Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-13

MR NGUBANE: All right, do I understand your evidence correctly that a decision was taken before you could go to Swaziland that if he didn't cooperate to be the informer, he would be eliminated, right?

MR BOTHA: You refer to he.

MR NGUBANE: Oh well, she, sorry?

MR BOTHA: Mr Ngubane, my evidence was it was already in my mind that if she did not want to cooperate as an informer for us, she would be eliminated yes.

MR NGUBANE: So are you saying there was no decision taken by you and your group prior to your going to Swaziland, that if she didn't participate, you were going to eliminate her?

MR BOTHA: No, no decision was taken before the time, direct to the effect of elimination.

MR NGUBANE: When you went to Swaziland, the sole aim was to abduct her and then convert her into an informer, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: No Mr Ngubane.  My evidence was as follows.  The purpose of her elimination or her taking out of Swaziland, included firstly in order to recruit her as an informer, we have already taken into consideration, that she would be eliminated.
	To also gain information from her which could help us in order to stop the acts of terror.

MR NGUBANE: No, the point that I am trying to make is that you, as a group, when you went to Swaziland, did not take a decision to eliminate her, is that your evidence?

MR BOTHA: Yes, the group did not take a decision.

MR NGUBANE: Okay.  At what stage if any, did you and the other gentleman who were in your company, decide that she would be eliminated if she didn't cooperate?

MR BOTHA: As far as my knowledge is concerned, the final decision was taken by Brigadier Steyn and Colonel Taylor and Colonel Vorster.

MR NGUBANE: At what stage was that final decision taken?

MR BOTHA: Just before her elimination, and that is when we got back to the farm.

MR NGUBANE: Did you discuss with them at any stage, the possibility of her being eliminated?

MR BOTHA: No Chairperson, I did not discuss it with them.  My final answer to them was that she was not willing to work for us as an informer.

CHAIRPERSON: You knew that this would lead to her elimination?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: When you took her to the border, that is from Swaziland to the border, what time did you reach the border?

MR BOTHA: It was in the vicinity of between half past eight and 9 o'clock in the evening.

MR NGUBANE: And when you reached the border, had you started interrogating her by then?

MR BOTHA: On the way to the border post or on the way to the fence?

MR NGUBANE: Well, let's start on the way to the fence, before we come to the gate?

MR BOTHA: Yes Mr Ngubane, I spoke to her.  I did not interrogate her.  If you can just define what you mean by interrogation or questioning, but I did in fact speak to her.

MR NGUBANE: Okay, you spoke to her, let's take it like that.  As you were going to the fence, did she cooperate with you in furnishing you information, any information?  That is before you could reach the fence now?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, at that stage I had no desire to win over her cooperation.   We were busy abducting her, that was my first priority.
	In order to get her out of the country safely, that was my first priority.

MR NGUBANE: So you didn't ask her about the incidents of terrorism before you could reach the fence?

MR BOTHA: Negative.

MR NGUBANE: And when did you start asking her about the instances of terrorism?

MR BOTHA: After she was safely on the South African side of the fence.

MR NGUBANE: Well, you said that you didn't assault her, you didn't manhandle her.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: How long did the questioning of Ndwandwe take at the border gate?  We have heard that you arrived there at about half past eight, to 9 o'clock in the evening?

MR BOTHA: Yes, at the fence itself, then we climbed through the fence, we drove to the house.  I say we would have arrived at the house in the vicinity of about ten o'clock, half past ten, and then I started working with her.
	About half past ten, we ate and I spoke to her until about half past twelve that evening.

MR NGUBANE: Was she cooperating them with you?

MR BOTHA: Yes, she cooperated, she answered my questions.

MR NGUBANE: Approximately how many incidents of terror did she tell you during ... (tape ends) ...  you talk about two to three hours questioning her, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: Yes, about two to three hours.

MR NGUBANE: And thereafter, you went to sleep, all of you?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: The following morning, did you question her before you could leave?

MR BOTHA: Negative.

MR NGUBANE: If the members of the Committee can just bear with me.  Turn to page 98 of bundle 2.  That is the application, amnesty application of J.F. Vorster, paragraph 2, she says the next morning at about seven o'clock, Du Preez and Wasserman joined us.
	Zandile still did not want to give her cooperation.

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR NGUBANE: Is that correct?

MR BOTHA: Yes, it is.

MR NGUBANE: Now, to me it creates the impression that there must have been questioning at round about seven o'clock, and she did not want to cooperate, is that impression correct?

MR BOTHA: Your impressions are wrong.  Mr Ngubane, yesterday I testified that in her case, with regards to the recruitment of informers, her behaviour would have determined if she would cooperate with us as an informer, and at that stage, seven o'clock, that was just after we got up.  If there was an indication, I would have said so, but there wasn't.

MR NGUBANE: I see, and do you know why the importance of seven o'clock is mentioned there, that she was not cooperating at seven o'clock?

MR BOTHA: Seven o'clock is the time when Wasserman and Du Preez arrived at our place, that is why it is important.

MR NGUBANE: She had given you information voluntarily which was criminal information, she had admitted to certain acts of terror, is that correct?

MR BOTHA: Yes, executed by members of her unit, that is correct.

MR NGUBANE: And was she in your view the co-perpetrator of those acts?

MR BOTHA: She was the Commander of the Natal machinery in Swaziland and consequently she had command of that and she was responsible for it, yes.

MR NGUBANE: And on that information, do you agree with me that she could be prosecuted and be convicted if it were to stand in court?

MR BOTHA: Mr Ngubane, she is in Swaziland in the first place, she is abducted from Swaziland.  I cannot charge her in South Africa after we had abducted her from Swaziland.

MR NGUBANE: Did she admit to any acts which she had committed in South Africa when you questioned her at the border?

MR BOTHA: No, nothing she did herself specifically.

MR NGUBANE: So at the border you didn't consider the option of prosecuting her?

MR BOTHA: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand your evidence to be that you realised that as you were abducting her from Swaziland, you would never be able to bring her before a South African Court?

MR BOTHA: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Now the question that is of interest to the members of the family, is when you questioned her, did she at any stage tell you that she was breastfeeding?

MR BOTHA: Negative Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: And did the informers that informed you about her, tell you that she was breastfeeding?

MR BOTHA: Negative Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Now, are you suggesting seriously that a person who is breastfeeding could be taken from Swaziland, kept the whole night and on the following day, be kept and not tell you at any stage that she had a small baby, she was breastfeeding?

MR BOTHA: Negative, she did not say that she was breastfeeding.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, did you know that she had a child?

MR BOTHA: Yes, I knew that.

ADV SIGODI: Did you know the age of the child?

MR BOTHA: No, I did not know the age of the child.