Amnesty Hearings — Pretoria — UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN: Mr Zeelie, I refer you to the indictment that was handed to the committee as an exhibit before the committee.   You have already looked at it and this was now about the case State against Torka, do you have the background?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, I know the background.

UNKNOWN: In the indictment it is also referred to a certain Mpanyana, who killed himself during an explosion.  Were you aware of that explosion?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, I had knowledge of it.   I could perhaps just mention, during all explosions and acts of terror, there are telex and cryptic reports sent to all the Security Branches across the country, where there is then an exposition of the acts of terror that have taken place, and that particular act of terror in April 15 ...(intervention)

UNKNOWN: April of that year?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, it took place on that day.

UNKNOWN: And in the same month quite a few occurred in Pretoria, and also in May and June, shortly before the arrest of Bopape?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: So there were many that took place as put out in Exhibit B that you have also seen, in Pretoria and in Johannesburg?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.   I also attended some of these scenes.   The case second from the top, you referred to Exhibit D, that was a limpet mine and a fuel tank in Umhlaagte(?), I defused it myself before the limpet mine exploded.

UNKNOWN: And in this particular instance, did you have any idea, suspicion of who did it, who was responsible, looking at the method used?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It wasn't something that I had any doubt about that it was the work of the ANC.

UNKNOWN: Now, as put out in Exhibit B, now this refers to the Pretoria/Johannesburg area, were you aware of all these incidents?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes.

UNKNOWN: And was the suspicion there that it was the ANC?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I had no doubt that they were committed by the ANC.

UNKNOWN: At that stage, Mr Zeelie, was it a low intensity or a high intensity onslaught?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It was a high intensity onslaught from the side of the ANC.

UNKNOWN: Mr Zeelie, why did you identify yourself with the fact that Bopape was shocked, why did you agree to that?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I gained a lot of experience in the Security Branch, and that is why I mentioned the number of explosion scenes that I visited, and that is why I wanted to get the complete list of the terror weapons that I personally got from these caches, because these weapons had been uncovered because of intensive interrogation of ANC terrorists, and these interrogations took place to obtain information, as I've already said, to keep the government of the day in power in view of the fact that the ANC was launching a violent assault against the government, to, as has been mentioned, to overthrow the government with extreme violence, and I was a supporter of the then government and I saw it as my duty to went to the extreme to fight this onslaught and to get information from the ANC terrorists to work against this onslaught, an onslaught in which the people of South Africa were mutilated and killed in the most horrific way.

UNKNOWN: Mr Zeelie, you knew that it was illegal to torture a person by shocking him?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: Did you believe that that what you were doing that you do it for the correct purpose?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I knew that it was illegal, illegal to the extent that what it was against the criminal laws of the country, but in my heart it was one illegal act, it was not illegal to fight against the ANC, and this act was commonly used in the Security Branch to get information from the ANC.

UNKNOWN: Mr Zeelie, if you say it was general practice, did you believe that you were allowed to do it, or weren't you?   What did you believe?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: It was not just that I believed that I was allowed to do it, I knew it, I knew that my seniors from my rank up to the commissioner of the South African Police, that they condoned it, that these methods could be used to get information from ANC terrorists.

UNKNOWN: Mr Zeelie, if I can refer you to volume 3, on page 642, it is a statement of Nkosi, now in this statement certain allegations are made against ...(intervention).

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: I have knowledge of this, I saw it in his statement.

UNKNOWN: Before I start with that, Nkosi also mentions that banned literature was found in the flat?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: And at that stage, when you found the literature, were those grounds to arrest Bopape and Nkosi and to charge them in terms of the Act on internal security?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: And at that stage you already had legal grounds to arrest them?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, legal grounds to arrest both of the persons in that flat.

UNKNOWN: I'm not going to discuss each and every allegation, you saw that Nkosi says that you assaulted Bopape, you deny that, and you already said that you denied that there were people with pangas?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.   I just want to refer to inconsistencies in the statement with regard to the fact that I had hit Bopape in the stomach.   Paragraph 15 reads
"Zeelie ... in the stomach.   Bopape fell onto the bed and one of the policemen who was busy registering the books asked Bopape "is jy dronk?" and punched him again."
According to this paragraph, it was a policeman who were keeping the registers who punched him both times in the stomach.

UNKNOWN: But you deny that you did it?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: That is correct.

UNKNOWN: Ja, I don't intend going through all of them.  He denies that he assault Nkosi or Bopape, and it could be put to him by Mr Rautenbach in cross-examination, I presume so, he intends calling Mr Nkosi, so we don't know whether he's been instructed or not, or what the position is.   Can I proceed along these lines and go for the statement, or what is the position?

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps Mr Rautenbach can advise?

MR RAUTENBACH: Mr Chairman, I have still not been able to obtain a proper instruction.   I've made the arrangements to actually speak to Mr Nkosi, I have not yet been able to do so.   I'm not sure whether he's present at this moment.   During the lunch adjournment, I will take further steps to see whether those instructions can be obtained, but I have no objection should Mr Prinsloo proceed on the basis on what is set out in the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I was going to just say the same thing, Mr Prinsloo.   Certainly, if there are portions of the statement or whatever is contained in the statement made by Mr Nkosi that is disputed, then, you know, please, I think it might be advisable to refer to them so at least you know which sections of the statement are disputed, and then the argument can't be raised later that, because it wasn't dealt with, it was tacitly admitted, although I don't know if that will go that far.

UNKNOWN: Thank you.   Mnr Zeelie, as ek u dan kan verwys na die verklaring wat dan begin op bladsy 642 van Nkosi, wat (onduidelik) verklaring te wees, daar op bladsy 643 daar se Nkosi op paragraaf 7 dat daar geskakel was en toe kom daar 20 gewapende polisiemanne die kamer in met koeelvaste klere en kapmesse en gewere.   U het reeds gese daar was nie mense met kapmesse nie?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: Dis korrek, U Edele.

UNKNOWN: Is die res korrek, van die koeelvaste klere?

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: U Edele, ja, maar ek wil graag weer verwys na die word "jumped", that 20 men jumped into the room.

UNKNOWN: Right.   And then paragraph 8, how big was the room, how many people came into the room?