Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-13

MR NGUBANE: Then why did you pause and not continue to interrogate him?

MR BOTHA: Because that is how I wanted it.  I was not forced to do anything quickly, I could maintain my own tempo.

MR NGUBANE: And then the following day, for how long did you interrogate him?

MR BOTHA: With pauses, during the whole day.

MR NGUBANE: During the whole day?  Did he cooperate with you on the following day?

MR BOTHA: On a question/answer method, yes.  In other words, I would ask a question and he gives me an answer.  If the answer is not correct, I would give him a few slaps and then he would change the answer, yes, he did cooperate.

MR NGUBANE: So he answered you on the basis of a few slaps that you gave him, there was no serious assault on him?

MR BOTHA: He was not assaulted seriously, what do you mean by assault seriously?

MR NGUBANE: Well, you know how to assault a man seriously, definitely it is not slapping.  Did you get much information from Nxiweni?

MR BOTHA: Nxiweni, the information that we needed, he did give it to us and I was satisfied with the information that he gave to us.

MR NGUBANE: But it didn't justify a period of about 12 hours, the discussion about this information, didn't justify a period of about 12 hours?

MR BOTHA: Mr Ngubane, if you listened to me this morning, then you would understand that time was relevant to me because I had to concur with the informants as to the position of Nxiweni.
	The story that came about, information or warnings that was given, people had to be identified, this needed some time, and that is why I kept him with me.  He was not already eliminated and buried.

MR NGUBANE: Did you feel at any stage during his interrogation, that he was withholding some vital information from you?

MR BOTHA: I could not tell that at any point in time, I got the impression that he was withholding central or important information.  My experience has taught me that any person refuses to give any information that he can use as a trump card at some other stage.

MR NGUBANE: At what stage did he tell you about the firearms at Allan Taylor?

MR BOTHA: It was during the day some time.

MR NGUBANE: He didn't tell you the first time you questioned him and the first time you assaulted him about this?

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't during the day was it, it was at night?

MR BOTHA: Yes, Chairperson, we fetched the weapons during the evening.

MR NGUBANE: Was it the evening of the very first day that you had detained him?

MR BOTHA: We asked him about the arms.  It could have been the first evening or the second evening.  But it was during the interrogation, he told me about the weapons.

MR NGUBANE: Was it the first thing, did he tell you at the initial stages about the firearm, can you recall?

MR BOTHA: The questioning was about acts of terror and further information about structures and logistics.  This came later.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry Mr Ngubane.  I would just like to get some information on this safe houses that you used, particularly the house where he was being interrogated in Verulam.
	How far was it from other houses?

MR BOTHA: As the crow flies, about 300 metres.

ADV SIGODI: From the nearest house?

MR BOTHA: From the nearest house, yes.  The specific place which we refer to, was a place which we have already pointed out to the Investigation Team here in Durban.  It is two houses next to each other and the closest house from there, is about 300 metres.

ADV SIGODI: What criteria did you use to choose where to interrogate a person?  If you decided to interrogate a person in a safe house, as opposed to interrogating a person at the Head Office, what reason would you have to take a person to a safe house?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, in instances where it was an illegal arrest, as in this matter, so we could not go through the normal channel, that is why we took him to the safe house.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you say earlier that you used this house as your office?

MR BOTHA: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Can I ask, the questioning of Nxiweni was continuous and that you had to concur with the informant which happened from time to time, I would assume?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Where was this informant?

MR BOTHA: In the city.

MR MALAN: And you had to travel from the house to the city?

MR BOTHA: Negative, we used the telephone.

MR MALAN: So this interruptions were not long?

MR BOTHA: Chairperson, I used the house as an office, I didn't have to sit there for a long interrogation.  We knew his background, we knew most of his activities and what he told us was not a long story, in terms of if it was a foreign or an unknown terrorist to us.

MR MALAN: I am just trying to find out the nature of the interrogation, this is what the cross-examination is leading to.
	The questioning was not interrupted just to concur with your informant, it is because you had to do other jobs?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And then you just had him sitting there, where was he sitting?

MR BOTHA: He sat in an office or in a room where there was a bed, he was handcuffed and with leg irons.

MR MALAN: He was alone for long periods?

MR BOTHA: Yes, he was.

MR MALAN: So you did not interrogate him intensely?  I am asking, my impression is that you interrogated him continuously?

MR BOTHA: No, it was not a continuous interrogation.

MR MALAN: But then you said it was not continuous, because from time to time you had to interrupt it to concur with the informer?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

MR MALAN: But with the following questions, it seems that you did not interrogate him intensively because most of, there is so little that came out from what you said, that it is difficult to understand that a day and a half, or more than a day, you spent with him.
	So you had him sitting there for long periods and you did not question him?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry just to complete that, so if a person was assaulted in that house, in the safe house and he cried out at night, would the next person, would the neighbours have been able to hear those cries?

MR BOTHA: I do not know if they heard if there was any screaming.

ADV SIGODI: And you say that you used this house particularly for when the arrest would be an illegal arrest?
	How would the people at the C.R. Swart offices or at your Head Office have known that an arrest was illegal if you bring somebody in for interrogation?

MR BOTHA: Whereto?

ADV SIGODI: I am asking because you said, I asked you what criteria would you use for interrogating a person in a safe house, as opposed to interrogating a person in your normal offices, and then your answer was that you use the safe houses if the arrest was illegal?

MR BOTHA: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: What I am asking is, how would the other people at your Head Office have known that the arrest was illegal anyway?

MR BOTHA: They would have known if I told them.

CHAIRPERSON: Normally if you bring someone in into Head Office, you would have to make an entry in the occurrence book?

MR BOTHA: Yes, that is with a normal arrest.

MR NGUBANE: I am suggesting to you sir, because of the time that you took on interrogating Nxiweni, he must have been severely assaulted at that time in order for him to give you this information?

MR BOTHA: Please tell me what do you mean with severely assaulted.

MR NGUBANE: Not a few slaps.  I mean torture in the real sense as you people in the Security Branch would conduct when you wanted to extract information from people.

MR BOTHA: Can you please describe it to me Mr Ngubane, because I don't understand the terminology used.

MR NGUBANE: Are you suggesting that you do not know what is meant by assaulting the person and torturing him severely?

MR BOTHA: What I am saying is, you are trying to create a story here of something that did not happen.  It sounds as if you do not believe that a person would give you information after you had given him a few slaps?