Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

MS VAN DER WALT: And were you present when the bags were pulled over the deceased?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, Your Honour, I believe I was present.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was there a reason why the shoes were not put back on his feet?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Your Honour, yes, my logic tells me these shoes had leather soles and should you then, if he had the shoes on and you put a plastic bag over the shoes, the shoes would have ripped the plastic bag.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: It's now one o'clock, would this be a convenient time to take the lunch adjournment?
MEETING ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.   Mr Rautenbach, have you had sufficient time to take instructions?

MR RAUTENBACH: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have not taken full instructions, but I've taken instructions that may be relevant to the cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

UNKNOWN: Mr Chairman, may I just intrude at this stage, that the list compiled by Mr Zeelie is EXHIBIT H.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Prinsloo, we will then receive this list compiled by Mr Zeelie, a list of various types of weapons as EXHIBIT A.

UNKNOWN: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
LIST OF WEAPONS COMPILED BY MR ZEELIE HANDED IN AS EXHIBIT H

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, I just want to check whether I understand you correctly, I have it that you have testified that the use or application of a shock device to let a person who is being interrogated talk, is something that was generally used, is that correct?   I refer to the Security Branch.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I can't remember that there was any instance where I answered that a shock device was general use, that was not put to me and it wasn't asked.

MR VISSER: The record will speak for itself.    What did you refer to when you said it was in general use at the Security Branch?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I'm trying to refresh my memory, and therefore I say that I said that I knew that the police, the senior officers, permitted the fact that the necessary violence be used.

MR VISSER: What you said, according to my notes, and it could be wrong, is that you knew, and you emphasised the word that you knew that
"my seniors, up to the commissioner, approved it, that these methods could be used to get information".

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Which methods are you referring to?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would say methods that were absolutely necessary to get information from ANC terrorists.

MR VISSER: Such as?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Now I can answer and say yes, it would even include shock methods.

MR VISSER: Do you refer to the commissioner of the South African Police, as the office, or do you refer to a specific commissioner in your testimony?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would use it as a specific position as particular office.

MR VISSER: Right, let's talk about the other senior officers, let's say the chief of the Security Branch, the head in 1988, who was that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It was General Van der Merwe.

MR VISSER: Did he in any way approve of these illegal methods that you refer to?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would say yes, otherwise he would not have given permission in this particular case that the body of Bopape be handed to Eastern Transvaal.

MR VISSER: Well I have a surprise for you, Mr Zeelie, if you think that General Van der Merwe, through his, that he actually approved of your action, and he will testify in this regard, can you think of any other reason why you say that General Van der Merwe gave his approval of this illegal method to obtain information?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: There had been many assaults, there were many cases where police were involved. If I specifically take Johannesburg, then I can only possibly think of two cases where policemen had been charged.

MR VISSER: And why would you say that happened?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would say that was because of the protection we got from our senior officers.

MR VISSER: Let's call it by name, do you say that they intervened to see to it that people who used illegal methods of questioning, that they would not be prosecuted or charged?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would not say that they intervened, but if they didn't approve it, then they would have seen to it that the policemen appeared before the Court.

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, it is not the duty of someone like Mr Van der Merwe to see to it that cases appear in court, that is the duty of the investigation team who investigates the case, isn't it?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

MR VISSER: And the attorney-general?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.   There were many judgments in the past with regard to assault by a policeman, and in the end, when nothing was done about the whole case, then you will expect that it would be the most senior person who would work downwards to the bottom to find out why action wasn't taken.

MR VISSER: So the security head, according to your testimony, would now have to concern himself with each and every case where prosecution is not progressing and to find out why it didn't take place or happen, is that your answer?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: When it has to do with security cases, I testified earlier that where a person would die in detention, in section 29 detention, and where he was assaulted, it would be a serious case in the eyes of the public in that time, and is it, according to me, that even for the head of the Security Branch that it would be a serious issue.

MR VISSER: Let's not change the facts, we now, we're talking of approval of illegal methods to obtain information, no-one referred to death in detention, Mr Zeelie, please confine yourself to this.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would like to answer.   I think my learned friend ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: I am not your learned friend.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: ...I answered his question, and he sent it in another direction.

MR VISSER: Did General Erasmus give approval for illegal methods to get information during interrogation?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Under his command I interrogated many people, and people were assaulted.   I was never taken to task about it, and if I could expand on this, I, on instruction of Erasmus, I committed many acts that I have to ask for amnesty.

MR VISSER: Do you have a problem in understanding my questions?    Do you have a problem with my Afrikaans?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: No, I don't think I have a problem, I'm answering your question in more detail.

MR VISSER: Let's just stay with what I asked you.   Did General Erasmus approve or give approval for illegal methods to get information from people who were interrogated?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It was tacit approval.

MR VISSER: Do you say that he was aware of instances where you were involved and he gave approval where illegal methods were used to get information from people who were detained?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I would once again say yes, tacitly he gave approval.

MR VISSER: Give us an example?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: To mention specific cases would be impossible for me.   I am...(tape ends)   ...say that if they weren't facts.

MR VISSER: General du Toit, did he openly give approval for illegal methods to question people?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.   I can in fact mention a name here, if you want names.

MR VISSER: Please mention it.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I'm thinking of the name George Martins.

MR VISSER: And what happened there?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: This person was assaulted by me and some of our other members in the presence of Du Toit.

MR VISSER: How did you assault him?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I can't specifically remember the methods, but he was assaulted.

MR VISSER: Why can't you remember how you assaulted a man?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: The reason why I remember George Martins's name was that at a later stage Colonel Du Toit came back to me and said that "That friend of ours whom you assaulted had escaped".