Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

MR VISSER: I call Mr Du Preez Smit. You will find his amnesty application in Bundle 1 at page 186 and in his case, I also don't have a statement prepared, but his evidence is very brief.

CHRISTOFFEL JOHANNES DU PREEZ SMIT: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr Smit, you have given evidence previously, you must please correct me, I forget in which amnesty application it was, was it the Nietverdiendt 10?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: No, it was the Silent Valley incident.

MR VISSER: You have had regard for Exhibit A, the general background document and you have studied it?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you are in agreement with the contents thereof?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And do you request that this be considered and be incorporated in your application?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: In 1986 you were the Branch Commander of Zeerust, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Where were you in December, at the end of December?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: I was on leave, but I was at home Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And during the time that you were on leave, who acted in your absence?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Lieutenant Hans Wehrmann, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Please refer us back to New Year's Eve 1986, on page 195 and please tell us what you know of this incident.

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: On this New Year's Eve day I received a telephone call from Brigadier Loots with regard to the information that Sadie Pule and Take Five were at a specific house in Ramotswa, that an attack would be launched against this house that same evening and they requested that I accompany them to Nietverdiendt. At Nietverdiendt it was Brigadier Loots, myself, Wehrmann, Captain Crause, Modise and members of Special Forces also joined us.

MR VISSER: Was this on the farm?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That was on the farm at Nietverdiendt, that is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you know what was discussed there?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: I was present during the discussion, it was decided that the house would be attacked where Sadie Pule and Take Five would stay for the evening.

MR VISSER: Were you aware of who Sadie Pule and Take Five was at that stage?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Do you agree with the evidence of Brigadier Loots with regard to Botswana and in particular, to these two persons?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you reconcile yourself with the fact that an attack would be launched against them to kill them?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you regard them as targets?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you also realise that other persons may be killed in such an attack?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Did you reconcile yourself with this?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: I did Chairperson. After our departure to Ramotswa, we stopped on the South African side, right opposite Ramotswa, we arrived there and it was determined that the river had water and Modise had to point out the house. He was afraid, he did not want to go through the water and Captain Crause was told to accompany him and after they had waded through the water, I heard an explosion as well as some rifle fire. The group returned and a report was made that two persons had been shot dead in the house.

MR VISSER: This house which you mention, was it known to you at that stage?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: As what was it known to you?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, it was a safehouse for ANC members who arrived in Ramotswe, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: A transit facility?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And as such that house could also be considered as a target without the presence of Pule and Take Five?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Was it reported to you what had happened there on the other side?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Not in detail Chairperson, but only that two persons had been killed there.

MR VISSER: Today you are not sure whether it was one or two persons and what their identities were?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: On page 196 you say that later you had heard that a citizen of Botswana was killed in the attack?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And none of the MK members, they were not present during the attack on these premises?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And you request, well, you did not play any role?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Except that you accompanied them to the border?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And on those grounds you request amnesty for conspiracy to murder, perjury, etc, anything that might emanate from this act?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Visser. Mr Mohlaba, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MOHLABA: Please, thank you Chairperson. You mentioned that this house which was attacked, could be regarded as a target even if Pule and Take Five were not there, is that correct?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct.

MR MOHLABA: Why would you regard it as a target?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: We had already received information with regards to this house, that MK members were using this house.

MR MOHLABA: When did you receive the information about the MK members living in that house, was it when you were called to a meeting at Nietverdiendt or did you acquire this information at an earlier stage?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: With regards to MK's who had used the house, I had already previously known that it was used and that day I heard of Sadie Pule and Take Five.

MR MOHLABA: Yes, can you still remember when you came to gain the knowledge that the house is used by the MK members?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, I cannot recall the specific time, but this was, I was stationed at Zeerust during 1982 and this information came through periodically to me.

MR MOHLABA: These, let me take you back to the meeting which was held at Nietverdiendt, can you explain whether it was sort of a formal meeting which was chaired or it was just a discussion where everybody was just contributing on an informal basis?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, no minutes were taken, Chairperson, if I can describe it as such.

MR MOHLABA: Do you remember who was, that is who introduced the matter, the reason why you were called to that farm?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: It was Brigadier Loots.

MR MOHLABA: The nature of the operation, the way it was to be carried out, was it discussed in full details at this meeting?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Not in my presence Chairperson. I would believe that the Army did their own planning and took their own decisions there.

MR MOHLABA: When you arrived at this farm, Nietverdiendt, had the discussion started already, you joined in, or when this meeting started, you were already present?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, I could imagine that everybody was present before the discussion took place with the Army members.

MR MOHLABA: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MOHLABA

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Mohlaba. Ms Thabethe, have you got any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS THABETHE: Just one Mr Chairperson. Mr Smit, when you were approached to go to the place where the incident was going to take place, what was going to be your role there?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: My role?

MS THABETHE: Yes, why did you go there, what were you going to do?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, as Captain Crause had said, it was known infiltration routes, we regularly operated along that border.

MS THABETHE: Are you saying you went there to give directions, is that what you are saying?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: No Chairperson. It was to go as a group, this was a known infiltration route. We knew that people infiltrated through that area and I think that it was because we were in a group, that if we encounter another group, we could defend ourselves.

MS THABETHE: No further questions, Mr Chair, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS THABETHE

CHAIRPERSON: Were you armed?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: We did have arms Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Yourself?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Yes, I was armed.

CHAIRPERSON: With what?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: If I recall correctly it was with an R1.

CHAIRPERSON: You were actually the Commander of Zeerust?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The other members could not give you any instructions?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were actually the most senior Security person at the scene?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, except for Brigadier Loots who was my Provincial Commander.

CHAIRPERSON: The person who was acting Commander in your place, you were the most senior Zeerust Security person and he was second most senior person?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And it is, he is the one who invited you along?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: No, it was Brigadier Loots who gave me the order.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not say "it is New Year's Eve", you are on leave, are there no other members?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, the circumstances at that stage led to the fact that this was not a strange request that while I was on leave, that I had to accompany them. I would have accompanied them any way.

CHAIRPERSON: If this house was indeed a target, what do you mean by that?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Meaning that we were aware that MK members were using the house and if at some stage, other MK members would have been in the house, the same operations would have been launched.

CHAIRPERSON: So it is not to say that you mean that you can attack the house just like you wanted, because you knew that the house was used amongst others as a transit facility, to use that term?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: But it was probably lived in by the owner?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV DE JAGER: Let's say for instance that they were not there, this is a useful house for them, let's say it was an empty house, would you have destroyed it or could you have destroyed it?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, if that was the plan, it could have happened. But the specific house was attacked on that day, because we had information that these people would be there. The risk of attacking an empty house in Botswana, this would entail a huge risk on our ... (tape ends) ...

ADV DE JAGER: Then you please have to explain to me, why is it more dangerous to attack an empty house that was used as a base rather than it would be more dangerous than attacking a house that had persons in?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, the profiles of Sadie Pule and Take Five was of such a nature, they were high profile persons and that is what I base my statement on.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, the attack was launched at Pule and Take Five?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would not go to the house on a New Year's Eve just to attack something in Botswana?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And you also did not go to specifically attack any other people, you went there to attack those two?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: If other injuries would be dealt with to other people, would you take that risk?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The operatives of Special Forces, according to you, according to your observations, did they know what this whole action entailed?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: I believe that the person who was in command or the two others who went in, and this is my personal opinion, that they were informed as to who Sadie Pule and Take Five were, they knew what it was all about.

CHAIRPERSON: Would it not be stupid to send people in to say that they had to eliminate Pule and Take Five and then you send in people who did not know who this was, it does not make sense? Can one accept that these persons would have known who, or that the operatives had known who was to be targeted?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you speak to Charl Naude at the scene?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: We might have had a discussion.

CHAIRPERSON: What type of impression did you have, did he also know what the story entailed?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Yes Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Did it seem as if he knew of Pule and Take Five?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It would seem that he was a person who closely worked with the Security Police?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Smit.

ADV GCABASHE : I am just looking at this statement that we now call Exhibit O, the HRV statement, and in it Mr Mkwanazi says that he arrived in Botswana, paragraph 4, page 3, he says he arrived in Botswana in 1986 and ostensibly on the 16th of December 1986. My impression is that you have been monitoring his activities any way. Would this have been before the 16th of December 1986?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: I assume so Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE : So what you believe is that he did not arrive in Botswana on the 16th of December 1986, he had been there previously?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: It is possible that he arrived there on the 16th of December, I cannot comment as to when he arrived there.

ADV GCABASHE : From what he says he left South Africa and only came back to Botswana in 1986, so this was the first time he was in Botswana since 1980 when he left South Africa?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: It may be Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE : I am trying to understand your Intelligence, you know the monitoring you did, what you know about Pule and Mkwanazi, Take Five, on having just received the statement quite recently as well and from what I am seeing here, he had only been in Botswana for two weeks, and if he was going to visit his family really. So your monitoring was only a two week monitoring, that would be right?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, I speak under correction, but long before the 16th, we were aware of him. We knew that there was a Take Five.

ADV GCABASHE : Can you recall where you would get that information from, where you gleaned that information about Take Five? I know it is long ago?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Yes, information was gathered through out the whole country and us at the Security Branch, regularly received information surrounding the movements of people who had left the country.

ADV GCABASHE : So it is not necessarily information you got during the time he was in Botswana from the 16th to the 31st?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE : Very roughly? Coming back to the meeting at Nietverdiendt, at the farm, you were privy to what was discussed by Mr Loots, the Special Forces chaps, Mr Wehrmann was there as well, was the discussion solely to go into Botswana, to go to the house and attack it? That is what the nature of the discussion was?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE : What I am trying to understand was whether there was a decision, a firm decision taken to go and kill these two targets in that house, to go and try and abduct them or whatever other alternatives might have been discussed. Was there broad discussion or just one single objective, go in and kill them? Do you recall?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: I would imagine the instruction that was conveyed to the Army was that these two people were there and that they had to be killed.

ADV GCABASHE : So that would have been Mr Loots as the most senior person in the Security Branch, because it was just these two parties there, really, and what you understood him to communicate is go in there, there are these two targets, we know them, kill them?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

ADV GCABASHE : So your understanding is that Mr Naude and his team was simply carrying out an instruction from the Security Branch, but they did it the way they understood best in terms of the logistics and who would do what exactly?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Yes. The Police cannot give any instruction to the Army, the facts were put on the table before him and the message that he got was that these persons had to be killed, but we cannot give him any instruction as to "do this or do that."

ADV GCABASHE : Yes, I think that is where my difficulty is because I am trying to and maybe it is not possible to decide on who gave, or who decided that they should be killed, rather than abducted or whatever else, that is really what I am trying to understand here. I understand you to say that you couldn't give them an order to do a particular thing, but they went in to kill people. Who made that final decision, that is really what I am trying to understand, to kill and not to abduct or whatever else?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: Chairperson, I cannot say who specifically gave the order, but I can say that it was a joint decision.

ADV GCABASHE : Of course the question of abduction was not discussed at all?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct.

ADV GCABASHE : Just to get that one out of the way. Thank you. Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Your behaviour was actually initiated by the Security Police?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Not Special Forces?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As you understood it, what was the wish of the Security Police?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That Sadie Pule and Take Five had to be killed Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is what you understood from your discussion with Mr Loots?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what it handled about that evening, that you must come along?

MR DU PREEZ SMIT: That is correct Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination Mr Visser?

MR VISSER: None, thank you Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Smit, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED