Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1998-11-10

MR MALAN: Okay, may I then pursue that just for a moment?  Can you recall any planning or implementation on a second individual?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: None, whatsoever Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: You were never again further involved in any planning or implementation, except the killing of what now turns out to be Mr Bhila?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: None whatsoever.

MR MALAN: But you would not be able to say that in their planning, they did not involve other persons to kill a second individual?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I wouldn't have any knowledge of that.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I might if I may be allowed the luxury of speculating a little bit, I may be of some assistance.
	It is a fact that there were four persons that were discharged from the Ramlakan case.  The one was Mr Bhila, then there was another person by the name of Mhlati I believe it was, I will get his name in a moment, but the other two are very important, the one was Zandile and the other was Pumeso.
	So yes, Mr Chairman, Mr Malan is quite correct in his line of thinking, and you will hear later on during these hearings what happened to those two people.
	Now, you say that Bhila, we are going to refer to him as Mr Bhila because we know it was Mr Bhila, was brought there by Michael Lembede and Spyker Mhieza.  I am not going to repeat the argument about you remembering or not remembering about Spyker or being uncertain about it, I am just going to leave it, because you have dealt with it.
	But then you say there was another person who you thought might have been Mr  Letsatsi.  Now, first of all, who was Mr Letsatsi?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Mr Letsatsi was one of the members of Vlakplaas.

MR VISSER: And you thought when you signed Exhibit B, that Letsatsi was one of the persons who arrived there with Mr Bhila?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that letsatsi and the other askaris, doesn't he say?

MR VISSER: Oh yes.

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: And the other askaris.

MR VISSER: Oh yes, I am sorry, I am coming to that Mr Chairman.  Well, let's go on to that immediately.  The sentence then continues to say and the other askaris.
	Now you see the picture which we have now is Mr Bhila arrives, he is not only accompanied by Michael Lembede and Spyker Mhieza, but also by Letsatsi and all the other askaris.  First of all, how many other askaris can you recall, were there?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, I don't recall how many there were on the team on that specific trip down to Port Natal.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Two or three more apart from Letsatsi?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I have no idea.

MR VISSER: All right.  Now, that is the scenario which the reader of paragraph 4 of Exhibit B, would be left with.
	Do you have any explanation for these words appearing here?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Number one, on Lembede and Mhieza, once again, it was probably an assumption on my part that the two of them were together as they generally were when we worked with them.
	With regard to Letsatsi and the other askaris, while I made the statement, Captain Holmes hauled out a bunch of S&T forms and said do you remember X, Y, Z being there, etc?

MR VISSER: Did he ask you about Letsatsi?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: He asked me if Letsatsi was there, I said I remember Letsatsi.  I can't remember if he and the other askaris were there.

MR VISSER: Yes, and that is precisely if you read the paragraph in the context and against the background of what you have just stated, this is exactly what this paragraph says.
	He says I am not sure, but I think that Letsatsi was there.  So this was really in reply to a question?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Yes.  Now, again, if you want to be very technical Mr Rosslee, you talk about Mr Bhila having been bound, shackled or handcuffed, cuffed, and one of the (indistinct).  Can you remember precisely how, was it by his hands, by his feet, how was he cuffed, can you remember that?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I do not recall at the shooting range if his hands were cuffed or if he had leg irons on or - whereas I have a recollection of him being secured though.

MR VISSER: Yes, and then both in your application on page 25 as well as in Exhibit B paragraph 5, you speak of an interrogation of Mr Bhila.  What do you say today as to that?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, in hindsight and in listening to other evidence, all I can say to that is that I probably superimposed another incident that I have applied for amnesty for, onto this with regard to the interrogation.

MR VISSER: Did the other incident which you refer to, also involve the death of a person?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: It did Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: In that case, was there in fact an interrogation that took place?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: There was Mr Chair.

MR VISSER: Is that the best explanation you can give for why you think that there was an interrogation?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: That is the only thing I can think of Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: If you - today Mr Rosslee, can you specifically remember that there was an interrogation or is that not position?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I cannot today remember if Mr Bhila was interrogated.

MR VISSER: Yes, all right.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you make the applications for amnesty in these two incidents, on the same form?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: I believe so.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we should get the form and see whether you refer to interrogation in respect of the other person as well.

MR VISSER: Yes Mr Chairman.  We thought of doing that, unfortunately my Attorney hasn't got that form here, but if you don't mind looking at my computer, I will show it to you on my laptop computer, because as it turned out last night, I searched and I found it Mr Chairman, I can assure you there was a reference to an interrogation of the other.

CHAIRPERSON: So there is interrogation in both cases?

MR VISSER: No, no, in that other matter, and he was superimposing what he thought ...

CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't he in his amnesty application in this case say, there was an interrogation?  Now he says there wasn't, he must have been confusing it with the other one, where he put there was an interrogation.  So he doubled the interrogations in his application?
	Now he can once again, exclude something that he was confused about before, the problem we have been facing all morning.

MR MALAN: May I pursue that too, because I really have difficulty with this line.  What is very clear from Mr Rosslee's statement, both in his application and in his Section 204 statement, is his recollection of two persons who were the targets of assassinations, at least two, in one he says two or three, but two we go by the application.
	Secondly, it is very clear that the individual was interrogated.  Thirdly he remembers the reason, the purpose of the interrogation which concerned the second person in his mind, which was also targeted and he referred to some other information that we will get to later, Mr Visser.
	Now you happen to have heard some of your fellow applicants on this incident, they deny interrogation.  Suddenly now, you are quite happy to accept that you again are remembering that something did not take place.  I am overstating it, but why would you switch?  Is it simply to protect or assist your fellow applicants?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: Mr Chairman, it is very simple, where I am sitting today, I do not remember if Mr Bhila was interrogated or not.

MR MALAN: But at the time of your making the statement, Section 204 statement, your memory served you as to indeed an interrogation and also the purpose?

ADRIAN STEVEN ROSSLEE: It may so have done, it would appear so, yes Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Now if you don't remember it today, on what basis can you even say that you have superimposed something else onto this incident?