relevant, as well as any other delict or offence committed and as shown by the facts.  Mr Chairman, we notice it is now 5 past 11, we're not certain whether you want to take the tea adjournment now or continue with the next witness.

CHAIRPERSON: We'd like to dispose of this witness's evidence.

MR VISSER: Certainly, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel, any questions you wish to put?

MR NEL: I've got no questions, thank you Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Thabethe, any cross-examination of this witness?

MS THABETHE: Thank you, Mr Chair, I do.

MS THABETHE: In your evidence Mr du Preez, you have indicated that Col Taylor informed you, Vorster and Wasserman outside about the deceased, M K Tekere, is that correct?

S G DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: And you've also indicated that he informed you that he was called whilst on his way to place a bomb, is that correct?

S G DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: Did he inform you whether he did find anything with him?  Was he in possession of those bombs, or not?

S G DU PREEZ: No, I cannot recall.  I understood it that he was active in Durban with the execution of operations of placing bombs.

MS THABETHE: No, what I'm trying to understand is, was he caught whilst he was on his way to place bombs?  Was that what you were told or, I'm just trying to understand that feature of the evidence.

S G DU PREEZ: That's correct, but I cannot recall whether he was specifically on his way with explosives in his possession.  I cannot recall if Taylor told me that he had explosives in his possession at the time of his arrest.

MS THABETHE: And were you involved in any way in the interrogation of Mr Tekere?

S G DU PREEZ: No, not at all.  I met Taylor at the farm there with him.  I never interrogated Tekere.

MS THABETHE: Thank you Mr Chair, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

MR LAX: Mr du Preez, do you have any idea when Taylor had arrested Tekere, or whether in fact Taylor himself even arrested Tekere?

S G DU PREEZ: I have no idea.

MR LAX: And your recollection is that it was the three of you that were told by Taylor about this man together, you were all present together.

S G DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MR LAX: Now and your recollection of what you were told is as it's contained here and as you've testified?  That this man was arrested on his way to place certain bombs, that's how you've put it in these - is that your recollection?

S G DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR LAX: You see, what concerns me is that if a man was arrested on his way to place bombs, he'd presumably have the bombs with him that he was intending to place, there would presumably consequently therefore be some evidence upon which you could then charge him.

S G DU PREEZ: That's correct.  At that stage I cannot recall whether Taylor told me that he found explosives in his possession, or I never saw any of those explosives, or I've never heard of the circumstances surrounding these explosives.

MR LAX: You see, I'm just trying to put myself in your position on that day, being told that information and what would not have made sense would have then been the statement, well there was no evidence to charge him.  You don't recall having questioned that or being uncomfortable with that in any way?

S G DU PREEZ: No, Chairperson.

MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: In other words what it really boils down to here is that you were told by Taylor that this man was about to place bombs in Durban.  That ought to have conveyed to you that this man was - had either committed an offence for being in possession of explosives, or was planning to commit an offence.  He could be arrested and he could be charged.  Now, if that were so, then your evidence that you couldn't release this man because there was no case against him, you couldn't make a case against him, presents me with some difficult, because there would be a case against him if he was found in possession of explosives, or he was caught while he was about to place a bomb somewhere in Durban.  Now I understand your position.  As far as you are concerned, your recollection is that this is what you were told and you didn't question it.

S G DU PREEZ: Correct, Chairperson, maybe I should answer in the following.  I had the fullest confidence in Col Taylor and if he said that the man had to be eliminated, I had the fullest confidence that there was no other way and if there were alternatives to charge the man, he would have done so or he would have used that option.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.  Have you any questions?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr du Preez, the same point which was raised by my colleagues is my problem as well.  On page 43 you say there he was arrested while he was on his way to place an explosive device in Durban.  You do not qualify it as saying that he was unlawfully arrested and then later you say, because of the information that he was, you know that he was abducted and unlawfully detained.  Are you not uncomfortable with this where you say he was arrested and then later you said that he was abducted, which contradicts arrest, are you not uncomfortable with this now?

S G DU PREEZ: With regard to the arrest, at the time of his arrest I don't know whether it was an arrest or an abduction.  When I found the man at the farm and Taylor gave us the instruction to eliminate him, it was clear that it was an abduction.

ADV BOSMAN: But now ex post facto you say that he was arrested, why don't you say that he was abducted while he was on his way to place the explosive device?  This is what bothers me because in this written statement you contradict yourself.  Shall I put it to you, did you initially think that he was arrested?

S G DU PREEZ: I assumed that Taylor must have arrested the man and later this arrest turned into an abduction.

ADV BOSMAN: Why did you not say in your statement that he was abducted?  Why did you say he was arrested?

S G DU PREEZ: It might just be a choice of words.  When a policeman says that when a person is taken, he is arrested.

ADV BOSMAN: But you were a senior policeman and you retired with a senior rank from the police force, for a policeman there must be a great difference between arrest and abduction?  Thank you.  Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination?

MR VISSER: Yes, please, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: For you as a policeman, was there a difference between a lawful and an unlawful arrest?

S G DU PREEZ: Yes, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: An unlawful arrest and an abduction, what is the difference between the two?

S G DU PREEZ: I would say unlawful arrest would be abduction.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Any questions you wish to put arising out of all of this?

MS THABETHE: No, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE