Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knoetze?

MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, yesterday during the evidence of my client, apparently, especially Mr Kloppers and Deon Martin, kept on making remarks which disturbed my client and I would ask the Commission if it is possible first of all to reprimand them for having done so and secondly, just to move them away, to make them change seats with some of the other applicants, so that my client isn't disturbed in his evidence. This is a very serious matter and he should be able to testify freely.

CHAIRPERSON: Gentlemen, I don't think you should do that, you should disturb the other witness. You will remember that you, yourselves testified and some of the things that you said, were not particularly interesting to the members of the families of the deceased, and we have tried through members of our staff, to plead with members of the families, when you testify, not to disturb you, not to make remarks, not to say anything. One of you will recall that I stopped some cameramen last time from taking any more pictures, I said they were disturbing you when you were testifying.

I think it is very pad that when someone else's turn comes, when you yourself had been protected against any of that kind of disturbance, that you should do that. For now, you are going to be left where you are and I would ask Mr Van der Schyff if it happens again, please let us know so that we can take it further from there, but I would like to believe that it won't happen again, please. Thank you.

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: (s.u.o)

EXAMINATION BY MR KNOETZE: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Van der Schyff, it is already known that you and the other applicants acted and behaved in your AWB uniforms, is that correct, at the road block?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR KNOETZE: Can the Commission make the inference then that you wanted the people to see that it was the AWB people who had the road block and you were searching for illegal weapons?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: How did you think that behaviour of yours furthered the purposes of the AWB?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: The instruction was to look for illegal weapons and ammunition and only to search the cars with black occupants and once we found the weapons, we would have taken the weapons and given it to the Police in order to get money and to put the money into the account of the AWB.

MR KNOETZE: There must be another aspect because the illegal weapons you would have found, you would have taken them?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: And in that way it would not longer be able to be used against whites, women, children and elderly people?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR KNOETZE: You received a message that you have to be ready, you are going to shoot somebody and you also take part in the shooting?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: You already testified that as far as that was concerned, you were following instructions?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: If you could just take this a bit further, did you make the inference that Deon Martin shot the first shot?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: What did you think about that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: The message was given to me coming from Etienne Visser that we are going to shoot. I followed it purely as an instruction coming from my seniors and therefore I shot.

I shot directly at the black people.

MR KNOETZE: If I can put it this way, the fact that Deon Martin shot the first shot, was that confirmation for you that the message that you received, the fact that you are going to shoot, was correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: How did the shooting further the purposes of the AWB?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: We wanted to send out a message right through South Africa that the AWB under no circumstances would accept the ANC/SACP alliance.

MR KNOETZE: You mean accept them as the government of the day?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is right.

MR KNOETZE: What was the AWB's idea, what should happen to the "Boer volk"?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: The AWB wanted that the "Boer volk" should have their own piece of ground where they can have their own education as well as its own religion.

MR KNOETZE: There was also evidence of what happened at the monument on the 16th of December, were you there?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I was there.

MR KNOETZE: Can you just quickly describe what happened?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: When we arrived there, Kloppers, Martin, Gen Oelofse and his wife were already there. The festivities started around seven o'clock that night, after which me, myself and some of the other applicants, stood a guard of honour, together with the Ystergarde of the AWB.

MR KNOETZE: On whose request or instruction did you stand the guard of honour?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: The instruction came from Oelofse.

MR KNOETZE: In what light did you interpret the instruction to stand the guard of honour?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I thought we did it because there were not enough members for the protection of the leader.

MR KNOETZE: Afterwards something happened between you and Kloppers, can you just explain because you lay low as was already testified?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes Chairperson. On the 4th of January 1994 I received a phone call from Phil Kloppers' wife, Tury Kloppers, and she asked me if it was possible that I can go and fetch her husband at Voetplat Park, just outside of Durban.

MR KNOETZE: Did you do that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I did do that.

MR KNOETZE: Afterwards you were arrested, when were you arrested?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That was on the 6th of January 1994.

MR KNOETZE: Are you still a member of the AWB?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Since when are you no longer a member?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Since February 1996.

MR KNOETZE: Why did you resign?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Because I did not want to obey the commands of my leaders while I was in prison, I did not think it was a good thing to obey them because I was a prisoner and I did not consider obeying them.

MR KNOETZE: Which commands are you talking about now?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Kloppers always wanted the people together, they always should do as he wanted it to be done, and that was unacceptable to me.

MR KNOETZE: Do you still support the objectives of the AWB?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: How do you feel today with regards to what happened on the 12th of December 1993?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I am sorry about what happened that evening. I regret what happened.

MR KNOETZE: Have you said anything to the family members of the victims?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Mr and Mrs Makhuza who lost her son that evening. I know it is very difficult for any person to lose their child in such a manner in such a cruel way, and it is thus unacceptable for me what happened there. And this goes for the other families as well, those whose family members were killed and also for the victims, and therefore I ask the families to forgive me in their hearts for what had happened that evening.

MR KNOETZE: It is also a well known fact that you were accused with the other applicants and you were found guilty to charges of murder. You got the death sentence four times and later it was reduced and you got life long prison sentence for those crimes, and for those crimes you also ask for amnesty?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Then you were also found guilty of assault. You have already referred to it, that was the assault on Sebohodi, the person who was hit on the head with a baton.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: And you were also sentenced for that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR KNOETZE: That assault, how does it fit in with the objectives of the AWB as you referred to them and the task that you were supposed to perform that evening?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Mr Sebohodi resisted, under no circumstances did he want any person of the AWB search his vehicle. So this man resisted, and wouldn't allow us to search his vehicle. That is why Phil Kloppers hit the man over the head with a baton and I stood watching this.

MR KNOETZE: So the assault on him, if I can put it in other words, was in order to perform the task of searching the vehicles and looking for illegal weapons?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Then you were also found guilty on the charge of the robbery, not robbery but theft and you already referred to that and you say that you are not applying for amnesty for that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: You were also found guilty on those charges of assault in general as it is known?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: If I understand it correctly, that assault was based on the fact that the people were threatened by the fact that the side windscreen was shattered and the people were forced to get out of the car, they were forced to sit next to the cars on the embankment, those types of things and also the fact that the person was hit over the head with a baton, while these things were stolen from the cars.

The question is this, that assault on those people, what has that got to do with the instruction and the purpose you wanted to achieve that evening?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: We deliberately took the people out of the cars, we told them to get out of the car and if they didn't want to, they were assaulted.

The one vehicle, the Toyota Cressida, its windscreen was shattered.

MR KNOETZE: So again can one say that the assault was in order to make sure that you could search the cars?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Where are you detained?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Johannesburg Maximum Prison.

MR KNOETZE: What is the relationship between you and the other applicants?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: At the moment, between me and the other applicants, there is a lot of friction at this moment. I can understand why, because they really wanted that I also testify the same way they did, but under no circumstances can I do that.

MR KNOETZE: Exhibit C, has already handed in. If I can just refer you to that, the letter of June 1995 to you, by Kloppers.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Is that when the trouble started?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: In your first written application for amnesty, you already submitted an application which was different from the other applicants, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR KNOETZE: Can you just tell us if you had any contact with the other applicants when you wrote that application?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: None, whatsoever, Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: And this is also the same with the application as we have it now?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: During the whole process you also made an admission and the admission appears on page 181 to 184?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: That admission was made before the criminal procedures started?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR KNOETZE: And there are differences between that admission and your admission today.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR KNOETZE: Can you tell us what are those differences, or why they exist?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: When I made this admission to the South African Police, I made this admission because I thought that when the criminal procedure started, I would get a lighter sentence for what happened that evening.

MR KNOETZE: The evidence that you have given today, should the Commission see it as a supplementary to your written application?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Does this reflect the complete and whole truth?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR KNOETZE: You have already apologised to the victims' families, what do you ask from this Commission?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I ask this Commission and this Committee that if they go look at everything, and after they have thought about it, and if maybe it is possible in their hearts, to consider amnesty for me.

MR KNOETZE: Can I just refer you to page 8 of your amended application, the third paragraph from the top which starts with "I want ..."

Would you just like to read it please? Do you have page 8, third paragraph from the top, it starts with "I will ..."

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I would like to put it on record that since I was found guilty, I came to the conclusion that the confrontation and the results thereof, and also the policy of the AWB is not the final solution for the future of our country and therefore during February 1996, I resigned my membership at the AWB and at the moment I really do believe that the keeping of peace in our country lies within co-operation and tolerance amongst all cultures in this country.

MR KNOETZE: Do you confirm that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I do confirm this.

MR KNOETZE: Did your view of black people then change since that event?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Is it so that you are in prison with black people at the moment?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: How do you get on with them?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I have no problems with them, I see them as my friends, I play with them, I eat with them, we make jokes together.

MR KNOETZE: How do they feel about you?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: They do not have a problem with me Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Can the Committee then accept that in order to, that you support the process of reconciliation?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Can the Committee also accept that if you got amnesty and you would be released, that you would play a positive role within the community?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, Chairperson.

MR KNOETZE: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KNOETZE: .

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Van der Schyff, here at the end of your evidence you said that the other applicants, there is friction between you because they wanted that you would testify the same as they testified?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: But Mr Van der Schyff, your application before it was amended, was completely different from the other applicants and your application form, you submitted it completely separately, they did not influence you, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, they did not influence my application.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now, if they did not influence your application, why when you did an application initially, why didn't you then disclose everything?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Chairperson, if I can just refer you back to the letter which Kloppers sent to me at that time, that letter had an influence on me because I thought I should stay loyal to these people and as well as to the other applicants, and therefore I couldn't do it.

MS VAN DER WALT: This letter, which is Exhibit 6 Mr Van der Schyff, has got nothing to do with your amnesty application and no suggestion is made that you had to testify differently from what you had already testified today?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is how I saw the letter.

MS VAN DER WALT: Also at the end of your evidence, you said you were asked when you shot these people dead, what was the intent with that, can you remember?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: You said it was in order to show to the ANC that the AWB would not accept them as a government and that the AWB wanted their own land?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: When was this instruction given to you that if you shoot those people that night, that would be the purpose?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is the inference I made after Mr Visser brought me the message that we must shoot and the questions that were put to them by Deon Martin, if they were members of the ANC and the people who sat there, did not answer.

MS VAN DER WALT: What you say here, because you had no or received no other instructions according to your evidence, you did not know about a revolution, you did not know that the instruction came from the Generals in Staff, but you make an accurate inference that these people who were shot, was to show the ANC that they will not take over the government, is that what you are saying?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is how I understood it, or what Etienne Visser said to me, that they are going to shoot the people who sit there, and through the questions that were asked, I made the inference that the people could have answered, but I did not hear any answer.

MS VAN DER WALT: So, you are saying and that is now regarding a question that the Advocate asked, that the purpose of this shooting, was to show the ANC that they will not govern, that you made that inference on the grounds that Mr Visser said to you let us shoot.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is the inference I made.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is all instruction that you received?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is plus the searching of the vehicles.

MS VAN DER WALT: Searching of the vehicles and the asking of the questions?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: To come back to that point, when the other applicants gave evidence, there was a statement to them, that is now if you make a statement, it is according to your instructions, there was no talk of questions regarding the political affiliation of these people.

MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, this statement is not factually correct. The statement to which my learned friend refers was made in respect of the vehicles, excluding the Honda and the Cressida.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, that was the question that was asked or the statement that was made to the other applicants.

I specially noted it, there was no distinction made between the Honda and the Cressida, but I will leave it there and I will continue.

This is the statement that was made, but in all fairness to you, you come and say to this Committee, you talk about a vehicle that was searched where there was an old man and a child in and it says in your statement that there were approximately three other vehicles that were searched.

You say you never heard that for these five vehicles, questions were put to them regarding their political affiliation?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I never heard it Mr Chairperson.

MS VAN DER WALT: That answer is very difficult for me to understand, if you say you did not hear it at all, does that mean that you as a person was busy, that you could not hear it, that it could possibly have been said or was it never asked?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: It could possibly have been said, because with the searching of the vehicle, you were inside the vehicle and other people were outside, it could have been questioned, but me, I did not hear it.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then the other evidence of the other applicants and I am acting on behalf of Kloppers and Martin, then their evidence could have been right in that the occupants of these vehicles were asked to what political party they belonged to.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I did not hear it, no.

MS VAN DER WALT: Your evidence was not very clear regarding that point. It gave the impression that these questions were not asked, because then it makes your evidence somewhat suspicious, because the vehicles were searched and then it was said that they can continue.

Then your evidence goes further to say that the vehicles that were searched, and I must point that out to you, after you gave evidence that they were not asked if they were ANC members or to what political party they belonged to, and then you go further to say the vehicles gave the, or got the permission to continue because there were not weapons in the vehicles?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now a vehicle appears, there were no weapons in them?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: But they did not receive the permission to continue?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, because the people sat on the ground, the others stood with their vehicles while their vehicles were searched.

MS VAN DER WALT: But if your evidence is correct that the other vehicles were searched and that they were given permission to continue, it was because there were no weapons? These two vehicles did not have weapons either, but these two, with these two vehicles something else happened, and now your evidence, suddenly according to you, you hear they were asked to what political party they belonged to?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, Commandant Kloppers did repeat the question to them a few times.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you could not hear what they said?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, I could not hear if the black person answered, according to me they did not answer because I did not hear anything.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to you they did not answer?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I did not hear.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you not hear or did they not answer?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I did not hear.

MS VAN DER WALT: In other words, they could have answered?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: They could have answered yes, but I did not hear anything.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because here, according to your evidence you stood on the road side of the vehicle and they sat on the left hand side, because between where you stood and where the people sat on the embankment, it was the vehicle plus where Deon Martin walked in front of them and where they sat on the embankment?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Deon Martin did not walk in front of them, he stood still in front of them.

MS VAN DER WALT: But it was a distance from where you were according to your evidence?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, it was not that far, but there was a distance between us, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: What is strange to me is that you did not receive any instruction beforehand that there would be a shooting?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, not at all.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you act in a single moment, you are standing now on the left hand side of the road, according to your evidence, you are standing there alone?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Where is the pipe gun then?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: It was next to my side.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you had the pipe shotgun with you always? Why?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Because I did not want to leave it in the vehicle.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why not?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Because I thought that maybe there would be conflict if the vehicles were stopped.

MS VAN DER WALT: In other words you were ready?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I was ready.

MS VAN DER WALT: Who gave you the instruction to keep the pipe shotgun with you?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No one gave me the instruction, I took it by myself.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you could have left it in the vehicle?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I could have.

MS VAN DER WALT: If there wasn't an instruction to take it with you?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: There wasn't an instruction to take it with me.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you received the order, you were ready?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You got the order, according to you, there were no such discussions beforehand and here Visser, that is Andre Visser ...

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Etienne Visser.

MS VAN DER WALT: Etienne Visser, he was a junior?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: We had the same rank.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you know the command structure of the AWB?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I do.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you know that you must receive instructions from a senior, and here a person comes to you with the same rank as you and you do or receive an instruction from him?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I only executed the instruction that he gave me, because he received it from his senior.

MS VAN DER WALT: But how do you know that, that is what bothers me from your evidence, how do you know that he received that instruction? How do you know that he did not out of his own, decided that you and him were going to shoot the people?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Well, I did not doubt him.

MS VAN DER WALT: But you cannot say that you received an instruction from a senior?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Well, that is how I saw it, I received it from him and he received it again from his seniors.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you know that you must receive instructions from, you were in the Defence Force?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: You know the command structure?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you receive an instruction of such a serious nature, if your evidence is correct, before that incident, there was not an instruction, then it means that you within a few seconds, you received an order from someone with the same rank as you, you took it and killed people without the instruction from a senior rank person?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Well, the instruction came from a senior. I only executed the order that was conveyed to me by a senior person.

MS VAN DER WALT: How do you know that the instruction that Visser gave you, came from a senior ranked person?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I accepted his word. I accepted his word for it.

MS VAN DER WALT: He only said that you must shoot, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, it is.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to take you back to your statement, the amended one, page 3, the third paragraph. You say that during that period there were various attacks by black activists and ANC members on the farms of white people in the area where during these attacks illegal weapons were used.

In the light of this, Phil Kloppers addressed us and gave us orders or instructions, that is now at Uncle Harry's. It was page 3 of the amended application, it is Exhibit 5. Can I continue, thank you.

You have got the statement in front of you?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to know, in the light of that Phil Kloppers addressed us and gave us instructions for the evening. What did he say to you, how did he address you? What was said there?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: At the road cafe he said that we were going to work tonight.

MS VAN DER WALT: I am reading now from your statement, it is not amended. It was in the first statement and it now again appears in the second statement.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Deon Martin later at the smallholding, he told us that we were going to put up a road block?

MS VAN DER WALT: No, I want to know what you mean in your amnesty application what appears here, because I am not confronting you now with what the other applicants say. I am asking you a simple question from your own application. I want to know from you what did you mean when you said regarding the first paragraph I read, because you put it in there, in the light of that, Phil Kloppers addressed us and gave us orders or instructions for the evening?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, the instruction was to erect a road block and to look for illegal weapons and ammunition.

MS VAN DER WALT: No, the instruction only came later and that was at Deon Martin's house?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: The instruction that I understood and that is the instruction that I heard.

MS VAN DER WALT: You heard the instruction at Deon Martin's house regarding the road block?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: I want to know from you what did Kloppers say to you when he addressed you before he gave the instructions and that is now at the road side cafe?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: What he said there was that we were going to work tonight, and that is all that he said.

MS VAN DER WALT: But sir, that does not make sense. Call up instructions were given to you to come together at the road side cafe?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: They go through a lot of trouble to with military precision, bring you to attention when Phil Kloppers arrived?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And all that he says to you is tonight, we are going to work?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is all that he said.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: And then he asked who did not have weapons and three people said that myself, Etienne Visser and someone else said that we did not have weapons.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could you just tell the Honourable Committee what did you understand when he said to you tonight we are going to work and then gave out weapons?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I knew when he handed out the weapons that we there were going to be problems that evening.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you knew that those weapons would be used that evening?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Then regarding your evidence, where it differs from all the other applicants, the only thing that was said together with the handing out of the weapons, that there would be work done that evening?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, why then do you put this paragraph in, if it is wrong then. Why did you not then amend this paragraph in your application, because what I said here, he did not address us, and he did not give instructions, that is wrong? Why did you not then amend that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is what I am trying to say here, that at the road side cafe he said that we are going to work tonight.

MS VAN DER WALT: What has that got to do then with the black activists and the ANC members who attacked white people on the farms?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is what occurred during that time in the area.

MS VAN DER WALT: You said he didn't say anything?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: He addressed us and said that we were going to look for illegal weapons and ammunition.

MS VAN DER WALT: When did he do that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is with the road block instructions.

MS VAN DER WALT: At Deon Martin's?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: You had an ear operation is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Because you had hearing problems?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: At that stage I did not have any hearing problems any more.

MS VAN DER WALT: When did you have this hearing problem?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: It was in the beginning of October.

MS VAN DER WALT: I put it to you that it is so improbable that you would be called together, that weapons will be handed out and all that - work will be done and that the other applicants' version is more likely that the revolution will start today.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That revolution was probably in their minds only.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you then shoot at the black people?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Because I executed an order.

MS VAN DER WALT: But your order was not to shoot, why did you shoot at the black people?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Because Mr Martin asked them if they were members of the ANC.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you shoot at the black people, what did you think?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I saw the ANC as the enemy.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you began with the revolution, you came in resistance against the ANC?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: So the revolution was not only in their minds?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: There were only nine people that tried to do it and not the rest of the country.

MS VAN DER WALT: Do you know of any other explosion that occurred during that period?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: There was only one that I know of.

MS VAN DER WALT: Which one was that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That was at the monument.

MS VAN DER WALT: And all the other explosions for which Japie Oelofse were detained?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That was at Krugersdorp and Weegbrug.

MS VAN DER WALT: In the same time, December?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I cannot remember if it was December or not.

MS VAN DER WALT: And it continued, the right wing violence, up until the election when bombs went off in Germiston, so it was not the only incident. The statement you had made here is that nothing else happened by right wing groups, is not correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, it is not correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, through out the country it occurred, in the Free State it also occurred, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: And in the Western Transvaal there were also explosions done by AWB, where people were killed, they are also applying for amnesty, so it did continue?

MS VAN DER WALT: What are we busy with now, because as far as I know, there is no doubt that the events of that nature did take place?

MS VAN DER WALT: I put it to him that after what he said that the revolution only occurred in the minds of the other applicants, I would just like to show him that right through the country, there was unrest.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether you are on the same wavelength. I am understanding him to say that no revolution took place that night, that is what he is saying.

If your definition of, maybe your definition of revolution, your personal definition of revolution means something else. I don't know, but we in this proceedings we are concerned with a particular revolution which is supposed to have taken place on the 12th of December, that is what he is talking about.

MS VAN DER WALT: With respect, I would like to say that the revolution started that evening, he said just the revolution went on in their heads, or occurred in their heads.

ADV BOSMAN: He qualified it by saying the period, maybe you should put it to him what he meant by period.

MS VAN DER WALT: During that period?

ADV BOSMAN: Yes. If you could just maybe clarify that.

MR MALAN: I am sorry Mrs Van der Walt, he also said that explosions did occur during that period. He referred to Ventersdorp, etc.

MS VAN DER WALT: Could I, regarding what was said now, you said during that period that revolution only appeared in the minds of the applicants. What do you mean by that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: It was only them who on the 12th of December like they gave evidence in front of the Committee, said that the revolution would occur country wide.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, then I come back to the question that I put to you. The reason why you shot the black people, was because you also resisted?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I did.

MS VAN DER WALT: You said that it later became apparent that it would be a road block, this is at Deon Martin's house?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would like to refer you, there have been several other amnesty applications, I would like to refer you to that of - you don't have to read it - I will just mention it to you. I am sure your Advocate would make objection if it is not correct, I am referring to the amnesty application of Deon Martin, page 24 up until page 38, and it was also his evidence before the Committee that it is correct, you got instructions at the road house that tonight it would be the real McCoy and then you drove first to his house, and there you only received instructions that it would be a roadblock?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Just a minute please Chairperson. In your amended application, Exhibit 5, page 3, the last paragraph Chairperson, you say that you had a home made shotgun and several SSG rounds. You said you received that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, the pipe shotgun, I did receive that.

MS VAN DER WALT: And the bullets?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I got that in Andre Visser's vehicle. MS VAN DER WALT: So you didn't receive it? It was laying in the car, he was practising with that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: The rounds I found in his vehicle, the pipe shotgun I did receive.

MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, after these people then went to sit down on the embankment and you were standing on the side of the road, with regards to the vehicle, is this at the Honda or the Cressida?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: This is at the Honda.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you then received the instruction to go and shoot, where did you go then?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I walked around the vehicle and took up position there.

MS VAN DER WALT: You took up a position next to who exactly, what do you mean exactly with taking up a position?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I went and I stood there.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, but who was next to you?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: On my left hand side was Etienne Visser as well as Kloppers.

MS VAN DER WALT: And then when you went to stand there, did you not shoot immediately?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, my pipe shotgun was in my hand.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you went to shoot but when you got there, you didn't immediately started shooting?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why not?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Because a few minutes after that, maybe a few seconds after that, Deon Martin fired the first shot.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you knew that was the sign for you to shoot?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: When I saw he was shooting, I started shooting as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: But that is how it is planned, is it not so, that if there was someone to fire a first shot, then the men would know they are also supposed to shoot?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Mr Visser did not tell me exactly how we would go about, how we would go about with the shooting, but I assumed that when Martin fired the first shot, the rest of us would shoot as well.

MS VAN DER WALT: It is interesting that you did not know about any planning regarding the shooting, but you did follow the correct procedures when Martin fired a shot, you knew that you had to shoot as well?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: You said that Phil Kloppers asked you to go and remove the bag from the car after the incident, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And Phil Kloppers said that he was going to show this or give this to Japie Oelofse, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you ask him why?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I did not ask why.

MS VAN DER WALT: Didn't you think this a bit strange?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, I did not ask him why he was going to do it.

MS VAN DER WALT: This is an offence that took place without an instruction as far as you were concerned and then the ear of a deceased would be given to a General?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, I did not ...

MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, I can't let this go through. My learned friend said that an offence was committed without an instruction, I do not know what she is referring to, is she referring to the road block, is she referring to the shooting or the cutting off of the ear. It is misleading towards the client.

MS VAN DER WALT: I will rectify that. You have just committed an offence according to you, there was no instruction coming from the General or from the Order Group, you heard no instruction?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: But now after you have shot these people, an ear which was cut off and according to you, this ear would then be given to the General and you did not find this strange?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I did not ask Kloppers who he was going to hand the ear to.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, but you gave evidence that it was going to be handed over to Japie Oelofse, that is your evidence?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: But it was later in the vehicle, but at the house, I did not ask him, but in his vehicle he told me that he was going to take that ear the next ... (tape ends) ... handed to Oelofse. I did not ask him why.

MS VAN DER WALT: Why not?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Because I was not interested in that.

MS VAN DER WALT: But sir, how can you say that you were not interested, it is a horrible thing to take an ear to a General, weren't you scared that you would be in trouble knowing if the General found out what you have done?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: We were already in trouble at that stage.

MS VAN DER WALT: But what did you think the General would do?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I can't say what the General would have done.

MS VAN DER WALT: You are under his command.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, I am under Kloppers' command.

MS VAN DER WALT: But he is a General?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Oelofse is a General?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you drove him around quite a lot, you protected him and his wife?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you knew, you knew what was happening unlike Visser who just recently joined the AWB, and you didn't find it strange that such a horrible thing would go to the General?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: As I already said, I asked Kloppers in his vehicle and Kloppers said that he was going to hand the ear over to Gen Oelofse, but I did not ask him why or for what reason.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like to put it to you further, that Martin and Kloppers would say that you did not resign from the AWB.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I was expelled from the AWB.

MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct. And you would also agree with me that there were two disciplinary hearings where you were reprimanded because you were not loyal to the AWB?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Van der Schyff before the 12th of December, you must have attended several meetings of the AWB?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Only one meeting.

MR PRINSLOO: But you must have been aware of the speeches and utterances of the AWB?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: How did you interpret this, did you see it as an organisation that was willing to use violence?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That was a political organisation which would use anything within their means to take the country back, even if it is by violence. Eugene Terreblanche himself, said this. He did not say it once, but he repeated himself several times.

The day that the ANC/SACP alliance take over the country, we take the country back, even if we have to through the barrel of a gun.

MR PRINSLOO: So you saw yourself as a soldier of the AWB?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And you subjected yourself to instructions of the organisation?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And did you accept that what happened that evening was an instruction coming from the highest command structure?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I accepted it as an instruction because I received this instruction from Phil Kloppers, from no one else.

MR PRINSLOO: But did you accept that the AWB had a General Staff, it had a leader and that the instruction of Phil Kloppers should then have come from a higher rank?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: He must have received it from someone else.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you accept it like that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I accepted that.

MR PRINSLOO: At that specific time, Mr Van der Schyff, I want to be fair to you, the country was heading as was the plan, heading towards the elections and it was a well-known fact that a majority government would come into power which is the ANC, did you see it like that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I did see it like that.

MR PRINSLOO: And were you in favour of this or not?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, it was not acceptable for me.

MR PRINSLOO: So, you would have in all your power as the leader propagated this, you would have wanted to stop these elections with everything within your power?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, he politically motivated us by means of his speeches. He aroused a person and he cited people.

MR PRINSLOO: Would you see his speeches as rousing or whipping up people?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I would see it as that.

MR PRINSLOO: And as far as the other colleagues in the AWB, do you think that they also saw it in the same light?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, they must have seen it in the same light.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you discuss this with them?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: All that we discussed was that it was unacceptable for us that the ANC/SACP would take over the country, at that stage were there any preparations made, planning to stop the ANC with power?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: There were rumours like that.

MR PRINSLOO: When this behaviour became into being, you interpreted this as it was now going to happen by means of violence?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Van der Schyff, the amnesty application you were justified only at a very late stage to apply for amnesty, because when these things happened and quite a long time afterwards, you did not fall within the date to apply for amnesty and legislature according to this, only came into life a little bit later, 1997?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Since when have you been detained separately from your other applicants?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: 1994, October 1994, I was transferred to Pretoria Maximum Prison. The next year, I think the 6th of June, they abolished the death penalty and on the 23rd of October I was transferred back to Johannesburg Maximum Security Prison. And I am still there.

MR PRINSLOO: So you were away from other people then?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, we were all together from the 23rd of October 1995, we were detained in Johannesburg Prison, all of us. February, March 1996, the rest of the applicants were taken away from there and they were transferred to Pretoria Maximum and from there to Leeukop Maximum.

MR PRINSLOO: When did you submit your application?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: On the 8th of May.

MR PRINSLOO: So they were away then?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Diedericks, since you have been detained, was never detained with you?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: He did not get the death sentence, no.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Visser, Andre Visser, was he detained with you in Randburg Prison?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: If you can just be more specific, at the moment he is detained with me.

MR PRINSLOO: How long have you been together?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: February he came back from Leeukop.

MR PRINSLOO: February this year?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: With Mr Diedericks you have no problem, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Diedericks came to visit me once while I was in prison.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you have any problems with Diedericks?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: None.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you have any problems with Andre Visser?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: None.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you have any problems with Badenhorst?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: None.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you have any problems with Etienne Visser?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: None.

MR PRINSLOO: With whom do you have a problem?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: With Kloppers, Martin and Meiring.

MR PRINSLOO: With the others you have no other problem?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Why do you paint them all black?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I am not painting anybody black, I am just here to come and tell the truth.

MR PRINSLOO: It was in your evidence, you did not make an exception with regards to them, you described them as people who were all opposed to you? What do you say about that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I do not agree with that statement.

MR PRINSLOO: That is what your evidence was.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That was their evidence before the Commission, that is what they heard.

MR PRINSLOO: So it wasn't your evidence?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: What I testified here is what I heard that evening.

MR PRINSLOO: That specific evening when you were called together at the road house, all that was said then was that you were going to work that evening?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, and we received firearms.

MR PRINSLOO: You, yourself and who else?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Me, myself and Gert Diedericks.

MR PRINSLOO: Gert Diedericks?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Etienne Visser did not receive a weapon?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, he did not have one.

MR PRINSLOO: And he was a trained officer and he was standing there without a firearm?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And he made no objection to that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, he didn't say anything.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there anyone of you who said that he did not have a weapon at the road house?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Three of us said that. Three people said that they did not have weapons, this was at the road house.

MR PRINSLOO: And he didn't receive a firearm?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: And he did not receive a firearm.

MR PRINSLOO: In your statement to the Police you said that you, Diedericks and Visser received weapons?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: This is what I said to the Police.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you say that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Because later Diedericks had a button which in the dark can look like a pipe.

MR PRINSLOO: But sir your evidence is now that the firearm of Diedericks was given to Visser.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you tell the Police an untruth? With regard to that firearm, the fact that you said all three of you had firearms?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: If you look at the court proceedings you would see that I later rectified it.

MR PRINSLOO: I am talking about the Police statement.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is what I said in my Police statement. A lot of things I said, I said in my statement, were lies.

MR PRINSLOO: Was it a lie when you said that Diedericks shot, everybody shot, including Andre Visser?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That was the question which was asked the evening at Jaco Badenhorst's house, who of you shot, except Diedericks was not there.

MR PRINSLOO: The point is in your statement you said that Andre Visser also shot?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is the inference I made because he had a firearm with him.

MR PRINSLOO: In the statement you put this as a fact?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: As I already said I lied in front of the Commission as far as that statement is concerned.

MR PRINSLOO: That specific evening at the road house, the people were told to get out of the car?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did they go and sit on the embankment, whose instruction was that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: They were told to go and sit there.

MR PRINSLOO: Who told them that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I told the people to go and sit on the embankment because that is the instruction I received.

MR PRINSLOO: Who did you get the instruction from?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: From Kloppers.

MR PRINSLOO: What did he tell you?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: He said that the cars would be pulled off, people must get out of the cars and they must sit on the embankment.

MR PRINSLOO: Was this before anything was asked of them?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: This was the set up at the road block.

MR PRINSLOO: But sir, then I do not understand your evidence. The other vehicles which were pulled off, any one of them, those people, did they go and sit on the embankment?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, not at all.

MR PRINSLOO: Why not?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I cannot say.

MR PRINSLOO: You received instruction that the people must be taken out of their cars, and they must sit on the embankment?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: It was a general instruction?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I only followed his instruction.

MR PRINSLOO: It was a general instruction beforehand, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: According to your evidence?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, according to my evidence.

MR PRINSLOO: And you did not tell the other people you stopped, to go and sit on the embankment?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Why did you receive such an instruction, how did you interpret this, the fact that people should sit on the embankment?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: It was to be done because I could then search the cars, looking for weapons.

MR PRINSLOO: But with the other people you didn't do it, you looked for weapons, but you did not follow the instruction with regards to telling them to go and sit on the embankment, why didn't you adhere to your instructions?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Because a lot of the vehicles which were pulled off, there were only one or two people in them.

MR PRINSLOO: You had received an instruction and you did not follow it?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I just did not tell the people to go ad sit on the embankment.

MR PRINSLOO: And you cannot explain it?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, that specific evening at the road block, you only received a short instruction that tonight we are going to work?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct yes.

MR PRINSLOO: When the weapon was handed over to you, you knew that there was going to be trouble?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: What did you mean by that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I thought that when he gave me the weapon, it came to me that tonight there could be a shooting.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you accept that this illegal weapon that you received, the pipe shotgun, that it was an order from the top structure, that that evening you must be ready for something?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Mr Kloppers just handed over the weapon to me.

MR PRINSLOO: When you received that weapon, when you were called together in a military way in uniform, and a weapon was given to you, an illegal weapon, home made shotgun, did you accept that Mr Kloppers received his instructions from the top structure to hand out weapons in order to be ready on that evening?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, it could have happened like that.

MR PRINSLOO: And then later when you went to Mr Martin's smallholding and received the instruction to set up a road block and to seize weapons from people at the road block, you knew that if you seized a weapon from someone, then he could resist himself or even shoot?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know at that stage or foresee that you will use that shotgun?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I did foresee it, that I could have used the shotgun for something like that.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know that you are going to execute a robbery, that you were going to take the weapons from someone?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: If that person did not want to give his weapon, would you have taken it by force?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I would have taken it by violence, that is correct. Yes, that was the purpose to look for illegal weapons.

MR PRINSLOO: And if he would have shot at you?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I would have shot back.

MR PRINSLOO: I do not understand, if he did not want to give the weapon and he resisted, would you have shot him?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, we would have been able to get the weapon.

MR PRINSLOO: Well, if you could not do that, would you have shot him?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, we would have been able to take the weapon.

MR PRINSLOO: If you received an order to shoot him, would you have done it?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: If I had received an order to shoot him, I would have shoot him, yes.

MR PRINSLOO: At the road block, you searched a vehicle and you say that Mr Etienne Visser told you prepare yourself we are going to shoot, where are the other people, your co-applicants?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I saw two people walk pass the Honda, there I saw two people standing, Commandant Kloppers and Deon Martin. They stood at the Honda.

MR PRINSLOO: When you moved passed the Toyota Cressida at the back, if the Cressida is parked like this, they stood there.

MR PRINSLOO: Where was Andre Visser at that stage?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I couldn't see where Andre Visser was.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you know that he manned the blue light?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I did.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see him move away from the blue light?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, at one stage he did move away from the blue light.

MR PRINSLOO: That was when he went to go and look for the other people, but then he returned to his position?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, I cannot say if he returned.

MR PRINSLOO: Was there a line formed when the people were shot?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: It was a broken line.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you see how the people prepared themselves, cocked their weapons?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I did not hear someone cock the weapon. I myself, did prepare myself. At that stage it was already cocked, there was a round in the barrel.

MR PRINSLOO: Where did you stand in that line when you shot?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I stood in front of the Honda's nose, on this side of the Honda.

MR PRINSLOO: The unbroken line, like you called it, who stood on the left hand side?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Etienne Visser stood there, and on the other side it was Phil Kloppers. And then the Honda and then three people and then the Toyota Cressida.

MR PRINSLOO: And when people fired?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Deon Martin shot the first shot and directly after that, everybody shot.

MR PRINSLOO: Did Deon Martin shoot in the air?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, he shot at the people.

MR PRINSLOO: How do you know?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I saw it.

MR PRINSLOO: How could you see it in the dark?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I saw the fire from his shotgun.

MR PRINSLOO: When he fired, what did you do?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I also fired.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you fire immediately after him?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Everybody immediately afterwards, fired.

MR PRINSLOO: And you at that stage, accepted that you had an instruction to kill the people?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: After this occurred, it was said in the vehicle that his ear would be taken to Gen Oelofse?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No.

MR PRINSLOO: You knew that you were now involved in a murder?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage did you believe that as a soldier of the AWB, that you reacted on behalf of the AWB?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment please. That which was said to you at the road cafe, we are going to work tonight, how did you understand it?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that we were going to work that night.

MR PRINSLOO: Work means a lot of things.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Mr Kloppers only said that tonight we are going to work.

MR PRINSLOO: How did you understand it?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: When he gave me the pipe shotgun, we knew that tonight we would really work.

MR PRINSLOO: What work?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That tonight there would be big trouble.

MR PRINSLOO: What work, that is the question?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is how I understood it, that tonight we are going to work.

MR PRINSLOO: You cannot say what type of work?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, only later at Martin's smallholding we heard that it would be a road block.

MR PRINSLOO: But earlier on you said that you knew that there would be a shooting?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: I think it is common cause that he suspected that there would be a shooting, he never said that he knew that there would be a shooting.

MR PRINSLOO: I accept it like that Chairperson. Mr Van der Schyff, maybe you could help the Committee, why did Mr Kloppers and Mr Martin decide, or Mr Kloppers rather, decide to come together at the road side cafe just to say one thing, tonight we are going to work and then to hand out weapons, which he changed later and he takes a weapon from someone and gives it someone else at the smallholding.

He could as well have said tonight we are going to have a road block there?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, he could have done that.

MR PRINSLOO: Because it doesn't mean anything to say tonight we are going to work, it doesn't make any sense.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Well, that is what he said.

ADV BOSMAN: May I just interfere here Adv Prinsloo. Could you tell me Mr Van der Schyff, at this road house, is that a public place?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, it is.

ADV BOSMAN: What was the set up that evening, were there other people, other vehicles?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, there were a lot of other people.

ADV BOSMAN: Where were you with regards to the other people and the vehicles?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: There was a garage on the premises, and we stood there and waited for Mr Kloppers.

ADV BOSMAN: At the garage?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, but the public could clearly see you where we stood.

ADV BOSMAN: And these weapons, were they handed out in public?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: You did not find that strange, because I would say for me it is strange? Could you maybe just explain?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: It was strange that Mr Kloppers took out two pipe shotguns.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Van der Schyff, according to your evidence, there in public where everybody could see you, Policemen could have been there in civilian clothes, you received a home made shotgun where you could have been arrested?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: You say it was done openly?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes.

MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, I don't understand the question. Is it my learned friend's case that the pipe shotgun was not handed over to him, and is it his case that it wasn't in public, otherwise the cross-examination is senseless?

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, if my learned friend listened to my cross-examination, he would have derived from that, that I asked this witness what was the purpose of going to the road house, I am merely being told tonight we are going to work and merely being given guns, and then he went on to say it was in public, the handing over of the guns, and I am merely testing his credibility.

I have not put any question that will justify my learned friend to draw the inference that I am putting it to him otherwise than what was testified already.

CHAIRPERSON: I think the problem is, quite frankly, I thought I mean you lashed onto the question of the arms being given publicly, and I would have thought that you would have taken instructions from your clients, whether or not it is true that the weapons, these people met publicly and the weapons were given to them in public.

You didn't do that, I assumed possibly you knew the precise situation. What as I understand the objection now, which have been unless you disillusion me, I think it is well founded, because we would like to know whether you are saying it was not in public, or that the weapon was not given to the witness.

If you agree with both, if you agree that it wasn't public and the weapon was given to the witness, then that is what Mr Knoetze, that is the point he is making. We don't know what the purpose of the question is. If both two aspects are correct.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairman, the Honourable Member, Adv Bosman before that put the question with regard to being handed over in public and I followed that one Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but if it is true, don't query it. You are saying to the witness, are you saying that this person gave you this weapon in public, isn't that what you are asking him?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I followed up with what the Honourable Member asked before.

CHAIRPERSON: I know, but what is your question? Are you not asking this witness whether Kloppers gave him that weapon in public? Are you not challenging him on that or do you agree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, I asked him Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you challenge him?

MR PRINSLOO: I merely asked to get his answer with regard to that, in view of the question being asked by Adv Bosman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, he said yes, he said yes. He gave me that weapon in public. Do you have a problem with that, do you disagree with that?

MR PRINSLOO: I don't have a problem Mr Chairman that the weapon was handed over at the road house.

CHAIRPERSON: What problem do you have?

MR PRINSLOO: I am merely wanting to find out from him as to what he is saying now, was it just openly handed over where everyone can see.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that is what he said. He said yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I will take instruction on that point, Mr Chairman, from my clients.

CHAIRPERSON: All I want to know is do you dispute that the weapon was given to this witness in public, or don't you dispute that?

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that the weapons were handed over at the road house, the question of being in public in everybody's view, that I will have to take instructions for.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, then don't tax the witness until you get instructions.

MR PRINSLOO: I merely want to ask him, but I will leave it at this stage.

MR MALAN: Mr Chairperson, can I just see if I can find clarity in the line of the questioning now, because this is a question that is, or right through all the applicants' evidence, I remembered why first go to the road house, why not directly to Martin's house, but does it really make a difference and this is in terms of the cross-examination if the instructions, or the so-called instructions that we are going to work, nowhere do I find an instruction that we are going to work, or if that we are going to work, that bodies will be seen, that a revolution will begin. Is the cross-examination about what happened there, really relevant other than in opposition to what was said regarding Kloppers' evidence?

MR PRINSLOO: It is relevant, because his evidence differs from the others and it would be unlikely that they would be called together just to be told we are going to work tonight.

MR MALAN: But Mr Prinsloo, what makes it different that if they were called together and it was said to them that we are going to work, the revolution is going to begin, corpses must be seen, does it make a difference if they went to the road house first?

MR PRINSLOO: It does make a difference, to just go there and tell someone that we are going to work, does make a difference, it doesn't mean anything.

MR MALAN: I think you are misunderstanding me. The question is why to the road house, the dispute about what was said could have happened at any place, there is no reason.

I do not know why Mr Kloppers brought them together at the road house and organised that other than a public display, the reason then would be a public display and that would be the only reason and the talk about revolution did not occur at the smallholding.

MR PRINSLOO: It could have been the best place to come together, the road house cafe, because according to the evidence the vehicles then went to their own directions, because then they only used two vehicles, and that is probably the most likely answer. That is a point of argument.

MR MALAN: I do not dispute or question, I do agree that there was a meeting at the road house, I do not dispute that, I am just not following the line of cross-examination.

MR PRINSLOO: It was done Mr Chairperson, to show the difference between what this witness said that he said we are going to work tonight, and the others in that there was an instruction.

MR MALAN: With respect, it has nothing to do with the place where they would come together.

MR PRINSLOO: I will leave that to argument. Mr Van der Schyff, you have heard the evidence of your co-applicants?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Where they said that at the road house it was specifically said that Gen Oelofse gave instruction that the revolution begins that evening and that corpses have to be seen that evening? Is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, yes, I heard what the other applicants said, I dispute it.

MR PRINSLOO: The intake of alcohol that specific evening, did it influence you in any way?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No.

MR PRINSLOO: If you look at the evidence that was given at the road house cafe, it is very clear that there was an ordered road block. The road block was not set up as it was supposed to be, but a road block that would serve the purpose of that evening as you were not traffic cops?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And there was proper communication between you, between the people on the ground?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, there was communication between us.

MR PRINSLOO: And you could clearly see what instruction was given beforehand, what vehicles must drive, who must be pulled off?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is true.

MR PRINSLOO: So it was not like people were drunk and acted like that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No.

MR PRINSLOO: You took a leather jacket from a vehicle?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct yes.

MR PRINSLOO: You said that Matthews took tapes as well as tools?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: In the AWB, does the AWB have an Intelligence Agent?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes.

MR PRINSLOO: And the AWB people, would they have listened to these tapes, maybe there is something they could use?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, they could have listened to it, but that is not what exactly happened. At the Town Hall Mr Andre Visser said that he also wanted something.

Matthews then handed these tapes to him. Matthews kept the tape holder and Mr Meiring took the tools.

MR PRINSLOO: I will put it to you that Mr Matthews used the tools and the other items, he had an instruction and it was for the purpose of the AWB.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: It was the first time that I heard that he had that instruction.

MR PRINSLOO: He would have listened to the tapes in that there could have been incitement or some information on them?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I do not know about them.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, I would like to put it to you that in many cases tapes and books were made and with a different content than the cover shows?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct yes.

MR PRINSLOO: I put it to you that the clients I represent received such an instruction at the road house, as I already told you.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is their application.

MR PRINSLOO: I have no further questions, thank you. Just one further aspect, seeing that it is eleven o'clock, just as far as the handing over of the weapons are concerned.

Would it be an appropriate time now to adjourn or can I ask him?

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MARTHINUS LODEWICKES VAN DER SCHYFF: (s.u.o)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman. I would like to refer you to the video which was shown here when Mr Kloppers was giving evidence, can you remember that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I can remember that.

MR DREYER: It concerned the speech of Mr Eugene Terreblanche and a transcription was also handed in as Exhibit 1 of which the second paragraph reads as follows: "an unarmed white man in South Africa is a dead man. You must arm yourself. If you are not going to buy a weapon, if you can't buy one, or if they do not want to give you a licence for a weapon because you are white, go and steal it, but get a weapon".

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR DREYER: I want to go back to that instruction. You said that the only instruction that was given at the road house cafe was that we are going to work?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR DREYER: You also said that when you received a firearm, you foresaw the possibility that there might be a shooting, but no instruction to such extent was given to you?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Chairperson.

MR DREYER: If I understand you correctly, at no stage up until the road block, up until Visser came to you and told you that this weapon you are going to fire tonight, because from higher up in the rank structure, that there is going to be such instruction, there was no such instruction, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR DREYER: Okay, let's assume at Martin's house, for the first time you are informed that the thing you are going to do tonight, is holding a road block, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR DREYER: Then you are asked by your legal representative what according to you, was explained to you, what would be the purpose of the road block and I wrote down your answer and it came down to this, that you had to look for illegal weapons and ammunition, is that correct?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR DREYER: And that was the only purpose which was explained to you?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR DREYER: Now let's assume for the moment that Japie Oelofse did indeed give an instruction, the General Staff gave an instruction, go, have a road block, look for illegal weapons and if you find them, take them because that is the way to arm ourselves and it is a way to obtain funds for the AWB, would you have had any problem with such an instruction?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I wouldn't have had a problem with such an instruction.

MR DREYER: That is the one scenario. The other scenario is if I refer you back to the transcription of what Eugene Terreblanche said in that speech, isn't that exactly a call which can be interpreted as go and get some weapons, isn't that what he said?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR DREYER: And you said you wouldn't have had a problem with that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, I wouldn't have.

MR DREYER: So as far as you are concerned, when you were told at Martin's house after it was said at the road house you are going to work, now it is said to you we are going out, we are going to have a road block and we are going to search for firearms, you had no problem with that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I had no problem with that.

MR DREYER: At that stage, at Martin's house, did you learn anything else from Kloppers?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Nothing.

MR DREYER: Which indicated that this instruction or further instruction came from higher up and this instruction would be that there is going to be a revolution that is going to be shooting and that this firearm that you have in your possession, you are going to fire with this?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I had nothing of that nature.

MR MALAN: Mr Dreyer, I am sorry to interrupt you. All the questions you have asked to the witness is completely in accordance with his evidence. I cannot say that I heard that he incriminated your client, and I think he confirmed your line of questioning. Is it necessary for you to continue with your cross-examination considering the fact that it is Friday?

MR DREYER: As it pleases the Committee, Mr Chairman, I just wanted to put the basis and put the final statement to him. As it pleases you.

Then I ask you the same question I asked the other applicants. After you got the instruction from Visser at the road block, did you believe that it was coming from Kloppers as the Commanding Officer in that group? Did you question it any further?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I did not question it.

MR DREYER: Did you think that you have to determine first whether there was a higher instruction or did you only act in accordance with that instruction?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I only acted according to that instruction.

MR DREYER: As it pleases the Commission.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Chairman. As I understood your evidence, questions were asked at the road block of the occupants of the various cars as to their political affiliation?

MR KNOETZE: That is not correct.

MR BRINK: Is that not correct? Correct me if I am wrong, what was the situation, you said questions were not asked?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Chairperson, the first few vehicles which were pulled off, no questions were put to them with regard to their political affiliation, only the last two vehicles.

MR BRINK: Yes, I am talking about the occupants of the Toyota Cressida and the Honda.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is right they were asked to which political affiliation they belonged.

MR BRINK: And did they give any answer?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: They gave no answers Chairperson.

MR BRINK: Can you remind me, who asked those questions?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Commandant Deon Martin asked them the questions.

MR BRINK: How far away were you from him when he asked those questions, can you remember?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I could clearly hear the questions when he asked them.

MR BRINK: Because you were close enough to him to hear it?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR BRINK: And had there been any answers, you would have heard that as well because you were close to the people being questioned?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, I would have heard.

MR BRINK: And you heard nothing?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, I heard nothing.

MR BRINK: Is it not the position that the occupants of these two vehicles were told that they were ANC members, which they denied?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: They were told you are members of the ANC, that is right.

MR BRINK: That was said to them?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is right.

MR BRINK: Thank you very much.

MR MALAN: Mr Van der Schyff, I would like to ask you with regards to the evidence of the other applicants, they say that they tried to protect Gen Oelofse, that was the whole approach of the whole group who took part in this incident. On what basis can we accept that you are not still trying to protect Gen Oelofse?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Chairperson, I am in front of this Commission, I am not here to protect anyone, I am only here to speak the truth. This is what this Commission is concerned with, to hear the whole truth of what happened in this country in the Apartheid regime.

MR MALAN: In your opinion, you have no knowledge of any stage when you were told that Kloppers received his instructions from Oelofse? At no stage, not even afterwards?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, never.

MR MALAN: Can you tell me why do you think you were called together at the road house to meet there, and let's say not at Visser's flat or Martin's house where you went any way afterwards, why the road house?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: It was a usual meeting place for AWB members.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Van der Schyff, was it a general thing for the AWB to handle their weapons in public?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Chairperson, the AWB walked around in public with their weapons, they never tried to hide them.

MR MALAN: Adv Bosman, there was one other question I wanted to ask. The visits which were paid at the prison by Oelofse and Terreblanche, these visits, were they specific visits to the applicants or was it more a general series of visits?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: While I was still a member of the AWB, Eugene Terreblanche and Gen Japie Oelofse visited the prisons all over South Africa, in the prisons where AWB members were detained.

MR MALAN: I just want to make sure sir that we do not misunderstand that. So these visits were specifically aimed at the applicants themselves?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, they visited all the AWB members in prisons.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Van der Schyff, if I understand your evidence correctly, you said that the people in the first vehicles that is now the vehicles with the exception of the Cressida and the Honda, that these people were not questioned?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: They were not questioned at all.

ADV BOSMAN: At the stage when they were searched, where was Mr Martin and Kloppers?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I cannot tell you exactly where Kloppers and Martin were.

ADV BOSMAN: Is it possible that you could maybe not have heard Kloppers and Martin?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is possible.

ADV BOSMAN: Then you also testified that you don't have any problems with the other applicants, except for Kloppers, Martin and Meiring.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: You agree with me that you testified which was not really to the benefit of the other applicants. What did you mean then when you said you had no problems with them, do you mean on a personal level or do you mean with regards to the evidence, can you just clarify that, it is confusing me?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Chairperson, I have no problem with them as friends. It is each one for himself within this Commission, each one must come and tell his own story.

ADV BOSMAN: How recent have you communicated with the other applicants, except for Martin, Kloppers and Meiring?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: The first time that we appeared before the Commission, was also the first time that I saw Martin and Kloppers and the other applicants as well.

ADV BOSMAN: And the other applicants also?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, Visser I saw while I was detained in Johannesburg.

ADV BOSMAN: Were they aware of the fact that you were going to amend your statement?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No, I do not know if they were aware of that.

ADV BOSMAN: You didn't discuss it with them?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I did not discuss it with them. I left that for my legal representatives.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

ADV SIGODI: Mr Van der Schyff, I just want to clarify one point here, you were asked by Ms Van der Walt why did you shoot the black people and I was listening to the English interpretation, you answer was I shot the black people because I saw the ANC as an enemy, do you remember that?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, I can remember that.

ADV SIGODI: Now, how did you know that these people were ANC if they didn't reply that they were ANC?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Because those were the questions put to them by Mr Martin.

ADV SIGODI: But you have just said that you didn't hear the answer, you didn't hear them answering?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, I did not hear the answers.

ADV SIGODI: But then you say you shot them because you saw the ANC as an enemy, so if you saw the ANC as an enemy, how did you know that those people that you were shooting, were ANC people? Why did you shoot them, if you were not sure that they were ANC people?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I only followed the instruction which was coming to me.

ADV SIGODI: What was the instruction?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That within the next few seconds we were going to shoot.

ADV SIGODI: Shoot what?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: The people who were sitting in front of us, that is what it came down to, that within the next few seconds, we were going to shoot at the people sitting in front of us.

ADV SIGODI: I just want to know what was going on in your mind, you shot them because they were ANC people, is that it, or did you shoot because you were told to shoot?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: I assumed that these were people of the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Because of the apparent importance of this aspect, which was raised by Mr Brink, I would like to find out from either Mr Prinsloo or Ms Van der Walt, whether they would like to put questions to the witness.

Mr Brink went back to one aspect of the matter, that is where the witness was asked whether he did hear the answer from the victims, where the witness said that he did hear the questions and he did not hear the answers, and had there been answers, he would have heard the answers and so on.

I just want to find out whether you have questions to put in relation thereto? Do you see the point I am raising, it is not clear.

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you Chairperson, I would like to. Mr Van der Schyff, I want to put it to you because I put the same question to you as Mr Brink put to you, what did you hear when the questions were asked and you initially testified, and I am putting it to you that you are changing your version according to who is asking the question, because you initially testified that there were questions asked with regard to their political commitments.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: It was only the last two vehicles.

MS VAN DER WALT: But that is all that we are referring to now. But when I asked you if you could hear the answers, because you said Kloppers and Martin asked the questions, and asked them whether they belonged to a political party?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Now hear what you say.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Yes, but Mr Martin did ask them did they belong to a political party.

MS VAN DER WALT: You see, this is what I would like to put to you, because then I asked you did you hear that they answered and you said they did not answer, and then later you said you couldn't hear.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: But then Mr Brink asked you and he put it to you and said but were the people not told that you are ANC members, and you said yes, they were told you are ANC members, and I am putting it to you Mr Van der Schyff, that is exactly the opposite of what you said in your evidence in chief.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: No Chairperson, it is not contradictory. The one is concerned with questions and the other one is statements.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Let me try to clear this up myself. Mr Van der Schyff, when Ms Van der Walt asked you questions about whether or not the victims did answer, initially you said they did not answer, but later as she pressed the issue, I got the impression that you were making a concession that they might have answered, it is possible that they might have answered, but that you did not hear. I got the impression that you made that concession.

What I want to find out, well, you know, I suppose maybe that is why Mr Brink also put questions, what I want to find out from you is does that concession still stand?

Firstly let me find out from you first whether you did make such a concession, whether I understood you correctly?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: Mr Chairperson, I did say that Martin asked them the questions and that I did not hear the answers.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible that - or rather do you concede that it is possible they might have answered and you did not hear?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct, they could have answered, but me personally, I did not hear anything.

CHAIRPERSON: How far were you from them, can you indicate?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: At that time I was busy with the Toyota Cressida, busy searching it.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, but how far were you from them, can you tell us?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: About from here where I am sitting up to where the guard over there is sitting.

CHAIRPERSON: To where?

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: To where that Warder is sitting.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, that gentleman there? Mr Knoetze, Counsel for the witness, how do you estimate the distance?

