Amnesty Hearings — Johannesburg — UNKNOWN

MR NYOKA: There is a general belief, especially in theblack community, that the three have been killed by the police.Do you think that is an unreasonable conclusion in
4A view/...
209 COL VENTER
view of the fact that they have disappeared for more that 11 yearsor for more than 10 years now?

COL VENTER: I think it is reasonable because I last sawthem in the presence of the police.

MR NYOKA: Thank you, I have no further questions.

MS HARTEL: I'll be very brief Mr Chair. Colonel Venter,whose brainchild was Operation Pepco?

COL VENTER: I don't know.

MS HARTEL: How long were you in the Port Elizabeth areafor in relation to the specific events on Wednesday the 8th ofMay 1985, when did you arrive in Port Elizabeth and when did youdepart?

COL VENTER: I can't give you exact dates, we usuallyremained in an area between 14 and 20 days.

MS HARTEL: Col Venter do you bear any personal knowledgeof Mrs Godoloze's home being burned on the 3rd of June 1985?

COL VENTER: No Chairperson.

MS HARTEL: Are you aware Colonel that the families overa period of many years brought three separate applications tothe police to produce their loved ones to Court, and on each occasionthe police denied that they had been arrested or that they werein their custody?  Are you aware of those applications?

COL VENTER: I think I read it in the newspapers but Idon't know exactly how many applications there were.

MS HARTEL: Needless those applications were not successful,they were dismissed with costs. Can you please identify the officerswho would have been aware of the arrest of the Pepco Three, atthe Port Elizabeth offices?

COL VENTER: I've already said, Captain Van Zyl, DionNieuhoudt and I don't know what his rank was at the time, it 4Awas/...
210 COL VENTER
was a retired general Nick van Rensburg, and I've already saidthat in my evidence.

MS HARTEL: I am going to mention some names to you, theparticular officers were deponents to affidavits opposing thefamilies' applications to produce the family members. LieutenantColonel Harold Snyman.

COL VENTER: What is the question, is it, would I knowthese people, or whether they were present?

MS HARTEL: Would these officers have been aware of thearrest and detention of the Pepco Three?

COL VENTER: I don't know, as I said, the three that Imentioned, whether the other people were there, I cannot tellyou.

MS HARTEL: Are you familiar with the security officer,Sergeant Butler Tungata?

COL VENTER: No I can't place him.

MS HARTEL: And would the station commander of Cradockhave been aware of the arrest of the Pepco Three?

COL VENTER: He was aware because he took me to the place.

<UNKNOWN>: You have testified or explained what you meantby neutralised to the effect that it's to take a person out ofa place to another place. Now my question is to you, for how longwould that person be kept there?

COL VENTER: Depending on the circumstances, in caseswhere I removed a person from an area to extract information fromhim, and I interrogated him, perhaps the person would then giveme the information I needed or cooperated with me, it's difficultto say, it depended on circumstances, in some cases it might bean hour, in some cases a matter of days.

<UNKNOWN>: Do I then understand you to be saying that you'dtake this person out of his area to neutralise him and when
4A you're/...
211 COL VENTER
you're through with him you didn't care whether he came back immediatelythe following day after two or three hours, is that what you mean? Would that still be neutralisation?

COL VENTER: No you're misunderstanding me. In the hypotheticcase where I removed somebody, or are you specifically referringto the Pepco Three?

<UNKNOWN>: The Pepco Three.

COL VENTER: No in the case of the Pepco Three I don'tknow how long it would have been, I had to remove them from theairport and take them to the beach.  I had nothing to do withthe interrogation.

<UNKNOWN>: I'm not on the questioning of the Pepco Three. You explained what you meant or you understood by 'to neutralise'.Now my question was to you, if to neutralise means taking themout of their area to another area, for how long were they supposedto be in that other area?  Or were they to remain there up tillwhat happened?

COL VENTER: That's very difficult to answer. It all dependedon the cooperation that I was given, information obtained andthe circumstances.  I can't actually fix a particular period.

ADV DE JAGER: If you received no cooperation and receivedno information, what would the position be then?

COL VENTER: If I received no cooperation, I would detainhim and continue to interrogate him, indefinitely.  We had doneit in the past, it was part of interrogation.  You sometimes interrogateda person day and night. (...tape ends)

SISI KHAMPEPE: ...supposed to interrogate these people. At page 108 you explain the purpose of conducting this operationand you mention that one of them was to
4B interrogate/...
212 COL VENTER
interrogate, gain information, remove them from the area and neutralisethem, what do you mean when you say 'you were not supposed tointerrogate him'?

COL VENTER: If it was my task to interrogate them I removethem or cause them to be removed and I was not allowed to be presentduring the interrogation, so I had nothing to do with that.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Were you given instructions not to participatein the interrogation, is that what you are telling us?

COL VENTER: They took them away from the beach and Iwent back, so I didn't have the opportunity.

SISI KHAMPEPE: But say you were part of this operation,you were taken all the way from Vlakplaas, there were seven membersof that unit to participate in this operation.

COL VENTER: I think we were used for this operation toget the people to the airport.  I think that was our sole purpose,and for the rest it was up to them to continue with the three.

JUDGE WILSON: But they were, you've told us, as I understandyour evidence, please correct me, that when these people arrivedat the airport they were grabbed by your askaris and put intoa vehicle, is that so?

COL VENTER: That's correct.

JUDGE WILSON: So anybody could have done that whetherthey were known to them or not known to them.

COL VENTER: I can't answer that.  They asked me to helpthem.  They told me that we were unfamiliar to them and I thereforeconcluded that they were enticed to go to the airport by meansof a phone call.  That's the only explanation I can give.
4B

ADV DE JAGER: /...
213 COL VENTER

ADV DE JAGER: And if familiar people from Port Elizabethor the area were used they would have recognised them and somebodywould then have been able to say we saw yesterday that SergeantX had taken him away.

COL VENTER: That's correct.

MR NYOKA: Mr Venter before you left for Vlakplaas didn'tyou discuss this whole operation with the people of the securityin Port Elizabeth?

COL VENTER: No.  The last time I saw Dion Nieuwoudt andSakkie van Zyl was at the old police station.  I didn't see themagain after that.  I couldn't discuss it with them.

BERNARD MAKGABO NGOEPE: Colonel do you want us to believe that afterthe operation or after handing them over you left without beingtold by your colleagues in Port Elizabeth what is going to happento them?  Do you want us to believe that?

COL VENTER: That is correct.  Because as I said I didn'tsee Sakkie van Zyl and Dion Nieuwoudt again in the time that Iwas there.  We continued with our other duties and I didn't seethem again.  I can't remember how long a period of time elapsed,I just didn't see them again.

SISI KHAMPEPE: Mr Venter you were given instructions byyour commander in Vlakplaas to go and assist in this operation,when you came back what kind of a report did you give to yourcommander with regard to how these orders were executed by youas a leader of the six other Vlakplaas members?