Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-10

MR VISSER: Yes.  All right.  Can I just go back then a step, because I jumped a step, go back to paragraph 2 of Exhibit B.
	After this conversation, this discussion had taken place at C.R. Swart Square, you have already told us that you weren't part of the planning, but you were told what had happened, etc.  You then go on to say if I recall correctly, Mike, which refers to Michael Lembede, Spyker, which refers to a person by the name of Spyker Mhieza, is that correct?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And Wasserman were tasked with the kidnapping of the person, the abduction.  Now, what do you say of this paragraph today, with your knowledge which you have now?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: The knowledge I have today, the recollection I have today is that the only reason I could have thought that Mhieza was present at all in this, was that in general he and Lembede would work together with us when we were down in Port Natal.
	Because they generally reported in to Mr Wasserman, I suppose the mental picture would have been that the three of them were involved with it.  With hindsight, I know that one of the askaris actually did, or was tasked with approaching Mr Bhila.

MR VISSER: Yes, but you see this paragraph deals with the abduction, and what it says in plain language or plain Afrikaans language is that if you can remember correctly, Lembede, Mhieza and Wasserman were tasked to do the abduction.

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: In light of the evidence that has already been heard, and my own recollection, that is not correct.

MR VISSER: All right, we might return to that.  Let's just go a little further, you then speak in Exhibit B, paragraph 2 the second part of it about the planning and you have already told us what that consisted of.

MR MALAN: I am sorry Mr Visser, if I can interrupt you.  Sorry, I don't know why I am getting back to Afrikaans every time.
	Why Mr Rosslee are you saying, that is not correct that Wasserman, Spyker and Michael was not tasked to organise the abduction?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: There would be two reasons Mr Chairman.  Number one is in consultation speaking to people, I remember that they weren't tasked to do that, and number two is, from an operational point of view, it would have been silly.

MR MALAN: Sorry, for interrupting you.  How can you remember that something did not take place?  Surely a memory goes as to something that indeed take place?  You cannot remember something that did not take place, but continue, answer it again.  I am just very much confused by such an answer.

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: All right, from an operational point of view, with them being stationed down in Port Natal, it would have been silly to use them to approach Mr Bhila for an operation of that kind in broad daylight.

MR MALAN: So that is simply based on a deduction on what would have been rational or "prudent"?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: But you have no specific other recollection?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: No, I don't.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: But as I understand this passage and I have a difficulty with the handwriting, what it says is these three people were responsible for the planning but an askari was to go to the house, you said you did not know the askari's name, but he had afro hairstyle?
	It was not saying that these three people were to go to the house and expose themselves?  There was an askari and you described the askari's hairstyle if you read the second half of paragraph 2.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, the reason why the evidence is being presented as I have, is if you read the first part of paragraph 2 in isolation, it certainly gives the impression that these were the people who made ...

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't made in isolation.  It was made together.  He said these three and then he - now he says he can say they didn't because as they were stationed in Natal, they wouldn't have been used.
	If you read the whole document, they weren't going to be exposed.  It is this other askari who was going to expose himself.

MR VISSER: I was just coming to that Mr Chairman, I don't think after your remarks that I need to go into it much further then.

MR MALAN: No sorry Mr Visser, this is important, because it also goes as to credibility.  Mr Rosslee makes a statement under oath, in which he makes very specific statements as to the planning, the task for the abduction, then he continues to say who in fact were used by the planning team to do, to effect the abduction.
	Now suddenly he tells us he can remember something that didn't take place.  That is a major problem.  If you could bring him back to the beginning of paragraph 2 and try to explain to us why that stands there, and furthermore why does he deny the correctness of that paragraph at this moment in time.

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: The reason I deny or question the veracity of that paragraph right now is just having thought through it, maybe or should I say that I have, I think that, or my supposition would be that Lembede or Spyker or Wasserman would be involved from the point of view that they were local, they knew where Bhila lived, etc.  From that point of view, they would be involved, giving addresses, maybe pointing out a house or something like that.
	But the actual abduction, no.

MR MALAN: Then Mr Rosslee, isn't it probable that what you said in that first section of paragraph 2 on page 3 of Exhibit B, is exactly correct in terms of how your memory served you when you made the statement?
	There is nothing abnormal in this content?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I believe not, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Do you believe that it is not correct, or do you believe that it indeed may well be correct?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: It may well be correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Well, the long and the short of it is that the distinction that is drawn between the abduction and the general planning as to how it would come about, would appear to be, would appear - well Mr Chairman, I don't want to lead the witness and certainly not on argument - perhaps I should put it differently.
	In the first part of paragraph 2, you talk of the abduction per se, is that correct?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: The next paragraph deals with the planning, as to how it would take place?  Is that correct?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct sir.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Visser, my understanding is very different, that the first deals with the overall planning.  Who was responsible for the abduction?  The second goes as to what indeed was the content of the plan which is overarched by the first paragraph?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I am very happy to accept that, but I thought you were going to tell me, but look at the word "ontvoering", and what do you make of that, and that is the reason why I am leading this evidence in the way I am Mr Chairman, I am trying to be of assistance.
	All right, I think let's turn the page, we have dealt with paragraph 3, let's go over to the next page.

MR MALAN: May I just ask, the askari that you refer to Mr Rosslee, with the afro hairstyle, have you in the meantime been able to ascertain the name of the individual?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: No idea Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Visser, in all your discussions in terms of this statement and also your application, you refer to two or three people, you specifically refer at least to two persons who had to be abducted and killed, that was part of the overall planning?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Will you at some stage deal with that still, is that the intention or do we deal with that now?

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, we can take it no further, he remembers two, he doesn't remember the names.   The other persons remember one.
	What can I tell you?