MR KNOETZE: Between 12 and 15 metres.

CHAIRPERSON: Between 12 and 15 metres, is that acceptable to everybody.

MR PRINSLOO: At least 15 metres Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you pace it for us sir? 12 metres, all right. Very well, yes, 12 paces, correct yes, 12 paces.

I realise what time it is, but I thought we should finish with this witness, because we are going to, after him, we are going to start with a completely new set of witnesses.

It may necessitate rearranging the seating arrangements and so on, which would cause an adjournment, so we may just as well go on now and finish with this witness and then we adjourn and during the adjournment ...

MR PRINSLOO: (Microphone not on)

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, let's hear about that. Oh, I promised that you would have it after, can I change my mind or will that inconvenience you? Are you still in the dark about that?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, I will just put the version to the witness which I haven't put as yet as regards that.

Mr Van der Schyff, you have heard the evidence of Etienne Visser.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And that of Diedericks, and I put it to you that that is what happened at the road cafe.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is not what happened at the road cafe.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: It did not happen, they were not given the weapons in public?

MR PRINSLOO: The microphone is not on Mr Chairman. I put it to you that at the road cafe, the pipe shotguns were handed to Diedericks and Etienne Visser and that you received the weapon from Diedericks on instruction from Kloppers.

MR VAN DER SCHYFF: That is not true. Mr Visser's weapon, the weapon that Mr Diedericks had, he handed it over to Mr Visser. Mr Kloppers gave me at the road cafe, he gave me a shotgun. He went to go and fetch it himself.

MR MALAN: Mr Prinsloo, will you please give the reason why you consulted because the question was if it was done in public and not necessarily by whom, it was about the in public.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect, I talked with certain people and the Judge Ngoepe asked me if I could continue and I just wanted to make the statement that I would have regarding this aspect and I will say that those with whom I have just consulted said that it was not in public, but it was on one side.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Knoetze, any re-examination?

MR KNOETZE: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no re-examination. There is one outstanding matter and that is the plan that we handed in.

I understood from my learned friends for the other applicants that in general, the plan is not different to their instructions, but there are smaller details and a road that should be put in here, so as far as we are concerned Mr Chairman, the plan needn't be taken further if you don't feel that it should.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I don't think we really need it and we will not be, you did mention and I am sure the record will reflect that, you did mention that it should be Exhibit 7 and I should just for the record indicate that it has in fact not been formally accepted as an Exhibit.

MR KNOETZE: As you please Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR KNOETZE: .

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We will adjourn for the next 15 minutes.

WITNESS EXCUSED: .

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, was the applicant released, was he formally released? He has? I see members of the family, so I don't know why you were called in. I have asked them to send for these people to come from their tea.

CHAIRPERSON: In the meantime for the purpose of the record, Mr Prinsloo, is that your case?

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman, I intend calling a witness. There is one aspect that I will discuss briefly with Mr Brink, I will merely maybe just hand in a document, depending on that, and I intend calling a witness.

CHAIRPERSON: I should have (indistinct) that Ms Van der Walt, but I suppose it doesn't matter?

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairperson, I do have a witness which I subpoenaed to be here, but I would like to put it that Mr Prinsloo would first call his witness and then maybe it won't be necessary for me to call mine. It depends on what Mr Prinsloo's witness is going to say.

With your permission, if I can just leave it for the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Prinsloo.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. The witness I intend calling is Mr Kriel, Andries Kriel.

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, he's got a bit of a hearing problem.

ANDRIES STEPHANUS KRIEL: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kriel, if you have a problem to hear, just use the headphones.

MR KRIEL: I can hear, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Kriel, were you a member of the AWB?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Chairperson for several years I have been a member of the AWB. Just after the creation thereof in 1973, I joined the AWB.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kriel, during 1993 which rank did you have in the AWB?

MR KRIEL: I was a Brigadier and also a Commander in the AWB.

MR PRINSLOO: For which area were you a Commander for the AWB in South Africa?

MR KRIEL: I was in the Northern Free State, I was a Commander.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you involved where you were the Commander with the Volksfront?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Chairperson. In my capacity as Commander of the AWB, I was appointed as the leader of the Volksfront in the Northern Free State.

MR PRINSLOO: At that stage, who was that, the leader of the Volksfront?

MR KRIEL: The leader of the Volksfront was Mr Jaco de Villiers.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you also involved with Gen Constand Viljoen?

MR KRIEL: Yes, naturally Constand Viljoen was involved with the Volksfront and the AWB was party to the Volksfront. I often had dealings with the Volksfront and also with Constand Viljoen.

MR PRINSLOO: The leader of the AWB, Mr Eugene Terreblanche, was he known to you?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Eugene Terreblanche, I already met before the creation of the AWB, I met him during 1971. Then I was an Organiser in the HNP and Terreblanche came from the South African Police and also accepted a position as an Organiser for the HNP.

MR PRINSLOO: During that term of yours at the AWB which lasted till 1994, what was your relationship with the leader of the AWB, Eugene Terreblanche?

MR KRIEL: We became really good friends Chairperson. Mr Terreblanche took me into his confidence and even at that stage he already told me that he was planning to put together a resistance movement and he also told me that he was a bodyguard at John Vorster and the Premier of that time and from there, he went to the political division where he was trained in politics and he told me that before then he didn't know much about politics, but then in the political division, they gave him training and Anna Neethling Pöhl taught him how to talk.

MR PRINSLOO: December 1993, Mr Kriel, in that time, on request of Mr Terreblanche, did you go and visit him?

MR KRIEL: During 1993 Terreblanche told me that I had to come and see him and I went to Ventersdorp where I saw him on his farm. He told me that the time was ready for terror and that I had to start planting bombs.

MR PRINSLOO: Was this in September 1993?

MR KRIEL: This was in September 1993 Chairperson.

MR PRINSLOO: Where did you have to plant these bombs?

MR KRIEL: Chairperson, he said that we had to look at the communication lines, look at Escom, but he also told me that if I could not find a target, I should use any target which I can lay my hands on and act according to my own discretion.

He said even if you only kick over the toilet, just get working and plant bombs.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kriel, who were with you when you went to see Mr Terreblanche?

MR KRIEL: The Secretary General of the AWB, Nico Prinsloo was also present. We agreed that me, that I would link or liaise with Nico Prinsloo with regards to the explosions.

We had a code that if an explosion would take place, then I would tell him that it would rain tonight. Or if one happened the night before, I would say it did rain yesterday or last evening, and that is the way we liaised.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kriel, were there bomb explosions in that area?

MR KRIEL: There were several bomb explosions. Since September up until February there were several explosions - in the 30's.

MR PRINSLOO: Your area, is this in the Free State or where?

MR KRIEL: Yes, I operated more widely than my own area. I had the instruction to create cells further afield, there were creations in the Free State, in the Western Transvaal and also in the North Western Cape there were explosions.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kriel, do you know anything about a revolution which would have started?

MR KRIEL: Yes, the revolution over a long period of time, there was talk about it and we believed that the revolution was already under way. Terreblanche at that stage told me that the revolution of the ANC already existed for a long time, many years, and that we have to continue with the revolution, that was definitely the case.

MR PRINSLOO: When was this Mr Kriel, as you remember?

MR KRIEL: During November 1993 I went to Terreblanche and I complained to him and said that there were - too little was done by the other groups and the major explosions, the most of them was done by the groups who were under my command and I initiated that, and then I complained to him and then he told me that I must just hold on a little bit because the planning for the final step of the revolution was planned for a week before the 16th of December.

A week before the 16th of December, certain task groups who were under Oelofse would be sent in and he said then he would send his best men, and he said he picked that date because he wants to build up to the Day of the Vow, when the whole nation would be together and from there, they delivered the final blow.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kriel, can you just speak a little bit slower, you have to be interpreted, can you just speak a little slower please.

MR KRIEL: He told me that he hoped that the attacks which were planned for the week before the Day of the Vow, that it would create a chain reaction and then when the nation got together on the Day of the Vow, the great amount of people would be there, who would then continue with the revolution.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kriel, did you know Japie Oelofse?

MR KRIEL: Japie Oelofse was known to me, I thought a great deal of him, I respected him as a General. I was also aware of the fact that he was busy working really hard at the revolution. I had great regard for him.

MR PRINSLOO: Were you aware that Japie Oelofse was the Commanding General of the applicants who are now in front of the Committee?

MR KRIEL: That is correct Chairperson, I was aware of that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kriel, were there any talk at any stage about road blocks which had to be set up and that weapons had to be obtained?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Mr Terreblanche asked me how well is my men armed and I told him that several of my men did not have arms and he said then you go and have road blocks, and you take weapons.

He also warned me and said that he has a good relationship with Inkatha, the IFP and also with Botswana and that we must be careful to make sure that we only take the weapons of ANC people.

MR PRINSLOO: If you say Botswana, do you mean ...

MR KRIEL: Sorry, I mean Bophuthatswana.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you. Those weapons which would be obtained in that fashion, how would they be used?

MR KRIEL: The weapons we would have obtained, we needed them for the revolution, for the final blow, for the final battle and to use it for that purpose.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you have discussions with Oelofse during the activities of the AWB?

MR KRIEL: Yes, I had a discussion with Oelofse at one stage. Oelofse I think it was the end of November, he asked me because I stayed in the mine vicinity, the Welkom Mine vicinity, if I could not arrange with my people in order to get cyanide which he wanted. I told him that I would see what I could do, but I never got around to it.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kriel, you also heard with regards to this behaviour on the 12th of December and also that the fact that these applicants were arrested on the 6th of January, did you hear about that?

MR KRIEL: That is completely correct Chairperson. Afterwards I spoke to Terreblanche and Terreblanche told me, he said that it was some of his best men who were caught.

MR PRINSLOO: Terreblanche, did he turn his back on these people at that stage, or what was the position?

MR KRIEL: Terreblanche told me that even though they were very good men, it would be very bad for the AWB if he associated with them in public Chairperson.

He also said that as far as possible, we must distance ourselves from these people and that he felt sorry about that, but that it was war and that is unfortunately the situation.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kriel, in February 1994 you were arrested by the South African Police and you were detained according to Section 29 of the Law of Internal Security with regards to bomb explosions which allegedly you committed?

MR KRIEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And afterwards you were released?

MR KRIEL: That is correct. I would just like to say Chairperson, that when I was taken into detention, afterwards I learnt and I also saw from the media, that Terreblanche told the media that he did not know me at all and that he does not know the people who were in detention with me.

MR PRINSLOO: The people who were with you in detention, were they members of the AWB?

MR KRIEL: They were members or Officials of the AWB.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Kriel, with regard to what happened before December the 12th, that was just after the ANC got unbanned, what was the AWB's opinion when they realised that there was going to be an election?

MR KRIEL: The AWB's attitude at that stage was that there was not going to be an election. I had discussions with Terreblanche several times, and he said that if we allow the election to take place, then it would be the end of the AWB, because he often committed himself to the fact that he would resist the capitulation of the government.

We all had, all the leaders of the AWB realised that we were involved in a war, and that we had to kill people and that we had to plant bombs in order to focus the attention on the liberating ideal and also to stop the elections.

MR PRINSLOO: Just to summarise, what happened before the election, what preceded the election and at that stage Constand Viljoen was with you in several groupings of the right wing, together with Hartzenberg?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Chairperson. The day after Terreblanche gave me the instructions, the leader of the Volksfront came to me and said the terror must begin, the bombs must explode. So from both sides I got instructions.

On the one side Terreblanche and on the other side, also from the Volksfront. I drove down and I discussed it at the Volksfront Headquarters with Commandant Pretorius who was there and he told me that it is correct, the terror must start and I went back and I gave instructions to my men.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Kriel, the instructions that you received, that you received as a Brigadier and Commander of the AWB, is that correct?

MR KRIEL: Yes, that is.

MS VAN DER WALT: This Generals in Staff would they have received the same type of instructions to work in their own individual areas?

MR KRIEL: That is correct, yes. I would say that some of the Generals that Eugene Terreblanche did not trust and he said to me that I must not talk to them. There were some of them like that, so it was not with all the Generals.

The instructions usually came from where we were in small groups, rather than where we were in large numbers.

MS VAN DER WALT: Gen Oelofse, was he one of the Generals that were trusted by Terreblanche?

MR KRIEL: He was highly trusted yes. He was appointed as a Fighting General and Mr Terreblanche said that he had certain task groups under him that is very qualified.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knoetze?

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KNOETZE: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer?

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: You will limit yourself to the extent that he implicates your client?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: As the Court pleases, Mr Chairman. Do I understand you correctly that even before 1993, in your position as a Brigadier in the AWB, you were convinced that the revolution had been going on for a few years?

MR KRIEL: Yes, definitely Mr Chairperson. I saw it that the AWB revolution stated in 1910 and then right through the years it had been continuing. I did not see it as something that could be completed in one day.

MR DREYER: Do I understand the word beginning in the same way, it begins - it is a one off thing, it begins.

MR KRIEL: That is correct.

MR DREYER: You said you heard and realised that there were some road blocks where they would look for weapons?

MR KRIEL: That is correct yes.

MR DREYER: And that is why they held or set up road blocks?

MR KRIEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR DREYER: No other purpose?

MR KRIEL: Yes, it was only to seize weapons.

MR DREYER: Now the other thing, you specifically say that you received instructions from the top structure of the AWB, namely Mr Eugene Terreblanche himself, that you must plant bombs and once again the bombs were in order to prevent communication and that was the goal?

MR KRIEL: Yes, among other purposes.

MR DREYER: I just want to know, you did not receive instructions of him in order to kill civilians?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he did say to me that we must address the squatter camps. We had a consensus or agreement that people must be killed in the process.

MR DREYER: But how do you bring that, or how do you combine with the disturbance of communication?

MR KRIEL: The communication matter was part of our plan, that trains must be blown up, but there must also be terror and that people must be killed.

MR DREYER: But you did not give evidence in that line?

MR KRIEL: Yes, but I do say it to you now because you have asked me.

MR DREYER: And then you say that these road blocks and the searching for weapons etc, was directed only at ANC members?

MR KRIEL: That is correct yes.

MR DREYER: That was the instruction, ANC members?

MR KRIEL: Yes, ANC/SACP alliances.

MR DREYER: But you qualify now, when you gave evidence ...

MR KRIEL: Well, it was in the way we talk, ANC or SACP - for us it is the same thing.

MR DREYER: And you said that the instruction from the top structure was that if at these road blocks, weapons were seized, it would have been used for one purpose and that is for the killing of people, and in order to arm the AWB members and not to do something else with them?

MR KRIEL: There was also said that we must see if we can steal weapons from the Defence Force.

MR DREYER: But the purpose was in order to arm the AWB, that is the members who did not have weapons, is that correct?

MR KRIEL: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairperson. I would just like to add that Mr Terreblanche said to me, or told me that if the people did not want to listen to what you are saying, meaning the ANC, cut their ears off.

MR DREYER: Would he have meant literally?

MR KRIEL: He said if they haven't got ears, if they don't listen, cut their ears off. That was a general command or saying.

MR DREYER: Is it like a parent who says to a child if you don't want to hear, you must feel?

MR KRIEL: But I physically interpreted it that if he didn't want to listen, cut his ear off.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you understand that to mean that you should go all over the country, cutting people's ears, literally?

MR KRIEL: Mr Chairperson, he said to me, Mr Terreblanche said to me if the people do not want to listen, that is now the ANC people, if they do not want to listen, you cut their ears off.

He said it to me and he said it in so many words.

CHAIRPERSON: But the question is, how did you understand that? Did you understand that literally saying that you should actually go about cutting people's ears with a knife?

MR KRIEL: If they don't want to listen, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You go up with a basket and cut ears and put them in a basket?

MR KRIEL: That is what he said, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, I see.

MR MALAN: Can I just ask you Mr Kriel, did you receive instructions from people under you, or did you give them a command to cut off ears?

MR KRIEL: No, I did not.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Do you know about cases where ears were cut off?

MR KRIEL: There were a lot of talk amongst the Commanders about people whose ears were cut off, I wasn't there, but a lot of people went around and said that they did it. It was generally talked about, they boasted about it.

MR DREYER: The last question Mr Kriel. You said that Mr Terreblanche did not trust some of his Generals, did I understand you correctly?

MR KRIEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR DREYER: How would you then believe then, as a Brigadier within the AWB, how would it be for any military or paramilitary force be possible to fight a war if people in such top ranks, cannot be trusted? How do you expect that correct instructions will be given to the grassroots level soldier?

MR KRIEL: Mr Chairperson, the question that was asked to me, we asked that same question amongst each other. I asked Mr Terreblanche himself and he said that he uses these Generals to distribute disinformation.

MR DREYER: In other words, you have to be a General, it doesn't matter if you are trusted or not trusted within the AWB structure?

MR KRIEL: Yes, you could put it that way.

MR DREYER: I've got no more questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Just one question Mr Chairman. Mr Kriel, where is Mr Eugene Terreblanche at the moment?

MR KRIEL: That is a very good question Mr Chairperson. Repeatedly I pleaded with Mr Terreblanche to take responsibility for what he did. It is not a happy day for me that I have to give evidence about the things that occurred in the past, but I believe that it is Mr Terreblanche's duty to be here.

I believe it is the Officers of the AWB's duty to stand by the soldiers who are in prison and I feel that the instruction givers has got a responsibility. Unfortunately it is now the situation that the man who we listened to and admired, eventually became known as a coward.

MR BRINK: Are you still a member of the AWB?

MR KRIEL: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR BRINK: Did you resign?

MR KRIEL: No Mr Chairperson. In December last year Mr Terreblanche and I had an argument concerning the responsibility towards the prisoners. He afterwards then reprimanded me and I heard it in the media where I said he was a coward, where afterwards he said that I was expelled from the AWB.

MR BRINK: What was his attitude regarding these applications?

MR KRIEL: His attitude was that he will loose his farms if he takes responsibility. He said to me that it would be the end of the AWB. He will be put in jail, him and the Generals must still exist and must continue to exist.

I saw it in a different way, I disagreed with him. I've got a conscience and I am not willing to cover up the truth any longer. MR BRINK: Thank you Mr Kriel.

MR MALAN: Mr Kriel, you said when it was asked to you about taking lives and the killing of individuals and not just planting bombs and you said yes, and you referred to squatter camps?

MR KRIEL: Yes, that is right.

MR MALAN: I think that at least it is common knowledge within the Commission and Committee that it was one of the largest political activities of the AWB, or that they had support in that they tried to dissuade squatter camps. Was the idea behind the bomb planting in squatter camps in order to stop squatting or just to kill people?

MR KRIEL: I understood it that the squatter camps had a dual purpose. Firstly it would focus the attention on the terror, on the liberation ideal and secondly it would mean that the squatters would be afraid then to squat and then would move from that area.

MR MALAN: But the bombs in squatter camps were directed towards the problem of squatting?

MR KRIEL: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: In other words the bombs were more a terror act rather than the killing of people?

MR KRIEL: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: Secondly Mr Kriel, if I understand correctly, you have applied for amnesty and you have received amnesty. I don't know if there were other applications, but for certain.

MR KRIEL: I haven't received notice that it was given, but I did apply yes.

MR MALAN: Can I ask you something about that application, does that application include the killing of people?

MR KRIEL: No one was killed where I was involved.

MR MALAN: So you never gave instructions to kill people, or that people must be killed?

MR KRIEL: Mr Chairperson, we did plant bombs. For me it is a wonder that no one died in these bombings, and it is with God's help that that occurred, but it did happen that not one single train driver were killed, and that is a miracle that it happened.

MR MALAN: But the question that I am asking is that the killing of people, did you see this as a primary activity of the AWB? The bombs were the terror act and it is a miracle that people were not killed in your area?

MR KRIEL: Yes, the killing of people was another matter.

MR MALAN: Then, when you were detained in prison, and if I can remember correctly, that the Orde Boerevolk was established and you co-ordinated this movement?

MR KRIEL: I was not at the Orde Boerevolk involved.

MR MALAN: I am sorry, I am talking about ...

MR KRIEL: The Afrikaner Volkstaat movement, we tried to move away from the AWB and then we established the Bond of Boere Soldiers, that is correct yes.

MR MALAN: That is correct, that is the organisation's name I am looking for. Were you involved, or were you detained at any stage with the applicants in the same jail?

MR KRIEL: No.

MR MALAN: Do you know if any one of them are members of the Boere Bond Krygsgevangenis?

MR KRIEL: Yes, the Bond of Boere Krygsgevangenis, we did not have an official membership. It was in order to get the applications between them and the TRC to co-ordinate that. So we created the movement so that we could talk around issues regarding this, for example with Dr Boraine I had certain discussions and Dr Ruben Richards, they assisted us in order to relieve some of the problems.

Dr Ruben Richards and Piet Meiring was at the prison. He asked them if they were willing to take part in a programme of reconciliation and all the applicants said yes, they are willing to take part in a programme of reconciliation. There is a good relationship between Dr Meiring, Richardson and the prisoners.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you talking about these specific applicants?

MR KRIEL: Yes, that is true.

MR MALAN: Then finally, it sounds as if you are saying and I think it is an approach that is shared through out the whole TRC, that there is also sympathy for the people who because of the political history, now find themselves in a position where they have to apply for amnesty, and that is why we sometimes feel that one has to help them, and I do see in you sympathy and it is in opposition to what you said about Mr Terreblanche, where he would rather not get involved, is that a correct summary of the situation?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Mr Chairperson, it is true, but it is not just empathy or sympathy with the applicants. For me there is also empathy with the victims. I was part of a creation of this Frankenstein. On the stage I stood there and incited young men to kill, to plant bombs and I would like to and if Mr Chairperson would excuse me, in that capacity, I do not expect that the victims to forgive me, but in my capacity I would also like to say today and on behalf of the applicants, that we in the AWB who placed us on this road, that we do feel remorse.

I think it is a great loss to lose a child and to loose a family member and the other day I looked in the gallery of the people, and I asked myself what did we do, what were we busy with and I would just like to say to the victims, I do not expect of them to forgive us, but let us take hands and look forward and see if we can't make some good from this whole matter. I would like to tell them that I am sorry they went through very bitter times and also then on the applicants that were young men and who looked up at us, today I would like to say that I am sorry for the sorrow that I caused.

MR MALAN: Thank you Mr Kriel.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kriel, could you just indicate since when have you known the applicants in a personal capacity?

MR KRIEL: The applicants?

ADV BOSMAN: Yes.

MR KRIEL: I saw some of the applicants and I heard about some of them, while we were busy with the terror acts, but I was not personally involved with them.

Because I was busy with the bombs, we did not really communicate with other task forces lower down. They were in a different task group.

ADV BOSMAN: My question is have you met them personally, do you know who Phil Kloppers was, do you know what he looks like, could you just maybe elaborate?

MR KRIEL: Yes, I saw Mr Phil Kloppers in Ventersdorp. At certain stages there was - some people said to me that he was a very qualified person and that he had received good training in the Defence Force, but as far as I can remember we did not have an intimate discussion or really talked to each other a lot.

ADV BOSMAN: My question is directed to if you had any personal loyalty towards the - or built up a loyalty relationship with the applicants, on a personal level, not as members of the AWB?

MR KRIEL: Yes, it is so. I visited all the prisons right through the country and I had a lot of empathy with them and I handled their problems and a relationship was built up between us.

ADV BOSMAN: Before you gave your evidence, did you have a personal relationship with them?

MR KRIEL: Yes.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kriel, there was one question, if you will just give me one moment, I would just like to find it.

Mr Chairman, may I reserve that question, I am afraid it has just for a moment slipped my mind. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever speak to Mr Oelofse about this, the application, the applications now before us?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Mr Chairman, I saw Mr Oelofse in December and he told me that he was sorry that the problem existed between me and Terreblanche and we discussed the applications.

Mr Oelofse at that stage, he also sat in at the Bond of Boere Krygsgevangenis and he said he was going to leave the AWB. At one stage I said to Oelofse that he is going to be incriminated and I asked him that he and Kloppers should get together. He didn't want to go and see Kloppers.

I saw him at several times, I asked him to go and see Kloppers because Kloppers said that you gave him instructions and now you guys can talk and look each other in the eye and I thought with this amnesty, we should all take hands and by means of this process, but Oelofse did not want to go and see this man and afterwards I made the conclusion that he was trying to evade the whole situation about talking to Kloppers.

I then told him that I was going to support the people and afterwards I learnt he returned to the AWB. He said to me that he would never admit that he gave instructions and then he said he would rather try his luck in court, he would try his luck in court. That is the expression he used.

CHAIRPERSON: Now the people with whom you were engaged in war and who were to be killed, who were they?

MR KRIEL: Mr Chairperson, we had consensus and we agreed that the ANC, the National Party leaders, Pik Botha, F.W. de Klerk, Roelf Meyer, that these people should be killed.

There was a list circulating amongst the AWB which stated that Mr Hani and Bantu Holomisa and several others, their names were on this list and they also should be killed.

I did not partake any further in this, but also today I want to get right down to the point, if it wasn't for the fact that Botha and De Klerk was well guarded, me, myself would have executed them, or some of the other members, but we couldn't get close to them. There were definitely decisions taken that certain people had to be killed.

CHAIRPERSON: We were told that these people were given orders on the 12th of December 1993, to do certain things, that the revolution was on and so on and so forth.

They then went to go and put up a road block and they told us that they wanted to stop only black people, in fact they put a car at a certain point before the road block, and that car would first have to see whether the occupants were white or black and if they are black, only if they are black, the car would be stopped. Apparently those would be the people to be searched and certain things would happen.

Would that have been in line with the way you understood your struggle, your war, your enemies in the way that you have told us? Perhaps, all right, go on, I will clarify something later.

MR KRIEL: Yes, Mr Chairperson. I do not know exactly how Mr Oelofse gave the instruction to Kloppers, but that the instruction was there, that we were in war with the ANC and that the ANC people had to be killed, that is for sure, that is definitely true. At that stage, it is not today the case any more, but it was the feeling Chairperson, we were convinced that if the ANC takes over the country, they were going to start killing all the white people.

We all believed this, that did not realise. So in other words the convictions we have today, differ in essence from those we had at that time. I am not proud of what had happened.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, but what I want to find out from you is - as I understand the evidence, you, the AWB was dead against, not only the National Party but also dead against the ANC and the ANC/SACP alliance? You were against, your war was against the ANC/SACP alliance?

MR KRIEL: That is not altogether, we also considered our war to be against the hierarchy of the National Party, that is true, but the ANC/SACP alliance was our enemy, we were scared that they were going to take over the country and that they would start with a witch hunt against the white people.

CHAIRPERSON: No, but the gist of my question is this people on that particular night, the applicants, they say on that particular night their targets had to be black.

MR KRIEL: Sorry Mr Chairman, I am going to put on the headphones, I cannot hear you very clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Please. Are you listening to Afrikaans? I am saying to you that the applicants tell us that on that night, they only wanted or targeted black people. How do you view that, given the way you understood the policy, the struggle of the AWB?

MR KRIEL: Chairperson, I would like to answer you honestly. We expected a take-over from the black people in this country and we were scared of that.

We had definitely fears of the black people, we also saw it against a black/white background, because we were brought up in such a manner. We grew up under the apartheid dispensation, we were brought up like this in our schools, in our houses and we ascribed this to a black/white relationship, that if the black people take over the country, they then would murder all the whites and there would be a massive witch hunt on us.

Unfortunately that was our conviction at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I must perhaps just ask you directly, did you see every black person as your enemy at that time or as your political enemy, every black person?

MR KRIEL: No Chairperson. The IFP, we considered to be friends. Mr Mangope and Bophuthatswana we also considered to be allies at that time and that is why Terreblanche told us that we have to be careful when we act, that we do not injure IFP or Bophuthatswana people and we should always be aware of when we act, that we do not anger these people.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see every black person as your enemy, even if he was not a member of the ANC, that is the gist of my question?

MR KRIEL: No Chairperson, I had very good friends who were not white, who were black, and even today I still have very good black friends. I do not consider them to be my enemy. No, definitely not.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it have been in line with the AWB policy as you understood it then, to kill a black person who did not belong to the ANC/SACP alliance?

MR KRIEL: No Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I assume if you were to go out to kill members of the ANC/SACP alliance, you would have killed whether or not he was white?

MR KRIEL: At that stage, if he was a white ANC, I would definitely have liked to kill him at that stage. I would have considered him to be a priority, above a black person.

CHAIRPERSON: If you were at a road block, it seems to me that if you were to be at a road block - I am just giving an example - Joe Slovo, a very white person, came into the road block, he would have picked up problems?

MR KRIEL: Yes, I would have killed him Chairperson, definitely. Any person, even if he was a Boer and he got there and I knew he was an ANC person or I identified him as an ANC person, I definitely would have killed him.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Kriel, you made mention thereof that the applicants would have taken part in a programme of reconciliation. Once again, do you refer to these specific applicants?

MR KRIEL: These specific applicants as well as applicants in other prisons, but we were visited by Dr Piet Meiring and Ruben Richards and we had discussions with them with regards to a question of Meiring, whether these people would be prepared to take part in a programme of reconciliation and they all said yes, without exception.

ADV BOSMAN: Did anything come of that which you are aware of?

MR KRIEL: I approached Dr Meiring once again and I also wrote letters to Boraine concerning this, specifically with regards to the reconciliation aspect. I asked that it should gain some attention and I also said to them that with regards to the prisoners within the prisons, the PAC as well as the MK prisoners and the Boere prisoners, there was already a reconciliation amongst all of them.

It is already taking place, but I said that I believed that the programme must receive a lot of attention. It did not get any further. Boraine gave me notice that he received my letter.

ADV BOSMAN: But I simply want to know was there any reconciliation programme in which the applicants partook?

MR KRIEL: No, except for the visits of Meiring and Richards, I do not know of any, but Dr Meiring did have discussions with them.

ADV BOSMAN: I do not want us to waste time, we would like to finish today. Can you just tell me if the applicants, did they say anything to you directly with regards to reconciliation?

MR KRIEL: Yes, certainly they said to me that the suggestion of Piet Meiring that they must participate within a programme of reconciliation is definitely true, they also said to me that they have already reconciled with the other parties, prisoners within the prison.

ADV BOSMAN: That is surely an argument, but my question to you is that there is no evidence that these applicants showed a willingness to reconcile. Have you got any explanation for that or can you not answer that question?

MR KRIEL: Mr Chairperson, I would just like to say that these people went through a very difficult period. I would just like to state an example. I told Phil Kloppers and he was converted and he addressed certain black people in prisons and he said to me that a complete change in his life had occurred, and he also said that he was going to dedicate his life to these things.

ADV BOSMAN: Let us make it clear, you have no explanation why these applicants did not show any reconciliation?

MR KRIEL: I do not know anything about that.

MR MALAN: Mr Chairperson, with your permission - or let me put it this way, I will begin with a question, when Mr Prinsloo went to you and said that you must be a witness there, was there certain consultation?

MR KRIEL: We did consult just before we came in.

MR MALAN: Was it said to you that there is a dispute regarding the fact that Mr Oelofse did give the instruction or did not give the instructions?

MR KRIEL: No, I knew about the dispute, I do know about it.

MR MALAN: And did you discuss it with your legal representative or the applicants' legal representatives?

MR KRIEL: No, we did not discuss it in the consultation, but I was aware of it.

MR MALAN: I am going to tell you why I am asking this because in your main evidence it was not put to you, and in the main evidence it was not put to you if you carry any knowledge of any such instruction coming from Gen Oelofse, and you never mentioned it in that manner. The only reference to that was, or possible reference to it was where you said that he would try his luck in court, and even that was not a specific reference.

Now, I would like to ask you directly would you have any knowledge, or have you got any knowledge of a direct order of Gen Oelofse on the evening of the 12th of December to kill people specifically on that evening, to kill people?

MR KRIEL: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: If there was such an order, you wouldn't know because you were in the Free State?

MR KRIEL: That is correct yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I mean the structure, I am saying the structure of the AWB was such that you would not have known?

MR KRIEL: Yes, I would not have known because the task forces were not under me, I didn't know about it, but what I did know was that a week before the Day of the Vow, these task forces would be sent in.

That Mr Eugene Terreblanche told me but I did not know exactly which task forces, but I did know that it was task forces under Gen Oelofse.

CHAIRPERSON: Just repeat your answer.

MR KRIEL: A week - or Mr Terreblanche told me that a week before the Day of the Vow, the task forces will be sent in, those that resorted under Gen Oelofse. I did not know exactly what task forces would be sent in, but I did know that there would be task forces sent in.

I was not there when the instruction was given to the task forces, but like you said, I was in the Free State at that stage, but I knew there was task forces sent in. I was aware of that, because that Mr Terreblanche told me myself.

Task forces would be sent in to attack the ANC, to kill people, murder people, and that was said.

CHAIRPERSON: He said, I am sorry, he referred - did he tell you, you are saying that he said it would be the people under Oelofse?

MR KRIEL: Yes. He said, Gen Oelofse was in charge of the task forces, and he specifically said to me that the task forces of Gen Oelofse will a week before the Day of the Vow, start acting, that is what he said to me.

MR MALAN: Did you tell that to Mr Prinsloo when he consulted with you?

MR KRIEL: Yes, I did tell him that in the consultation.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't say it in your evidence in chief?

MR KRIEL: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: You did not say it in your evidence in chief? In your evidence in chief you said that you were told that a week before the elections, a task force would be sent out to do certain things.

MR KRIEL: That is correct yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you did not say a task force would be sent out to go and kill people.

MR KRIEL: That is the means of it. I mean Mr Chairman, it does not help to send out people, they will go and kill people, that was what the whole thing was about.

CHAIRPERSON: They could have, the task force could only have gone out to plant bombs, and to blow up bridges, to blow up means of communication.

MR KRIEL: Mr Chairperson, we had specialised units. Some units planted bombs, other units directed them more to the physical killing of people, and there is a difference there. If you talk about the task force under Gen Oelofse, you know we are talking about a task force that was trained and will be able to kill people.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying Gen Oelofse commanded a hit squad?

MR KRIEL: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairperson, on this point I would like to give the written instruction that this client gave me, I would like to make copies of that.

CHAIRPERSON: Why should we have that Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, it was exactly what - if the Committee doubts what he said.

CHAIRPERSON: I have no problems with what he said in the statement.

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, I would like to submit it, so that it can be included in the document.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, why should we take a previous consistent statement?

MR PRINSLOO: This is not a hearing, and in all cases where witnesses gave evidence, certain statements were made, so it is a fault of mine not to include this statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Is it taken under oath?

MR PRINSLOO: It was not under oath.

CHAIRPERSON: Now of what value is it to us? We are interested in ...

MR PRINSLOO: The client can confirm it. He can be asked to confirm it, it happened again with a previous application and that procedure was followed.

CHAIRPERSON: What is the purpose of handing in that statement?

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, this document that is in front of you now, was on the 20th of April of 1998. It was done by the client and he came to me and said that he would give evidence.

As it was in various other applications, that he will give evidence regarding this, and this is his statement.

CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure I understand what the purpose of the statement is. If it is - well ...

MR PRINSLOO: Honourable Chairperson, there are certain aspects that you asked him about, that I did not ask him or that I presented as direct evidence, but I would like to make it available to the Committee and it would place the Committee in a better position to ask questions to the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that how evidence should be given?

MR PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON: Is that how evidence is given?

MR PRINSLOO: Well, with respect Mr Chairperson, in the recent Commission's application that we held, some people did give evidence from statements, for example the Generals.

Seeing this is a Commission and not a hearing, I can say that there are available documents, that people gave evidence in the High Court, applications that is in front of them, and it will have the same effect, but I will not continue in this line, but it is available.

CHAIRPERSON: If we could just clear up what we are busy with. Mr Kriel, you will recall that I was saying to you, asking you about certain things and then you virtually said that Mr Oelofse was commanding people who it was their task amongst others, to kill?

MR KRIEL: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What about you?

MR KRIEL: I was in charge of units that planted bombs. I had cells that specialised in the planing of bombs.

CHAIRPERSON: Not to kill people?

MR KRIEL: No, not the same people. The people I had, were people who were trained and specialised only in the planting of bombs.

CHAIRPERSON: Who told you that Mr Oelofse was in command of a hit squad?

MR KRIEL: Mr Terreblanche himself told me. He said to me in November when I was, or visited him, that a week before the Day of the Vow, the task force of Gen Japie Oelofse will then be sent in.

He hopes or expects that there will be a chain reaction that will build up to the Day of the Vow on the 16th of December, where the volk will then be swept up into the struggle. That is what he hoped for and that is what he expected.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kriel, just a while ago you said that Mr Terreblanche told you and that is exactly the evidence that you gave earlier on, you did not mention that that group of people will kill people that evening, you only said that that group of people will do certain things that will lead to a chain reaction.

What is particularly missing in your evidence, what we missed in your evidence in chief, you did not say that they would go and kill people that night? What is also particularly missing in your evidence in chief, you know, you did not tell us that Mr Oelofse was in charge of a hit squad, a killing machine?

MR KRIEL: Yes, that is very true, but if you talk about a task force, we are talking about a group of people who is trained to physically go and kill people.

CHAIRPERSON: And then another thing is, you stated it as a fact to us that Mr Oelofse was in charge of a hit squad.

MR KRIEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then it turns out that you were told, it was something you were told by Mr Terreblanche?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Mr Terreblanche did tell me but Mr Oelofse and I also were in certain discussions.

MR MALAN: You said that you did discuss, or had discussions with him very often. Did you discuss it with him?

MR KRIEL: Yes, it was general knowledge within the AWB, amongst Officers that Gen Oelofse was the Fighting Commander, that the task forces resorted under him. It was not just me who knew it, but other people also knew it.

MR MALAN: I am not asking this to you, I am asking that the killing of individuals, was that ever discussed, did you discuss his success? You said you discussed many matters with him?

MR KRIEL: No, I never talked about how many people he killed, that he never told me.

MR MALAN: Can I also ask you, I do consider that the applicants went to you to ask to give evidence.

MR KRIEL: No, that is not correct. I myself, in July last year, I went to Mr Terreblanche and that was just before I visited them, and I said to him that we must make a plan. Either we must continue with the struggle, or we have to make a plan - so it was not their request. I said I would do it, myself.

MR MALAN: I will put my question again, the statement that was given to Adv Prinsloo, did you do that out of your own, or was that asked that you give it to him?

MR KRIEL: No, I did it out of my own. The day before yesterday when Mr Terreblanche and Mr Oelofse finally did not appear to give evidence, I went to them and gave it to them and finally said that I would make this public.

MR MALAN: So you set it up after you heard the evidence of the applicants?

MR KRIEL: No, this document I had already wrote quite a while ago, the date is - in expectation that if Mr Eugene Terreblanche do not appear, I would do it - the date on the computer is the 20th of April.

MR MALAN: Thank you, that is all that I wanted to know, thank you very much.

MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, obviously in the course of questions and in the latter part of the evidence of this witness, a lot of matters came to light as was stated, was not part of his evidence in chief. I would not want to labour the matter, but I think I would at least want to make two statements, or put two questions to him, and I would ...

CHAIRPERSON: I think you are entitled to put questions.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: As the Court pleases. Thank you Mr Chairman. It was already put to you that the greatest extent of what you have testified here and what came to light in the cross-questioning was not part of your evidence in chief. But I didn't understand if you said to us that you were a Brigadier in the AWB, and you realised the importance of command for the basis of certain acts, can you think of a single reason why did you not as spontaneously, as you spoke about it in cross-questioning, despite the fact that there were not questions asked to you when you gave your evidence in chief, why did you not in your evidence in chief, spontaneously, from looking at your military experience and position in the AWB, why did you not spontaneously testify then in your evidence in chief?

MR KRIEL: Chairperson, I tried to testify as properly as possible with the time I had to my availability. I am telling you now that there is nothing that I am trying to hide.

The fact that I am here and I am taking part in this process, I assure you that I am co-operating completely and I would give you anything which I consider important. If I in my evidence in chief, did not see something as important, I am really sorry, but you are welcome to ask me any question or to cross-question me. I am completely open, there is nothing that I want to hide.

MR DREYER: Let me ask you this, at one stage in your evidence you said you did not know how the instruction was conveyed from Oelofse to Kloppers. That was a statement you made?

MR KRIEL: Yes.

MR DREYER: Now, I am putting it to you, just as you cannot tell this Court how that instruction was given, I can also put it to you that you cannot tell this Commission that there was an instruction given to Kloppers from Oelofse and you what the contents thereof would have been?

MR KRIEL: Because let me just elaborate on that question, the instruction giving was of such a nature that we were at least two or three and there was no way that I could have been present.

MR DREYER: Let's keep your answer simple, we have a problem of time, so my question is simple, I am going to put it directly. I do not want you to elaborate on things which is not in the scope of my question.

If you cannot say how the instruction was conveyed, you can also not say if an instruction was conveyed and you cannot tell us what the contents of that was, is that correct?

MR KRIEL: That is correct.

MR DREYER: Now, the second question is on a question from the Honourable Chairperson, if there were instructions given with the purpose to kill people, you are quite adamant, you said yes, there were definitely instructions given to the effect that people had to be killed, but what is strange to me is, when Malan asked you sir, the death, the killing of people was not the central or the primary purpose of the behaviour or the actions of the AWB, because you also spoke about bomb explosions. You said no, it was something which was accessory to that, it was a side issue, a side effect and you said it was by the grace of God that no one died.

I am asking you how can you reconcile these two things, how can you say on the one side that it was not the AWB's policy that people had to be killed, when they planted bombs or in the squatter camps or wherever, but also at the same time, it was definitely the policy of the AWB that certain people had to be killed at road blocks, how do you reconcile these two?

MR KRIEL: If you can remember correctly Chairperson, I said that the killing of people was a side issue, meaning it is a side issue to kill people, it is another task force. That is what I meant by that.

It was not, I was not involved with that, I was only involved with the planting of bombs, that is what I meant to say but I can assure you and I want to put it quite clearly, that they did plan to kill people, and we had consensus on that. It was not a picnic.

Now we are going to go and play with people, it is definitely not the case.

MR DREYER: You do not strike me as a person with a problem, with a language problem and I always through the Afrikaans word "bysaak" means that I have a primary goal, but the other things going along with this, but - or do you understand this differently?

MR KRIEL: Chairperson, I am putting it quite clearly about what was going on, we are getting technical now about language.

I am saying it here and I am saying this to the Commission, we went out and there was consensus, to kill people. I do not know why you want to send this in another direction sir.

MR DREYER: I want to send this in another direction, that is the task of cross-questioning.

MR KRIEL: I was there, you were not there. Your client can confirm this, he was there but you were not there.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kriel, you must be quite careful, you are not supposed to get excited because then if you are excited, you are not going to understand all the questions properly, and your answers are going to become more and more difficult.

MR KRIEL: I take notice of that Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that sometimes emotions do run very high, but please you must try not to allow that to happen.

MR KRIEL: Yes, Chairperson, it is just difficult for me that when we come here and we speak the truth and people try by using technical aspects, or the use of language, to say something else. I came here in order to disclose myself in front of the Committee and I am giving you the assurance Chairperson, what I am telling you is the truth.

Tragedies took place and people are in prison, and I have no need or feeling to hide things, I do not want to twist things either.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kriel, the problem is this that certain very serious allegations are made against his client. He finds himself in a difficult situation and these questions he has to ask, because he is Oelofse's legal representative as you know. He must ask these questions.

MR KRIEL: I accept that Chairperson.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Let's go to another aspect Mr Kriel. You said that you heard that Oelofse was in command of a so-called hit squad or whichever way you want to describe it?

If we look at this specific incident, then the first thing that strikes me is that if it was the case that Oelofse was specifically focused on these kind of activities, can you then give us an explanation why according to your own version and that of the applicants in front of this Commission, why one of them only joined the AWB a week before this incident, he did not even have a uniform yet and three of the nine people wee involved in this incident, did not even have firearms? Does this sound to you like a so-called death squad? A highly trained death squad, does it sound like that to you?

MR KRIEL: Yes Chairperson, we made use of people we could get hold of.

In this case I was not present, but we were ready with the revolution to accept people who come, and to handle them. I do not know what was the background here, I do not know if these people had military backgrounds or not. But I never said that these people were professional or that they were really very good at what they did or praised them. We worked with the material we received.

I cannot say that they were highly trained, that was simply the situation.

MR DREYER: Mr Kriel, I must differ from you because you spontaneously testified that at Ventersdorp you met Kloppers and you were given a testimony with regards to his expertise and the training he received in the Army and the impression I got was that the only reason why you gave that evidence, was to tell this Committee that these people who were here, these applicants, were not just normal commando members of the AWB, it was a highly specialised cell group who was focused on certain tasks and in this case, that of a death squad?

MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, with respect, he referred to Kloppers as the person he met in Ventersdorp, he wasn't referring to all of them, that is a wild conclusion my learned friend is making.

CHAIRPERSON: Maybe before we go very far, maybe you should ask him whether that is the impression he wants to create. Maybe that is not the impression he wanted to create.

MR DREYER: As it pleases you Mr Chairman. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I am telling you that the impression that I received from your evidence was this was the use of this group of applicants.

MR KRIEL: There was no doubt whatsoever that Kloppers was very competent. Today if you look at it again and say maybe he was not as competent, it maybe so, but at that stage he was considered very competent.

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to interrupt here Mr Dreyer, unless you feel otherwise, I think we must put an end to this thing. We can't keep on mentioning people's names, particularly in the context of death squads and all that kind of thing. I am going to ask you Mr Kriel, you say you were told this by Mr Terreblanche that Mr Oelofse was in charge of a group of people whose task it was to kill others?

MR KRIEL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you don't know whether that is true or not? You don't know whether Terreblanche was telling you the truth when he said Oelofse was in charge of a death squad, a hit squad? You don't know whether that is true?

MR KRIEL: Mr Chairperson, I spoke to Oelofse and with the other Commanders and we all knew, it was general knowledge that the task forces was under the command of Oelofse, amongst the Officials it was no secret.

MR MALAN: Does this include the Officials who were not trusted?

MR KRIEL: Yes, it was generally known that he was in charge of the task forces and the specific operations, I don't think they would have known about that. But the existence of the task forces under Oelofse, was general knowledge.

When I got out of the AWB, he was still in command of the task forces.

MR MALAN: But with respect Mr Kriel, to be in command of task forces does not imply to be in command of hit squads? If he is a Fighting General, he must have a general responsibility. This does not mean it was concerned with the elimination of individuals. It doesn't say that anywhere, or does it say somewhere and our knowledge is wrong?

MR KRIEL: No, I do not have such a wide knowledge of language, but the word task force was used, and that resorted under him, and there is a difference between us who planted the bombs and the task forces. They were seen as people who killed people and the bomb planters were those who started terror.

MR MALAN: The question I am asking, the concept task force and one is also loaded with a personal idea of what it means. If the soldiers that copes with the conflict situation and the person who is responsible for it, it is not meant to kill individuals one by one, that is not the purpose of a task force.

MR KRIEL: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know whether you still want to pursue this.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I've only got two statements.

Firstly, the conclusion is still you have no personal knowledge that such a command was given or what the content of it would have been, although Kloppers or anybody else say that they did receive the instruction, you were not present?

MR KRIEL: No, I was not.

MR DREYER: Then in the last instance, even if we can accept that Oelofse was in charge of certain specific like you called it, a task force, and the first statement I would like to make regarding this is the first word, that I have heard about this, that this group of people was seen as a specialised task force and acted in that manner. What is your comment regarding this?

It was said that they acted on behalf of the AWB, but it is the first time now that I hear or an indication, that they could have acted as a specialised task force, what is your comment on that?

MR KRIEL: Yes, I believe that that evening they acted as a task force, that is my opinion, I wasn't there, but that is how I see it.

MR DREYER: Then the second statement regarding this, let us accept that like I said, Oelofse was in charge of task forces, whatever the word may mean, but the fact that he was in charge of it does that mean that for every action that took place, by any task force or force member, that resorted in that task force, that it necessarily coincided with an instruction from Oelofse, just because he is the General who was in charge of these forces?

MR KRIEL: Yes, I hear what you are saying, I was not there and I cannot comment on that.

MR DREYER: I don't think we are understanding each other correctly. Let me put it this way.

MR MALAN: Mr Dreyer, isn't that for argument.

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases. Can I just ask, you were in charge of the so-called bomb planting cells, is that correct?

MR KRIEL: Yes.

MR DREYER: The fact that you were in charge, does that mean that every time where a bomb explodes, it exploded because you gave the instruction that it did?

MR KRIEL: In the area where I worked, I always knew exactly who did it, but I do see what you are saying, it could happen. It did not happen with me, but it could possibly happen.

MR DREYER: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, may I just make one statement please, on behalf of my client. Mr Kriel, you know that I represent Mr Van der Schyff. The statement that I would like to make on behalf of him is, he denies that the group of which he was a member that evening, when they held the road block, was a task force in the sense that you are referring to, in the sense of a hit squad. Could you react on that

please?

MR KRIEL: It is difficult for me to say, some people would call it a task force and others would call it a hit squad or some - it is difficult. I think everyone is going to have a different perception.

MR KNOETZE: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KNOETZE

ADV SIGODI: Mr Kriel, I just want to get some clarity. What is the state of the AWB today?

MR KRIEL: I've got no regard for the leader of the AWB.

ADV SIGODI: No, that is not the question. I am asking what is the state, is it still a popular movement, does it still have a lot of following?

MR KRIEL: No Mr Chairperson, a small group of people may still be, but there is a complete change occurred, the expectation that the people had that if the ANC governs, that they will kill the white people, that did not take place and as a result of that, the AWB's structures just dispersed and fell flat. The last structure in the Free State now collapsed.

People now live their own lives and the fears that they had, did not realise and I think that people see it in a different way now. There is not much left of the AWB as it was in the past.

ADV SIGODI: Suppose for the record, Eugene Terreblanche is still the leader of the AWB. What I find of concern is why would he deny, I mean I can understand about the farms and being prosecuted, but if you are a leader of a particular movement, and you really believe in what you are doing, I don't think that should be of any concern of such a serious concern, but what I find disturbing is the fact that he has now denounced and distanced himself from the applicants.

How do you reconcile that with his position as a leader and as the person who actually started the movement?

MR KRIEL: I think it is very difficult for someone who do not know Mr Terreblanche very well, to understand this.

It is unfortunately so that Mr Terreblanche has got a history over a lot of years, where he distanced himself of things, where he's got a very good ability to talk. He is a very good speaker, but the moment when there is any tension or - he would distance himself from that situation. I hoped that he would keep himself on the long term with what he planned, but my last hope was shattered because of his actions that he doesn't want to be here.

I do not understand it, there is a problem, a psychological problem somewhere. He hasn't got the ability to have empathy with his people, if he himself is threatened like in Potchefstroom in the court, he would cry, but he is not capable to have empathy for somebody else, and that is unfortunately the case.

I would like to conclude regarding Mr Terreblanche, I feel towards him as certainly how the Italians felt about Mussolini, I am in the same situation, it was just on a greater scale, but I think I know how those people felt at the end of the day.

We listened to every single word, we admired him, he took us on this road and on the end of the day we must find out that he's got feet of clay.

MR MALAN: May I put a last statement to you and you can tell me if it is right or wrong, the way in which you say you saw or summarised him as a person who distances himself, do you yourself, feel empathy like what you heard today?

MR KRIEL: Yes, Mr Chairperson. As a person I have got empathy with any other person, but especially these people and the reason why I have got this empathy, because I have walked the same road, because I know how these people were incited, I was at the speeches, etc and I can understand the misleading situation to which they were exposed to.

That is why I have got empathy.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Kriel, you referred to a task group or task force, is that correct?

MR KRIEL: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: I did not listen to the English interpretation, but never did you use the word hit squad?

MR KRIEL: No, it is not hit squads, but task forces.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: You did though say that a task force to kill people?

MR KRIEL: Yes, I did say that.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, let me just go back to the statement that you wanted to hand over, let's just get some clarity about that.

At some stage I thought it was the statement which you took from the witness during consultation, then later just at the end of the discussion of that problem, I got the impression that the witness was saying that he prepared that statement himself and then gave it to you?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman, he brought, he gave the statement to me. It is not a statement I took from him. This statement according to the date of it, as he indicated, was something in April, which he read out to the Committee.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is the statement that he made on his own?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, then maybe that could change the situation a bit, because I thought it was the notes or the statement which you took as you consulted with him.

MR PRINSLOO: No Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I am more comfortable with a statement which he, himself had made and then given to you. We will discuss with my colleagues and then we, at an appropriate stage, then I think we will decide whether to take it or not.

I suppose the witness should not be excused because we may have to ask of him, if need be, to swear to it.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: We can, yes Mr Kriel?

MR KRIEL: Mr Chairperson, I would just like to say that on the 20th of April I wrote this statement because I had death threats of the AWB, my tyres were slashed and for certain people I said keep these things because if I may die, that it can be presented, and that is why I wrote this statement earlier on.

MR MALAN: I would just like to ask a follow up question, did you say that the statement was dated the 20th of April? You are aware that the first hearing of this application was heard on the 22nd of April, that is two days before the applicants for the first time gave evidence?

MR KRIEL: That is correct yes. As I said, I did receive death threats.

MR MALAN: I would just like to ensure and I would put the question as follows: Did you not write this statement with the idea to use on the 22nd of April, was that not the primary purpose in order to support the applications?

MR KRIEL: I wrote it with the idea that if Mr Terreblanche do not appear or Mr Oelofse do not take responsibility, I will then submit it. The last time we did not discuss this.

MR MALAN: I did hear you correctly, you said that earlier on but you said now that you wrote it because you received death threats and that I would like to put it to you that as I read it, it is not why you wrote it, you did write it in support of the applicants?

MR KRIEL: That is correct.

MR MALAN: That is all that I want to know, thank you. It is another perspective.

CHAIRPERSON: In the light of the witness' answer by Mr Malan, that he had prepared that statement specifically to come in and support the applicants' application, and then if it is his wish or your wish Mr Prinsloo, that we should accept that statement, then it should be handed in.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. I will just have to get the original copy. Do you intend to adjourn now Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, you led the witness. Obviously you had a copy of that statement with you.

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And we, before we have it formally admitted, earlier on I asked you what the purpose was because I had thought that the purpose was to meet possible criticism that the witness said certain things to us which he did not mention to you, which purpose could have been served if you only confirmed that.

No, in fact the witness did mention those things even earlier on, although he did not mention them, or might not have mentioned them in chief, but he did mention them to me earlier on. You see on the other hand, well really at the end of the day, you know what the contents is. If you think it will be fair to the witness to accept that statement and not open a can of worms, I think you should think seriously about that. We don't know what the contents is, but we don't want to have a situation where we should open a can of worms and whereas the witness must then be re-cross-examined all over again.

It will have to be done if it has to be done, but I think you will obviously have to give good thoughts to that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, the witness did testify as to when this document was drafted by him and various other aspects which emanated from cross-examination and questions by the Committee itself, which he answered.

If it is not going to serve any other purpose Mr Chairman, then it would serve no purpose to hand it in. The document is available, that is what I am saying, particularly with regards to, the one particular aspect which he was asked in cross-examination which wasn't mentioned in evidence in chief, at that stage, I was then prepared to hand over the document, being a document which he compiled himself, which I did use during consultation, it wasn't an aspect which I led in the evidence in chief, it was really an oversight on my part.

I am not trying to, at that stage, the impression was created that it wasn't said to me, but I want to make it clear to the Committee that it was done by means of a document, which he drafted.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you wanted to rebut the allegation of recent fabrication, I suppose?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: But I thought you would identify the problem and say well as far as this aspect is concerned, it is not recent fabrication because he told me, it stands in the statement. It can't be too many things, I think it is one or two things? If you still remember it.

MR PRINSLOO: Well, the way my learned friend, Mr Dreyer put it to the witness, most of the questions originated, most of the facts originated from cross-examination and not from evidence in chief. That is the way I understood him, although he did not elaborate what it really meant. At this stage I don't know Mr Chairman, as to what Mr Dreyer was referring to.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, are you for your part, are you satisfied, for your part, are you satisfied that the witness has substantially put across to us what is in that statement?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, at some point we indicated that we would admit, this shows how a little bit undecided we are on that aspect, but I think that we will hold this aspect over and unless, well if you come back again to press that we should admit it, we would give serious thought to accept that statement, but I think that if it is just to rebut an allegation of recent fabrication in respect of one such and such an allegation, that can only be - it can be resolved by simply saying to us no, those things are contained in the witness' statement. Then we will accept that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, with respect I think the witness with further questions by the Committee, subsequent to me tendering the statement to you, have clarified it properly saying the document was drafted by him on the 20th of April 1998, prior to the Committee starting with the application of these applicants, and that the statement was compiled by himself and I think that removed that particular problem, as far as I am concerned at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt, are you just to let us know what to expect when we come back at two o'clock.

MS VAN DER WALT: I will have to call the witness, it will not be a long evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Is the witness here?

MS VAN DER WALT: The witness is here, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, then we will adjourn until two o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused Mr Kriel.

MR KRIEL: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS VAN DER WALT: The next witness I am calling on behalf of the applicants is Abraham Myburgh.

ABRAHAM LIEBRECHT MYBURGH: (confirmed)

EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Myburgh, you were found guilty of the bomb explosions in Johannesburg in Germiston and other towns just before the elections in 1994, is that correct?

MR MYBURGH: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are currently serving your prison sentence?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Myburgh, you were a member of the AWB and you were also a member of the Ystergarde, is that correct?

MR MYBURGH: Yes, that is.

MS VAN DER WALT: Your relationship at that stage with Eugene Terreblanche, how was that?

MR MYBURGH: It was very confidential, I was a confidant of him.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you when it was known, or as it was known under the AWB Headquarters, you served at the Headquarters in Ventersdorp, is it also correct that you travelled with Eugene Terreblanche throughout the country and was his bodyguard?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct, yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did you receive training during your period as a member of the Ystergarde?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: What type of training did you receive?

MR MYBURGH: The first phase of the training was a course in order to get into the Ystergarde. It was then house penetration, hostage situations, fire and move, knife attacks, etc. I was then qualified. If you are then qualified, you will then be considered for further sophisticated training, that is about guerrilla warfare etc.

MS VAN DER WALT: How did you see this guerrilla warfare?

MR MYBURGH: It was actions by small groups, called cells. It could be between two to twelve, to thirteen people. It is a hit and retreat movement, you go out, you do your thing and come back. And then again disperse amongst the ordinary people, it was the unit that acted in a conventional way, it was members who had no visible signs or they acted ...

CHAIRPERSON: What are we busy with, is this an expert on guerrilla warfare or what?

MS VAN DER WALT: No, I will get to the point directly.

You heard during the evidence that was led, that the applicants mentioned that a revolution would begin. You as a confidant of the AWB leader, did you at any stage know about the revolution?

MR MYBURGH: It is true.

MS VAN DER WALT: And when or how would this revolution begin, would it occur on a certain day or start on a certain day?

MR MYBURGH: No, it would come from what happened at the World Trade Centre where Mr Terreblanche said that all negotiations is finally off the table, and we begin the struggle and the revolution now, it would be a systematic escalation of actions, either bomb explosions or ordinary sabotage, arson, anything in that line, in order - the ANC or the PAC enemy, to attack them.

MS VAN DER WALT: During December 1993, did you have anything to do with instructions that were given?

MR MYBURGH: Yes. I had a special task and other members were also tasked, I don't know who they were, in order to eliminate head figures, for example Nelson Mandela during that period, to eliminate him.

MS VAN DER WALT: That was not executed?

MR MYBURGH: No, because the weaponry was an RPG missile and it was not used.

MS VAN DER WALT: Gen Oelofse, did you know him during the period when you were at the AWB?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct yes.

MS VAN DER WALT: After you were arrested, did you at any stage have something to do with him?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct, yes. He came to visit us in prison.

MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, what was your feeling at that stage, that is now he came to visit you in prison, that was after you were arrested for the bomb attacks, what was your feeling at that stage towards the AWB and the Generals in Staff?

MR MYBURGH: I did not like them, I to an extent hated them because they have put the goals, set the goals and the people then went further and when we acted on that, the Generals together with Eugene Terreblanche, they ran away like dogs and they left the people in prison.

MS VAN DER WALT: When you saw Japie Oelofse in prison, did he visit you alone?

MR MYBURGH: No, it was the Generals in Staff, or some of them, with him. Mr Terreblanche was also there.

MS VAN DER WALT: The feeling that you had towards the AWB, did you convey that to them?

MR MYBURGH: Yes, I did. I asked them what was their plan and their strategy for the future. If they did not want to continue with the struggle, I would continue, they must just give me a chance and they must help me to get out of prison.

MS VAN DER WALT: Is it correct that Gen Japie Oelofse then called you to the side?

MR MYBURGH: Yes, in the one corner he confidentially told me that I must not be worried, that he is busy planning our release and further plans would be made to release us.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did he say anything about the applicants, those applicants who has appeared in front of the Committee today?

MR MYBURGH: Yes, I confronted him and asked him why do they not do something, why did they leave us alone? He told us that his people did work, all that - the thing that he held against them was that they did not shoot or kill everyone.

MS VAN DER WALT: I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo?

MR PRINSLOO: No questions, thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knoetze?

MR KNOETZE: No questions, thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KNOETZE: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER: Mr Myburgh, regarding the last part of your evidence, the matter regarding the fact that they were sorry that they were not killed, do I understand that this is a discussion where only you and Mr Oelofse were present?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct, there were other people in that room.

MR DREYER: Is there anybody else who was present, who could have heard what you said and which you referred to in your evidence, that they worked with the men and that they are sorry that not all of them were killed?

MR MYBURGH: No.

MR DREYER: I will put it to you sir, that you have just made it up, that this discussion did not take place. And that you

exclusively make this statement in order to give vent of what you felt in general, was or to the former top structure of the AWB as you expressed it, with antagonism namely that they ran away like dogs while you were in jail.

I will put it to you that that is what you said, that was born from that antagonism and that you just made that up.

MR MYBURGH: I have got nothing to make up. If he is too bad or too pathetic to come and give evidence here, it is not my fault.

MR DREYER: Were you present when any instructions were given to his people?

MR MYBURGH: No, unfortunately not.

MR DREYER: If you were not present, how do you know about these instructions and what the nature of them would be?

MR MYBURGH: The people would not have acted on their own initiative.

MR DREYER: Mr Myburgh, I do not know what your military background is, but let me ask you the following. Do you know of any examples in the military history, not just this country but the military history of the world that says that military task will be executed without any order, also people misunderstood orders and that in the heat of the moment they could have taken it up and then acted on their own conviction?

MR MYBURGH: It does not happen very often.

MR DREYER: But you do say that it might have happened?

MR MYBURGH: Yes, sometimes.

MR DREYER: Let me ask you the following, let us say - consider that there wasn't an instruction like this and that Mr Kloppers, whatever he planned with his group, let us say that there was a full scale follow, that there were activities that followed on this and that Mr Kloppers within the organisation of AWB would have been promoted?

MR MYBURGH: No, not if he acted without orders, he would have been thrown out of the organisation.

MR DREYER: Even if it was advantageous to the principles of the AWB?

MR MYBURGH: It would have shown that they are not doing their duties and not following orders.

MR DREYER: Good. May I ask you what do you say about this newspaper report that was on behalf of the applicants, given in or submitted, what was published later on regarding this whole so-called onslaught of the AWB?

I do not know what the Exhibit number is, maybe someone could help me. I am referring to Exhibit 2. A newspaper report that appeared in March, do you carry any knowledge of this?

MR MYBURGH: Yes, I see it in front of me now.

MR DREYER: I would like to ask you then, you gave evidence here that you had contact with Eugene Terreblanche and other of the Generals in Staff, that you lived and worked with them?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct yes.

MR DREYER: In the light of that, I would like to read four parts of that article, the first is the beginning of the report where it says that military leaders under Constand Viljoen, former Head of the Defence Force, had made up the total commando of almost 7 000 soldiers. This force would have, with its full military structure, including the military arsenal, would have taken that decision. It is a statement that it would have happened, but you agreed that it never happened?

MR MYBURGH: No, I do not agree. What then led to our actions before the 1994 elections?

MR DREYER: I am asking you, this action of complete or total military of more than 150 000 people, did that take place?

MR MYBURGH: No, that did not take place.

MR DREYER: That is my statement, it did not occur. Let us go to the next part. The extent of the terror, it did not take place and it came to light now in this week and once again I ask you, do you agree that it did not - it may have been planned, planning regarding this?

MR MYBURGH: Yes, Constand Viljoen's, yes.

MR DREYER: But various of the witnesses gave evidence and they referred to the central role that Constand Viljoen would have played in the incitement and the leading of this far right organisations?

This is the evidence of for example Mr Kloppers, or would you like to deny that?

MR MYBURGH: No.

MR DREYER: Then it continues and it emphasises that the purpose of this resistance was not to take over the government, but to obtain land and to keep it?

I would like to, I think Mr Badenhorst, one of the applicants, gave evidence, it is also how he understood it that it is almost like the same manner in which the blacks had homelands, that that was the whole goal, that if there would be a take over and I am talking now specifically about black people, that the objective would then be and if we can then refer to it as a Volkstaat?

MR MYBURGH: Yes, more or less, in broader terms.

MR DREYER: How does that correlate then, are you saying to me that apart from this plan, it was not integrated with this plan, there was a revolution planned by the AWB that did not coincide with this plan?

MR MYBURGH: Yes.

MR DREYER: I am asking you the same question sir, if this revolution would then have happened, according to Mr Kloppers, on the 12th of December 1993, because that is the instruction that he had received, then I am asking you can you explain to us why does your evidence begin today, which is close, or your relationship close with Eugene Terreblanche and the Generals in Staff on a daily basis you met them, and it is clear that you have the intelligence that the other people may not have, why do you begin in your evidence that this revolution would not have started on that specific day? Where does this contradiction come from?

MR MYBURGH: If you understood how the structures of the AWB worked, if Japie Oelofse said to the men listen, you must start acting, there is a revolution being planned, these people's reaction would have been, what would their reaction have been, they have wives and children, they wouldn't have left everything and just half-heartedly gone in because the chances of arrest was very big.

In other words, he would not have done it with his whole heart. But if Japie Oelofse motivated them and if they said it was a country wide revolution and tonight everything starts, then they definitely would have acted differently. They would not have acted as if they did.

MR DREYER: Mr Myburgh, I do not want to discuss this in an emotional way, what your sentiments were or were not or what Japie's sentiments were, that is not the purpose of my question.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, I don't know whether this will help us quite a lot, but I just want to let this witness at this point - he is expressing certain opinions and apparently he is saying that they must have gotten the order, why did they have to do this.

Why then if you think so, why after they shot these people and immediately they saw the first car arriving, why did they jump into the car and run away?

MR MYBURGH: Well, obviously they did not want to be arrested. At that stage the South African Police Services as we knew them, were mostly white.

CHAIRPERSON: And then what happens to the revolution that they were setting upon that evening?

MR MYBURGH: Our revolution was not aimed at white Policemen. If white Policemen were in that vehicle, it would have been a shoot-out between white and white, I was not there, but I would have acted in the same way.

I would not have stayed there and taken the chance to shoot at a white Policeman.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't help us you to cross-examine this witness on his opinions. I am going to ask you to put questions which will elicit facts, to him and not his opinion.

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases Mr Chairman. Sir, I put it again to you, I am not interested in your opinion regarding sentiments. As the Chairperson indicated, it would not further this case.

My question to you was, that you did not answer was, why was there a contradiction between your version, who had contact with the top structure of the AWB, that on a specific date the revolution would start, in contradiction with the evidence of Mr Kloppers that it would have started on the 12th of December?

MR MYBURGH: I cannot - I can only speculate on it because I wasn't there.

MR DREYER: The next question is that if Japie Oelofse said this and that, you would have in other words, everything that you say about that, is speculation?

MR MYBURGH: No sir, it is logic.

MR DREYER: You began to say that if he did give the order and you make certain assumptions?

MR MALAN: Mr Dreyer, let us now not disagree about what is logic or whatever.

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases Mr Chairman. I will make the following statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Dreyer, I think, I don't think we should go on along those lines. The witness was not there when the order was supposed to be given.

We are not interested in his opinions and please don't ask him, don't invite him to give his opinion, opinion evidence.

MR DREYER: As the Court pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: If he is an expert at all, on anything, you should have been told that he is an expert on whatever, we would then have been obliged to suffer the opinion of an expert, but he must give factual evidence, and please don't invite him to keep on telling us what his opinions are.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, I respectfully take note of that, but obviously it is impossible for me to foresee the ambit of his question as far as it relates to opinion, but I take and I respectfully take note of that. I will conclude with one last statement.

Mr Myburgh, I put it to you that everything that you gave evidence on today, rests upon your sentiments and opinion which you had at that stage, and nothing of it rests on factual knowledge of what the real events were.

MR MYBURGH: Then why did Japie Oelofse then come to me and boast about an ear?

MR DREYER: As you can remember, it was denied.

MR MYBURGH: That is what you deny or is that what your client deny?

MR DREYER: I do not want to disagree with you, I am a legal representative, I put the case before you. You will just have to answer or comment on the statement. Is that your comment?

MR MYBURGH: Yes, it is my comment that he lied.

MR DREYER: I've got no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER

CHAIRPERSON: How old were you Mr Myburgh, when you committed the offences for which you were convicted?

MR MYBURGH: 21.

CHAIRPERSON: And when was this?

MR MYBURGH: 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: You must be carrying your age very well, I thought you were 18 actually. Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Mr Myburgh, when you had a discussion with Mr Oelofse, you said that you and he were alone.

MR MYBURGH: We stood to one side.

MR MALAN: You stood to one side, the discussion was between the two of you and you were confronting him because they left you in prison, all the leaders had run away?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And you asked why they were being so "slapgat"?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: And he said that his men were working to try and release you.

MR MYBURGH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Is that all that the discussion was about?

MR MYBURGH: He expanded by telling me about the plan that they had to get us out of there.

MR MALAN: Out of prison?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: You didn't discuss any specific prison matters as I deduce? Just about matters of those who were there?

MR MYBURGH: What we discussed was only regarding us in the Diepkloof cell, and those were well known political prisoners of the AWB.

MR MALAN: The question that I want to ask is that it was asked of you by Adv Van der Walt, whether he said anything about the applicants at all and you answered I asked him why they were being so "slapgat", why they had left us alone and he said that they were busy working at it and that he has an ear to prove it.

Did he mention any of the applicants' names?

MR MYBURGH: He mentioned Kloppers' name.

MR MALAN: Why didn't you tell us that immediately?

MR MYBURGH: I didn't think it was relevant.

MR MALAN: What did he say about Kloppers?

MR MYBURGH: He just said Kloppers and them had worked, my people had worked.

MR MALAN: Was Kloppers the only one who had reported to him?

MR MYBURGH: I don't know. I don't know how their rank structure worked.

MR MALAN: When you reacted to Mr Dreyer you also said that he had ears or an ear to prove it, you see you are not keeping to the same words and this is very strange to me because we must make findings on the credibility, what is the truth?

MR MYBURGH: He said ear.

MR MALAN: Not ears?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Not ears, so that was an error on your part?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Myburgh, from when do you know the applicant?

MR MYBURGH: In 1996, for two months I was with them in the Leeukop prison.

ADV BOSMAN: And did they approach you to testify, how did it happen that you testified here today?

MR MYBURGH: Initially I did not want to appear before the Commission at all regarding any case. There was a lot of arguments surrounding my co-accused in my case, because I did not want to testify and because I didn't want to apply for amnesty.

I told these people that if they wanted to apply for amnesty, they would have to do that themselves, but I did not want to. And since then I have undertaken reasonably intensive Bible study and from a biblical view point, it has been clearly tasked to me that the leaders who are in charge today of the right-wingers, are traitors and that they are not there to carry the interest of our volk and as a result of that, I see it as my duty to expose the betrayal and the cowardice involved in that.

A week before their first appearance, I called their legal counsel and said that I would be prepared to testify on their behalf.

CHAIRPERSON: Mrs Van der Walt?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Just one question leading from Adv Bosman. Currently you are detained in C-Max?

MR MYBURGH: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: And you are not in contact with any of the applicants?

MR MYBURGH: No, not at all.

MS VAN DER WALT: And not when you contacted me either, you did not have any contact with them then?

MR MYBURGH: No, no contact with any prisoner or anyone else other than my family.

MS VAN DER WALT: From when have you been in C-Max?

MR MYBURGH: Since November last year.

MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT

MR MALAN: Just a follow up question please. When did Oelofse visit you when he told you about the ear?

MR MYBURGH: That was in 1995.

MR MALAN: Then you didn't know about Kloppers yet?

MR MYBURGH: No, I had heard about Kloppers who was in prison, through my work at the office, but at that stage I hadn't even met him yet.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Myburgh, you can stand down.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS VAN DER WALT: That is the case for my two applicants, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knoetze?

MR KNOETZE: I call ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, before you do that, Mr Prinsloo, before we adjourned for lunch, we had finalised the issue of that statement and that you were satisfied that it did not have to be

handed in?

MR PRINSLOO: That is correct Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: Mr Chairman, I call Abraham Mothuphi.

ABRAHAM MOTHUPHI: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK: Mr Mothuphi, on the night of the 12th of December 1993, were you a passenger in a Toyota Cressida motor car, travelling on the Krugersdorp/Ventersdorp road approaching Radora crossing?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is correct sir.

MR BRINK: Do you remember how many people were in that motor car?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is correct.

MR BRINK: Tell us.

MR MOTHUPHI: We were seven sir.

MR BRINK: Sorry, which is the English interpretation. Sorry, would you mind repeating the answer.

MR MOTHUPHI: We were seven in the car sir.

MR BRINK: Seven, all right. And who was driving it?

MR MOTHUPHI: Simon Nkompone.

MR BRINK: Were you going home?

MR MOTHUPHI: We were from home, going to work.

MR BRINK: Oh, I see. Were there children in the car?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is correct.

MR BRINK: Now, as you approached the Radora crossing, would you tell the Committee what you saw?

MR MOTHUPHI: Whilst we were driving on that road, on the road we stopped next to the road, we were helping ourselves. Whilst we were busy helping ourselves, we saw a car approaching from the front to us and he parked next to us.

From there we went back to the car. When we met that car, it slowed down. We proceeded. When we were just about to meet the car, they flicked their lights, then we proceeded again and then they followed us.

In front ...

MR BRINK: Let me just try and cut it a bit short. Was your vehicle stopped, was the vehicle in which you were travelling stopped by anyone, by a road block? I think it is common cause.

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is correct, it was stopped by a road block.

MR BRINK: Yes, right. And when your car was stopped at this road block, did you see any other motor car in that vicinity?

MR MOTHUPHI: When we were stopped, we saw a Honda Ballade car.

MR BRINK: Was that Honda Ballade car stationary at the scene of the road block?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, it was next to the road block.

MR BRINK: Did you see any people, apart from men in uniform, sitting on a wall or standing next to a little wall?

MR MOTHUPHI: We found three men who were standing next to the car.

MR BRINK: Men in uniform or civilians?

MR MOTHUPHI: Those who were sitting down, were not wearing a uniform.

MR BRINK: Were they black people?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, they were black people.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink, I am going to suggest that you ask him to tell us what happened, so that he does that on his own initiative and also to enable him to be consistent with himself.

MR BRINK: The reason I was leading him on these preliminary points, is to try and save time Mr Chairman. I will get to that.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know that.

MR BRINK: All right, when your car was stopped, will you tell the Committee what happened?

MR MOTHUPHI: Our car stopped there, thereafter men surrounded the car. They pulled us out of the car to search us. After we were searched, we were instructed to sit down next to those people we found sitting down.

MR BRINK: Can I just stop you there for a moment. These people that got you out of the car, it is common cause, were wearing uniforms, do you remember that?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is correct.

MR BRINK: Did you recognise the uniforms?

MR MOTHUPHI: I thought it was a camouflage uniform.

MR BRINK: All right. So they made you join the other men, the other three people? They made you join the other three people?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is correct.

MR BRINK: Yes, carry on from there.

MR MOTHUPHI: Whilst we were sitting there, they started questioning us. We were under pressure.

MR BRINK: Tell the Committee, what were they asking you.

MR MOTHUPHI: They started by questioning us as to whether where are we from and where do we go, and what organisation do we belong to.

At that time I was not working, I was a student. I was on a journey with my brother. They explained the way they did, after that they told us that we are members of the ANC.

Simon Nkompone denied, then there became a long argument and then they started assaulting us and told us that we are members of the ANC.

MR BRINK: Were you in fact at that time, a member of the ANC?

MR MOTHUPHI: No sir.

MR BRINK: Are you a member of the ANC today?

MR MOTHUPHI: No sir.

MR BRINK: Very well. Then on your evidence, they told you that you were ANC's, you were being assaulted, what happened next?

MR MOTHUPHI: After they assaulted us, they went at the back, on the other side of the car, then they grouped themselves. They were talking to themselves, we did not understand what they were talking about or hear what they were talking about. I did not know what happened. After that I heard gun shots.

MR BRINK: When you heard gun shots, were you shot?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is when we were shot at.

MR BRINK: Where were you shot? Where about were you shot?

MR MOTHUPHI: I was shot at the nose.

MR BRINK: Now, I observe that you are wearing what appears to be elastoplast where your nose should have been. Is that the - did you loose your nose in that shooting incident?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, I lost my nose.

MR BRINK: We know that people were killed there?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, I know.

MR BRINK: I take it after you were shot, you lay on the ground?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is correct.

MR BRINK: Do you remember what happened to the motor cars, that is the Honda and the Toyota?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, I do.

MR BRINK: Will you tell the Committee?

MR MOTHUPHI: Whilst I was laying down, I could feel the heat of fire. When I raised my head, I saw that the car that we were driving, caught fire. I arose, I was bleeding on the face. When I looked, the car which we were driving in, that is the Toyota Cressida, was burning.

I woke up Simon, then he said he would not be able to do anything. I tried to go to that Cressida to extinguish the fire. I opened the bonnet. We had two litre of the cold drink, then I opened the boot, then I took those clothes which were burning. I poured that cold drink.

MR BRINK: Did these men in uniform, to your knowledge, then get away from the scene? Did you see them leave?

MR MOTHUPHI: I didn't see them when they were leaving.

MR BRINK: Were you subsequently taken to hospital and treated?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, I was taken to the hospital for treatment.

MR BRINK: You have heard the evidence of the applicants, excepting Mr Van der Schyff, the other applicants who say that all of you were asked whether you were members of the ANC and you freely admitted that you were. Is that correct or not correct?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is not correct.

MR BRINK: Thank you, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Before cross-examination starts, let's just clarify certain things so that the cross-examination does so to cover everything.

You say you were assaulted?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is correct, we were assaulted.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you tell us what happened, how you were assaulted?

MR MOTHUPHI: When we arrived, when they attacked this car, the way they pulled us out of the car, they used force. We did not go out of the car out of our own accord.

CHAIRPERSON: May I interrupt you there. You are saying that the attack started when they took you out of the car, they used force. I am going to ask you to tell us what happened.

The car arrives, the car stops and then?

MR MOTHUPHI: When the car stopped, they attacked the car.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they come to the car?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How many of them came to the car?

MR MOTHUPHI: I didn't count them sir.

CHAIRPERSON: It was a group of them?

MR MOTHUPHI: I would say on the side where I was sitting, on the left hand side, I was taken by one of them out of that car.

CHAIRPERSON: I am going to ask you to try and go step by step and tell us what happened. You will realise that we were not there, we want a picture of what happened. Don't be in a hurry, tell us what happened, if you still remember.

Take your mind back to that evening, the car stops at the road block, they come to the vehicle and then what happens?

MR MOTHUPHI: When they arrived at the car, they opened the car doors, then they took us out of the car and they said we should raise up our hands. Then they searched us.

After they searched us, they showed us where we should stay. We sat down in a line. Whilst we were sitting there in a line, they were asking us questions as to whether where do we come from and where do we go, about our work situations, as to whether are we employed or not. I told them that I am not working, I am a student.

Then I told them that I was accompanying my brother, those were the questions they asked us. Thereafter they searched the car and together with our suitcases. They searched all over the car - the other one, whilst we were questioned as to whether we were working or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, can you speak a little bit louder, I also want to have the benefit of hearing you in your own language. Can you speak a little bit louder.

MR MOTHUPHI: The time when they were questioning us, that was the time when they were assaulting us because at that time they said when you are asked a question, you should look at the person who is asking the question, in the face.

CHAIRPERSON: How were they assaulting you? How were they assaulting you?

MR MOTHUPHI: At the time when we were questioned, they were hitting us with the gun butts on the head. I was bleeding at the time with my nose. Then I was bending my head.

When you were asked a question, if you do not know that you were the one who were asked, you would be hit to be reminded that you are the one who was asked a question.

At that time, after that then they told us that we were members of the ANC. After that Simon Nkompone said that we are not members of the ANC and we don't know anything about the ANC. Again they started to hit us with those things when they told us that we were ANC and that we are not telling them the truth.

After that they went at the back of our car, then they were conniving amongst themselves. After that, they came back and then I was not, I had a gun shot, I didn't know what happened. Then I woke up, then I could see that those people who were there, were not more there.

I was bleeding and when I looked at myself on the mirror of the car, I was bleeding and injured. Next to me was Simon Nkompone, I didn't know who others were there. Then the young boy who is my sister, was crying. I talked with Simon Nkompone about the burning of the car, then he said he is not able to do anything.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that we have covered. Did you say young boy or young girl?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is a young boy who was there when I woke up, I saw him there.

CHAIRPERSON: How old was that child or boy or whatever?

MR MOTHUPHI: I am not able to tell how old was he at that time.

CHAIRPERSON: Just the one thing that we want to know, how did you leave the scene? What happened to you, what happened to you there eventually?

MR MOTHUPHI: Whilst I was still there, I saw Policemen who came there to us, whilst I was trying to extinguish the car, they said I should leave it alone. Then I left.

Whilst the Police were at the back, I saw other cars coming and I could see many people, many cars there. They asked me questions as to whether what happened. I told them the way I could. After that I was taken by an ambulance.

CHAIRPERSON: To hospital?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, the first people that you noticed immediately after the shooting, that is the people who arrived, were the Police?

MR MOTHUPHI: The van came on that direction, to the direction the witness shows, and he stopped from a distance. The way I saw it, it looked like a Police van, then they told me that I should leave.

They did not come near me, then I was not able to verify as to whether they were Police or not. My mind told me that they were Police because they stood there for a while.

Whilst they were still there, many cars came.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Van der Walt?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: If I understand you correctly, did the person or the people definitely ask this group of people who were with you to what organisation you belonged to, is that correct?

MR MOTHUPHI: Will you please repeat the question.

MS VAN DER WALT: According to your evidence, did the people who stopped you there at that road block, after you were taken out of the vehicle, you gave evidence or testified that they started to interrogate you and asked you where you were going and what type of work you were doing and to what organisation you belonged? Is that correct?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Your evidence is now that there was a discussion that took place between you and the people who questioned you, is that correct? You mentioned that.

MR MOTHUPHI: I did not say we had a discussion, they were asking us questions which I stated. Those are not questions which took a long time.

MS VAN DER WALT: You say that the people afterwards said that you are members of the ANC, is that correct?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is correct.

MS VAN DER WALT: Was it possible for you to hear what every single person in your group answered then?

MR MOTHUPHI: I said the person who replied was Simon Nkompone. He said we are not members of the ANC and we know nothing about the ANC.

MS VAN DER WALT: Did anybody else answer?

MR MOTHUPHI: I don't remember.

MS VAN DER WALT: So you do not know, it could have been possible that someone else answered as well?

MR MOTHUPHI: I don't believe so.

MS VAN DER WALT: You said that you were hit over the head. With what were you hit?

MR MOTHUPHI: I was hit on the face with the gun butt.

MS VAN DER WALT: I understood your evidence that you were hit on the head, this is why I ask this question to you because you said that there where you were, and that you were hit on the head and that your nose bled?

MR MOTHUPHI: I said on the face, then I bled with my nose.

MS VAN DER WALT: I put it to you sir, that Mr Kloppers and Mr Martin gave evidence that Mr Kloppers tapped the people with a baton on the head if they did not answer and that Mr Martin, Deon Martin, asked the questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think he will know who Deon Martin is.

MS VAN DER WALT: I would just like to complete the statement. They say that the people who were questioned admitted that they were members of the ANC. That is a statement that I would like to make to you and if you would like to comment on that.

MR MOTHUPHI: I didn't understand the question. I don't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is, let's leave Deon Martin out of it, the question is - what counsel is putting to you is that you people were asked to which political organisation you belonged and then you said you belonged to the ANC.

MR MOTHUPHI: That is not so sir.

MS VAN DER WALT: I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

MR KNOETZE: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KNOETZE

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Sir, you said there was first another vehicle that already stood there when you got there, is that correct?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: The occupants of that vehicle, the black people, already sat on an embankment when you got there, is that correct?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is correct, we found them sitting down.

MR PRINSLOO: Tell the Honourable Committee what questions were put to them before you arrived, do you know?

MR MALAN: Is that not obvious Mr Prinsloo, it is an axiom if he was not there, which he said he did not, he cannot say what the questions were.

MR PRINSLOO: With respect Mr Chairperson, they could have asked if everyone was there.

MR MALAN: But your question was while he was not there?

MR PRINSLOO: I will follow that up Mr Chairperson. Other people were there before you, who already sat there on that embankment when you got there, is that correct?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: The question to you, was it only put to your group or to everyone?

MR MOTHUPHI: We were only the people who were asked, because we were the only ones who were beaten. I don't know as to whether they were asked.

MR PRINSLOO: Okay. Sir, while this hitting occurred, did it coincide with the questioning, was it taking place at the same time?

MR MOTHUPHI: Sorry?

MR PRINSLOO: The questioning and the hitting, did this happen at the same time?

MR MOTHUPHI: On the issue of assault, I explained that they said we should look down whilst we were sitting there. Then when you are, if I am asked a question, the person said, the one who asked me the question would say I should look him on the face, then I was beaten then because I did not respond to a question. I was looking down, I did not look at the person who was questioning me, then I was hit again on the face. Then I was asked those questions.

MR PRINSLOO: Sir, I will put it to you of the clients that I represent who were in that area, according to them questions were put by Mr Martin, Kloppers and that they answers that they heard is that the people were members of the ANC, what do you say about that?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is not correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Do you know if any of the other occupants of the other vehicle, were ANC members?

MR MOTHUPHI: I don't know.

MR PRINSLOO: Did you attend any funeral or funerals of the other occupants in that car?

MR MOTHUPHI: I did not go because I was in hospital.

MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Knoetze?

MR KNOETZE: I still don't have any questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KNOETZE: .

MR DREYER: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DREYER

MR BRINK: No re-examination.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK

MR MALAN: May I ask you Mr Mothuphi, your evidence was that when you stopped with the Cressida, the Honda was already there and the passengers or apparently the passengers were sitting on the embankment already?

MR MOTHUPHI: That is correct.

MR MALAN: So the Cressida and the Honda didn't travel together?

MR MOTHUPHI: No sir.

MR MALAN: Was there another vehicle that stopped with you?

MR MOTHUPHI: The car which was with us?

MR MALAN: Was there a car travelling with you?

MR MOTHUPHI: No, we were only travelling in one car.

MR MALAN: When you stopped a little way away from the road block, to help yourselves as you testified, was yours the only vehicle which had stopped there?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Thank you. Chairperson, just one last question, the passengers of the other vehicle, the Honda, did you know any of them?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes, that is correct. No sir.

MR MALAN: The three persons that you encountered when you were asked to sit down, didn't you know any one of them?

MR MOTHUPHI: No, I did not even know one of them.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mothuphi, just one thing which is unclear to me. The person who interrogated you, is it he that hit you or is there someone else behind you?

MR MOTHUPHI: The person who hit me, I don't know because I was looking down. I saw the one who was standing in front of me and I don't know as to whether he is the one who hit me on the face or not.

ADV BOSMAN: Are you entirely certain that it was the butt of a rifle or the butt of a pistol or could it have been a baton?

MR MOTHUPHI: I would say the baton, I am able to make the difference between a baton and the gun butt. The thing which was used to hit me on the face, looked like an open instrument.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know all the people in the Cressida? The people that you were travelling with?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you related to them?

MR MOTHUPHI: Yes sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Just tell us quickly how you are related with them?

MR MOTHUPHI: Petrus Mothuphi is my brother. Simon Nkompone is my aunt's son. Martha Bereng, is my sister's daughter.

CHAIRPERSON: What is that name again?

MR MOTHUPHI: Martha Bereng. Martha Bereng is my sister's daughter. William Segotsane is married in the family. Patrick Gasemane is my sister's child.

CHAIRPERSON: When you spoke about a young fellow, were you referring to Patrick? When you spoke about a child earlier on, were you referring to Patrick?

MR MOTHUPHI: When I said I rose my head, the child whom I said I saw there, I was talking about Martha. I was talking about Martha, I saw that person there and others ran away. I was talking about Martha.

CHAIRPERSON: How old was this Martha, sorry I think I asked this question, but I don't remember your answer.

MR MOTHUPHI: I am not sure, but if I remember well, she was 13 years old.

CHAIRPERSON: She was not injured?

MR MOTHUPHI: No sir, she was not injured.

ADV SIGODI: How old was Patrick Gasemane?

MR MOTHUPHI: If I remember, he was 11 years old. If I remember well.

ADV SIGODI: Where were you going to?

MR MOTHUPHI: We were going to Witbank.

ADV SIGODI: Were you going to work or - I thought I heard you saying you were going to work?

MR MOTHUPHI: My brother was working there, my three brothers were working there. I was going there on vacation.

ADV SIGODI: I see, thank you.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Mothuphi, did you smell any alcohol, any drink there with the people there?

MR MOTHUPHI: They looked as if they had some alcohol.

ADV BOSMAN: Is it possible for you to say a little more about that, or can't you really say more?

MR MOTHUPHI: I would not be able to say more than that which I have already said.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

ADV SIGODI: Earlier on there was a video of a funeral which was shown here. Do you know whose funeral that was? Have you been attending the hearings ever since they started?

MR BRINK: With respect, Mr Chairman, I don't think the video was shown here, it was on television, but it never formed part of these proceedings. There was a video of Eugene Terreblanche.

ADV SIGODI: Wasn't it shown here? No, the video of the funeral.

MR BRINK: Not before this Committee?

ADV SIGODI: Oh, okay, I withdraw that question then.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mothuphi, what was the - when these people stopped you and as they were talking to you, what was their attitude, were they friendly?

MR MOTHUPHI: I don't know as to whether you talk about those people who stopped us. Are you asking about those people who stopped us there?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MOTHUPHI: Can you repeat your question sir.

CHAIRPERSON: These people who stopped you, this group of people stopped you and then later asked you questions. what was their general attitude, were they friendly, speaking with you in a friendly fashion or were they hostile?

MR MOTHUPHI: They didn't show signs of - they were not friendly.

CHAIRPERSON: Is there anybody wanting to put questions to the witness, following the questions asked? Ms Van der Walt.

MS VAN DER WALT: No further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT: .

MR PRINSLOO: No questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO: .

MR KNOETZE: No thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR KNOETZE: .

MR DREYER: No further questions Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DREYER: .

MR BRINK: No thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK: .

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: That is the only ...

CHAIRPERSON: Before you do that, thank you Mr Mothuphi, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR BRINK: That is the only witness I propose calling Mr Chairperson.

MR DREYER: Mr Chairman, may I just remind the Committee with respect that at the stage when I started appearing on behalf of Mr Oelofse, clearly already Messrs Martin, Matthews and Meiring have given evidence. I indicated that if need be, I would request to recall them.

I do not in any way intend to prolong the proceedings, but for the purposes of (indistinct), I would at least want to put formally on record, that insofar as Mr Oelofse might have been incriminated directly or indirectly in their evidence, in respect of the alleged order that was given by him either to kill people or to hold a road block that evening for the purposes or to cut off anyone's ear as proof thereof, or anything related to that order, it is emphatically denied. If that would suffice, I would not request to have them recalled. If that is just recorded formally on the part of Mr Oelofse, as the Court pleases Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand what you mean if that will suffice. I thought you were telling us that you want to place it on record that what your client's attitude is and that it should be placed on record, and then you don't want those people, you are not asking that those people be recalled.

I thought that is what you are saying to us.

MR DREYER: That is correct, that is what I am saying Mr Chairman. I do not wish to recall them.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh yes, thank you.

MR KNOETZE: Mr Chairman, there is just one other matter, you will recall that when my applicant indicated that he had changed his written application, I indicated to the Committee that perhaps certain statement that were put on his behalf to the witnesses who had then already testified, should be presented (indistinct). You ruled at that stage that it wasn't necessary, perhaps you would decide upon that later, and I think we have now reached that stage.

My personal view is that our stance had been made clear and that perhaps it is not necessary to do so, but for in case anything may go wrong, or in case it may be said that it should have been put, I am still willing to do so if it is necessary.

CHAIRPERSON: I think we know what emanating from those to whom you did put that, we know what the attitude is.

MR KNOETZE: Thank you Mr Chairman, then I am satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We will then ask that written argument be submitted and we don't know, we would like to get some indication from counsel when they would be in a position to do that.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Chairman, can I suggest we discuss this in Chambers, maybe we can then come to an agreement when to submit the written arguments?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I suppose so. For the benefit of the public then, we have now come to the end of the evidence, we will reserve our judgment and then we will give our decision after receiving written submissions from all interested parties. We thank everybody for their co-operation.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS