Amnesty Hearings

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. May I, with your leave Mr Chairman, hand you a document just setting out the background of Mr Zeelie. I promise you we won't go through it in detail and I can inform you that it's also been used in previous applications of Mr Zeelie. Can we mark that Exhibit E?

CHAIRPERSON: E. So this document, Mr Rossouw, it doesn't relate to the Why Not bombing incident?

MR ROSSOUW: Not at all, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, this document that's been handed in headed Charles Alfred Zeelie, consisting of 13 pages, will be Exhibit E, and it just relates to Mr Zeelie's career background and experience.

MR ROSSOUW: Indeed. Mr Chairman, I then call Mr Zeelie as an applicant and I ask that he be sworn in. He will give his evidence in Afrikaans.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

CHARLES ALFRED ZEELIE: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, Exhibit E in front of you explains your background, your career in the police, your promotion in the police and your involvement in different aspects of the police service, do you confirm the contents thereof?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you then request the Committee to read it as background to your application?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, just to highlight a few aspects concerning the political circumstances which is also relevant for the political objective of this application, I refer you to page 3 of Exhibit E, paragraph 3 thereof, you say that you as a Bomb Disposal Unit member, investigated various incidents including motor bomb attacks. Can you just in short explain to the Committee what was the extent of the experience that you had with bomb attacks, especially in this area.

MR ZEELIE: It is exactly as I put it in this document. I dealt with approximately 160 explosions and investigated some of them. If you read further in the document you will see the amount of weapons that we got back, that is on page 8, paragraph 5, and that is which I was involved in. And if you take into consideration that we were approximately eight bomb disposal operators in Johannesburg and some of them also visited the scenes and also seized weapons in which I was not involved, then you will realise the extent of it all.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, just before you proceed, just a small point, page 4 of your statement Mr Zeelie, there's a mistake, the first incident should be 5th September 1984, I take it?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I accept responsibility for that typing error.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes carry on.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, we will come back later to place this in context. I now ask you to look at your application in volume 1, and your application appears on page 1, with the supplementary statement up until page 17, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 6 of volume 1 - oh yes, page 1, the supplementary is page 6 onwards.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, insofar as the official section of your application goes, that is now from page 1 to 5, do you confirm the contents thereof and do you also confirm that it is your signature on page 5?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Then you also supplemented your application that you find on page 7 up until page 14 in the bundle, do you also confirm your signature on page 14?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you also confirm the contents of the supplementary affidavit?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie, I would now like to ask you that we begin at your annexure on page 5, supplemented to your application and I want you to tell the Committee in your own words how it happened that you became involved in this incident. Where were you?

CHAIRPERSON: It's page 8 actually, page 8 paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit. Page 8, volume 1.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'm going to deal with the annexure to the supplementary affidavit, which is marked Annexure CAZ4 on page 15.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you.

MR ZEELIE

"Mr Chairperson, on the day of the 22nd of September 1988, or was it now the 21st when the explosion took place, it was the 21st. If I visit a scene of an explosion at Vanderbijl Square, during that explosion Gens Erasmus and Du Toit were present, they also visited the scene. While the cleanup operation was going on, Gen Erasmus told me that he is sick and tired of all the explosions that are taking place and a lot of white people are killed, or innocent white people are killed or injured. I can just mentioned that it was a long run-up to it, various explosions that had taken place in the past led to Gen Erasmus being influenced by this and he had already mentioned that we have to act against the ANC who's responsible for these explosions.

At this stage he mentioned to me that we have to act. I continued with the investigation there. At that stage he did not give any specific instructions or made any suggestions to me. That evening approximately 8 o'clock I received a radio call from Gen Erasmus ..."

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, can you tell us where you were when you received this call.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot exactly say where I was at that stage, but I was in radio contact because I always have my radio with me. It was switched on, and the fact of the matter was that I was Head of the Bomb Disposal Unit and if anything happened, I could be contacted.

"I then was contacted by Gen Erasmus and he told me that I must meet him at the SA Breweries in Denver. That was the first time that I went to that office there. That was approximately 8 o'clock that evening. With my arrival there Gen Erasmus, Gen du Toit and Gen Malherbe, they were all there."

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, let us just go back to paragraph 2 on page 15. You mention there that you and Nanie Beyers were contacted, what is the correct position concerning Mr Nanie Beyers?

MR ZEELIE: At the stage when Gen Erasmus contacted me and told me that I had to go and see him concerning an action. I tried to contact Nanie Beyers, because I wanted him to be present with me.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you tell the Committee who Mr Nanie Beyers is, what his position was?

MR ZEELIE: He was a co-bomb disposal operator and he was one of the bomb disposal operators whom I worked closely with and I trusted him a lot.

MR ROSSOUW: You could not get hold of him, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And you then went alone to the Brewery?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I went alone.

MR ROSSOUW: Where?

MR ZEELIE: Like I've already mentioned, I met Gen Erasmus, Du Toit and Gen Malherbe. Gen Erasmus ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Before you continue, you now mentioned Nanie Beyers and in the affidavit at a later stage you said that you made a mistake, he was not present.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Can you just explain to us how is it that you could have made such a mistake?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, Nanie Beyers visited the scene that evening, he was the explosives backup and he visited the scene.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but you say in your statement he was with you when you went to the Generals.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, Mr Chairperson, but as I have said, I can go further and say that when this whole amnesty application thing came up, we were told by our seniors that we are not supposed to say anything ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: I'm sorry, Mr Zeelie, this statement you made in 1995, this one to the Attorney-General, on the 10th of September 1995, that was before the amnesty Act.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, but there was talk, or we were told that we were not supposed to talk to anybody and then the bomb exploded and it was via my wife that I was told that I had to be at my house at a certain stage and then members of the Amnesty Committee, from the Investigative team from Pretoria, addressed me there and they presented certain facts to me and they told me I have to make certain statements. At that stage I told them I do not want to make any statements before I have not had a meeting with the Attorney-General himself. I then had a meeting with him and it is so that as Gen Erasmus testified earlier on, he just wanted to get rid of all these things, he wanted to - they asked me questions, names came up. I myself did not write the application ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Zeelie, I do not think we're understanding each other, you're talking about something else. In September 1995, none of the members of the Amnesty Committee could have visited you, they had not yet been appointed. It was a statement that you made to the Attorney-General before the Amnesty Committee was established. I'm talking about that statement.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, but this statement, Mr Chairperson, I made in relation to the visit from the Attorney-General's office. At that stage I accepted it was about the amnesty and before that we signed amnesty applications, all Security Police members signed a form and we all accepted that we will receive such amnesty, then these people came to see me and certain statements were made after they placed certain facts before me and we then decided to reveal certain things, get certain things off our chests and the fact that Nanie was with me that evening, I was confused with the names.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. Now you arrived at the premises of the South African Brewery, can you tell the Committee what discussions took place.

MR ZEELIE

"Mr Chairperson, Gen Erasmus and Du Toit called me. There were other people present too but we moved away from them, I think we went to another room in the building and there Gen Erasmus told me that we had to go and blow up a place, we had to go and place some explosive device somewhere, so that the ANC can also feel that we acted against some of their own people.

He asked me if I knew any such place. I did not know of any gathering point of ANC members, if I knew about it we would have automatically launched some arrest operations, because if we do have information that the ANC is at a specific place, we would have acted on that and people would have been arrested. I did however tell him that there are various black clubs.

I then mentioned the Cafe Zurich incident and I told him that that incident was launched from the Why Not Club. The terrorists were in the night-club, they gathered there, they met there, they discussed their operation there and the placed an explosive device in Cafe Zurich and moved back to the night-club. The reason why I know this is I investigated that case with Mr van Heerden and this came out after the arrests were made.

I then conveyed this information to Gen Erasmus and he then gave me instructions that tonight we have to go and place an explosive device in that night-club."

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Zeelie, so are you saying that you were involved in the investigation of the Cafe Zurich incident and that the perpetrators or a perpetrator was arrested and you learnt that they actually used the Why Not as a base to launch the attack? Was that person arrested before the Why Not explosion?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I keep interrupting you, when you were at the SA Breweries, when you went there what was happening there, was it like a party going on or was it a braai or ...? What was happening?

MR ZEELIE: No, Mr Chairperson, I cannot recall how many people were there, there could have been two or three other members present apart from the police members that I've mentioned. They were having a drink.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, with that instruction what did you do, what steps did you take?

