Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-13

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Mr Visser referred you yesterday whilst you were giving your evidence, he referred you to two passages in the judgement of Judge Thirion in this incident and it is now the Ramlakan case, as it was reported, and Chairperson, I must just say that it was quoted from the report from the Jude Francis' case and Mr Visser quoted and he referred to 2639 of that specific record with regards to a finding which the Court then made concerning certain explosions.
	I just want to ask you about those explosions and Mr Visser also said that on the evidence therefore, we find that the State has proved that the following of the explosions were caused by ANC operators in pursuance of the aims of the ANC.
	And then there is a list of all the explosions.  I am going to show this to you.  Maybe I will just read it and then the Committee can hear it as well Chairperson.  (i) The explosion at the Spar Foodliner, (ii) the explosion as XL  Restaurant.  Can I just ask you, this XL Restaurant, was this the same restaurant which appears in these two Annexures G and H which was submitted earlier?  That is the Annexures of the charge sheet with regards to the acts of 7 and 8, in other words Bhila and Nxiweni?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: There were (iii) the explosion at Natalia Development Board offices on 16-06/1985?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: This Natalia Development Board offices, is that the so-called Lamontville offices?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And in case there in confusion, were there any other explosions at such offices on the 16th of June?

MR MALAN: Can I just ask you what is the purpose of your questioning, I do not know what you are leading towards, or where you are going?

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: I am not leading evidence, it is not my witness, I am only getting to the background of the incidents and an allegation was made by Mr Visser or rather he quoted, but the specific incidents were not mentioned.  You will remember that in the Bhila incident, there were two Annexures which were submitted which was part of the evidence in the Bhila case, and these two incidents, I just want to link the two of them.
	That is what this is all about.  And I have actually already done that.  The (iii) was the one.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: You have heard the evidence in the Bhila case, with regards to the communication between a unit of Vlakplaas which would do some service here and also the Port Natal division.  I just want to ask you a few questions about that.
	This has regard to the evidence of McCarter and others with regards to the roles of the Vlakplaas members.  If members of Section C of Vlakplaas came to render some service here, how would they liaise, how would you liaise with the Vlakplaas people?

MR BOTHA: In the first instance there were two possibilities, as to how they could work here.  The one with the request of the division itself, and that would have come from Colonel Taylor, to C-Section Headquarters.
	The unit would then be sent to Natal for a time period of 14 days, otherwise if there was increased acts of terror, then they would receive notice or they would give notice to Colonel Taylor and to the Divisional Commander, and say that they would come and render some service here.
	For the purposes of their period of their service, they would be under the command of the Divisional Commander here, and they liaised directly through Colonel Taylor in terms of logistics, arrangements, intelligence that was gathered and so forth.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Was any arrangements made as to the report back?  If these people from Vlakplaas, if they did any work on your request?

MR BOTHA: Well, they would report back by whoever was in command of the unit that was functioning here and Colonel Taylor.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I don't quite understand that, would the person in charge of the Vlakplaas unit here, report back to Colonel Taylor?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Not to Vlakplaas?

MR BOTHA: No Chairperson, because he was under the command of this division.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And the tasking itself of the Vlakplaas person, who would task them?

MR BOTHA: That would be done by Colonel Taylor.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: For all practical purposes, it would seem that these people would for the purposes of control and for purposes of instruction, they would fall under the command of Port Natal?

MR BOTHA: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Before you continue, let me understand this second liaising method correctly.  First you said there was a request from Taylor, and they would send you manpower.  The second one was, in some manner the identification was done by Headquarters and there would be an increase of incidents and then they would add their own manpower.
	Could Taylor say he did not want any more manpower?

MR BOTHA: It is possible he could have said that, and then they would have been sent to another division.

MR MALAN: There is just manpower, there is no agenda or plan?  They don't have specific objectives?

MR BOTHA: Not at all.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Chairperson, and there was one question which follows from a question that Mr Malan asked yesterday at some point, and the reason why Mr Bhila was found not guilty or acquitted.  Just to give some more information, you would recall that your answer was that the witness, some witness did not give evidence and as to a question from Mr Malan, that the investigation was held then, but let me ask you, do you have any knowledge of any other witnesses who also would have given evidence in the Ramlakan matter in terms of the units that existed, who did not want to testify?

MR BOTHA: Yes Chairperson, I have knowledge of such persons, who did not want to testify.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Can you give us a name or two?

MR BOTHA: The person Andrew Zondo.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Just for information, he never appeared in court and he was never additionally sentenced or anything?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Do you have any knowledge of the fact that he did not want to testify in that matter?

MR BOTHA: Yes Chairperson, I travelled to Pretoria myself to persuade him to testify.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: And he did not want to?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR VAN SCHALKWYK: Thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN SCHALKWYK

MR MALAN: Just another question, is that if he did not want to testify, is that not applicable to Ms Ndwandwe as well?  She was also on the list and then she disappeared, you could not find her, or you knew where she was, but she did not want to testify?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MALAN: For clarity, any of the kwaMashu 3, would they fall under the category of the witnesses who were not initially disclosed as witnesses that would be called in?

MR BOTHA: Do you refer to the Ramlakan matter?  Chairperson,  the incidents were about two years apart.

MR MALAN: That is correct, but Nxiweni was also in the Ramlakan matter, was he not?

MR BOTHA: Yes, Chairperson but his participation in the Ramlakan matter was dealt with and the unit from kwaMashu was established later and it was an independent matter.

MR MALAN: Can I just get the question right, the kwaMashu 3, these three persons, were any of the three of them active at the time of the Ramlakan matter?

MR BOTHA: Negative.

MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairperson, Christo Nel on behalf of the deceased Colonel Taylor, just a few questions with regard to Colonel Taylor.
	It is well known that Mr Taylor died of cancer, amongst others, brain cancer.  Is that correct?

MR BOTHA: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NEL: And you heard the evidence of Mr Wasserman who testified that he had personal knowledge of Mr Taylor's bad memory and you had something to say about that too?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.