RECORDING STARTS WITH MS COLERIDGE ADDRES-SING
MS COLERIDGE: .... Simon Sithole and Gibson Hlatswayo. Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Could you provide us with a copy of all the victims' names, with their addresses if possible. Those you've got.
MS COLERIDGE: I will provide the Committee with that. Chairperson, then just in relation to all the implicated people, I'll just place their names on record, as to who we've notified. Ms Baker, Chairperson, which we're received a response from his attorneys, Julian Knight, I have forwarded a copy to all the legal representatives and if we could it Exhibit A, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Coleridge. This is a letter we received this morning, it's dated the 7th of September, from Julian Knight and Associates Incorporated, in respect of Mr Baker. We'll call that Exhibit A. Does everybody have a copy of it?
MS COOK: Yes, Chairperson, but if I may be so bold as to ask you whether you wouldn't make that Exhibit D, Chairperson, because we've already got A, B, and C earmarked. If you don't mind.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to call it D?
MR VISSER: Yes, thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll call it Exhibit D, because we will be getting, in the near future, A, B and C, which have already been marked.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson. Sergeant Swanepoel, Mr Beyers, Capt Pretorius, Douw Willemse, Paul van Dyk, Beukes Mostert. Thank you, Chairperson. Sorry, there's an At van Niekerk. Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge. Have the applicants sorted out the order in which they're going to testify?
MR VISSER: Yes, Chairperson. We intend to start with your leave, with Gen Erasmus and then go to Gen du Toit, which will take care of my two applicants, Chairperson. Chairperson, may I commence? Chairperson, may we again ask you to receive Exhibit A, "Algemene Agtergrond tot Amnestie Aansoeke", the document which has now become fairly well-known to you, Chairperson, as Exhibit A. Gen Erasmus has made a statement and as has Gen du Toit, could we ask that Gen Erasmus' statement be marked Exhibit B. That is before you, Chairperson, and Gen du Toit's is also before you and that could be Exhibit C, with your leave Chairperson. I would then immediately call Gen Erasmus to give evidence. He wishes to give his evidence in Afrikaans and he has no objection to taking the prescribed oath.
GERHARD NICOLAAS ERASMUS: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: The application of Mr Erasmus appears on page 53 of volume 1.
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: General, you are in an applicant in this matter and you will shortly discuss what you are applying for amnesty for. Your application appears in bundle 1, page 53 to 64, do you confirm the correctness of your application which has been incorporated as such in the bundle?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I confirm this.
MR VISSER: You have also studied Exhibit A, are you capable of confirming Exhibit A as your knowledge and experience during the struggle of the past?
MR ERASMUS: I can, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: And do you request that the relevant sections thereof which pertain to this application, be incorporated with your evidence?
MR ERASMUS: Yes.
MR VISSER: Previously you have testified in the amnesty process, during the Mthimkhulu matter as well as the Kondile application, the Bopape matter and the Cosatu House matter, as well as the Khotso House matter and then the Mohale application, is that correct?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: The Committee is then also welcome to study that evidence if they wish to do so, and once again you confirm that evidence.
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Your application on page 2 of Exhibit B, entails a request for amnesty for any offence, deed or omission committed by you before or during an incident during which the Why Not Club was damaged by an explosion on the 22nd of September 1988, and this includes transgressions of legislation pertaining to the handling, transportation, possession and application or usage of explosives, malicious damage to property at the Why Not Club, a squash club which was adjacent to the Why Not Club, and the business of McKenna's Gold, as well as defeating the ends of justice, in that you concealed the true facts. And during the explosion persons were also injured and consequently you request amnesty for attempted murder and assault, is that correct?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: From paragraph 2 onwards on page 2, would you address this document, Exhibit B, and just give the Committee a brief overview regarding the violence situation during those times.
MR ERASMUS
"Chairperson, from approximately 1980, the violence factor in the political struggle was changing all the more into a dimension of terrorism because the targets were no longer only property, but were people as well. Violence and intimidation were at the order of the day and a state of anarchy and fear was established and fuelled in many ways among the members of the population. Particularly the moderate non-militant black people in the residential areas lived in fear and were forced to participate in boycott actions, strikes and protest marches.
According to my experience, there was tremendous political pressure on the members of the Security Branch to normalise this situation. It was my impression that the politicians wanted to solve the problems at any cost, regardless of the method, whether legal or illegal, as long as there were no problems on their side.
In my opinion, the politicians expected the members of the Security Branch to respond to various statements which were made in public, in the press and on television, such as 'we will eradicate the terrorists, we will eliminate them' and so forth. This pressure was also exerted by my department, via the National Security Management System and via the public, to normalise the situation.
During 1988, the Witwatersrand which was my area of command, was one of the biggest burning points in the struggle. Part of my daily work conditions, as well as work conditions of the members under my command, were our exposure to death and mutilation in the name of political liberation. Bomb explosions which killed indiscriminately was a particularly tragic part of our experience. No-one would be able to eradicate the death and mutilation that we had to view, from their minds."
MR VISSER: General, you state that you were in command in 1988, what was your status, position and rank?
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, I was a Brigadier and I was the Head of the former Security Branch of the Witwatersrand. I was the Commander.
MR VISSER: Very well. Can you tell the Committee your recollection regarding the facts and circumstances of this particular incident.
MR ERASMUS
"This incident took place, as far as I could determine, on or approximately on the 22nd of September 1988, in the Why Not Club in Hillbrow, Johannesburg, and was preceded by the following
On the previous day, 21 September 1988, I visited the scene of a bomb explosion in the city centre of Johannesburg. According to my recollection it was near Vanderbijl Square, and I believe that it was near the corner of Loveday and Marshall Streets. This bomb was placed in a refuse holder. People were injured during the explosion.
As indicated by Sgt van Heerden in his amnesty application, there were at least two other bomb incidents during this time."
MR VISSER: When you refer to these bomb incidents, what was the suspicion regarding who was responsible for these incidents?
MR ERASMUS: The suspicion was that the ANC was responsible for these bomb attacks.
MR VISSER: Very well, continue.
MR ERASMUS
"I must just state that this particular attack or bomb which was planted, was near a bus stop. I cannot recall which police officers were all on the scene, but I can recall that Capt Charles Zeelie, as the demolitions expert, was present.
While we stood alone at the scene, at a certain stage I had a discussion with Capt Zeelie. During this discussion I stated that I was sick and tired of going from one explosion scene to the next, where every time I would have to witness the tremendous suffering of innocent persons. This remark emanated from Security Branch's incapacity to reduce or effectively combat the bomb attacks on the public.
In the same line I asked him whether there was not a place where ANC supporters gathered, so they could be paid back in kind. He responded that according to him there were indeed such places and that he would investigate it. The discussion did not go any further and we parted. This is as far as I can recall."
MR VISSER: However, later you recall that you added something which you said to Capt Zeelie. Could you tell the Committee.
MR ERASMUS: What I would like to add, because it has occurred to me subsequently, is that I told him furthermore that it wouldn't really help if we found such a place, to wait a month before taking action, because it would not have any effect.
MR VISSER: Very well. But is it your evidence that Capt Zeelie was justified in accepting that you were serious about such a counter-attack?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is correct, he would have accepted it as such and he would have understood it as such as well.
MR VISSER: Proceed.
MR ERASMUS
"My intention during this discussion, was that I felt at that moment that something drastic had to be done in order to bring the ANC under the impression that they could not continue planting bombs in which people would be injured and killed and that they had to be made aware, in order to realise the consequence of counter-attacks.
The problem naturally was that we didn't always know which persons were responsible for these bombs, although we only knew that it would supporters of the ANC."
MR VISSER: Didn't the PAC and the other liberation movements also plant bombs here in Johannesburg, in your experience?
MR ERASMUS: Not during that time, but during the '60s there were other organisations who planted bombs.
MR VISSER: If we would restrict ourselves to 1988, you would say that it was only the ANC which was planting bombs?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, according to our opinion.
MR VISSER: Proceed.
MR ERASMUS
"That is why I asked Zeelie if he knew of a place where it could be said with certainty that ANC supporters would gather. The reason for this was that the ANC had to receive the clear message that the action was aimed against them and not against the black public in general.
It was my supposition that Capt Zeelie would investigate the possible existence of such a gathering point for members, supporters or sympathisers with the ANC, and that he would give me feedback regarding this so that I could think about it and take the final decision to proceed or not. However, this never took place. And on the following evening, the night of the same day as the explosion to which has been referred above, he and as I later heard, Sgt Brood van Heerden and possibly others, were involved in an explosion at the Why Not Club."
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, General, so you were expecting Capt Zeelie to come back to you and say "well look, I've done my reconnaissance or investigations, this is my suggestion" and then you give an order? Is that what you expected?
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, that was the normal course of action. At that stage I thought that he would follow this method, but it never took place.
"Due to the fact that I had expected feedback from Capt Zeelie first and that I would have been able to give clear instructions in order to avoid large scale loss of life and serious injury, I did not discuss that matter with him during our discussion. As it currently appears in Capt Zeelie's statement, he decided anyway from his own motivation, that loss of life and serious injuries had to be prevented. The result of the explosion also indicates, in my opinion, that care was taken in this regard, because it would appear that only two persons were seriously injured. I regret that it took place and I would have preferred that if possible, there would have been no injury to any person.
On the following day I heard that there had been an explosion at the Why Not Club and that a number of persons, among others, allegedly supporters of liberation movements were injured. I myself never visited this particular explosion scene, but I recall that my second-in-command, Gen Piet du Toit, indicated at a certain point that he had indeed visited the scene of the explosion.
To the best of my recollection, Capt Zeelie and Sgt van Heerden ..."
I think this should read 23 September, Chairperson. It's the day after the explosion, so it should be the 23rd of September.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll just amend in paragraph 18 of Exhibit B, 22nd September '88 to read 23rd September '88.
MR ERASMUS: Thank you, Chairperson.
" ... visited my office in order to report to me. This was the first time that I heard that Zeelie had requested other persons to act with him, which was not my intention. Furthermore, I was informed that the limpet mine and the detonator was concealed in their clothing and was smuggled into the club in this method. That is how they explained it to me.
Where I have stated in my amnesty application that I suspected that police officers could have been responsible for the explosion, I meant to refer to the fact that I had no prior knowledge that the Why Not Club would be the target.
I would like to state clearly that nothing that I stated in my amnesty application should be interpreted as a denial of the fact that I gave the order which gave rise to the explosion at the Why Not Club. I realised that the aforementioned discussion could have been interpreted by Zeelie as the final order to continue and that this gave direct rise to the explosion. Consequently, I accept full responsibility for the aforementioned incident. My motivation with the suggestion to Capt Zeelie was to indicate to the ANC that they could not just continue planting bombs without also being struck. My idea was that if an explosion could be aimed against the ANC, it would hopefully decrease the ANC's bomb campaigning."
MR VISSER: Did it have the desired effect?
MR ERASMUS: At the moment I cannot recall, things were so confusing during those years and I no longer have documentation which would corroborate such a statement.
MR VISSER: Continue.
MR ERASMUS
"I also hoped that such action would confuse the liberation movements and would lead to suspicion among them, which would hopefully have a positive effect on our attempts at combating violence.
There was no manner to act lawfully in order to prevent the bomb attacks, because the Security Branch did not know in all cases who was responsible for these attacks, or who would be responsible. Consequently we were necessitated by circumstances to take our illegal action in order to combat the threat."
MR VISSER: Very well, on page 6 from paragraph 24 onwards, you've also dealt with certain evidence of the other applicants. Will you take us through that.
MR ERASMUS
"I confirm that the compilation of my amnesty applications was conducted with great haste and within time constraints, there was not enough time to search for documentary evidence or to make enquiries. This was during the great rush to bring these applications on record."
MR VISSER: In 1996?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Proceed.
MR ERASMUS
"In as far as my amnesty application is incomplete, I request leave to supplement it by means of this statement, in order to bring the fullest picture before the Committee. After the submission of my application I had the opportunity to study the applications of other applicants in this amnesty application and also to view certain documents. I was capable of testing my own recollection at the hand of evidence given by the other applicants. As such I am now in a better state to give a more thorough versions of the facts as I recall them.
With regard to Gen du Toit, I am uncertain whether I previously informed him regarding my discussion with Capt Zeelie, although I would not have attempted to conceal anything from him as my second-in-command. Thus it is entirely possible that I may have mentioned it to him during the afternoon of 21 September 1988."
Sorry, I'm a bit confused.
MR VISSER: Please proceed.
MR ERASMUS
"I may have mentioned that I requested Zeelie to determine whether or not there was a suitable gathering place for ANC members, in order to launch an explosion there. If I had discussed it with Gen du Toit at a point before the explosion, I would not have mentioned the Why Not Club, because I myself did not know before the explosion that there would be an explosion that night and/or that it would take place at the Why Not Club.
I read that Capt Zeelie alleges that he and someone else, Beyers or van Heerden, met me and Gen du Toit at the SAB ..."
MR VISSER: Are you aware of an SAB bar, or should it instead be the SAP bar?
MR ERASMUS: SAB doesn't have a bar as such, sometimes they held functions, but I think that it would be the SAP bar.
MR VISSER: Well we will ask Mr Zeelie about that.
MR ERASMUS
"... met us at the bar, provided a list of possible targets to us and that the two of us gave them the order to target the Why Not Club. According to my judgement and recollection, Capt Zeelie is mistaken in this evidence and I think that the situation is as I have sketched in the aforementioned pages, unless my memory fails me entirely."
MR VISSER: Is that your recollection?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Do you have any recollection of a meeting with Gen du Toit, yourself, Mr Zeelie and/or Beyers and van Heerden, at a bar where targets were discussed?
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, I do not recall this. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but I do not recall it.
MR VISSER: Proceed.
MR ERASMUS
"I also heard that Sgt van Heerden said that he, under the orders of Gen du Toit, had to keep himself away from the scene and disguise himself."
MR VISSER: Chairperson, perhaps I should refer you to that evidence. In bundle 1 you will at page 30, that is the application of Mr van Heerden, from the top, the second paragraph, this scenario refers to the Why Not Club and in that area after the explosion, and Mr van Heerden says
"After the bomb explosion, Gen du Toit was also present on the scene ..."
well we know that that is so.
"... and he personally told me to remain seated in the vehicle and not to disembark and to grow a beard immediately so that I would not be identified during any identification parades."
Now Chairperson, the relevance of this evidence of Gen Erasmus now, is that you will hear Gen du Toit denying that he ever said anything of the kind to Mr van Heerden, and it is against that background that Gen Erasmus now wants to tell you something that he remembers, Chairperson, and that is what he is busy with now at page 7 of Exhibit B, paragraph 30.
Could you just reiterate this.
MR ERASMUS
"I also heard that Sgt van Heerden stated that he, under the instruction of Gen du Toit, had to keep himself away from the scene and had to disguise himself. I have a recollection that with the discussion, when they reported to me in my office the following day, that I used words to the extent that care should be taken not to be associated with the explosion. I think that van Heerden is confused regarding who discussed this with them."
MR VISSER: Now who was in your office with you on this day?
MR ERASMUS: It was Zeelie and van Heerden.
MR VISSER: And did you speak to both of them?
MR ERASMUS: I said to both of them, but I think that the major intention was that I wanted to convey this to Zeelie, because he visited all the scenes and it would have been easier for him to be identified as the man.
MR VISSER: Very well. Will you continue.
MR ERASMUS
"By nature of the situation, I associated myself with the action and ratified it as such. Consequently, I did not report the true facts and have probably made myself guilty of defeating the ends of justice as well as the crime of the explosion itself and the consequences thereof, due to my association with it."
MR VISSER: We did not deal with this in Exhibit B, but did you know a Frans Malherbe?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, Chairperson, I know Frans Malherbe. At that time I think that he was the liaison officer for the Divisional Commissioner, or Commissar.
MR VISSER: Was he a member of the Security Branch?
MR ERASMUS: No.
MR VISSER: Did you ever discuss the Why Not Club prior to, during or after the time and did you disclose the police involvement in the matter?
MR ERASMUS: No.
MR VISSER: As far as you know, did he have any knowledge regarding the involvement of the police in this matter?
MR ERASMUS: No, Chairperson, I would not have discussed it with him, because this incident was a need-to-know incident, as I've stated in my evidence, and I stated that I expected that Capt Zeelie would most probably have executed this order on his own. Therefore, the need-to-know principle was very strong, because we needed to keep it secret.
MR VISSER: Very well, please proceed with paragraph 32.
MR ERASMUS
"I did not draw any benefit or advantage, whether financial or other. Although I stated in my application that I could not recall whether persons were injured, it is my recollection currently which has been refreshed by information from bundle 2. "
MR VISSER: And these are documents which were received from the TRC?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Proceed.
MR ERASMUS
"I accept the correctness of the persons who were injured and the degree of injury. I also accept the scope of the damage as it has been summarised in bundle 2.
I've noted that bundle 2 indicates that 13 persons were injured during the incident. Research which was conducted by my legal representatives on what was presented to the Harms Commission, would indicate that a possible 19 persons may have been injured. From this research it also appeared that the case dossier number ..."
...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Yes, in bundle 2 the case dossier was indeed included and there were also press reports, so we don't need to repeat this. Would you then conclude, please.
MR ERASMUS
"These events took place during a situation of warfare where the rules of regular warfare did not count.
My action or omission was aimed against the supporters of a liberation movement which was the enemy of the government of the day and which was waging a revolutionary onslaught against the State dispensation, during which, among others, innocent citizens were killed or injured and much damage was brought to property.
The struggle that we waged was political and everything that I did, I did in the execution of my duties as a policeman in the protection of human life and property. Sometimes, as in this case, it was necessary to cast the first stone, or by means of a revenge attack show the enemy that they were not untouchable while they continued with their actions of violence.
Whatever I did, I did for the maintenance of the State dispensation of that time and in support of the National Party, and to prevent that the country would fall into a state of chaos and anarchy.
In the light of the pressure which was exerted upon us by the political leaders of the time and the many statements and speeches in which reference was made to the eradication of the terrorists, I truly believed that such action was expected of me.
I truly believed that what I did was expected of me as policeman, and that I acted in the execution of my duties as a policeman and that my actions fell within my express or implied authority.
I did not draw any benefit, nor was I rewarded for the action and I did not draw any personal benefit therefrom. I did not act from personal gain, hatred or vengeance."
MR VISSER: You then request that amnesty be granted to you. General, you have made an amendment and with the exception of this, do you confirm according to your knowledge and insights, the truth and correctness of these pages here under oath?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I do so.
MR VISSER: And to the best of your recollection, is this the full version of what you can recall regarding this incident?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is my recollection.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Rossouw, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Yes thank you, I do Mr Chairman.
General, I want us to discuss the instruction or the way in which Zeelie understood it. Can I firstly go to your statement, Exhibit B. In paragraph 11 where you refer to the discussion that took place at the Vanderbijl bus terminus, you there talk about the discussion that you had with Capt Zeelie. Can you say if there were any other people present during this discussion?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, as far as I can recall we were alone at that stage, there could have been people in the area, but I think I spoke to him alone.
MR ROSSOUW: Can you recall if Mr van Heerden was present?
MR ERASMUS: I do not even know if, as I've already said in my evidence, if Mr van Heerden was at the scene. So I cannot say.
MR ROSSOUW: Sorry, General, what are you saying? Are you saying that it's possible that Mr van Heerden was present when you were having this discussion with Mr Zeelie?
MR ERASMUS: What I'm saying, Mr Chairperson, is that I cannot recall that he was in my immediate presence, but that he was at the scene is possibly true, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But if Mr van Heerden was present, would there have been any reason for you to speak secretly with Mr Zeelie and exclude Mr van Heerden from any discussion, or not?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, as I have already said, as far as I can recall I only spoke to Zeelie. If van Heerden was in the area and if he heard anything, I do not know.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Rossouw?
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Chairperson.
General, the reason why I'm asking you this is that after a statement that was made by Mr van Heerden, that you will find on page 30 of volume 1, that is the first paragraph, you will see that he says that both you and Gen du Toit discussed this with Zeelie and himself, that an action had to be taken against the ANC.
MR VISSER: That's not entirely correct, he says "after that", Chairperson, he doesn't say at that scene, he says "after that".
CHAIRPERSON: He says
"After the second limpet mine explosion"
Yes well that obviously, it didn't happen while the actual bomb was going off.
MR VISSER: Well it could refer to the scene, or it could refer to ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: It is a bit ambiguous, but let's hear what he says.
MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, I don't agree that it's ambiguous. If you read the sentence it says that happened during the clearing "tydens die opruiming".
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no I think it's after the explosion at the scene basically.
MR ROSSOUW: It must be at the scene, Mr Chairman.
General, so I refer you to that statement of Mr van Heerden "on the scene during the cleanup", where he says that you had a discussion with him and Zeelie, and after what you just said, do you deny that it is possible that such a discussion could have taken place in which he was involved?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I do not recall it, all that I can say is that I do know where Mr du Toit and myself stood and where Mr Zeelie was. It's not impossible that it could have happened, but I cannot recall it.
MR ROSSOUW: So you do not exclude the possibility?
MR ERASMUS: No, I do not. I'd say at this stage, this is 12 years ago, I cannot recall.
MR ROSSOUW: Then General, you say that your idea was that you were sick and tired of all the bomb explosions and all the scenes that you had to go and visit, the one after the other. My instructions are that you are not a man that, or you're a person who's very direct and would make it very clear about you feelings and how you felt about the situation, and my instructions are that you made it very clear and you said you were sick and tired of it.
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, that's how I recalled it, I cannot recall the details of the discussions that took place, I can only recall the main points, or the core of the discussion and that is what I've said.
MR ROSSOUW: Very well. General, then you've now taken part in this discussion and you made it very clear, and please correct me if I place words in your mouth or if I misunderstood you, that in this discussion you made it very clear that the situation concerning the bomb planters is unacceptable and that something had to be done. Is that the first step? Do you agree with that?
MR ERASMUS: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: Then in paragraph 12 on Exhibit B, you continue and say
"Isn't there now a specific place where we can pay back the ANC?"
So this follows directly from the fact that you indicated that this action or these actions of the ANC, the bomb planting had to be stopped?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, yes.
MR ROSSOUW: So do you agree with me that from that you very clearly get the idea that there had to be a counter-action?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I stated it as such.
MR ROSSOUW: And then you say that Mr Zeelie told you that yes, there were such places, why didn't you ask him then at the scene, "But where are these places, what are they called," because he now told you that there are such places?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, the reason why I did not do it at that stage, if I can recall correctly it's that he told me that he will investigate it further and that is the only reason that he could give.
MR ROSSOUW: We will now come back to this specific target that was chosen, but I would first like to continue with paragraph 13. You make use of the word "intention" and you said the intention was that something drastic had to be done and you make you make use of the word "drastic", can you tell us what would a drastic action be then? Taking into consideration your intention at that stage.
MR ERASMUS: A drastic action at that stage, the way in which I saw it, would be to counter-act.
MR ROSSOUW: Very well, but did you then consider the fact that they would place a limpet mine at an ANC gathering point?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, that an explosion had to take place.
CHAIRPERSON: So when you were talking about a counter-action, it was clear in your discussion with Mr Zeelie that you intended a counter-action of a similar nature, in other words, a bomb?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, yes.
MR ROSSOUW: So General, you then also say that you can recall, and it's something that you did not mention in this Exhibit B, that you also told Mr Zeelie that it will not help if such a place is identified and an action only follows a month later, it had to be an immediate action.
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, otherwise it would not have any effect, we would have been unable to achieve anything.
MR ROSSOUW: General, if we look at all the steps that I went through with you now, and what conclusions or inferences one can draw from them, will you agree then that if you say on page 5, paragraph 20, in the second paragraph you say that your application must not be interpreted as a "denial of the fact that I gave the instruction which led to the action." I do agree with you that if you look at the discussion in the way in which you put it, it was an instruction.
MR ERASMUS: I do not deny at all that it was an instruction, it is just the place that I did not know of at that stage, that I could say that place specifically. Chairperson, but I do not deny the instruction. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR ROSSOUW: Just a minute, Mr Chairman.
General, and that will also be the evidence of Mr Zeelie, that he did receive an instruction from you to launch such a counter-attack, an explosion at a night-club.
JUDGE DE JAGER: The General said, what he said was that something had to be done immediately, they had to arrange for an explosion, a similar act that can be a reaction on the previous day's explosion. So I do know where the dispute is, except for the fact that he did not specifically provide them with a target and say "Go to the night-club."
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That is indeed the point, I was just putting it that the specific target was selected. That will be the evidence of Mr Zeelie.
General, that is indeed the evidence of Mr Zeelie, that the specific target was selected and was discussed with you, in that it would be the Why Not Club.
MR ERASMUS: Unfortunately I do not recall that and up till today I do not even know where the Why Not Club is. Zeelie and van Heerden were in my office the following day and they reported to me that there was an explosion that took place there and that they did it by means of a limpet mine.
MR ROSSOUW: General, if you say that you cannot recall it, is it possible that it could have happened, that it was mentioned to you in this discussion?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, it's possible, but as far as I can recall it's not likely that the Why Not was mentioned by me specifically, but as I've said it is a long time ago. I do not know the Why Not Club, I've never been there, I did not visit the scene, so for me it was an unfamiliar thing when I heard it the first time.
MR ROSSOUW: General, I do agree that you would have mentioned it, because the evidence of Mr Zeelie is that he chose or identified the target and disclosed it to you.
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I say that this explosion took place the same evening as the explosion that took place in the street. As far as my recollection goes, we then dispersed from, and I do not think we saw each other again on that day. I may be wrong if he remembers it differently.
MR ROSSOUW: General, I would just like for completion's sake to state to you that Mr Zeelie will testify about the place that was identified, the Why Not Club, and he will testify that that specific night-club was identified because it was a club from which an attack was launched on a restaurant, Cafe Zurich, which was opposite the Why Not Club and that attack was launched by Peter Dlamini, an ANC member. He will also testify that it was a handgrenade that was detonated by means of a limpet mine detonator in Cafe Zurich, by Peter Dlamini, and that was the attack on this cafe. Can you recall that incident?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I can recall a handgrenade explosion that took place in a restaurant, I cannot recall the name, but I think I was also there and it's possible that I was there with them.
MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Zeelie will also testify this, that it is very clear in his recollection and you also mention the handgrenade, because it was an exceptional case, that most of the time they used limpet mines in such explosions, but in this attack on Cafe Zurich it was by means of a handgrenade and using a limpet mine detonator.
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I can recall that he found a piece of the handgrenade while we were at the scene.
MR ROSSOUW: And he will also testify that - can you recall if there was an investigation on Peter Dlamini who planted the handgrenade?
JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Rossouw, when was the investigation, that same afternoon, the next day or months later? When was Dlamini identified as the person and when was he arrested?
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'll just take an instruction if I ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: No, you put it as if it occurred that same afternoon, and that's how I understood your question.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'm not putting it like that, I'm - let me just take an instruction. Mr Chairman, my instructions are that the identification of Mr Dlamini did not take place that afternoon, the incident at Cafe Zurich restaurant took place a while before the Why Not Night-club. I'm not in a position at this stage to give you an indication as to time ...
CHAIRPERSON: But it wasn't the same day?
MR ROSSOUW: It was not on the same day.
CHAIRPERSON: It was some time before.
MR ROSSOUW: Yes, I was just putting this evidence to illustrate why the Why Not Night-club was selected.
General, then the other aspect that I'd like to deal with is the gathering point or place. You do know that Mr Zeelie says that you were at the SAB and that Gen du Toit was also there and that is where the discussion took place.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, SAB, that's Breweries?
MR ROSSOUW: SAB, not SAP, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, whereabouts is that, where they used to meet, the SAB?
MR ROSSOUW: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman?
CHAIRPERSON: Whereabouts are those premises?
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, my instructions are that the premises are in Denver, I don't exactly know where that is in Johannesburg.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but it's in Denver. And then what is it, a bar? A drinking place, a meeting place?
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, it's not a bar in the sense of a licensed bar or ...
CHAIRPERSON: A canteen as such?
MR ROSSOUW: A canteen, it's not a bar.
CHAIRPERSON: Staff canteen type of thing.
MR ROSSOUW: Yes, it might be a staff canteen, yes.
General, I would just like to put to you that insofar as there is a dispute about the place where this discussion took place and the target was selected, if it was at the South African Breweries or at the scene, Mr Zeelie will say that he was called to the SAB premises, he was alone and insofar as the annexure in his affidavit goes, he then stated it or amended it and said that the name had to be deleted and that he only went there alone.
Mr Chairman, you'll find that on page 15 of volume 1, paragraph 2.
JUDGE DE JAGER: Is that where he says that he made a mistake when he mentioned Beyer's name?
MR ROSSOUW: That is indeed so, Mr Chairman. You'll find the correction of that on page 10, the top paragraph there where he says that the name Nanie Beyers in paragraph 2 should be deleted.
MR VISSER: I think my learned friend should just tell you also that he says that it should be replaced with Brood van Heerden. My learned friend doesn't say that.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, it might be that Mr Visser and I read the paragraph in a different light, but as I read it, it says that the name of Nanie Beyers in paragraph 2 should be deleted and in paragraph 5 it must be replaced with Dries van Heerden. But Mr Chairman, we'll clear that up in evidence. My instructions are, Mr van Heerden was not present at the meeting at the SA Breweries.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: General, the reason why Mr Zeelie in his application also referred to Mr Malherbe ...(intervention)
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, must I answer on this SAB question?
CHAIRPERSON: I think let Mr Rossouw just finalise what he wants to put to you. You're saying that Mr Zeelie was contacted alone to go to the SAB premises in Denver and to meet with Gen Erasmus and Gen du Toit. I think if you can answer that one, if you can react to that statement General.
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, as far as it goes in paragraph 29 of my statement, I cannot recall that myself and Piet du Toit were at the SAB premises. Over the years we've been there a few times at the Breweries for a braai and usually over lunchtime, and as far as my recollection goes this explosion took place at approximately one or two in the afternoon, over lunchtime, so I would not have left the brewery to an explosion and then gone back. I've thought about it because while the legal representative asked me it, I again thought about it, if I can assist Zeelie in the statement, but I really do not recall it.
MR ROSSOUW: But General, if you say you do not recall it, are you saying that it did not take place or that you do not recall it, but it's possible?
MR ERASMUS: I do not recall that I called him to the SAB premises, because as far as my recollection is, this took place in the street and we dispersed from there. Like I said, it's 12 years ago, it's either me or him whose recollection is wrong.
MR ROSSOUW: So General, will you agree with me then that it is possible that either you or Mr Zeelie are mistaken?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, one of us is mistaken.
JUDGE DE JAGER: It is quite clear to me that one of the witnesses are mistaken.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'd just give me a minute.
CHAIRPERSON: You said that in your view the bomb went off after lunch, in the afternoon, I'm just trying to find it here, but my impression was when I was reading the papers, it was late night.
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, the explosion ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, at the Vanderbijl bus terminus?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, Sir.
MR ROSSOUW: General, then insofar as the indication was that Mr Zeelie will execute this alone - I do know that it is outside of normal actions, but would you then expect that a member would act alone or completely alone?
MR ERASMUS: I expected it because I wanted to keep it secret right from the beginning. If it was possible, I do not know.
MR ROSSOUW: Will you agree with me that one does get the impression that police members will usually in such a situation arrange for a backup?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, with the placing of something in a certain place I do not think that you need such a big backup. If you walk in in the ...(indistinct) and you leave it there and you walk out, I do not think it's necessary, I think the decision was his if he wanted a backup or not.
MR ROSSOUW: So those details you would have left to him?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he had to launch this action and if he felt that he couldn't do it alone and he had to get somebody to assist him, I've got no problem with that.
MR ROSSOUW: General, then concerning the report-back, my instructions are that Mr Zeelie will say that he did not come with Mr van Heerden to report back to you in your office, can you react to that?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, that I do recall very well because if I recall correctly, the one told me that the one carried the limpet mine and the one had the detonator somewhere in his underpants or something like that. That is what I can recall from the situation.
MR ROSSOUW: General, Mr Zeelie will testify that the next morning there was an officers meeting where he was present and you were also present, it was an officers meeting that took place daily at the John Vorster Square and that the incident was discussed there.
MR ERASMUS: No, Mr Chairperson, this incident would not have been discussed in public or at an officers meeting, because it was a secret operation that was executed. So it would not have been discussed in general.
MR ROSSOUW: My instructions are also that they did not discuss it at the officers meeting that Mr Zeelie planted a bomb or that Mr van Heerden was involved, but the fact that a bomb explosion took place in the Why Not, within your district.
MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is correct, all incidents were discussed at the meeting, all the explosions, the time in which they took place and other operations as well.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'd just give me a minute.
CHAIRPERSON: I see it's ten past eleven, would this be a convenient time to take the short tea adjournment, then you can decide whether you have any further questions you wish to pursue.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We'll take the short tea adjournment now.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
GERHARD NICOLAAS ERASMUS: (s.u.o.)
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Rossouw, do you have any further questions to put to the applicant?
MR ROSSOUW: No, Mr Chairman, I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Cornelius, do you have any questions you'd like to put to Gen Erasmus?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
General, no disciplinary steps were taken against the footsoldiers.
MR ERASMUS: No, Chairperson.
MR CORNELIUS: And you would agree with me that a footsoldier such as Mr van Heerden, would not have doubted that the action, that being the bomb attack, would have enjoyed the authorisation from the higher levels of authority.
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Because that the necessary political motive was there by nature of the situation.
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: Yes, it was not necessary to motivate politically.
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
MR CORNELIUS: And you've stated that there was a meeting in your office on the following morning, but that the merits of the attack were not discussed, is that correct? The actual who did it, the participation, that sort of thing was not discussed, is that correct?
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, I responded to a meeting that was held there, I stated that Zeelie and van Heerden were in my office alone where they spoke to me.
MR CORNELIUS: I see. Because my mandate from Mr van Heerden is that he definitely was not with Mr Zeelie in your office.
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, my recollection tells me that he was there and that he still showed me how he had walked into the club, like this, with something in his hands.
MR CORNELIUS: I see. I can understand that this was quite some time ago and that it is easy to be mistaken, is it possible that you may have forgotten this or that you may be confusing it with something else?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, it is probably possible, but as far as I can recall it took place as I have explained it to the Committee.
MR CORNELIUS: I see. Then just one final statement. My client, Mr van Heerden, states that he definitely spoke to Gen du Toit that evening, who told him to remain seated in the vehicle. You probably would not be able to comment on whether or not he was there?
MR ERASMUS: Unfortunately not, because I wasn't there.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I've got no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Cornelius. Mr Nyawuza, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NYAWUZA: Yes, I do Chairperson.
General Erasmus, did you prior to this incident give any specific instructions to any of your subordinates to carry out bombings?
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, this was the only one that I can recall.
MR NYAWUZA: So in essence, what you're telling this Committee is that you had not at any stage given instructions to any person to carry out this sort of an attack?
MR ERASMUS: Not that I can recall at this stage.
MR NYAWUZA: But if you had to give instructions for an attack of this nature, would you be specific or would you just be ambiguous?
MR ERASMUS: No, I would assume that I would be specific.
MR NYAWUZA: If I recollect your evidence correctly, the only time that you spoke about an attack on a place that is being frequented by ANC members, was on the day that you had attended to a bomb attack at Vanderbijl Square, is that so?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct.
MR NYAWUZA: And prior to this incident you had not at any stage spoken to any person about any attack at any place, is that so as well?
MR ERASMUS: I've stated that I cannot recall that I discussed bomb attacks, with the exception of the explosions at Khotso House and Cosatu House, regarding which we have already testified.
MR NYAWUZA: So your testimony as regards the incident at the Why Not Club, will I be correct in saying you were not part and parcel of the people that planned the attack at the Why Not Club, is that so?
MR ERASMUS: I stated not specifically a club, but the order was given by me to locate a place where an explosion could be launched, therefore I have to regard myself as part of the execution thereof.
MR NYAWUZA: General Erasmus, what you're saying is that you're applying for amnesty for having spoken to Capt Zeelie about an attack on a place that is frequented by the ANC, is that so?
MR ERASMUS: I am applying for that discussion and for the explosion which took place subsequently.
MR NYAWUZA: Were you aware that Capt Zeelie had anything in mind when you spoke to him about this?
MR ERASMUS: I don't believe that he had anything in mind at that point, he said that he would find out about it.
MR NYAWUZA: And your testimony is that he didn't come back to you as regards the reconnaissance?
MR ERASMUS: As far as I can recall we never had a discussion again before the explosion.
CHAIRPERSON: General Erasmus, your discussion is "Mr Zeelie, we can't tolerate these attacks on innocent people, we must make the ANC feel what it makes innocent people feel and do you have a specific place in your mind where we can have an attack?" And then Capt Zeelie says to you, "Okay, I'll go out and recognise and come back to you." Was that as far as you went in your discussion?
MR ERASMUS: I cannot recall that he said that he would get back to me, but the discussion was about a place where we could detonate a device.
MR NYAWUZA: And was your instruction "Go and do it now", or "Go and find out a place, come back to me and then I'll give full instructions that you should attack"? What was your instruction?
MR ERASMUS: I have stated in my evidence that I asked him whether or not there was such a place and he said that he would determine whether there was such a place. As I've stated, he did not get back to me, but furthermore I stated that it wouldn't really have helped if something happened a month after the discussion, because it would not have served any purpose.
MR NYAWUZA: So in essence, what you're saying is that you assume that the bomb blast at the Why Not Club occurred as a result of your discussion with Capt Zeelie, is that what I get from your testimony?
MR ERASMUS: Yes indeed, that is what happened.
MR NYAWUZA: So you deny that you gave specific instructions that Why Not Club should be attacked?
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, what should be deduced from my discussion with him is that he would have understood it as an instruction to place a device in a place. What I'm saying is that I didn't know specifically about the Why Not Club, but he would have accepted it as an instruction to place a device in a place and as soon as possible.
MR NYAWUZA: General Erasmus, you know for want of a better word, would I be correct in assuming that you gave Capt Zeelie a blanket instruction?
MR ERASMUS: I didn't you correctly, could you please repeat your question.
MR NYAWUZA: I'm saying, for want of a better word I'm going to use blanket, will I be correct in saying you gave Capt Zeelie blanket instructions to go and attack a particular place where the ANC or its sympathisers or its supporters attended?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I gave him such an instruction. The enemy had to be attacked.
MR NYAWUZA: Subsequent to the attack, as you state in your testimony now that the enemy had to be attacked, were you able to link the people that were injured at the Why Not Club, to the ANC?
MR ERASMUS: I didn't see them, I didn't know them.
MR NYAWUZA: And Capt Zeelie and Capt van Heerden, having had a discussion in your office the following day, as per your testimony, did they tell you that the people that were injured at the Why Not Club were ANC supporters or sympathisers or members? Did they tell you that?
MR ERASMUS: I'm assuming so.
MR NYAWUZA: You assumed they told you, you're not sure?
MR ERASMUS: At this point I cannot recall to what extent we discussed the whole affair in detail.
MR NYAWUZA: And you still maintain that the discussion happened at John Vorster Square in your office? Or in whose office did it happen? Let me rephrase my question. In whose office did the discussion take place, General Erasmus?
MR ERASMUS: In my office.
MR NYAWUZA: In your office. And it was yourself, Capt Zeelie and Mr van Heerden?
MR ERASMUS: As far as I can recall.
MR NYAWUZA: You've testified in your testimony that the ANC was the party that planted bombs during that period, what makes you so sure that other political parties were not involved in the planting of bombs at the time?
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, the other political parties of which the PAC would probably have been the strongest, were committing other acts but they were not planting bombs as far as we know. Those who planted the most bombs were the ANC.
MR NYAWUZA: You are saying those who planted the most bombs were there ANC, so were there other parties that planted bombs?
MR ERASMUS: Not as far as I could determine, Chairperson. If we look at the Rivonia case, we can see that there were 188 cases of sabotage which were committed by the ANC. You see, there were parties such as the African Resistance Movement, who during the early '60's were planting bombs, but all of them were arrested.
MR NYAWUZA: But were all the members of PAC arrested when the ANC was planting bombs in 1998(sic)?
MR ERASMUS: I would go as far as saying that their organisation was quite mixed up.
MR NYAWUZA: No further questions, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NYAWUZA
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Nyawuza. Ms Coleridge, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Yes, thank you Chairperson.
Can you just tell us again what you rank was in 1988, General?
MR ERASMUS: I was a Brigadier.
MS COLERIDGE: And who was your Commander at that time?
MR ERASMUS: At the moment I cannot recall, at Head Office.
MS COLERIDGE: You obviously had a Commander, General.
MR ERASMUS: Yes, there was a Head Office, but I was the Commander in Johannesburg.
MS COLERIDGE: You can think about it, I'll give you ...(intervention)
MR ERASMUS: I cannot recall the names, it could be Coetzee, Geldenhuys or one of those people.
MS COLERIDGE: And regarding this incident, did you discuss - seeing that these people, Zeelie and so forth, were part of your unit, did you discuss this incident with your Commander, whoever it might have been at the time?
MR ERASMUS: As I have testified, I did not report it at all and I did not discuss it with anyone.
MS COLERIDGE: Why didn't you discuss this with your Commander?
MR ERASMUS: Why didn't I?
MS COLERIDGE: Correct.
MR ERASMUS: Because this was an action that I had taken personally, I was the Commander here and it was my duty to ensure that matters in the Witwatersrand were in order.
MS COLERIDGE: But surely General, you knew that this was an illegal action, you knew that this action, this bomb attack was illegal, is that right?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I stated that.
MS COLERIDGE: And still, because of the impact of this you didn't inform your Commander about it.
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, to this very day I believe that Head Office thought that this bomb was planted by the ANC.
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, what was Gen du Toit's relationship to you? What was his position at that time?
MR ERASMUS: He was my second-in-command.
MS COLERIDGE: Let's just see who was part of your unit. Zeelie was part of your unit, was van Heerden part of your unit?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, he was on my staff.
MS COLERIDGE: And Vermeulen?
MR ERASMUS: Not at all.
MS COLERIDGE: Which unit did Vermeulen belong to?
MR ERASMUS: I cannot recall, I think he was a member of Vlakplaas.
MS COLERIDGE: Did you know that members of Vlakplaas were part of this operation?
MR ERASMUS: Not at all.
MS COLERIDGE: And when did you discover that they were part of the operation?
MR ERASMUS: With these hearings.
MS COLERIDGE: When did you find out about this incident, General, for the first time?
MR ERASMUS: The following morning.
MS COLERIDGE: Because I want to refer you to page 61 of your amnesty application, volume 1, it's the third paragraph, the second sentence.
CHAIRPERSON: What page is that?
MS COLERIDGE: It's page 61, volume 1, it's the third paragraph. I'll start reading - can you read that for us, General? Start with "hoewel".
MR ERASMUS
"Although I do not know precisely how the particular explosion took place, I suspected that police officers could have been responsible for it and that it took place as a result of my aforementioned request to Capt Zeelie."
MS COLERIDGE: So in your amnesty application made in 1996, you stated that you suspected that it was people, that it was policemen, is that correct?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, that is in terms of the discussion, Chairperson, between me and Zeelie, our discussion. That is why I composed it as such.
MS COLERIDGE: But surely, General, it's not a suspicion, it was a fact because they confirmed it to you in your office, not so?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I know it to be so, that is why I have already stated that this application was very hastily completed and that is the reason why we have amended it. I knew that this explosion had been caused by them.
MS COLERIDGE: So would you say your application on page 61, paragraph 3, that is basically incorrect, you knew that the police were responsible for the attack?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I knew. It isn't incorrect, I'm just saying that it was my suspicion that as a result of the discussion with Zeelie, this explosion took place.
MS COLERIDGE: The Vanderbijl "Plein" bombings, was anybody charged for that offence?
MR ERASMUS: I don't believe that the offender was ever traced as far as I can recall.
MS COLERIDGE: You couldn't say for sure who was responsible for that attack?
MR ERASMUS: Could you repeat?
MS COLERIDGE: So you would not be able to say who was responsible for that attack?
MR ERASMUS: Not at this point.
MS COLERIDGE: And then for the Cafe Zurich incident?
MR ERASMUS: I know that someone was arrested, but I can no longer recall the facts. I think that Capt Zeelie would be able to give better commentary on that than I.
MS COLERIDGE: And then General, just coming back to your meeting, or to Mr Zeelie's submissions that he indeed had the meeting with you and that you discussed the target and you approved the target, the Why Not Bar, what is your comment about that?
MR ERASMUS: I cannot comment any further than what I have already commented.
MS COLERIDGE: General, would you say that if one of your members in your unit would take on a task such as bombings, that there was a responsibility on their part to discuss the target with you?
MR ERASMUS: Yes and no. I will tell you that I had already given the instruction, the instruction existed. The fact that we didn't get together again after that is a question of circumstance.
MS COLERIDGE: But did you expect it to come back to you, General?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I expected him to.
MS COLERIDGE: And when you found out about the bombings and that they were responsible ...(intervention)
JUDGE DE JAGER: Sorry, he didn't say he expected he should come back, he said "I thought" he would have come back, not that he expected him to come back.
MS COLERIDGE: And the next day, did you discipline Mr Zeelie for any of this incident, his activities and so forth?
MR ERASMUS: I could not discipline him, it was a secret operation. I did not discipline anyone.
CHAIRPERSON: I think what Ms Coleridge - did you rebuke him at all? Did you take him to task about going ahead with the operation, putting a bomb in a public place without coming back to you? Did you ask him why, or query him at all?
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, I did not.
MS COLERIDGE: I just want to come back to the meeting that Mr Zeelie referred to and that Mr du Toit was also there. Now we know Mr van Heerden stated that Mr du Toit was there at the scene of the incident that night. Do you agree with that, General?
MR ERASMUS: I don't know to which meeting you are referring, could you please be more specific regarding the meeting to which you have referred.
MS COLERIDGE: The meeting at the SAB, where you were present and Mr du Toit.
MR ERASMUS: I have already stated that I wasn't at the SAB, and that this discussion or meeting took place in the street.
MS COLERIDGE: Right General, but what I'm asking you is, were you aware of the fact that Mr du Toit went back to the scene of the incident that night, when the bomb went off?
MR ERASMUS: Chairperson, it was custom for a senior officer to visit scenes of explosions. In this case my second-in-command, the then Col du Toit, was contacted and he visited the scene. It was the custom for one of the senior officers to visit every scene.
MS COLERIDGE: So who would contact Mr du Toit?
MR ERASMUS: Whoever received the information of the explosion first.
MS COLERIDGE: Did anybody contact you?
MR ERASMUS: Nobody contacted me.
MS COLERIDGE: We know that Mr Zeelie always used disguises and that he wore a wig on that night, are you aware of that General?
MR ERASMUS: I not aware of it.
MS COLERIDGE: And Mr van Heerden, do you know if he had any disguises that night?
MR ERASMUS: Not at all, I didn't even know that he had been there until the following morning when I discovered it.
MS COLERIDGE: Because he states that Mr du Toit told him to basically disguise himself, to grow a beard or whatever.
MR ERASMUS: I cannot comment on that.
CHAIRPERSON: I think that was in case there had to be an identification parade or something, not for the actual operation.
MS COLERIDGE: Correct, correct.
CHAIRPERSON: My understand was, I might be wrong, but my understanding was that Gen du Toit said "Look, you better grow a beard in case there's an identification parade and then you'll look different", not to grow a beard to go into the club to ...
MS COLERIDGE: No, that is correct, Chairperson, basically for the ID parade. I'm indebted to you, Chairperson.
So it was clear that at that stage Mr du Toit obviously knew that the Security Force was responsible for the attack. What is your comment about that, General?
MR ERASMUS: As I have already stated, I cannot recall whether I discussed the matter with him on the day of the explosion at Vanderbijl Square. If I had discussed it with him he was already aware who was responsible, or at least he suspected who had planted the explosive device.
MS COLERIDGE: So are you saying it's possible that he could have been aware at the time when he went to the Why Not Bar that ...(intervention)
MR ERASMUS: Yes, it is possible. I cannot give any further commentary on that.
JUDGE DE JAGER: He spoke to van Heerden, according to what's been put to him, van Heerden, I suppose, would have told him.
MS COLERIDGE: That is possible, Judge, but I'm just checking, because in relation to the meeting it's possible that Mr Zeelie's version could be correct, in that there was a meeting and that Mr du Toit in fact knew about it that the incident was going to occur, and getting there, seeing Mr van Heerden in his normal attire and Zeelie in camouflage disguise, that he obviously alerted them. So that's ...
MS COLERIDGE: And then General, were you at the scene at the scene of the incident at the Cafe Zurich, where that bomb went off?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I think I was there.
MS COLERIDGE: Do you know that the Why Not Club is just opposite Cafe Zurich?
MR ERASMUS: To tell the truth, I didn't even notice that, I was attending to that one explosion.
MS COLERIDGE: At your meetings, your officers meetings, who would be present there?
CHAIRPERSON: That's the daily meeting where the officers met.
MR ERASMUS: Usually the section heads of all the different divisions, the staff heads.
MS COLERIDGE: Who would that be, General? Can you mention some names for us?
MR ERASMUS: The head of the investigative staff, the head of trade unions and so forth.
MS COLERIDGE: But my question was, General, could you mention any names.
MR ERASMUS: It's a difficult question, Chairperson, I can no longer recall who was in command at that stage. I think one could have been an Oosthuizen, van Wyk, van Niekerk. I cannot recall everyone who was in charge of the different sections.
MS COLERIDGE: General, actually you've got a good memory of the meeting that occurred after the incident, can you just run that by us again, can you just tell us what happened that morning?
MR ERASMUS: As far as I can recall, Zeelie and van Heerden came to my office and they reported regarding this particular incident at the Why Not Club.
MS COLERIDGE: Do you know where Mr Zeelie got the limpet mines from?
MR ERASMUS: Not at all.
MS COLERIDGE: Was Mr Zeelie one of the heads that would meet at the officers meetings?
MR ERASMUS: He could possibly have been there because he was the head of the demolitions team.
MS COLERIDGE: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge. Mr Visser, do you have any re-examination?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, one aspect yes, with your leave, but there's also on Exhibit B something I neglected to put. Chairperson, both the applicants, Du Toit and Erasmus had on previous occasions asked for an amendment of their paragraph 7(a) and (b), to reflect the fact that they were supporters of the National Party. I'm not sure whether it will be necessary to ask for such an amendment again, those amendments have been granted before. If that could be taken as read, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm sure. Is there any objection to that?
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, yes we'll take that as being read.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Just one aspect. This is now back to the question about the words that you used and that you suspected that the police was involved. At this officers meeting to which you refer, can you recall today if the report-back of Zeelie or van Heerden was after or before that officers meeting?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, as far as I can recall it was early in the morning, it was before this meeting, before the officers meeting.
MR VISSER: When did you hear for the first time, or at what opportunity did you hear about the Why Not Club?
MR ERASMUS: It was that morning.
MR VISSER: And who told you this?
MR ERASMUS: Zeelie and van Heerden.
MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Judge de Jager, do you have any questions you'd like to put to General Erasmus? Advocate Sigodi, any questions you'd like to put?
General, when you heard that the target was the Why Not Club, had you in your capacity as the Commander of the Security Branch, ever heard of the Why Not Club, ever get any reports that the Why Not Club is a place where supporters of the ANC frequent, that sort of thing? Or was it a totally unknown club to you?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I did not know the Why Not Club and up till today I still do not know it.
CHAIRPERSON: You said when you were giving evidence that you thought that Capt Zeelie would have come back to you after that discussion at Vanderbjil "Plein", because that would have been the normal procedure, to get a formal go-ahead and also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you say that you could discuss about the way the operation should be carried out to minimise injuries and deaths?
MR ERASMUS: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And then you said that from the evidence after the fact, that you thought well that must have been taken into account because of the fact that nobody was killed and there were only two serious injuries.
MR ERASMUS: Yes, Mr Chairperson, I made the inference that he took all precautions as we usually do, or as I conveyed it to him. He did arrange to minimise all injuries or possible deaths.
CHAIRPERSON: If that is the case then can you think of any explanation why two landmines should be used rather than one?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, my recollection is that there was only mine used, one small limpet mine used.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know, I might be mistaken but from the documents my understanding is that there were two mines that were used which Mr van Heerden hid in his trousers to smuggle it into the club.
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I also heard that, but as far as I can recall they told me there was only one used.
CHAIRPERSON: If two were used then how would that fit in with the plan to minimise destruction?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I think you can still prevent it in the placing of the device.
CHAIRPERSON: General, you've very often in your testimony, have said that as far as you can recall, you can't recall well, it was 12 years ago, we've also heard from what has been put to you by the representatives of other applicants, that other applicants are going to come and say different things in regard to certain aspects of the testimony, like where the meeting was held, who was present, whether the target was specifically mentioned before the explosion, in your presence. Are you saying that what they say or will say is possible that it could have happened, or are you adamant that the first time you heard - let's for instance just talk about the Why Not Bar as being the target, the first time you heard that was after the explosion, or is it possible that it was mentioned to you before?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, in this case I've got nothing to hide, I will say this is what I can recall, and as I've said this is 12 years ago. It is possible yes, that I could have heard something about it, but what I can recall is the way in which I put it to you. I do not want to testify to things that I did not know about or did not know about.
CHAIRPERSON: Is your vague recollection of this incident specific to this incident, or would you say that your memory is now beginning to fail you generally speaking?
MR ERASMUS: I would say I've got quite a good memory.
CHAIRPERSON: Would somebody like Mr Zeelie, would he have had access himself to landmines to use, or would he have to go to the Quartermaster or whoever it was and book it out, sign forms or anything like that?
MR ERASMUS: Mr Chairperson, I cannot be very specific on this point, but it could be that there's a safe somewhere with a limpet mine, or he got it from another place.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you not have to be, in your capacity as Commander, have to sign for anything like that or give authority?
MR ERASMUS: No, Mr Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, do you have any questions arising out of questions that have been put? Sorry, Judge de Jager wants to put a question.
General, when they reported back the next day, did you approve their actions?
MR ERASMUS: Yes, I did Mr Chairperson.
JUDGE DE JAGER: What was your attitude towards them, what did you tell them?
MR ERASMUS: The general discussion that took place, Mr Chairperson, I was very glad that they were safe, that they were not arrested and that they got out of this whole thing.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser, any questions arising?
MR VISSER: No thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw?
MR ROSSOUW: No questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza?
MR NYAWUZA: No questions, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Coleridge?
MS COLERIDGE: No questions, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, General, that concludes your testimony, you may stand down.
MR ERASMUS: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, if I may be allowed to call Gen du Toit to give evidence. His statement that was drawn on his behalf setting out the facts and background, is Exhibit C before you. He is willing to take the oath, Chairperson, and prefers to give his evidence in Afrikaans.
