Amnesty Hearings — Durban — 1999-08-16

S G DU PREEZ: This is not the case, Mr Chairperson.  I can just add that the family's knowledge and the long history along with the Security Branch might be one of the reasons which forced Taylor to make up his mind about this person but I cannot give evidence on behalf of Taylor.

MR LAX: If I might just interpose for a moment.  What other involvements of this family with the Security Branch are you referring to?

S G DU PREEZ: I'm referring to the statements of the family that for long periods he was detained previously and he was involved in houses where weapons were found.

MR LAX: That's not his family, that's himself, the deceased.  It's not his family who were involved with the Security Branch per se.

S G DU PREEZ: Pardon, I did not mean his family, I didn't mean the family was involved.  I said the family said that he was involved with the Security Branch.

MS GABRIEL: Can you offer any explanation as to why Mr Ninela would have written about you?  Do  you suggest that he was similarly confused?

S G DU PREEZ: No, Mr Chairperson, he possibly used my name because I was the person who arrested him.

MS GABRIEL: He specifically mentions several times that you questioned him, that he was interrogated by you.

MR VISSER: No, I've got to object to that Mr Chairman, could my learned friend point out to you and to us where she gets that evidence from, on the papers before us?  Because on the papers before us we gave the specific reference at page 77 from which it definitely does not appear that du Preez interrogated him.  He may have, the allegation there is that du Preez tortured him.

MS GABRIEL: Well, excuse me, I will substitute interrogate for torture.  But can you offer us any explanation as to why he would want to say these things about you if you didn't do those?

S G DU PREEZ: No, Mr Chairperson.

MS GABRIEL: Can you offer any explanation as to why it is that you couldn't remember this to include in your amnesty application?

S G DU PREEZ: Mr Chairperson, at the time, as I've already said, when I made the statement I remembered the incidents of the - I did not remember the earlier arrests of Mr Ninela but after I had read the statement, I recalled these incidents and also when he mentioned the names of other persons that had been arrested.

MS GABRIEL: So you can offer no satisfactory explanation as to why Ninela would have written about you?

S G DU PREEZ: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MS GABRIEL: Mr du Preez, is it your contention then that you remember absolutely nothing else about the killing of Mr Ninela?

S G DU PREEZ: Not that I can remember at the moment, Mr Chairperson.  What I said in my statement is what I can remember.

MS GABRIEL: Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS GABRIEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.  Do you have any questions to put?

MS THABETHE: Just a few Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS THABETHE: Thank you.

MS THABETHE: Mr du Preez, I want to understand what was the intention of you taking Mr Ninela to the railway line?

S G DU PREEZ: Sorry, Mr Chairman?

MS THABETHE: The intention of you taking Mr Ninela to the railway lines?  What was your intention?

CHAIRPERSON: To the railway line?

MS THABETHE: Yes.

S G DU PREEZ: The intention was to eliminate him.

MS THABETHE: And after he was shot by Mr Wasserman, that was your evidence, isn't it?

S G DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: Yes.  Why did you activate the limpet mine to blow off on him?

S G DU PREEZ: It was to obscure his identity.

MS THABETHE: Why was it necessary for you to do that, to obscure his identity?

S G DU PREEZ: So that nobody would know who the person was, who the deceased was.

MS THABETHE: I'm just trying to find out, why was it necessary that he not be identified, who he was, after he was killed?

S G DU PREEZ: I did not know the exact circumstances of how he was arrested and whether he could refer back to Taylor and the askaris, that they had apprehended him.

CHAIRPERSON: That answer doesn't convey anything to me.  Maybe you're trying to say something, but I don't understand.  Please just clear that up.  The question is, having killed a man, why was it necessary to blow him up?  And you said that it was perhaps because "we did not want the identity of the man to be known".  The question is, why did you not want his identity to be known?  Have you any explanation or reason why that was done?

S G DU PREEZ: Chairperson, the reason why he was blown up was probably multiple and the reason why his face was blown off, so that people would not be able to identify him as Ninela and no inquiries would be made with regard to Ninela's disappearance.

MR LAX: How did you know no inquiries would be made about his disappearance?

S G DU PREEZ: How did I know?  I did not know.  I don't know whether any inquiries would be done.

MR LAX: You see, you've just told us that one of your assumptions that if you blew up his face, no inquiries would be made about his disappearance.  What I'm asking you
is why did you come to that assumption?

S G DU PREEZ: Chairperson what I mean is, if Ninela had only been shot there, he would have been identified and people would have inquired about the person, who he was seen with last.

MS THABETHE: Can I proceed, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, please.

MS THABETHE: Thank you.  You've indicated in your evidence that Mr Taylor was not there when you went to the railway line, is that correct?

S G DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: But he gave you the order that Mr Ninela should be killed, is that correct?

S G DU PREEZ: That's correct.

MS THABETHE: When he gave you the order, did he specify how he should be killed?

S G DU PREEZ: No, he did not.

MS THABETHE: Then who made a decision as to how he should be killed, or maybe let me be more specific.

S G DU PREEZ: I would say it was my decision.

MS THABETHE: That he should be blown up.

S G DU PREEZ: That's correct, Chairperson.

MS THABETHE: Okay.  No further questions, Mr Chair.  Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, any re-examination?

MR VISSER: Just one question, Mr Chairman.

MR VISSER: When did you leave the service of the police, Mr du Preez?

S G DU PREEZ: In 1995.

MR VISSER: And afterwards, did you have access to documentation in the possession of the police?

S G DU PREEZ: No, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

ADV BOSMAN: Mr du Preez, I recall that you mentioned the activities of the Security Police was such that you did not have knowledge of everything, is that correct?

S G DU PREEZ: That is correct, Chairperson.

ADV BOSMAN: Could you please explain to us how this division came about and where you slotted in?

S G DU PREEZ: Since 1981 up to approximately 1990, I was attached to the terrorist division under Andy Taylor and after 1987 or 88 we established MK Intelligence Unit and I was part of that under Hentie Botha, who was directly under Taylor.

ADV BOSMAN: Am I correct to say that you, when you were involved with the elimination of Ninela, had been taken out of your normal work sphere?

S G DU PREEZ: I dealt with MK activities, Chairperson.  My work was work dealing with the investigation into MK activities and MK members.

ADV BOSMAN: But that still does not answer my question.  You were asked to go and eliminate somebody, to go and kill someone while you were attached to the Intelligence Division.  Was that the normal course?

S G DU PREEZ: No, that was not normal.

ADV BOSMAN: Can you explain why it came about that you were actually in a work environment outside your usual work?

S G DU PREEZ: Chairperson, we worked closely with Mr Taylor and he was the person who would give us our instructions.  He was the person who gave us the instruction to do it.