Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-12

MR VISSER: 35 again yes Mr Chairman, they're not in chronological order.
	Then the 3rd October, the Redhill post office, it's referred to at page 37 and then Mr Chairman, the incidents both on the 7th October, the CNA in Hill Street and CNA Durban, that's not a duplication Mr Chairman, incidentally.  They are both referred to at page 35 again.
	And while we're about this Mr Chairman, there's another incident referred to at page 8 being reference to the 3rd November 1988 to the Rossburgh railway station, Durban, that is referred to in Exhibit A at page 36 and then just below that there's a further incident at page 8, 4th November, that's the Montclair railway line explosion Mr Chairman, and that's also page 36.  I believe I've already referred you to that when we dealt with Exhibit A.  But those are the cross-references.
	Mr Botha, so now you interrogated Zandile and you say your statement that these incidents which you mention here on page 6 and 7 were executed by a unit of Pumezo, is that correct or was it done by himself?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: By himself or by members of his command.

MR VISSER: And in their turn, under the command of Zandile?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Yes as commander in Swaziland, that's correct.

MR VISSER: Is this what you're trying to say here?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Yes.

MR VISSER: I know it's a long time ago, but I still want to ask you, was there some of this information which was news to you when you heard it from Zandile or were you already informed by informants and did you already suspect that this information, that you already had it and that she only confirmed it, what was the situation?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: There was information which we already knew with regards to the activities of Pumezo.  Some of the information we cleared out with her and she confirmed it for us.  Other information was new.

MR VISSER: Are you today able to look back and to say this part was news to us and we knew nothing of that and that but can you make that distinction today?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: No I cannot make that distinction today.

MR VISSER: Can I just ask you, how did you know that some of this was new?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Because the information was in certain incidences that Pumezo's unit was responsible and in the other cases it was an act which was committed but we didn't know who was responsible for it, but she told it was also done by members under Pumezo's command.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, this might be a convenient time to take the luncheon adjournment.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn till 2 o'clock.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION

MR MALAN: Mr Visser I assume that you will continue with something else, can I just ask a question or two?

MR NGUBANE: Sorry Commissioner before you do that, I'm sorry to interrupt, during the lunch break, I was approached by the family of Phila Ndwandwe and unbeknown to us it looks like they are not happy about the fact that Miss Ndwandwe is referred to as Zandile, they don't want that name to be used of their own personal reasons.  They would prefer her to be called Phila Portia Ndwandwe and not Zandile.  Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Can we try to meet that?

MR MALAN: Mr Botha, you mentioned that valuable information with the interrogation before the elimination of Miss Ndwandwe, the information that you received from her was a confirmation of what you had known and in other instances that she told you that Pumezo Ntwene's unit was responsible for, there were other instances which you also referred to, you said it was valuable and this means valuable, would you tell us what the valuable information was?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: (s.u.o.) Can I just make a distinction between acts of terror and other acts.  Information was that valuable to the information and as far as the acts of terror was concerned, she spoke about who was responsible for Ralph Sukela's death and who was responsible for the death of Lieutenant Raju.

MR MALAN: Very well, we will wait until we get there and just the other question?  Initially I asked you what Vorster's role was and you said that how important it was and everything that was done there and how you would deal with it.  After you have dealt with it, would you tell me what Vorster's role was?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: It is the same as I have described.

MR MALAN: Can I ask it in another way, I do not want to waste time.  If Vorster was not there, what would have been different?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: He's a support in terms of the intelligence in Swaziland.  If she did not meet the appointment, we still had an informant network and who could confirm where she was.

MR MALAN: So you would have stayed there until we found her?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Yes we could have amended our plan.

MR MALAN: And Mr Steyn's role, why was he with you?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: In this instance he regarded it as a serious operation and he wanted to be there personally or he wanted to take control of the operation himself.

MR MALAN: He wanted to take control?  When, because he was not in control of the operation, he travelled with you according to your evidence, he stayed behind at the police house and when he got back he was there but he did not lead the interrogation?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: But the operation was still under his control as commander.

MR MALAN: Of course, but from the station it would have also been under his control, what was the difference whether he sat at the police station or at the house?  I wanted to ask why you took so many people, I still do not understand it?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: The fact that the brigadier travelled with us in the case of something going wrong on the other side in Swaziland and a decision had to be made whether something had to be arranged then he would have been at the scene to do so instead of him sitting in Durban and he had to communicate by telephone because telephones were problematic in terms of contacting somebody in South Africa.

MR MALAN: Thank you.  The question has been asked, what about radio contact?  Was radio contact limited?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Yes it was over a limited distance and in terms of the frequency that was used.

MR VISSER: (continues)  Mr Botha, can we take the reins here? You went through the fence with Zandile or with Miss Ndwandwe and you are back at the police house and you are talking to her?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And as I understand you, your purpose was to establish whether she was recruitable as an informant?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And what was the method that was applied to determine if a person could be recruited as an informant?  What did you do there with your questioning?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: Usually in such an attempt to recruit such a high-profile person one would ask questions what is known to you and which you know the answers already just to see if there's any supplementary information that she could give and if she was holding any information and furthermore one would measure whether, when the offer was made, in terms of cooperation to see what the first reaction was and the first reaction would usually be as how one would perceive the person's own safety.

MR VISSER: You mean if the person could readily be convinced, would that be his concern, "what about my safety"?

HENDRIK JOHANNES PETRUS BOTHA: That is correct.  The first indication from this person, if the person is recruitable and one would go ahead with the recruitment and one could not handle in the initial process of the recruitment.  There are certain signs of body language, of what is being said, of what is not being said which all determine whether this person would co-operate as an informant.