Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-25

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, at the time of the completion of this statement as I have already said we completed it very quickly and this was gone over very quickly.  At this point as I am here I cannot remember that Botha and myself had this conversation.

MR WILLS: Did you not discuss this with counsel, did you not read this before you came today, whenever?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I did not read this today before I gave evidence.

MR WILLS: So when you said in your evidence earlier today in chief that you confirm your statement that you've made in application you actually didn't know what you were confirming, is that what you want us to believe?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I did not read through this statement today or in the recent past.

MR WILLS: So in fact you weren't able to confirm what you were putting to us yet you did so under oath, why?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Botha's statement as he had given it here, that was read by me.

MR WILLS: No, I'm talking about your own application.  Did you read Annexure L, this summary of your evidence before us today?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: Well in that annexure you confirm the same things.

MR VISSER: Well not quite, he confirmed it in his evidence, Chairperson, the annexure L does not confirm, it just refers to it but he did so in his evidence.

MR WILLS: But in annexure L by reference it refers to the same thing and the same events?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct.

MR WILLS: And that's after listening to a whole week of evidence or a whole couple of days of evidence?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: And yet you didn't tell us that you couldn't remember these instances, this is just what you've heard, you have no independent recollection of it at all?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: I just want to concentrate on one aspect here which is, to my mind, quite material and that is that the statement that he is not prepared to become an informer, was that also general knowledge?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I cannot remember that an attempt was ever made to recruit him as an informer.  It was probably in Botha's thoughts but I did not consider it.

MR WILLS: But you'll concede that if Botha testifies under oath that he is not prepared to become an informer either Botha's lying or that attempt was made to make him an informer, those are the only two options?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: Was there ever any discussion amongst yourselves concerning this point?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: The recruiting of Shabalala?

MR WILLS: Yes, or the failure to do so?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Not with me, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: Because I submit that had he been prepared to be an informer he might have been alive today?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: It is possible, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: So if you can't remember this discussion then we must assume that you didn't agree as Botha suggests in his evidence, you didn't agree with him at this discussion that these two people should be killed because you can't even remember the discussion?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, I went along with Botha concerning the elimination of these persons.

MR WILLS: I know you did, I'm talking about at this discussion.  Anyway I'll move from that to consider the options in relation to Ndaba.  Was there any discussion about Ndaba not being prepared to testify?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Such a discussion had taken place.

MR WILLS: And was there any discussion about the ethics of switching from an informant after detention.  The passage which I'm referring to which I couldn't quite understand and I want clarification on is on page 19, the third option, it says
"Switching from an informant after detention would not be ethically correct."
What does that mean?  The Afrikaans reads as follows:
"Switching from the informer after detention would not have been ethically correct."

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I don't know what Botha meant with this.

MR WILLS: What is your recollection, your independent recollection of when you were first told that these two people were going to be killed, when did this occur?  You've told me you can't remember this discussion.

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, earlier on in the week it appeared that Shabalala would have to be eliminated.

MR WILLS: What do you mean by that I mean did you all - is this just such a common thing that people are eliminated that independently in the minds of five of you this light flashed that it appeared to you as if it's a revelation from God that this person is supposed to be eliminated?  Is that what happened?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: No Chairperson.

MR WILLS: Well then how did it appear to you?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: It was discussed, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: When was it discussed?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I cannot remember the specific day and time Chairperson but it had been discussed directly or shortly after the arrest of Shabalala.

MR WILLS: Was it the same day as the arrest?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Shortly after the arrest we realised that there was a problem.  How we would solve it was not known to us at that stage.

MR WILLS: Yes, well when did you discuss that you were going to kill him for the first time?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: It was during the time from Sunday to the next Saturday when they had been eliminated.

MR WILLS: And who was at that discussion?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I remember that it was myself and Botha who discussed it.

MR WILLS: And then you - this discussion, this independent discussion between you and Botha isn't mentioned anywhere in the evidence as far as I can recall?

MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, there is a difference to a discussion between Botha and Du Preez on Saturday the 14th?

MR WILLS: Chairperson, I'm referring to the separate discussion which related only to Shabalala.

MR VISSER: I'm sorry, I didn't understand that.

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson I cannot remember a specific discussion but I cannot remember where we were an when it was said but we did discuss it at some point.  I can remember that it had been mentioned that we have a problem and we were both aware of the fact that something had to be done about this problem.

MR WILLS: Now I just want to be clear and make sure I'm understanding you correctly.  I'm talking about the discussion of Shabalala's death because you've indicated in your earlier answers that the discussion about Shabalala's death occurred earlier than that in relation to Ndaba.

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: So your testimony must be to the effect that there was a discussion about Shabalala's death and then on the Saturday possibly or at some later stage there was a discussion about Ndaba's death?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR WILLS: Two distinct discussions?

SIMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson, we previously had discussed what to do about Shabalala.

MR WILLS: And you'll agree with me that that evidence hasn't been given by any of the applicants today?