MR ZEELIE

"I went to Mr van Heerden because he also worked with me and that he investigated the Cafe Zurich incident with me and in the past we also worked through other actions and I also trusted him, and the fact that he was able to speak certain black languages, I knew that if we arrive at that night-club, he would be able to explain to them certain things because he was able to speak the language and he would be able to deceive them.

We then decided to get a backup and I asked him about Vlakplaas members who were in the area at that stage, he told me that some of them were at the Goldfield Security. We drove through and there we met Mr Vermeulen, Mr van Dyk and there was another person, Douw Willemse. We discussed matters with them, I mentioned to them that we want to launch an operation and we wanted them to support us.

Mr Paul van Dyk was at that stage not willing to participate because he first wanted to discuss this with his Commander, but at the end of the day he decided to accompany us. We then left there and we stopped at the Hillbrow Police Station, from there we used a Vlakplaas vehicle and drove to the particular premises. The four of us entered the club ..."

...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, which four? Because you said there was Douw Willemse, Van Dyk, Vermeulen, yourself and Van Heerden, so which four of you went?

MR ZEELIE: If my recollection is correct it would have been myself, Mr van Heerden, Mr van Dyk and Mr Douw Willemse. They were the four that went in.

CHAIRPERSON: And what about Mr Vermeulen?

MR ZEELIE: He waited outside at the vehicle.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, can you just in short tell the Committee what were you wearing.

MR ZEELIE: Clothing-wise I cannot recall, but I did disguise myself, I put on a wig and once again to place cotton wool in my checks so that my face seems a big rounder. I then also wore glasses.

MR ROSSOUW: And the reason why you disguised yourself?

MR ZEELIE: The reason was so that people could not identify me in future.

MR ROSSOUW: And the other members, how were they disguised?

MR ZEELIE: No, not one of them was disguised, Mr Chairperson, because as said by the Chairperson earlier on, because I was easily identifiable.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, you also would then visit the scene later on.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct. And the other reason was that I visit more-or-less all the explosive scenes and I give lectures to the public about bomb disposal and bomb devices and I was quite known in terms of giving evidence in acts of terror.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie, can you tell the Committee - or before we get to that, can you tell the Committee, this specific explosive device that you used, the limpet mine, where did you get this from?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, as I have referred to earlier on, or in the document, Exhibit E, we seized various weaponry and some of those weapons we kept with the intention to testify in court about the effects of certain explosives in buildings and we also used it in lectures and in training. We were authorised by Headquarters to keep a certain amount of explosives in our vehicles.

MR ROSSOUW: So these limpet mines you provided it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I did. It was all kept at John Vorster Square in the parking lot or bay and the Commanders knew about it.

MR ROSSOUW: So it was not necessary for you to authorise this with a storeman or a higher command?

MR ZEELIE: No.

MR ROSSOUW: You then went into the night-club, can you tell the Committee what happened then.

MR ZEELIE

"We were first searched. We then entered, we ordered a beer and drank a beer. I think the guy who searched us made a few jokes and then we went outside where I took the limpet mines out of the vehicle and I then decided that Mr van Heerden must carry the limpet mines, because once again he would talk to the bouncer and it would be unlikely that he would search us again, because they've already met us and he knew that we were there before."

MR ROSSOUW: The detonator, who carried that?

MR ZEELIE: I carried the detonator myself.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you then go into the night-club again?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, we entered again and there were no problems, no problems with the searching. Mr van Heerden again spoke to the guard, the night guard, the night watchman. I went to go and sit down on the bench and I told Mr van Heerden ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, were you searched the second time going in, you yourself?

MR ZEELIE: If I can recall correctly Mr Chairperson, I think one or two of us were searched again, I cannot really recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Because my recollection of the statement on the document by the person who was guarding the door is that on the second entry he searched three of you, but then Mr van Heerden, you didn't mention his name, spoke to him in Tswana and ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: It is very possible, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ... and he went through without being searched because he chatted to him, but how big are these detonators? If you were searched why weren't the detonators found?

MR ZEELIE: It is about half of this pen, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: You're just indicating a normal fountain pen size ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: I would say about 2½ inches, maybe 1½ centimetres across.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well Mr Zeelie, you were now searched, you now entered the night-club with the explosives, you said you went to go and sit down on a bench, what happened then?

MR ZEELIE

"I gave the detonator to Mr van Heerden and told him that he must go and place the device in the toilets and the reason why I told him it was because I also accepted that he will be more acceptable for the night watchman and that he will be able to move around. Mr van Heerden then said that he'd rather not place the detonator in the limpet mines ..."

...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Do you know if Mr van Heerden is an explosive's expert?

MR ZEELIE: No, he's not an explosives expert at all, but as I've mentioned before he did operate with me at various previous opportunities and we did work together before and he has seen some of these explosive devices and he knew what it was and he sometimes knew what the safety requirements were.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well. So he did not want to do it and you then placed the detonator in the limpet mines.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, there where we sat I placed the detonator in the limpet placed the limpet mines under the bench against the wall, the wall that was facing to the front and the wall the top had narrow windows. The reason why I placed it there was because most of the explosive energy would be reflected outside or towards the outside and that was the reason why I placed it there, because it was a bit more quiet there and it was not directly next to the dance floor.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, in your supplementary statement on page 10 you say that you cannot say with certainty that you yourself placed the limpet mine under the bench or if Mr van Heerden did it, what is your recollection now after you consulted and read all the statements and your memory was refreshed?

MR ZEELIE: I did discuss this with Mr van Heerden because it was a point that bothered me. After we discussed it, I realised that I was the person who placed it under the bench.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you said that additionally you told Mr van Heerden to place the detonators in the mine and take them and put them in the toilet.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now what made you change your mind from putting the mines in the toilet, to placing them under the bench next to the wall?

MR ZEELIE: As I've said, Mr Chairperson, I did not want to move around, it could have attracted attention from the guard standing at the door and where we sat it was relatively dark and we then decided to place it there.

CHAIRPERSON: So you placed it actually where you were sitting or very close?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And this place, was it full, were there many people there? Was there much activity there at the time? Can you just describe what the set-up was at that time.

MR ZEELIE: At that stage there were not a lot of people in the club itself. I cannot recall if there were ten people.

CHAIRPERSON: About what time would you have placed the mine? More-or-less.

MR ZEELIE: I would say approximately 9 o'clock or rather, 12 o'clock, between 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock.

CHAIRPERSON: And the detonator, was it one of these ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: It works on an metal slate, it's a lead cord that is melted under the ...

CHAIRPERSON: What was the delay?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, that is the one thing that you can never say specifically.

CHAIRPERSON: What was the delay meant to be, was it half an hour or five minutes or two hours?

MR ZEELIE: From approximately half an hour to an hour, depending on the weather conditions.

CHAIRPERSON: And is it correct there were two mines?

MR ZEELIE: Once again Mr Chairperson, I was under the impression that it was one but after I spoke to Mr van Heerden, I do accept that it was two, two that were placed next to each other and they were both ...

CHAIRPERSON: And what sort of limpet mines were they? I believe there's basically three types, the ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: It is the type 158 limpet mine, it's known as the mini-limpet mine. It is the small limpet mine.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, just insofar as your reference to supplementary affidavit goes, you were not quite sure who placed the limpet mine, I would like to refer to the statement of Mr van Heerden on page 28 of volume 1. There you will see in the middle paragraph, the fourth line from the bottom Mr van Heerden says that you placed the detonator and that he, Mr van Heerden, placed the limpet mine under the seat, did you see this statement before you made your own supplementary affidavit to your application?

MR ZEELIE: Before I did the first amnesty application?

MR ROSSOUW: Before you wrote your supplementary affidavit.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I saw this before I made the supplementary affidavit.

MR ROSSOUW: Is it correct that maybe your confusion came from reading this?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson, that is also why I said I clarified this with Mr van Heerden and that I placed it under the seat or bench.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, can you then tell the Committee, after you placed the mine what happened then, what was the further movements or actions?

MR ZEELIE

"We then left the scene, we went back to the vehicle and I was under the impression that I drove back home, but I also realised later that we did not go home but waited at the vehicle until the explosion took place. From there we went back to Hillbrow and myself and Mr van Heerden drove with my own vehicle and I was then informed on radio about the explosion and we drove to the explosive scene, or the scene of the explosion.

Mr van Heerden remained in the vehicle and after I took my disguise off I visited the scene and met some of the other Security Police members there."

MR ROSSOUW: Can you say if some of your Commanders were present?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, Mr Chairperson, Gen du Toit did arrive at the scene and some of the investigative officers also arrived at the scene and W/O Beyers was also informed and he also arrived at the scene, because he basically was on explosives call, that is why he visited the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: When you went back to the scene to investigate, when you were called, were the injured people still at the scene?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, there were still injured who had been removed from the premises, but at that stage it was light injuries, there were persons who had incurred burn injuries, I did see that. However, I did not see any person who, for example, had lost an arm or a leg. So according to me there were only light injuries.

I also took photos of the scene that night, because this was one of the things that I usually did at bomb explosion scenes, I often took my own photographs.

MR ROSSOUW: And Mr Zeelie, I'm assuming that with the regular procedure the disposal took place, and did you report this to anybody the following day?

MR ZEELIE: I must just state that due to the fact that the power had been cut, we couldn't really conduct a proper bomb disposal and we had guards placed there and the following morning early, probably at half past six to seven o'clock we returned to the scene and we continued with the cleanup action. Subsequently I returned to the office just on time to attend the officers meeting.

MR ROSSOUW: Was this incident discussed during the officers meeting?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, Chairperson, as was the regular custom whenever an explosion took place, the data and the information would be conveyed during the meeting and whenever there were injuries the number of injured persons would also be reported. If there were serious injuries or whether there were minor injuries, whether there were any fatalities, that would be the sort of information to be conveyed along with the possible type of bomb which was used and then a reasonable estimate of the damage.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Who conveyed that report?

MR ZEELIE: I myself conveyed that report at the officers meeting.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What did you say, how many injured persons were there, how many were seriously injured, how many injuries were minor?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I cannot really recall right now, but I think that there were 13 injured persons, if I recall correctly, however I did convey a thorough report along with which Mr Beyers - in the regular procedure, after such information had been conveyed we would have to send an official report to the bomb disposal section at Head Office and we would also have to send a report out on a national level to all the branches, and at that stage I don't believe that we were already using fax machines, it must have been by crypto or by telex. It would have been sent through to Head Office and the other major branches in the country.

MR ROSSOUW: With the exception of the officers meeting, did you report to your Commanders regarding your personal involvement in this explosion?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I accept that I may have discussed it personally with Mr Erasmus, however it would definitely not have been before the officers meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, I can't understand what you're saying, Mr Zeelie, you say

"I accept that I may have discussed it personally with Mr Erasmus, but definitely not before the officers meeting"

what are you saying, are you saying you can't remember whether you discussed it with Gen Erasmus, or that you accept that if you did, you don't deny it but you're not saying that it happened. In other words, you can't remember?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, what I'm trying to say is that it is possible, I cannot recall that I indeed discussed it with him. The reason why I said that if it was so, it would have been subsequent to the meeting, it would have been that he would have kept me behind and then discussed it with me, but I cannot recall that I discussed it with him at that stage.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if I may be of assistance, I think - you'll recall the evidence by Gen Erasmus that the report-back occurred before the staff meeting.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, yes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Zeelie, weren't you anxious to report back to the person who gave you the instruction, in order to tell him: "I carried out your instruction, this is what happened, this is how many people were injured, fortunately there were no casualties"?

MR ZEELIE: Gen du Toit visited the scene, so he himself had seen that the instruction had been executed. During the meeting the regular reporting of information pertaining to the scene was done, so in that sense it was already done.

CHAIRPERSON: But you can't recall - well I'm asking, can you recall having a meeting with Gen Erasmus at any stage about the Why Not bombing, in his office?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot recall it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Zeelie, then I want to ask you if you would look at page 16, paragraph 8, there you state that you went home and that you visited the scene later, then you state that the investigating officer in the matter knew that it was an SAP action, is that a fact that you are putting there, or what is your position?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I accepted that in this case Gen Erasmus would have informed the then Col At van Niekerk, because this is how it would take place in the past with such actions, so that the investigation should be conducted to such an extent that the blame would not be pointed at the police.

MR ROSSOUW: So is it correct that you are making an inference, in other words?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, I simply accepted that it would have been done.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. Could I ask you just to take a page back, in paragraph 3 you state that the Generals wanted to plant the bomb in the black night-club and that you suspected that it was a revenge attack due to the explosion which took place in the Wimpy.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson. As I have stated in my evidence-in-chief, there was a long development up to these events, due to a series of explosions which had taken place and when I made this statement, it was the Wimpy incident that occurred to me immediately. But indeed this is after my memory was refreshed that I realised that it was after the Vanderbijl Square terminus explosion.

MR ROSSOUW: Very well, Mr Zeelie. Specifically then with regard to that aspect and your political motive with regard to the counter-attack or the revenge attack, on page 11 of the statement I would just ask you to confirm that. Page 11, do you confirm this?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And then over onto page 12?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You've also listened to the evidence given by the Generals regarding the political objective with the action, do you concur with it?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I concur entirely with it, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Zeelie, did you receive any remuneration for this operation that you executed?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, I did not receive any remuneration.

MR ROSSOUW: With the exception of your regular salary?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And your action, was it motivated by any kind of personal malice towards the persons who visited the night-club?

MR ZEELIE: Not at all, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman, that's the evidence-in-chief.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. Mr Visser, do you have any questions you'd like to put to the applicant?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes, I do, thank you Chairperson.

Mr Zeelie, the actual application as I have understood your affidavit, the actual amnesty application makes reference to an affidavit which you made to the Attorney-General, would that be this affidavit on page 15 to 17? Is that the affidavit?

MR ZEELIE: This affidavit was made to members of the A-G's office.

MR VISSER: And is that the basis of your application?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, at that stage there were certain things which were being investigated against us police members who were involved.

MR VISSER: I just want to know whether this was the initial basis?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I'm still answering your question. So I would accept this then as the foundation with regard to the amnesty application.

MR VISSER: And later you supplemented it with a supplementary affidavit.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: As Judge de Jager has indicated, this CAZ4 had already been deposed to by you in September 1995.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: I just want to discuss how this happened with you. When you made this affidavit, was there any fear in your mind that you could be charged of this offence regarding the explosion?

MR ZEELIE: I was not afraid that I would be charged, Chairperson, because at that stage I had already been to the A-G's offices.

MR VISSER: And what happened there that led you to believe that you would not be charged?

MR ZEELIE: The A-G told me that if we made the necessary affidavit and if we offered our assistance, there would be no reason for us to fear that any criminal action would be taken against us, because this would be submitted to an Amnesty Committee in the future.

MR VISSER: So we know that in 1995 there was no amnesty process under way, are you saying that the A-G did not have any intention to prosecute anybody, is that what you're saying?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, it could have been that he proposed a 204.

MR VISSER: Do you mean a Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act? That doesn't answer the question. Why was the A-G involved?

MR ZEELIE: I asked to speak to the A-G before I made any statements or affidavits.

MR VISSER: Did you think that there were a possibility that you could be charged?

MR ZEELIE: There may have been such an idea, but after I had visited the A-G, he gave me the assurance that I would not be charged.

MR VISSER: Didn't the A-G tell you that if there were prosecutions, if you made an affidavit they would consider using you as a State witness?

MR ZEELIE: He didn't say those words, but it is a possibility.

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, you were there, is that the understanding under which you made your affidavit?

MR ZEELIE: I've answered you, he did not say that to me. I have answered you.

MR VISSER: No, you did not answer me. Is that the understanding based upon which you made your affidavit?

MR ZEELIE: Would you reformulate your question.

MR VISSER: Did you make this affidavit with the expectation that if you did so, other persons would be charged and you would then be used as the State witness by the A-G?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, when I spoke to the A-G at that point, from the very beginning onwards I told him, because facts were put down next to me and statements were put down before me and I told the A-G that wherever I was incriminated and my name was mentioned, I would not run away from the deeds that were committed because I felt that I did not act incorrectly, I carried out orders. And I told him that wherever I would be incriminated I would provide the facts at my disposal.

MR VISSER: So is your answer then that you were prepared to incriminate yourself and to make a confession without expecting to draw any advantage from it?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Were you never asked, or wasn't it ever put to you that it was expected of you to give the names of your fellow criminals?

MR ZEELIE: I told the A-G at that stage that wherever I would be incriminated, I would place myself at the scene and I even went as far as telling him that wherever there would be new facts or whenever my memory was to be refreshed, I would confirm it and I told him unequivocally that it could not be expected of me to name any other names regarding facts that had not been put down before me, and the A-G accepted it as such, I made a cassette recording of that and it is a fact.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Mr Visser, if I could just intervene.

This statement on page 15 - sorry, the Attorney-General, was that Mr D'Oliviera?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: This statement on page 15, CAZ4, only deals with the Why Not incident, it doesn't deal with your vast experience in the police which you've made reference to, we know there were a number of incidents you were involved in, this is specific.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you implicated in this, was somebody pointing a finger at you?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, I was implicated in this.

CHAIRPERSON: And the Attorney-General's office was then following that up?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And so that's how it came about.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now when you've been talking about amnesty in 1995, etcetera, we know that our Amnesty Act is number 34/95, so it was in existence. We also know that there was an Indemnity Act from before, was there any talk of amnesty or indemnity at the time of making this statement? Not necessarily in terms of this latest 1995 Act, but at the time we know that there were procedures for either indemnity and if that didn't apply, then people who applied for indemnity would then be referred to our Committee under the present Act.

MR ZEELIE: You see Chairperson, at that stage it was very confusing for us members, because at that point I could also not understand that there was an investigative team with D'Oliviera and another investigative team with the TRC, so it was somewhat confusing for me at that point.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, if I can just mention on page 81 of bundle 2 there is the talk of the indemnity in 1994.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: That is by the A-G's office.

CHAIRPERSON: 1994? Yes. Mr Visser.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

Just to follow up on what the Honourable Chairperson has put to you, previously there were indemnity Acts and the current TRC Act, the Promotion of National Unity and Reconciliation in terms of which amnesty is requested refers in Section 20(4) to that and those acts are specified and there was the Indemnity Act of 1994, the Indemnity Amendment Act of 1992 and the further Indemnity Act of 1992. The reason why I have put this to you is just to tell you that those indemnities were concluded by 1995 and would not have been of relevance any further if you had not applied in '92 for that indemnity. Would you agree with it?

MR ZEELIE: At a stage I only signed one indemnity form and among others, I also mentioned with regard to the indemnity form that I signed, that I did not commit any crime, that I acted under orders.

MR VISSER: Who implicated you in the Wimpy Bar matter, or rather, in the Why Not Club matter?

MR ZEELIE: I accept that Mr van Heerden implicated me. No names were ever mentioned to me, but later on there was information which came to light, based upon which I believe that Mr van Heerden implicated me.

MR VISSER: And you state that you then contacted the A-G and that the A-G did not contact you, is that what you are saying?

MR ZEELIE: Through members of the A-G's office, it was Adv Andre Steenkamp and the Investigating Officer was Blackie Swart. After they had visited my home, I told them that before I made any statements I would like to have an appointment with the A-G. They took various things into possession, they confiscated all my files as they searched my home. I always made photocopies of all the statements and affidavits that I had deposed, I even kept newspaper clippings which they confiscated. They went to Pretoria and contacted me later on and said that they had made an appointment for me with the A-G.

MR VISSER: You did not only make a statement to the A-G regarding the Why Not Club, there were diverse other matters regarding which you also made affidavits.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson. There were various instances upon which the investigating team to see me.

MR VISSER: You made a statement regarding the Stanza Bopape matter.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct. It would have been approximately two years after I had been at the A-G's, because at that stage I told the A-G that if any facts were tabled, I would be incriminating myself, if there were any new facts on the table, then I would be incriminating myself again. And it happened only much later when the Stanza Bopape matter came to the fore.

MR VISSER: Did you also make a statement regarding the Cry Freedom matter?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And the Khotso House matter?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: While we are busy with that - coincidentally, in all those cases you gave contradictory evidence to the evidence of Gens Du Toit and Erasmus, do you agree with that?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson. I can only state that while Mr Visser has just mentioned it now, that the primary reason for the clash in evidence was that there was confusion regarding Khotso House and Cosatu House, with regard to the facts that emanated from the evidence that was given, but my facts and my evidence were correct regarding the origin of the instruction and so forth. That was the biggest source of conflict with regard to that matter and it emanated in the hearing that there was a large measure of confusion between the two incidents.

MR VISSER: But isn't it so that with regard to the Khotso House matter, before the orders came from Head Office for the attack on Khotso House, you for example, involved members from Vlakplaas and it was your intention to go and blow up Khotso House?

MR ZEELIE: You are entirely incorrect, if you were to study those documents you would read that some of the demolitions members from Head Office stated clearly in evidence and in their applications, that they contacted the Vlakplaas members, I did not, I never contacted them. We can draw those files and those reports and corroborate this.

MR VISSER: I do not wish to re-examine the Khotso and Cosatu House matters.

MR ZEELIE: Yes please don't begin with that again.

MR VISSER: The fact remains that your evidence differed from Erasmus and Du Toit with regard to that matter.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, because mine was based on facts.

MR VISSER: Now I ask you again, were you invited by the A-G to implicate other persons, or were you not asked to do so?

MR ZEELIE: I was not asked to do so.

MR VISSER: May I just refer you to paragraph 8 on page 16. Your legal representative, Mr Rossouw, asked you that when you say that the investigating officer in the matter knew, was that an inference or was that your knowledge and you side-stepped the question quite neatly and you didn't answer it, would you care to answer it now please.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What are you referring to, which page?

MR VISSER: Page 16, paragraph 8, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Thank you.

MR VISSER: There are two sections and I will put both to Mr Zeelie. The one has to do with At van Niekerk and the other has to do with the investigating officer, I am now dealing with the investigating officer.

Would you care to tell us who was the investigating officer?

MR ZEELIE: The investigating officer was Mr Mostert.

MR VISSER: Are you aware that he knew about the police's involvement in this action, or was it simply your suspicion?

MR ZEELIE: I believe to this very day that he did not know of the police's involvement in this matter.

MR VISSER: Then I would like to ask you please to explain the following to the Committee, and you did not amend this in your evidence, paragraph 8, these are the following words that I will read

"The investigating officer in the matter knew that it was an SAP action."

What did you mean to convey with that?

MR ZEELIE: As I've already stated, when this statement was made much pressure was exerted upon us, I know that the words are written as such on these pages, I did not write the statement in my own handwriting. If we return to the investigation you will see that the investigating officer who took the statement wrote these things down, I told him what had happened and I accept that it says that the investigating officer knew. I was under the impression all the time that another person was the investigating officer, but now I've seen here that Mr Mostert was actually the investigating officer. However, I will maintain my previous response that I am drawing the inference that it was possible that Mr At van Niekerk, who at that stage was the Head of our Investigating Unit, had knowledge of that.

MR VISSER: I am not with At van Niekerk yet, I'm still busy with Mostert. Are you saying that according to you he did not have any knowledge?

MR ZEELIE: As far as I knew he did not have any knowledge of the incident.

MR VISSER: Did you tell your legal representative this?

MR ZEELIE: Please repeat.

MR VISSER: Did you tell your legal representative this?

MR ZEELIE: No, I don't believe that I discussed it with him.

MR VISSER: I see. So you were more than prepared to let this statement stand in which an innocent person, according to your own knowledge, is being implicated in a serious offence in which he had absolutely no involvement, is that what you're telling us?

MR ZEELIE: No, Chairperson, that's why I have said that if these persons had been consulted they would have put their cases forward and he would have denied it. I did not mention Mr Mostert's name here. They would probably have gone to him, he would have made a statement and he stated that he was not aware of it.

MR VISSER: Is that the best answer that you have for my question?

MR ZEELIE: That is my answer.

MR VISSER: Very well. Let us come to Mr van Niekerk, why did you mention his name?

MR ZEELIE: I've already stated that he was our Commander with the Investigating Unit and if anybody had been consulted about it, it would automatically have been him.

MR VISSER: Why did you mention Gen Malherbe's name?

MR ZEELIE: Because at that stage he was also on the other side.

MR VISSER: Tell me Mr Zeelie, ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: Gen Malherbe, as I've already stated in my evidence-in-chief, did not participate in the planning. I've already stated in my evidence that he was there and that there were also other people there, but that Gen du Toit and Gen Erasmus called me to the side.

MR VISSER: But that was not your evidence from this morning.

MR ZEELIE: That is the evidence that I gave.

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, you testified today that Mr Erasmus took you aside to another room.

MR ZEELIE: No, I stated that Gen Erasmus and Gen du Toit did so.

MR VISSER: Well then I would like to put it to you that you stated pertinently that you were taken by Gen Erasmus to a separate room, and I made a note of this in my documents. Are you saying that I am wrong?

MR ZEELIE: I'm accepting that you are wrong, because ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: I would like to tell you that he is correct indeed Mr Zeelie, and you will have to accept that you could be mistaken, because you testified and you did not mention Mr du Toit's name.

CHAIRPERSON: We might have page back because - let me read what I've got. My note is

"I went there. Erasmus, Du Toit and Gen Malherbe were all there. When Erasmus contacted me I tried to contact Nanie Beyers ..."

there was an aside talking about Nanie Beyers.

"He was a co-bomb disposal operative. I trusted him. I couldn't get hold of him. I went alone to the SAB. I met them. At SAB, Erasmus and Du Toit called me aside. We went to another room. Erasmus told me to blow up a place ..."

etcetera, etcetera.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, with great respect to your note, it's wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright, sorry.

MR VISSER: I was paying very acute attention to that part of the evidence, Chairperson, and unless I heard incorrectly, but as Gen Erasmus says, we can all make mistakes.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, I think it might be wrongly interpreted because my note is clear there and I also made a mental note of: "Gen Erasmus roep my eenkant".

MR VISSER: That was the direct, that wasn't the translation that I'm talking about.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza wanted to say something.

MR NYAWUZA: My notes also say he was called by Du Toit and Erasmus.

MR VISSER: So it's that's the translation obviously.

MS COLERIDGE: Mine as well.

ADV SIGODI: Mine as well, I might confirm and I was listening to the translation, he mentioned Erasmus and Du Toit.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, maybe ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: That must be the translation.

MR ROSSOUW: Well Mr Chairman, then I suggest that we clear it up.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Visser's putting it to you that what you actually said in Afrikaans when you were giving your evidence-in-chief, you only mentioned that Gen Erasmus took you aside, not Gen du Toit.

MR ZEELIE: I am convinced that I said that Gen Erasmus and Gen du Toit called me aside.

MR VISSER: Very well, let us accept that for a moment. In other words, Gen Malherbe then did not accompany you to this room, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes.

MR VISSER: Now I just want to read to you what the wording is of the amnesty form, in paragraph 11(a) as it appears on page 4 - yes Chairperson, I'm referring only to volume 1 all the time, page 4, 11(a) he mentions

"If the deeds, offences ... in the execution of the command on behalf of the organisation ..."

etcetera.

and then he says, (b):

"If so, mention details concerning such instruction or approval and the date thereof and if known, the name and the address of the person or persons who made such an instruction or gave the approval to such an instruction."

Now I'd like to ask you to go to page 12 of volume 1, there's 11(a) and (b), can you see that? Can you see that on page 12? Mr Zeelie?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I can see that.

MR VISSER: (a) you say: "Yes", in other words it's an instruction that was executed on behalf of ... as we have read, and then (b), that is now if you did know who gave the instruction, who gave the approval for the instruction

"The instructions for this bomb attack was given by Gen Erasmus and Piet du Toit. Gen Frans Malherbe was also present."

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, if I wanted to say that Gen Malherbe also gave instructions, I would have said that the instruction for this bomb attack was given by Gen Erasmus, Du Toit and Malherbe. What I meant here was that he was also present at the premises where the instruction was given.

MR VISSER: No, Mr Zeelie, life is not that simple. You are asked who gave the instruction for this attack and you say

"Erasmus and Piet du Toit and Frans Malherbe was present"

and that means only one thing, that there were Piet du Toit and Gerhard Erasmus gave you the instruction, Malherbe was present. Is that not what it means?

MR ZEELIE: That was not my intention, Mr Chairperson. If it was interpreted in a different way, I say that the instruction was given by Erasmus and Du Toit and my intention there was Malherbe was also present at the premises, then I have stated it wrongly.

CHAIRPERSON: What in your mind was the relevance of the presence of Gen Malherbe? If Gen Erasmus gave you that instruction in John Vorster Square, would you have gone and made a list of all the other policemen who were present, or Generals present at John Vorster Square, merely because they were in the same building?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, that is why I said the reason why I mentioned that was because it was a premises away from John Vorster Square, it was a place where I was called to, what was discussed between them I do not know, and that is the only reason why I added here that Gen Malherbe was also present.

CHAIRPERSON: What was Gen Malherbe's position, what was his ...?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, at that stage he was the liaison officer with the media and he was present at all the explosive scenes and he dealt with the media at all the scenes.

CHAIRPERSON: Was he a Security Branch member, Witwatersrand division of the Security Branch or what ...?

MR ZEELIE: No, he was not part of the Security Branch, he served under the Section Commissioner.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: He was a liaisons officer.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: You mentioned before that there were two or three other Security Police members at this club ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: No, I did not say that, I said that there were two or three other members. I accept that they were from the South African Police, personnel members.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Other members? You say there were other members.

MR ZEELIE: I said other persons, two or three others.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, but what did you just say, other members? 30 seconds ago.

MR ZEELIE: If I can then correct myself, Mr Chairperson, I will refer to my evidence-in-chief where I said there were two or three other people present.

MR VISSER: And in your evidence-in-chief you also referred to members, I will put it to you.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, if I did mention members, members are also - there are 10 members in this room and we belong to different departments and organisations. If I wanted to refer to members, I would have said police members.

MR VISSER: So if you talk about members, we must not expect that they are police members.

MR ZEELIE: Except for the context to which it is referred to then.

MR VISSER: Sir, on page 15 you said that Gen Erasmus and Gen du Toit contacted you and Nanie Beyers, they were in the bar of the SAB - paragraph 2. The way in which you continue your application, it is very clear that you meant that Nanie Beyers was present there at the club. That is what you intended to say.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, as Gen Erasmus and Du Toit testified, it was a very long time ago, my memory was not very good at that stage and after it was refreshed I corrected myself.

MR VISSER: You were willing to even implicate Nanie Beyers in the matter, but let us leave it. Then you say in paragraph 4, very specifically

"We provided the Generals with various names of black clubs and they decided on the Why Not Night-club."

But let us deal with one aspect at a time. You say now, "Well no, sorry I made a mistake, Nanie Beyers was not with me." Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Nanie Beyers was not with me, no.

MR VISSER: Very well. I'd just like to then say to you that you said that: "We gave the Generals the names of the black clubs." Then I would like to refer you to page 10, paragraph 2, the top paragraph on page 10, and then I'd like to read to you what you say here - or let me just ask you this, this supplementary statement in which you make these amendments, is this now after you spoke to Brood van Heerden and got clarity about the facts?

MR ZEELIE: In what context are you asking this?

MR VISSER: I'm asking a very simple question, did you make this statement after you had a discussion with Mr van Heerden, to get clarity about the true facts?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR VISSER: Very well. And did you then mention this to your legal representative and say that? "Here are things that I have to amend in my statement" and you then decided on the supplementary affidavit?

MR ZEELIE: I accept so.

MR VISSER: Do not accept something, is it so or is it not so?

MR ZEELIE: It's for me the same thing.

MR VISSER: No, Sir, don't you want to compromise yourself here? Is it so or is it not so?

MR ZEELIE: I believe it is so.

MR VISSER: Very well. Let us look at page 10 then, the second sentence

"I confirm the reference to Nanie Beyers is not correct and that the person who was involved was indeed Andries Johannes van Heerden."

let us stop there. Now we do know how you involved Nanie Beyers and now what you are doing in simple Afrikaans, you replace Nanie Beyers with Van Heerden.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, yes, because Mr van Heerden was with me when we executed this instruction.

MR VISSER: No, Mr Zeelie, you are clever enough to know that I'm not talking about that, I am talking about someone who went with you to the SAB club, where instructions were given to you - just give me a chance, where instructions were given, according to your evidence, given to you by Erasmus and Du Toit and that is what I'm talking about. Am I correct if I say that in your supplementary affidavit, you replaced Nanie Beyers with Mr van Heerden?

MR ZEELIE: According to the statement it is mentioned like that, yes, but he was definitely not with me.

MR VISSER: Let us put it more specifically, your legal representative said that he did not agree with me, but let us read the following sentence

"I therefore request that the name Nanie Beyers in paragraph 2 and the Nanie in paragraph 5 ..."

but I do not want to deal with that, I'm talking specifically about paragraph 2:

"... must be replaced by Andries Johannes van Heerden"

and that makes it very clear, is that not true?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, but as I have said before, Van Heerden had to be replaced, that is where the instruction was executed, Nanie Beyers had to be taken out there because he did not accompany us.

MR VISSER: So you say that the reference to paragraph 2 is a mistake?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, it was only myself that went to the SAB.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Is therefore a further mistake in paragraph 2, or is it only the name?

MR ZEELIE: Are you talking about the statement on page 15?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes.

MR ZEELIE: The words, the fact that

"Erasmus and Du Toit contacted me"

you see, Mr Chairperson, as I've said before, this statement was written by the investigative officer.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, we do not want to deal with that, I'm just asking you if there's another mistake, I'm not asking who wrote it.

MR ZEELIE: I accept that there it says Gen du Toit and Erasmus and Erasmus contacted me via the radio, Du Toit did not contact me. And the Nanie Beyers as I've mentioned there, must be scratched out.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Just Gen Erasmus, if we then assume that Du Toit did not say anything, he did not contact you?

MR ZEELIE: It was Erasmus who contacted me and not Du Toit.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Did Erasmus also contact Brood?

MR ZEELIE: No, he did not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Because here you say that the two Generals contacted you and Van Heerden.

MR ZEELIE: That is why I say that they must just delete Nanie Beyers and it must not be replaced with Van Heerden, they must just scratch it out. And only in paragraph 5 must they replace Nanie with Van Heerden.

JUDGE DE JAGER: You see I've got something else that I can add here, here you say Erasmus and Du Toit contacted you and before you testified Erasmus and Du Toit gave you the instructions, now I'd like to hear, at the opportunity where they gave you the instructions, what was Du Toit's words to you, what instruction did he give and what instruction did Erasmus give?

MR ZEELIE: Du Toit did not give me an instruction himself, the reason why I put it like this was that they were together when Erasmus spoke to me.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Du Toit did not speak at all?

MR ZEELIE: No, he did not say anything, but I said it in the context because they were both my Commanders and they were together and that Gen Erasmus gave me the instructions.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But at the other one you said that Malherbe was also present, why didn't you say here that Erasmus gave the instruction and that Du Toit was present?

MR ZEELIE: The fact that Gen Erasmus and Du Toit accompanied me to the other room, that brought that division for me and that is why I accept that it came from both of them and they had to discuss it before.

MR VISSER: And why did you, for example, make mention Mr Zeelie, of the fact that you were taken to a different room at the SAB club? Was it not important?

MR ZEELIE: It was not important, it is a question that would have come to me.

MR VISSER: Very well. Why was it necessary to go to another room? Here is Erasmus, Du Toit and Malherbe and in your statement you said that they were all three present when the command was given, why is it now necessary to go to a different room?

MR ZEELIE: As I have said before, there were other people in the same room where I met them and Gen Erasmus and Du Toit left with me and went to another room.

MR VISSER: Were you scared that the other members, those who were not members of the police, would hear you?

MR ZEELIE: It was not for me to say that I was scared, the Generals told me to accompany them to a different office. I did not know at that stage what they wanted to say to me.

MR VISSER: But in your evidence-in-chief today you mentioned that there at the Vanderbijlpark bus terminus scene, Du Toit spoke to you.

MR ZEELIE: I said Erasmus said that he's sick and tired of all the explosions. I did not say Du Toit said it, I said he was also present.

MR VISSER: That is exactly Judge de Jager's question, why did you not then say the same thing for the incident at the SAB club?

MR ZEELIE: The fact of the matter was that we were again there together and there weren't other people around.

MR VISSER: That is not an answer to the question, you do realise this. The point that Judge de Jager wanted to make is, why didn't you say Erasmus gave you the instruction, Du Toit and/or Malherbe was present?

MR ZEELIE: I've already put it, made it very clear, Gen Erasmus gave me the instruction and the reason why I in my evidence-in-chief said, "Erasmus and Du Toit", was because both of them were my Commanders and they called me to the side.

MR VISSER: And at the scene there where the bomb exploded at the Vanderbijlpark bus terminus, there they were both your Commanders and they were also present, why do you make the distinction in your explanation about what happened there that you do not make at the SAB club?

MR ZEELIE: I do make a distinction, I do not understand why you say I make a distinction.

MR VISSER: Very well. Why did you not say anything or mention anything in your statement on page 15 or somewhere else, about this discussion at the scene or the premises at the Vanderbijlpark bus terminus? I'm sorry, I say Vanderbijlpark and I knew I was going to do this, I apologise, at the Vanderbijlpark bus terminus ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, that's slightly misleading ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Vanderbijl Square.

MR VISSER: Square, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, that's slightly misleading, Mr Zeelie said in his supplementary affidavit that he's read the affidavit by Mr van Heerden and he confirms it as far as it relates to him. If you have a look at page 30 you will note that Mr van Heerden states that the discussion took place with Gens Erasmus, Du Toit, him and Mr Zeelie at Vanderbijl Square.

MR VISSER: Mr Visser, with great respect, that is as clear as mud, but be that as it may.

Let me just ask you a question after your legal representative wanted to clear it up, you say amongst others, paragraph 3 on page 10, it is now about who placed the limpet mine under the bench and you said in your statement on page 15, that you did it. Then Mr van Heerden came and he said he did it and then you say in paragraph 3 on page 10:

"I cannot say with certainty if I placed the limpet mine under the bench or if Andries van Heerden placed it there."

Is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, but as I said, after this incident I did speak to Mr van Heerden because I mention it there and I mentioned it in my evidence-in-chief and I do admit that I did place it there, and these are the facts.

MR VISSER: Well your legal representative just said that you'd now agree with what Van Heerden said, is that correct? Now just look at what you say in your evidence today, you spoke to Van Heerden about it and "I placed it under the bench."

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I can see what it states here, but that is why I said that I spoke to Mr van Heerden about this incident and the facts are that I placed it.

MR VISSER: In other words paragraph 1 is misleading, you do not make use of Mr van Heerden's statement, not in all aspects, is that correct?

JUDGE DE JAGER: Mr Visser, these are matters that you can deal with in argument, I do not think that you will get anywhere.

MR VISSER: Yes, I just do feel that I ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps the first question when Mr Rossouw came in, Mr Visser asked you why didn't you mention the discussion that took place at Vanderbijl Square, in your statement on page 15, because I get the impression, the distinct impression - well we've been told, it's not just a question of getting an impression, we've been told that the bomb at the Why Not was a counter-attack, it wasn't an attack that stands on its own, the main purpose of the bomb was to send a message to say: "Look, we are now counter-attacking, we are sending a message to the ANC", that's why it had to be done so promptly, etcetera, etcetera. But when one reads the statement on page 15, one doesn't get that impression at all, it's just, you know, out of the blue you get a radio call and you go there. So why wasn't that Vanderbijl, why didn't this aspect about it being the main reason, being a counter-attack, not mentioned in the statement of the 15th? - I mean, on page 15, the statement there.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, as I've said, in one of my statements I mentioned Wimpy Bar, it was a very long run-up of explosions that took place, where Gen Erasmus at various opportunities expressed his disgust and said that we had to act in a hard way against the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you mention in paragraph 3

"I assume it had to be an act of revenge"

But you didn't mention - had you forgotten about the Vanderbijl "Plein" incident, or what, when you did this?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, as I have testified before, I dealt with about 160 incidents and visited 160 scenes and it can become a bit confusing.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson.

In how many cases of instances did you receive instructions from Erasmus or Du Toit or one of them to execute an act of revenge in another bomb attack?

MR ZEELIE: This specific instance and then also in the Khotso House incident where I also received instructions, where I went to go and discuss it with Gen Erasmus and made the suggestion to him.

MR VISSER: But Mr Zeelie, your evidence in the Khotso House incident was that this instruction came from Head Office.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, in my evidence-in-chief there I said that I went to go and see Gen Erasmus about the incident and Gen Erasmus went to Head Office that same day and he came back and he told me that he spoke with Head Office and that myself and Nanie Beyers must accompany him to Head Office. From Head Office we went to the explosives Headquarters and there we did the planning. I therefore got the instructions directly from Erasmus.

MR VISSER: Then not from Head Office? Very well, if you want it that way. But now we've got two cases or instances where you got the instruction to illegally detonate certain bombs and you got these instructions from Gen Erasmus.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you truly saying to the Committee that you can recall that you got these instructions or this instruction from Gen Erasmus at the scene where a bomb exploded?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I have testified about it.

MR VISSER: Yes, well why didn't you mention it on page 15 and 16, did you forget about it?

MR ZEELIE: No, because I did not say that he gave me the instructions at the scene, I said he mentioned that he was sick and tired of the ANC's actions and that we also had to act against them. He did not at that stage say to me I had to go and plant a bomb somewhere.

MR VISSER: Well this an inference that I'm making now about what you just said, that Gen Erasmus at various opportunities told you that you had to act in revenge against the ANC.

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I did make use of the word revenge a few times.

MR VISSER: That was never put to him when he testified, did you tell this to your legal representative?

MR ZEELIE: No, I did not say it to him.

MR VISSER: I see. Well I will put it to you that you are wrong in your evidence and that this was the only instance where Gen Erasmus gave such an instruction.

