Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-17

MR NGUBANE: They were giving you information, why decide to eliminate them?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Chairperson, we were of the opinion that all three of them could not be recruited or charged.

MR NGUBANE: Why couldn't you charge them, you had found them in possession of instruments in terms of the law, which were illegal to possess.  You had direct evidence that these people had been found in possession of these instruments.  What prevented you from charging them?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I think that the decision had already been taken to eliminate them.

MR NGUBANE: Well, you have told us that the decision was taken there at the house.  Now if you say that you think that it had been taken to eliminate them, what makes you say so?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Perhaps I may be wrong, the decision had been taken to eliminate them.

MR NGUBANE: Are you sure about that?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I think the ultimate is indicative thereof.

MR NGUBANE: No, are you sure about the fact that when you came to the house and interrogated these people, the decision had been taken to eliminate them?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR NGUBANE: Assuming that the decision had been taken that they would be eliminated, before you could go to the house, was there a decision taken at the house again, to eliminate them?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, with respect to my learned friend, he is confusing not only the witness, but even myself.  The witness has made it quite clear that the decision to eliminate them, was taken after they had arrived at the safe house.
	My learned friend is now juggling it around to when you arrived at the house, or on the proposition that before you arrived at the house, none of which was the witness' evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: He is now agreeing with it Mr Visser.  As I understand it, your witness has just agreed that the decision had been taken by the time they came to the house.

MR VISSER: That is precisely my point Mr Chairman, it is because of the confusion that is created by the question.  He is being misled into answering questions which is not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he is being misled, I think he is being pushed along, and he is agreeing.

MR NGUBANE: Mr Du Preez, can we get an answer, the question was at the house, was there a stage when it was agreed again that these people should be eliminated?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, after these arrests of these persons, when we arrived at the house, we had decided that they were to be eliminated.

MR NGUBANE: Mr Du Preez, I am going to put it to you that the conflict in your answer is a clear indication that you are not making a full disclosure.
	You are trying to create a story that should agree with the other applicants, who have told fabricated stories before this Commission.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, I am not certain what Mr Ngubane is driving at.

MR MALAN: I am watching you and I am watching the questioning.  I don't know if you should listen to the interpretation, if there is one available, because I am not certain whether or not you are following the intonation of all the questions.
	Mr Ngubane, will you proceed, we will see if helps a little if the interpretation assists him.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you.  I am putting to you sir, that you are telling this story differently because you are not coming out clean on what happened.  You are trying to tailor your evidence.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Could you repeat please.

MR NGUBANE: I am putting to you that you are contradicting yourself precisely because you are not coming out clean as to what happened regarding this incident.  You are tailoring your evidence to agree with the story of the other applicants, which also is fabricated, which is not a full disclosure of what happened.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is not true Mr Chairman.

MR NGUBANE: I am putting it to you that you killed these people out of spite, there was no reason why you should kill them, the kwaMashu 3?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is not true.

MR NGUBANE: Thank you Mr Chairman, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NGUBANE

ADV PRIOR: I have a few aspects, thank you.  Mr Du Preez, in the case of terrorists who were caught with weapons, what was the possibilities except for the elimination or killing of them, you could have detained them, is that not true?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: It was not a decision in this case.

ADV PRIOR: No, I am talking now in general.  You could have detained them, is that not true?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct.

ADV PRIOR: In terms of Section 29 or any other Section.

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is a possibility, yes.

ADV PRIOR: For how long before you charged them?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I cannot remember at that stage, what it was.

ADV PRIOR: Was it months, weeks?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: I think 30 days maybe.

ADV PRIOR: And you could get a new certificate and still detain that person?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: No, it wasn't very easy.

ADV PRIOR: And the fact that they were in possession of limpet mines, you could successfully charge them?  There were direct evidence against them, is that correct?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Not what I believed.

ADV PRIOR: Let us leave the decision to eliminate them out of this.  You could if you wanted to, charge them under whatever legislation and continue with a successful prosecution?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: At that stage I did not think that it would be the case.

ADV PRIOR: You found three limpet mines in a carrier bag, is that correct?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRIOR: You said that you did not trust that evidence.  I am talking in general, Mr Du Preez, it is not a trick question.
	If they were charged, would they have been found guilty?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Possibly yes.

ADV PRIOR: And at least five years?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is possible.

ADV PRIOR: And effectively would be taken out of circulation through this method, on the basis of that?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Yes, that is correct.

ADV PRIOR: Exactly the same with Nxiweni, he was found with weapons and explosives in a trunk in his house?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

ADV PRIOR: Is it not the case that the decision was made a long time before they were arrested, and that is to kill them?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: No Mr Chairperson.

ADV PRIOR: With the release of Nxiweni and Bhila in 1987, according to the amnesty application of Mr Rosslee, bundle 1, Mr Rosslee put it as follows, page 24 of that bundle, although it is being denied, but I am going to question you about this and present you with a probability.
	We Mr Wasserman of the local Security Branch.  He told us that two of the accused in the Toti bomb blast criminal trial, had been acquitted, but was still continuing their subversive  actions, that our task was to arrest them for purposes of elimination.
	We know that that reference there is about a period after the Ramlakan case and the release of Bhila and Nxiweni?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: That is correct yes.

ADV PRIOR: I would like to put it to you and it seems out of Rosslee's initial application, that at that stage in 1987, a decision was made to those who were referred to wrongly in the Toti case, was the Ramlakan incident, and that they had to be killed at that stage, will you agree with me?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: Yes, I heard that in evidence.

ADV PRIOR: Was that the case?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: No, I cannot comment on that.

ADV PRIOR: The name Pindele Mfeti, is it known to you?

SALMON JOHANNES GERHARDUS DU PREEZ: No.