Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-10

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: It does appear that way Mr Chairman.  Mr Chairman, when I made this statement, I was under extreme pressure.  I was also being led by Captain Holmes with regard to him asking me questions, I was speaking in English, he was taking the statement in Afrikaans and I am sure between the two of us, and my stress levels at that stage, it is quite possible that I assumed a lot of things.

MR MALAN: Excuse me Mr Rosslee, can you speak Afrikaans?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Yes, I can.

MR MALAN: Can you speak it fluently?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Yes.

MR MALAN: Because you say under oath that you made the statement in Afrikaans, so you were not speaking in English and he was writing in Afrikaans.

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: We both spoke both languages.  We spoke English and Afrikaans, mixed.

MR MALAN: Did I not hear you say now that you spoke English and he wrote in Afrikaans?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Yes, certainly.

MR MALAN: Why do you make a statement and you sign it under oath, that you made this statement in Afrikaans?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: For me there is not a big difference between whether I speak Afrikaans or English, it was easier for him and that is it.

MR MALAN: Sorry, I was speaking Afrikaans now specifically just to test your Afrikaans, but are you saying that indeed the conversation was in Afrikaans, because that is what you said under oath?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, it was in both languages, because I speak English and Afrikaans, I mix them up all the time.

MR MALAN: Why did you then now, earlier say that you were talking in English, he was writing in Afrikaans?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Because most of the time, I would have been speaking English, because obviously when you are under stress and that, I go back to my home language.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: And staying with this paragraph just a moment longer, was your intention with the words that you spoke or that you spoke or that was written here, that were written here, to refer to this particular incident when you referred to "vooraf uitgeklaar", or was your intention to speak generally?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I was referring to generally, we would get clarification or the go ahead from Mr De Kock on anything we did in the field.

MR VISSER: Is that the reason why the plural is used, the instructions?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I should imagine so, yes Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right.

MR MALAN: Can I take it a bit further then, when you made this statement, were you under the impression that Major De Kock was indeed at Vlakplaas, so when you made the statement, you were also under the impression that this was cleared out with him beforehand, because you do not distinguish?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I have no recollection of him being on the farm, being on leave, or the statement, the actions applying here for, being cleared with him.

MR MALAN: Let me just follow the line of responsibility please.  You said in your evidence which was led, that when you went to Natal, you fell under the command of Taylor?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: He would have given you the instructions?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And then you had to make sure that these instructions were carried out?  These instructions, were they usually cleared out with Major De Kock beforehand?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Normally when I say it was professional courtesy ...

MR MALAN: Sorry, my apologies again for having spoken Afrikaans, but if you have no difficulty then you can continue to answer.

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I think number one it was a professional courtesy to inform Major De Kock, what we were up to from the people who requested our presence wherever we were working.

MR MALAN: Mr Rosslee, are you saying it was a courtesy to De Kock, or did you have to clear the instructions as you said in your affidavit with Major De Kock, there is quite a difference is there not?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I would say a bit of both.  Number one, getting approval from Major De Kock, that we were going to do something, and number two, keeping him in the picture as to what we were busy with down here, wherever we were.

MR MALAN: So if he was not in agreement with any of the instructions, he would have said to you no, or he would have confirmed it and only then did it become a real instruction, was that your understanding of the operations?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That was my understanding of how it would operate.

MR MALAN: So you did not have to comply with any order of Taylor, unless De Kock would have, or whoever was at that moment in charge at Vlakplaas, would have confirmed the order.  Is that what you are saying?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: My understanding is that I would have had confirmation from Vlakplaas, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, you were sent down regularly to do routine, what amounted to routine work, that was to oversee the askaris in their identification, in their surveillance of suspected terrorists?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: That was the routine.  Here you were being asked to do something completely different, that is to murder someone who had just been acquitted in court?  It would have been very important, wouldn't it, to have checked that with the Commanding Officer at Vlakplaas?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I believe it would.

CHAIRPERSON: Because that is not what you had been sent there to do?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Because of the seriousness or the nature of the act, my belief is yes, it probably would have been cleared out, or should have been cleared with, should have.

CHAIRPERSON: It should have been cleared up?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: It should have been cleared.

MR VISSER: All right, well, let us step off that paragraph then and go to the next.  We come now to this discussion which is the point which we reached on your application form, before we went to Exhibit B.
	You say in Exhibit B, you say there were discussions held with Mr Taylor and Lawrie Wasserman.  The three of us, the three members from Vlakplaas that is, our three members of Vlakplaas, or us three members of Vlakplaas, McCarter, Bosch and yourself.

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct, we were the three members down at that stage.

MR VISSER: Yes.  And at this meeting where you heard the order or the request, whatever you want to call it, concerning Mr Bhila, in your affidavit, Exhibit B you say the three members, white members to put it that way, from Vlakplaas were there, as well as Wasserman, together with Major Taylor.  What do you say about that?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: At the stage of making the statement, I believed that to be true.  Obviously in hindsight and in consultation and listening to other evidence, that is not the fact and I recall that it was Major Taylor, McCarter and myself who were together.

MR VISSER: What you can positively give evidence to is the fact that you were there and you know McCarter was there, and you know Taylor was there?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Then in both Exhibit B as well as in your application form, you speak of two persons who had been acquitted.  In fact, in Exhibit B you say two or three persons who had been acquitted.
	What is your recollection today, do you still stand with two or is it one or is it two or three?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: My recollection is that at that briefing, we spoke about two people.

MR VISSER: Yes.  McCarter seems to recall only one person, Bhila.

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I can't speak for McCarter, Mr Chairperson, I recall speaking or hearing about two people.

MR VISSER: In this case, you are not prepared to make the concession that you might be wrong, because this is a vivid recollection of yours?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I remember very clearly speaking of two people.