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I was present, Mr Visser was not present, so I can testify about it and Mr Visser cannot say to me that it wasn't true.

MR VISSER: Well I can say to you somebody else was also not there and that was Gen du Toit, that is now at the scene at the Vanderbijl bus terminus or Vanderbijl Square. So do you still say that he was there?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I do, but I also say that I cannot say that he was not there.

MR VISSER: In other words you're not willing to concede that you are mistaken, you do recall things in a certain way and those who recall it differently, they are mistaken?

MR ZEELIE: Mr Chairperson, I give the facts, something that I can recall for certain, I'll testify about, if there's a dispute I will say I'm not sure, but what I'm saying to you is a fact. I will not implicate a person if it's not so.

MR VISSER: Well Gen Erasmus testified in front of this Committee, and he does accept full responsibility for the giving of the instruction for this bomb explosion, and you heard him, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I heard him, Mr Chairperson, but he also basically said that he did not give a direct instruction, it was only after the explosion that he heard that I did it and he said that I had to go to places, according to his evidence, and investigate to find out where people gathered. According to his evidence he did not say: "Charles, go and look where there's a place and go and put a bomb there."

MR VISSER: Mr Zeelie, you give a lot of answers that have got nothing to do with the question, but I will come back to the question the whole time and you can be sure of it.

Gen Erasmus has accepted responsibility for the instruction for the bomb explosion in the Why Not Club, did you hear that?

MR ZEELIE: In conclusion he did indeed accept it.

MR VISSER: By what conclusion?

MR ZEELIE: In the conclusion of his evidence.

MR VISSER: I see. Very well. And he did this on the grounds of what he discussed with you at the Vanderbijl Square scene, according to his evidence. I beg your pardon, did you hear that?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, he himself testified that he did not give an order for me to set a bomb, he said that I should investigate places where ANC people met and then report back to him.

MR VISSER: Did he say that to you?

MR ZEELIE: I cannot recall precisely whether he said that at that stage, as far as I can recall, he only told me at that stage that he was sick and tired of all these actions of the ANC against our people and that we also had to take action against them.

MR VISSER: Yes, and he said that you should investigate and the supposition was clear that you were to report back to him. That was his evidence.

MR ZEELIE: He didn't say anything to me.

MR VISSER: No, that was just your evidence.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I said that's what he said.

MR VISSER: Now at that second, there at the Vanderbijl Square scene, you must have known of Cafe Zurich, because you had conducted that investigation along with Mr van Heerden, according to your evidence, isn't that so?

MR ZEELIE: I wasn't thinking of Cafe Zurich or any other place at that stage, there were many places. I had visited the scenes of 160 and more explosions.

MR VISSER: No, we are referring to this particular one, Mr Zeelie. In your affidavit you stated that you regarded it as an act of revenge ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Page 15, paragraph 3.

MR VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson. It's page 11, Chairperson, it's the passage I was looking for.

Just look at page 11: "Political Objective", paragraph 10(a):

"The explosion at the Why Not Night-club was a direct revenge attack which was launched due to the two limpet mine explosions at the Vanderbijl bus terminus by the ANC.

The Why Not Night-club was selected, because according to information which was in the possession of the Security Force, it was visited by various ANC members. The night-club was also directly opposite Cafe Zurich where a bomb was planted earlier during 1988, by Peter Dlamini, an ANC terrorist."

and then you also describe the objective. This is what you state in your supplementary affidavit on page 11, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Then my question is simple, when you deposed the affidavit on page 15, you omitted this absolute reason why the Why Not Club was attacked, because you make it the only reason here.

MR ZEELIE: I don't understand what you mean by that.

MR VISSER: Very well. On page 15, did you forget to refer ...(intervention)

MR ZEELIE: In which paragraph?

MR VISSER: Page 15, 16 and 17. ... did you forget to refer to it as the reason why the Why Not Night-club had to be attacked?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already testified, at SA Breweries I mentioned the name Why Not to Gens du Toit and Erasmus, due to the fact that Cafe Zurich was situated directly opposite to the Why Not and the attack was launched from those premises.

INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not one. The speaker's microphone.

JUDGE DE JAGER: When you began you said - at which place, which place did you refer to it, where this was said?

MR ZEELIE: At Breweries.

JUDGE DE JAGER: I beg your pardon, thank you.

MR VISSER: Very well. There at Vanderbijl Square you had the information because you were an investigating officer, along with Van Heerden, in the Cafe Zurich bomb explosion, as a result of which Peter Dlamini was arrested, do you recall?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR VISSER: Then why didn't you just tell Erasmus there and then that you had the perfect place in mind?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I was on the scene as a demolitions expert, I had reasonably many tasks to perform there. Gen Erasmus said that he was sick and tired of the circumstances, I accepted what he said, I understood what he said and I continued with my work obligations.

JUDGE DE JAGER: What was Van Heerden doing at the scene? Did he also have something to do with demolitions?

MR ZEELIE: Van Heerden was a member of the investigating staff.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Which investigating staff?

MR ZEELIE: Security Branch investigating staff. He also worked specifically under me.

CHAIRPERSON: So Mr Zeelie, I'm just trying to clear this up, what you say is that at Vanderbijl "Plein" you were there bona fide on duty, examining an explosion, Gen Erasmus was there in his capacity as the Commander and at the scene Gen Erasmus expressed his displeasure and frustration with these continual bombings and said: "Look, I'm sick and tired of this, it's high time we took action", fullstop? It was like a statement?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't get the impression he was instructing you to do anything, either by inference or directly?

MR ZEELIE: Not at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: He just made a statement expressing his dismay and frustration.

MR ZEELIE: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And then the next step was you got the radio call, is that what you're saying?

MR ZEELIE: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And if Gen Erasmus' evidence were to be refused by this Committee, it would mean that with the exception of your evidence at the SAB club, it would indicated that you acted alone, because according to his understanding he accepted that you understood that he gave you an instruction.

MR ZEELIE: That is what it boils down to. If I have to refer to a previous hearing, specifically the Bopape hearing, Mr Visser in his argument or his address, also stated, and I have press clippings to prove it, if us at the lower ranks that the Generals are going to answer for us, then we are incorrect. I think that it boils down to what Mr Visser is saying now.

MR VISSER: But Mr Zeelie, I don't know what that has to do with this application, with the greatest respect, I challenge you to show me that evidence.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I will ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Can we just continue with this matter please. Why in paragraph 3 did you refer to the Wimpy Bar, when you made your statement before the A-G?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, it was one of the ugliest explosions which occurred to me directly.

MR VISSER: But you did not remember the Cafe Zurich or Vanderbijl Square explosions when you made this statement.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, Cafe Zurich only occurred as a result of the fact that Gen Erasmus asked me at the Breweries which places could be identified, so Cafe Zurich was not in direct relation to Vanderbijl Square. It was mentioned ...(intervention)

JUDGE DE JAGER: But it was in direct relation to the explosion at Why Not.

MR ZEELIE: I'm trying to explain it to you, Chairperson. It occurred directly after Gen Erasmus gave an instruction for us to plant a bomb at a place and then Cafe Zurich was mentioned and it was determined that Why Not was directly opposite it.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But if you make a statement about Why Not and in this statement you deal only with Why Not, the Cafe Zurich incident must occur to you because the two are directly related, but here you refer to the Wimpy incident and that has absolutely nothing to do with Cafe Zurich or Why Not, which are directly opposite each other.

MR ZEELIE: But that is why I told you that the moment Gen Erasmus mentioned his idea, I thought about Cafe Zurich and realised that the planning could be conducted from Why Not.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But then you also stated under oath that you wish to state that after the long lapse of time since the incident, your memory is not that good any longer, is that correct?

MR ZEELIE: It is possible, Chairperson.

JUDGE DE JAGER: No, you have stated this under oath. Not everything can be answered in terms of possibilities, I'm asking you a direct question.

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, due to the long lapse in time, my memory could fail me with regard to certain things.

MR VISSER: Such as, for example, the fact that Gen Piet du Toit was present at Vanderbijl Square.

MR ZEELIE: No, I am positive that he was indeed present, that is what I've already stated. If I doubt something I will say that it might not be that way, but if I'm certain of a fact, I will name the persons who are involved.

MR VISSER: I will be arguing this and that is why I'm going to give you the opportunity to respond to what I want to put to you. There is a more obvious reason why in your supplementary affidavit on page 11, you refer to Vanderbijl Square and that reason can be found on page 27 of volume 1, and that is the statement of Mr van Heerden. The final paragraph on that page. I beg you pardon, I have said that it was the last paragraph, it's actually the penultimate paragraph, the paragraph just below the heading at 9(a)(iv)

"The bomb explosion at the Why Not Night-club took place as a result of a revenge reaction for the two limpet mine explosions at the Vanderbijl bus terminus."

