Amnesty Hearings — Durban — UNKNOWN

WITNESS:   Official release documents, or letters to the effect that was sent to headquarters, and was handed in at the Harms Commission, I think gives the date as 10th of August that he was released officially.  But if one takes the specific date that I stole the Audi A80 was on the 13th of September - if my counsel might just confirm the date, Mr Chairman - and that is how I knew that I saw Mr Khondile on that specific day that the Audi was stolen.

CHAIRPERSON: That was on what date?

WITNESS:   I think it was the 13th of September 1981.

MR JANSEN: Yes, Mr Chairman, that relates to the theft of the Audi, which is one of the other incidents, and again to the evidence that came out in the Harms Commission that an Audi was stolen on that day.

WITNESS:   Then that will be the date that I saw him in Jeffreys Bay, Mr Chairman.

MR MSHE: Captain, I want to find out from you as to

MR MSHE: /whether

MR MSHE: whether you saw this letter about Khondile.  It's on Book 3 - page 26 towards the end, Mr Chairman and Members of the Committee - towards the end of Book 3.  Do you have Book 3 with you?

WITNESS:   No, Book 2, Mr Chairman.

MR MSHE: Just have a look at that letter on page 26 in Book 3.  (Pause)

CHAIRPERSON: What is your question about that, Mr Mshe?

MR MSHE: Mr Chairman, I just still want him to read - to check the letter and tell me if he recognises the letter.  Did you have - sorry.  (Pause)

WITNESS:   Yes, I've read it.

MR MSHE: Do you have knowledge about this letter?   Do you remember it?

WITNESS:   I've never seen it before.  I've seen the one after this one, because this one is from the - I may just explain to the Chairman - from the Officer Commanding Security Branch, PE, to the Commanding Officer of X302 - was Security Police Headquarters, where it is suggested that they could not build up a case against him, and they suggest that he should be released on 10 August.  Subsequent to this I saw a similar letter that was handed in at the Harms Commission, where he in fact was released, and then typically, as they always say, he agreed to co-operate with the Security Police as an informer, and that they've set a return date.  With other words, a date when he would return to the Security Police to report back on any information he had.  They usually then set a final return date, which according to them he also did not complied with, and that is the letter that came after this one.  I've seen that one, but not this one before.

MR MSHE: Thank you.  All right.  In your manuscript in Book 1, page 74.

WITNESS:   Book 1?

MR MSHE: It's referred to as Evidence Book 1, but it is your

MR MSHE: /manuscript.

MR MSHE: manuscript.

WITNESS:   Okay, I've got that.

MR MSHE: Page 74 thereof.

WITNESS:   On page 74?

MR MSHE: Page 74.

WITNESS:   Yes, Sir.

MR MSHE: Paragraph 5.4.8.3.3.  That's when you gave the description of Khondile when you saw him at the white single quarters.

WITNESS:   That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MSHE: Now, the last sentence states,

MR MSHE: "Nick wanted to know if everything was in order and we left again."

MR MSHE: Now, my question is, was he already injured at that time when you saw him in the single quarters?

WITNESS:   Was he already - excuse me?

MR MSHE: Injured.

WITNESS:   According to them, yes, but he had no physical signs of injury.  As I said, according to Colonel Nick van Rensburg his normal behaviour, a person who knows him well, who's worked with him for a long time, could see there was - he was peculiar in his behaviour, something wasn't always there, that there was a change in his behaviour.

MR MSHE: Good.  At the very next paragraph, the third sentence from the bottom, which reads,

MR MSHE: "His behaviour became peculiar afterwards, and they got in a friend who was a medical doctor to examine the prisoner."

MR MSHE: Who is this doctor if you know again?

WITNESS:   I have got no idea at all.  They didn't mention the name at any time.

MR MSHE: Then the very next paragraph, the third sentence from the top, it says,

MR MSHE: "Here we discussed that Nick would bring the prisoner to Komatipoort, where we

MR MSHE: /"would

MR MSHE: "would dispose of him."

MR MSHE: Who is this "we"?  Are you included in the "we"?

WITNESS:   I am included in the "we," that's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MSHE: Now, at which stage did you discuss the disposal of the prisoner?

WITNESS:   It was on our way going home, I believe, after leaving the Audi 80 and after Colonel Nick van Rensburg popped into the single quarters just to find out whether everything was okay.

MR MSHE: What reasons were advanced for him to be disposed of?

WITNESS:   Because of the injuries he sustained, and if he was released and would get the necessary proper medical attention they would pick up that he was seriously assaulted, or at a stage during his interrogation or in police custody had been seriously assaulted.

MR MSHE: Mr Coetzee, would you agree with me - I am going back to that letter on page 26 to which I referred you, the letter by Major van Rensburg.

WITNESS:   I have it, Mr Chairman.

MR MSHE: On page 26, all right.  Now, you say because of the war that you had with the enemies of the country, meaning I want to believe ANC, was it ever determined as to whether Khondile was an active ANC member?

WITNESS:   I didn't know at all.  It was in the hands of the people who worked with that specific case.  I did not carry any files, I didn't know the name.  As in the case of Mr Mxenge and Vusi, no knowledge of Mr Sizwe Khondile at all.

MR MSHE: Would you agree with me that paragraph 1 and 2 of that letter on page 26 - I will read,

MR MSHE: "Die ondervraging van die onderwerp is voltooi.  Hierdie kantoor beskik egter oor geen getuienis om 'n

MR MSHE: /prima facie

MR MSHE: Prima facie saak teen onderwerp uit te maak nie.  Hy beloof egter sy heelhartige samewerking en kan tot groot nut aangwend word.

MR MSHE: Would you agree that this, if read, one may here come to the conclusion that they couldn't get any prima facie evidence against him as an ANC activist?

WITNESS:   If you read it as this stands as a layman, yes, but this is a typical misleading letter coming from a shrewd planner, and an old jackal in the Security Police, to Headquarters to get the fowls ready for the disappearance of the problem that he created by allowing Sizwe Khondile to dive out the window.  I can just mention, for instance, in the Peter and Vusi case, Mr Chairman, that I made Vusi, for instance, sign three receipts of money as an informant, with different pens, and he was eliminated that same month, but the impression on file was given that he was still alive for three months afterwards.  And then in 1983 or '82, when the lawyers became too inquisitive and hard-pressing on Security Headquarters, I had to file a misleading statement that, "He worked for us for three months, there's the proof, and then suddenly after three  months he did not rock up at all, he just disappeared."  So yes, in strict factual terms it looks like it, but I can 100% assure you this is a misleading letter filed specifically for the purpose of preparing his disappearance.

MR MSHE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

MR MSHE: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MSHE

WILSON J: So am I correct in understand what you have just told us, that what was happening here was

WILSON J: /Mr van Rensburg

WILSON J: Mr van Rensburg was preparing false entries in the files at headquarters to cover up the mistake he had made by allowing Khondile to dive out of the window?

WITNESS:   That's correct, Mr Chairman.

WILSON J: And that Khondile was killed to prevent anybody discovering he had been seriously injured, to cover up the mistake that van Rensburg had made?

WITNESS:   That's correct, Mr Chairman.

WILSON J: And that was the only reason?

WITNESS:   And that was the only reason.