That is the reason why you changed your affidavit, isn't that so?

MR ZEELIE: No, as I have already stated, my recollection has indeed been refreshed with regard to the explosion which took place just before the Why Not.

MR VISSER: Then why did you drag Van Heerden into this whole thing, he was an investigative man?

MR ZEELIE: I've already explained, we had already been involved in a series of other incidents, I trusted him and I've already explained to the Committee that Van Heerden was highly proficient in black languages and it would have been much easier to infiltrate places.

MR VISSER: Did you tell Erasmus at the SAB club, that you were going to using Van Heerden in this operation?

MR ZEELIE: I don't recall telling him any thing like that.

MR VISSER: Did you tell him that you would be enlisting the efforts of Vlakplaas members for backup?

MR ZEELIE: I did not tell him at that stage.

MR VISSER: Why not?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, he issued an instruction to me and I executed it. Furthermore, he himself did not tell me to get such and such a person to assist me. He accepted, and I still believe this today, that I would be more than capable of obtaining the necessary persons to assist me, because such a task could certainly not be performed by a single person.

MR VISSER: But Mr Zeelie, the ANC cadres did so chronically, one person would go and plant a bomb and that's that, are you telling us that you couldn't do it alone?

MR ZEELIE: I definitely would not have done it by myself, that is why so many ANC people blew themselves up as well.

MR VISSER: Would you have blown yourself up if you had gone alone?

MR ZEELIE: There was a very strong possibility because if one is under pressure, one can easily make a mistake.

JUDGE DE JAGER: And if you took Van Heerden with you, you could blow him up as well?

MR ZEELIE: No, Sir, that is why I have already testified that Mr van Heerden's presence there made the whole affair far simpler and easier, because we could gain easier access and take the device inside.

MR VISSER: But what were the Vlakplaas people supposed to do there?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, as I have already stated, I decided within myself to see whether they could assist us in a backup capacity in the event of any problems, say for example the bouncer found something on us and we would have to defend ourselves, they would be able to assist us in escaping.

MR VISSER: What would you have done if Ngema had discovered the limpet mine on you, would you have shot him or what?

MR ZEELIE: I wouldn't have shot him, Chairperson, however he would have been on the floor, he would not have been able to get us that easily.

MR VISSER: Is that why you refer to this backup?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you are saying that without the necessary backup you would not have been able to tackle such a project?

MR ZEELIE: I would not have tackled such a project in any case. If we look at the history of the police, no such action was ever initiated by a single person, there was always an extra number of people to give assistance.

MR VISSER: But we have you and Van Heerden, so there's no question of a single person, I'm referring to the Vlakplaas people in this regard. Are you saying that you would not have planted this bomb without the involvement of Vlakplaas?

MR ZEELIE: If it boiled down to an inability to obtain their assistance for the operation we would have gone ahead on our own, but once there, if we had seen that circumstances would have created problems for us, we would have abandoned the plan.

MR VISSER: You see because as it was they didn't want to get involved because Eugene de Kock didn't give them the order for it.

MR ZEELIE: There was one member who didn't want to be involved.

MR VISSER: Were the other two involved? Paul van Dyk didn't want to get involved.

MR ZEELIE: And at the end of the day he did assist, he went in.

MR VISSER: According to Mr van Heerden all five of you entered the club, is he mistaken?

MR ZEELIE: When the bomb was placed? When the bomb was placed only four of us were inside, Mr Vermeulen was outside.

MR VISSER: What did the other two Vlakplaas members do regarding this operation, what were they supposed to do?

MR ZEELIE: They didn't do anything, they were there with us and as I've already testified, if there were any problems they would have assisted us.

MR VISSER: And you were disguised?

MR ZEELIE: Yes, I was disguised.

MR VISSER: You wore a wig and cotton wool in your cheeks and so forth?

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: And this is because you knew that you would have to return to the scene later on, in order to investigate and then there would be the risk of your identification.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson. And as I have already stated in my evidence-in-chief, with the exception of this, I often visited many scenes and presented many lectures and I had testified in many cases which meant that I had appeared in the media.

MR VISSER: Yes, I recall your evidence very well, you don't have to repeat it. I just want to know whether it was important for you to disguise yourself in order to prevent any recognition should you return to the scene later.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Then what about Van Heerden, why did you take him back to the scene?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, that is why he did not enter the scene directly, he remained seated in the car. There were many people moving about there.

MR VISSER: And did you agree with him to remain in the car and not to go there from fear that he may be identified?

MR ZEELIE: That was the reason why he stayed in the car.

MR VISSER: I want to know whether you discussed it with him, Mr Zeelie.

MR ZEELIE: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR VISSER: So it was you and not Du Toit who told him to remain in the car?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, long after Gen du Toit, or long before Gen du Toit arrived there, Van Heerden and I were already on the scene.

MR VISSER: And what of that?

MR ZEELIE: Du Toit didn't see Van Heerden walking about there and tell him to go and sit in the car so that no-one could recognise him, he was already seated in the car.

MR VISSER: So Du Toit arrived there, he saw Van Heerden seated in the car, walked over to him and said: "Sit in the car"?

MR ZEELIE: I believe he told him to remain seated in the car.

MR VISSER: Why would he have done that?

MR ZEELIE: Chairperson, I accept because he wanted to be certain that Van Heerden would not disembark from the car and be identified.

JUDGE DE JAGER: But Mr Zeelie, how did he know that Mr van Heerden was involved?

MR ZEELIE: The vehicle in which he was seated was my vehicle, so I accept that after the order was issued and as I've already testified, I believe the Generals would have accepted that I would be involving people and seeing as he saw the man sitting in my car he must have accepted that he was involved.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Do you know what the General would have accepted? That there was a call that there was a bomb explosion and that you went to the scene to investigate in your car, because you were an expert and they knew that you would be there, but they didn't know that if Van Heerden went with you, that he would be participating in some bomb explosion, perhaps he was just assisting you with the investigation.

MR ZEELIE: I asked Van Heerden to remain in the car, I did not state that Gen du Toit told him to stay in the car.

JUDGE DE JAGER: Yes, and you also never told Du Toit that Van Heerden had been with you before the time.

MR ZEELIE: No, I did not tell him prior that Van Heerden had been with.

JUDGE DE JAGER: So he didn't know that Van Heerden was involved in the placement of the bomb?

MR ZEELIE: Not prior to the incident.

MR VISSER: Because you see - and I would like to conclude on this point because it is almost 4 o'clock, you see your own evidence, according to your own evidence you received an order at SA Breweries bar or club and it is very clear from my questions to you that no-one gave you authorisation or that no-one was notified that you would be involving Van Heerden. Do you agree with this?

MR ZEELIE: I've already stated that the order was given to me and I accepted that Gen Erasmus and Du Toit would accept that I would be involving others.

MR VISSER: Would they necessarily have accepted, even if your evidence is acceptable, would they have accepted that you would be involving Van Heerden?

MR ZEELIE: I believe that they would also have accepted that, Chairperson, because as I have already stated, Van Heerden had been involved in various other matters with me. Mr van Heerden was involved with Vlakplaas, they knew Mr Van Heerden reasonably well in that regard.

MR VISSER: But you see Mr Zeelie - and with this I conclude for the afternoon, you have caught the tiger by the tail and you have a problem, because none of these Generals could have known that Van Heerden would have been involved and that is why there would have been no reason in the world for Gen du Toit to go and speak to him. And furthermore, why then are you trying to defend Van Heerden's evidence, and that is how it boils down to you.

MR ZEELIE: I don't understand what you mean, I gave my evidence and I said that Mr van Heerden was there, at no point in my evidence did I state that Gen du Toit went to Van Heerden. Furthermore, I did not defend it at all, so I don't know what you are basing this upon.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, would this be a convenient time to take your adjournment, but just before you do so, there's a special request of - I'm sorry, I thought that there was a problem with Gen du Toit, with his leg, but I just received a note that he will be here tomorrow.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Yes, this will be a convenient time to adjourn, will nine-thirty be convenient tomorrow morning?

MR VISSER: Oh there is a request, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyawuza?

MR NYAWUZA: No, I withdraw my request, nine-thirty will be okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure? Okay, nine-thirty tomorrow mor-ning we'll continue with the evidence of Mr Zeelie. Thank you.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS