Amnesty Hearings

IZAK DANIEL BOSCH: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, please be seated. Mr Rossouw.

EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bosch, your amnesty application appears on page 1 and furthermore do you confirm the contents thereof, the formal section of your application, page 1 to 7?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Can I just take you to page 5, where you answer a question if you received any financial benefits, can you see that?

MR BOSCH: I can.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you tell the Committee whether the bonus and cash which you received has any relation to the incidents for which you today apply for amnesty?

BOSCH: No, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you maybe mentioned what incidents were these?

MR BOSCH: It was an incident in Lesotho where Mr de Kock gave us each R60 when we went home.

MR ROSSOUW: This was after the operation?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You have also applied for that incident?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, can I take you to the initial annexure of your application that you find on page 8 up until page 10, do you confirm the contents of it?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And the specific incidents annexed to your application, you mention in paragraph 11.3 and 11.6 in your initial annexure to your application.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Then Mr Bosch, I'd like to take you to the supplementary statements on page 11 and 12, do you confirm that?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Then we can begin with the arson of the Vryburg Church, that you will find on page 20. Mr Chairperson, you'll find that on page 20.

Mr Bosch, can you mention to the Committee - or you make mention that you looked at Mr Nortje's application, can you tell the Committee where you were working in 1987 during this operation.

MR BOSCH: I was working at Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSOUW: And what was your rank?

MR BOSCH: I was a Sergeant.

MR ROSSOUW: And during that time how did you become involved in this operation?

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, we were on our way to Ovamboland, we drove through Vryburg, we stayed over and that's where Mr Bruwer contacted Col de Kock to ask us to assist him with the church hall which is a problem.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you stay over or did you just arrive there and execute the operation on the same day?

MR BOSCH: We did not stay over. We stayed over close to Mafikeng on a farm and from there we drove to Vryburg and that's where he asked us if we could assist him.

MR ROSSOUW: What was the specific request?

MR BOSCH: That's there's a facility where there is a photocopier and these old copying machines and that they were making pamphlets there and that they were distributing it from there.

MR ROSSOUW: And can you tell the Committee what your role was in the execution of this operation.

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, I also entered, I think after Col de Kock and Jaap Raap opened the door. I had a 5 litre container of petrol.

MR ROSSOUW: And what did you do with that petrol?

MR BOSCH: I doused the items in the building, but Col de Kock told us before that we should not pour anything over the machine itself, it had to be taken out.

MR ROSSOUW: Who asked this?

MR BOSCH: It was Col de Kock, that's why we did not pour petrol over it. We poured petrol over the rest of the items, except for the photocopy machine.

MR ROSSOUW: Who provided the petrol?

MR BOSCH: Mr Nortje went to go and buy and then we just poured it over into smaller containers. Because I think we were four people in the building, myself, Mr Nortje, Jaap Raap and Col de Kock who poured the petrol and we all withdrew and it was just Jaap Raap who stayed behind and he set the place alight.

MR ROSSOUW: What is your recollection, were there members of the Vryburg Security Branch there?

MR BOSCH: Yes, they went to identify the place, but the didn't go to the facility itself. They just told us there is a road, a fence and in the distance you can see the hall and they told us: "There's the hall" and he remained there. He drove in a station wagon that evening, because we loaded the photocopy machine in that station wagon.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you help carry it?

MR BOSCH: Yes, it was very heavy.

MR ROSSOUW: And you also mention in your amnesty application that this photocopy machine was removed and it was destroyed in Vlakplaas, with dynamite.

MR BOSCH: We did not take it with us to Ovamboland, but when we returned to Vlakplaas, Col de Kock told me to go and blow it up and that's what we did.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you just shortly tell the Committee what your function was? We heard that Jaap Raap was the builder at Vlakplaas, what was your function? You were in the technical side of it?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you know if there was anyone injured or killed in this operation?

MR BOSCH: No, we did not receive any reports of it.

MR ROSSOUW: Then on page 21 where you describe the political motive in the arson of this church building, do you confirm the contents of it in your application?

MR BOSCH: That is correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you receive any remuneration for this operation?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR ROSSOUW: And you acted on the direct instructions of Col de Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: You then also mention that Maj Bruwer was the Commander at Vryburg Security Branch, did you see him on that day?

MR BOSCH: I think yes, that was the first time that I ever saw him.

MR ROSSOUW: And did he speak to Mr de Kock?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Were you there?

MR BOSCH: No.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'll then grant me leave, I'll move onto the next incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, can I then take you to the arson of various houses in kaNyamazane, in 1986 to 1987.

Mr Chairman, in that respect you'll find it in the bundle on page 13 and it was also supplemented in response to specific questions by the Amnesty Committee. You'll find the answers on page 52 and further in the bundle. 52 and 53.

Mr Bosch, during that time where were you working? Not at Vlakplaas, but where were you deployed from Vlakplaas?

MR BOSCH: Our basis was at Badplaas, but we worked in Nelspruit.

MR ROSSOUW: In the Eastern Transvaal?

MR BOSCH: The Eastern Transvaal, that's correct.

MR ROSSOUW: During that time can you just shortly tell the Committee what was the political state or circumstances in the Eastern Transvaal?

MR BOSCH: Houses were burnt every night, the comrades burnt council members' and policemen's houses in the evenings and then we received the instruction from the Security Branch in Nelspruit.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you recall who was the Commander of the Security Branch at that stage?

MR BOSCH: I think it was Maj Gert Visser. And the instruction we received was that as soon as the comrades burnt houses, we also had to burn houses. In other words it would have been an "eye for an eye" and "a tooth for a tooth" situation?

MR BOSCH: That's correct, yes.

MR ROSSOUW: How did you go about executing these attacks, what was the modus operandi?

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, we made petrol bombs, glass bottles with soap powder and a cloth fuse, then we waited till the evening and we met the people from the Security Branch, three people. We would not go together, it would be Dan Greyling, John Walters accompanied us once and then Vincent Malaza also accompanied us to identify people.

MR ROSSOUW: You then mention in your amnesty application that it happened at three opportunities.

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Then on page 52 you mention that there were approximately 20 petrol bomb attacks, can you just explain to the Committee how it fitted in?

MR BOSCH: When they burnt five, we burnt five. This is now with certain periods of time in-between, that's why I say it's approximately 20. I cannot recall the exact amount.

MR ROSSOUW: But over three opportunities?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: These houses, the addresses and the inhabitants, did you receive any information about them?

MR BOSCH: No, they just took us to the houses and said: "You have to burn this one and this one or that one".

MR ROSSOUW: Then Mr Bosch, can you tell the Committee if you foresaw that there were people in houses.

MR BOSCH: Yes, Mr Chairperson, it was in the evening and there had to be people sleeping in the houses.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you describe to the Committee, were all the houses similar looking or could you possibly give them a description?

MR BOSCH: I cannot say that they all looked the same but most of them were these four-roomed houses, they had a front door in the middle and then two windows on either side and sometimes one window at the back.

MR ROSSOUW: And the petrol that were thrown, did you yourself participate in that?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Did you throw the petrol bombs through the windows or against the walls or what was the plan?

MR BOSCH: We always tried to throw it through the windows but it did not happen that way, sometimes the bombs fell outside. Some of the houses were set alight or caught alight.

MR ROSSOUW: Then on page 53 you mention in paragraph 4.4. that as far as you know the properties were damaged but there was only one incident in which a person was not very seriously injured.

MR BOSCH: Yes. Stan Greyling told us that according to information that they received the next day, there was one person who was injured.

MR ROSSOUW: Was there askaris involved in these petrol bomb attacks?

MR BOSCH: Yes, we were a large team going in the evening.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, your direct Commander in the group who participated in these attacks, who was this?

MR BOSCH: It was Paul van Dyk.

MR ROSSOUW: And you've just mentioned you were a Sergeant, what was his rank at that stage?

MR BOSCH: He was a Warrant Officer or a Lieutenant, I cannot recall.

MR ROSSOUW: And you can you tell us if Mr de Kock knew about these actions?

MR BOSCH: I do not know if Mr van Dyk discussed it with Mr de Kock. We fell under the Security Branch of Nelspruit and we executed their instructions.

MR ROSSOUW: You therefore then apply for amnesty for your participation in arson of these properties, as well as attempted murder.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you will allow me I'll move onto the next incident which you will find on page 16 in the bundle, which is the "Abduction of an Unknown Person from kwaNdebele. Mr Chairman and similarly, there were questions posed by the Amnesty Committee and answer were provided. You'll also find that supplementary on page 54 in the bundle, to 56.

Mr Bosch, I would like to ask you to tell the Committee how it came to your knowledge that this alleged shop owner ...

MR BOSCH: The Commander of the Murder and Robbery Unit in kwaNdebele, Leon Boshoff knew Col de Kock and he contacted Col de Kock and told him that there's a person who is providing weapons to the ANC. Then we went to go and execute a false recruitment project. Mr Chairperson, what happened was that the askaris who were members of the ANC would go that person and say: "Look we want to see you, we're members of the ANC and we want to know where all these weapons are, we need it". So they tried to recruit him under the auspices of the ANC.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you then tell the Committee if you had knowledge of how the askaris made contact with this person.

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, I think they went to the shop or they contacted him telephonically and then he arrived ...

MR ROSSOUW: At what point?

MR BOSCH: Well they made an appointment. There was some holiday resort in kwaNdebele and he met them there.

MR ROSSOUW: Were you present or were you observing from a distance?

MR BOSCH: No, there were no whites in that area.

MR ROSSOUW: In other words what you are testifying now is actually hearsay?

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'll allow us to proceed on that basis.

Mr Bosch, according to what was conveyed to you, what happened at the point where the askaris met this person?

MR BOSCH: They loaded him into the kombi and then they brought him to a rondawel at the holiday resort, they took him into the rondawel and they started talking to him.

MR ROSSOUW: And they also wanted to gather information then concerning the weapons.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you know if this person was assaulted by the askaris?

MR BOSCH: Yes, they assaulted him, they slapped him. This is what I heard afterwards.

MR ROSSOUW: You said that there were approximately 10 askaris in this group, can you maybe mention a few names?

MR BOSCH: I can recall Capt Moss, he's died, he was present, Simon Radebe - Mr Chairperson, it's very difficult to recall the names, I also do not want to speculate.

MR MALAN: Then rather not.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, did you ever see this person after he was assaulted, so that you can give a description of what he looked like?

MR BOSCH: No, Mr Chairperson, we did not see him.

MR ROSSOUW: What was told you, what happened to him?

MR BOSCH: They took him back to his family.

MR ROSSOUW: Do you know if this person laid a charge at the police against these people?

MR BOSCH: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, you said that you were under the direct command of Mr van Dyk.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And can you tell the Committee what would be the political objective ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I'm sorry Mr Rossouw to interrupt you.

In your application on this matter you say that De Kock was in command and you say that the askaris interrogated the abducted person under the command of De Kock, and you also say that some of the white members were present, but he could not identify them because he was blindfolded.

MR BOSCH: Yes, Mr Chairperson, he was in a rondawel - I made a mistake, I said Paul van Dyk, Paul van Dyk placed me, but Col de Kock was also there, he was the Commander. This person was kept in a rondawel so there were no white members who went into the rondawel, so some of the black members would come out and speak to Col de Kock, then Col de Kock would say: "Well ask him this or that". So there was no direct contact with this man or with the white members or Col de Kock.

MR MALAN: Then on page 18 you still mention that Col de Kock, Riaan Bellingan and Joe Coetser's names, but you do not mention Van Dyk's name, are you sure that Van Dyk was present in this matter?

MR BOSCH: Yes, I am sure, because we worked together on this.

MR MALAN: Why did you not mention his name in your application?

MR BOSCH: Did I not mention it?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, in the supplementary answers you'll find that in paragraph 3.1, where Mr Bosch states that the members of Section C1 was deployed here, Paul van Dyk and Eugene de Kock. He wasn't sure about Eugene de Kock being deployed here.

MR BOSCH: No, Col de Kock was not deployed here, he just came down, but Paul van Dyk was deployed.

MR MALAN: Thank you very much. I beg your pardon, Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Bosch, on page 19, do you confirm the contents of your amnesty application concerning the political objective?

MR BOSCH: Yes.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if you'll then allow me to move onto the last incident.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, you'll find that first of all, in the annexure to Mr Bosch's initial application, you'll find that on page 9, the reference to it, paragraph 11.3, Mr Chairman, where reference is made to the office building in Manzini, where documents were stolen and then the last sentence in that paragraph, the same evening a house near the Oshoek border post was burnt. Now Mr Chairman, in respect of that incident the amnesty application was also supplemented and you'll that on page 50 of the bundle.

Mr Bosch, you mention on page 50 that as far as you can recall this incident took place the same evening after the searching of the Sida offices in Swaziland. Were you involved?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: Can you explain to the Committee how it happened and on whose request this happened, that you went to this specific house close to the Oshoek border post.

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, after we stole the documentation at Effesis House, we drove back to the Oshoek border post, then Lappies Labuschagne asked us if we could accompany him to this house ...(intervention)

MR ROSSOUW: Can I just interrupt you there. Who was Lappies Labuschagne and what was his rank?

MR BOSCH: He was a Sergeant at that stage and he worked at the Security Branch in Eastern Transvaal.

MR ROSSOUW: He requested you to accompany him to that house?

MR BOSCH: Yes, and he told Col de Kock as well. We drove to that house, we did not know where it was, what it looked like or what the set-up was, we stopped at the house and I think we were in three vehicles, so all the three vehicles switched their light on, facing the house.

INTERPRETER: The Interpreter requests that the applicant please repeat the answer.

MS COLERIDGE: We've got a request if the applicant could repeat the answer.

INTERPRETER: There's something wrong with the microphone, I couldn't hear.

CHAIRPERSON: You want the last answer to be repeated? Is that in regard to the safehouse?

INTERPRETER: Yes, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(inaudible)

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bosch, I asked you who Mr Lappies Labuschagne was.

MR BOSCH: He was a Sergeant who was stationed at the Security Branch in Ermelo and Swaziland was his area in which he worked.

PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED WITH MICROPHONES

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Bosch, you say that this house was used as a safehouse, what was the information that was provided to you by Mr Labuschagne?

MR BOSCH: Mr Chairperson, that this house was used as a safehouse and that they used the weapons there and the weapons would be brought into South Africa from that house.

MR ROSSOUW: Was the plan to eliminate the owner of the house?

MR BOSCH: Well first we wanted to abduct him, interrogate him and then we wanted to eliminate him.

MR ROSSOUW: You mention on page 51, paragraph 3.3, that there was a possibility that he could have been eliminated. When you arrived at the house what happened there?

MR BOSCH: As I have testified before Mr Chairperson, it was an unknown place, to us as a team there were no lights, we did not have a map or a sketch of the house, all of us got out. Not all of us had weapons because we came from Effesis House. Col de Kock had a weapon and I think somebody else, I cannot recall who. Then somebody shouted that somebody had an AK, AK, then Col de Kock jumped through the window. The weapon that Col de Kock had was a silenced weapon, a weapon with a silencer on. I cannot recall the shots being fired.

MR ROSSOUW: You mentioned that you looked at the amnesty application of Mr Fourie and that you saw there that Col de Kock fired some shots.

MR BOSCH: That is correct. Col de Kock entered the house and I think it was Lappies Labuschagne, and after a while they said there was no-one in the house and then the house was burnt down.

MR ROSSOUW: Was petrol doused in the house and was it then burnt down?

MR BOSCH: I don't know if they found anything in the house. We didn't have petrol on us. I don't know how they managed to set the house on fire.

MR ROSSOUW: You were in the house?

MR BOSCH: No, I wasn't.

MR ROSSOUW: So you don't know how it happened?

MR BOSCH: No, I don't know.

MR ROSSOUW: And did you return, did you see how the house was burning?

MR BOSCH: Yes, we drove off and we could see the house in a distance, it was quite a long gravel road, we could see that the house was in flames. We reached the tar road on our way to Oshoek, and we saw a blue light approaching, presumably a light on a police vehicle, but they couldn't apprehend us. We crossed the border over the fence, because the border post was already closed by that time.

MR ROSSOUW: So you crossed the border illegally?

MR BOSCH: Yes, that is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And then Mr Bosch, in as far as it involves this incident, you are applying for amnesty for arson in relation this property.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Was there any conspiracy to kill the person or was it simply a possibility that you foresaw?

MR BOSCH: It was a possibility that I foresaw, I don't think there was much planning regarding this particular incident. Not as an afterthought, but while we were on our way back, Lappies asked Mr de Kock whether we couldn't do this while we were there.

MR ROSSOUW: But what I want to ask you is whether or not it was ever mentioned that this person was to be eliminated if you were to encounter him, or was it simply foreseen as a possibility?

MR BOSCH: I saw it as a possibility.

MR ROSSOUW: And then you are also applying for the illegal crossing of a border.

MR BOSCH: That is correct. I entered legally but I exited illegally.

MR MALAN: Mr Rossouw, certainly if you wish to be specific you would include conspiracy to abduct the man, at the very least.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, Mr Chairman.

Then also, Mr Bosch, you foresaw that if the person was there your instruction would be to abduct the person and to bring him back.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: And the political objective would be to obtain information from him regarding the weapons which were stored there and those persons who had infiltrated the country.

MR BOSCH: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR ROSSOUW: And a further political objective would also have been the destruction of this house which was being used as a safe house.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR ROSSOUW: Furthermore, Mr Bosch, you executed your instructions under the direct command of Col de Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Mr Bosch, may I just ask you this. In your evidence you stated initially that when you drive, and you refer to this in the same terms as page 51 of the bundle, that Lappies Labuschagne had information and that while you were driving he asked Mr de Kock if it was possible to go to the house and to tell him what it was about. Later in your evidence you used the words that: "Lappies told De Kock: 'While we're here, can't we just do the thing?" And what I want to ask you is to understand how these things operated. Did you have the impression that this was on the agenda and that it was simply a suitable or convenient time to execute it, or was De Kock reacting upon a request from Sgt Labuschagne to go and abduct a man while you were driving? What was your impression, did De Kock have prior knowledge?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, as I understand it, it was not on the agenda. Our agenda was to break into the house and that was that for the evening.

MR MALAN: But when I refer to the agenda, I'm referring to an agenda that Mr de Kock would have been aware of, that at some or other stage - because that is also you interpretation when you spoke of this for the second time, the impression is: "While we're here, let's do the thing" which would actually have been done at another time. What was your impression at that point? Or was it your impression as I understood you initially, that De Kock simply responded there and then to a request by a Sergeant, to enter a house, abduct a man and to interrogate him based upon information that De Kock could not verify because this was his first knowledge of it, with the consequential possibility that the man could be eliminated? What were the circumstances?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, my personal feeling is that if we had not attacked or destroyed the house that evening, we would have done so upon a subsequent occasion, because it was also a thorn in the side of the Ermelo Security Branch. So it had already been determined as a target at an earlier stage.

MR MALAN: And what was your impression regarding Mr de Kock's knowledge thereof?

MR BOSCH: I don't believe he had much knowledge regarding the house, not in terms of what I know.

MR MALAN: Well I don't know if you've really assisted me in this regard. When it was mentioned, did he request any background information from Labuschagne, regarding why they would have to abduct the man, or did it sound as if they had already discussed it at a prior stage?

MR BOSCH: As I've already stated, we were there vehicles driving, I was not in the same vehicle with Lappies and Mr de Kock, so I cannot really testify about it.

MR MALAN: But you did. Your evidence is that Lappies had the information and that he said this to Mr de Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, it was my evidence and that is how it was, but I didn't have the details of the discussion within the vehicle. Col de Kock stopped us at the side of the road and said: "Well now we're going here".

MR BOSCH: Then how do you know that it wasn't on De Kock's agenda? I cannot say.

MR MALAN: But you said that Labuschagne told De Kock, while you were driving Labuschagne suddenly told De Kock.

MR BOSCH: That is correct, Chairperson. The attack on the house was not a planned attack and Labuschagne was working in the area, he knew everybody, he knew were the transit houses were, where the arms caches were, because he worked with the informers in Swaziland. I cannot say today that he had already requested this from Mr de Kock on a previous occasion or whether it was on that very same night, but it must have been on that same night because otherwise we would have been much better equipped to launch the attack.

MR MALAN: All you know is that at a stage all three vehicles were stopped and you were told that you were going to this house, that is all that you know?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson. On the way to Oshoek, Mr de Kock called us off the road and told us that we were going to a transit house, that we would find a man there and that is all that he told me. He told us to follow them and that is what we did.

MR MALAN: Is that all that you can recall, and if that is the case, why have you implicated Mr Labuschagne, saying that he was the one who started it while you were on your way?

MR BOSCH: Because he was the man who had all the information about the area.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW

CHAIRPERSON: Does that cover all the incidents that you want to place before us?

MR ROSSOUW: That is so, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Ms Coleridge, cross-examination?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS COLERIDGE: Yes thank you, Chairperson.

This abduction of this unknown person in kwaNdebele, do you have any other information that would assist us in trying to locate this person?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, all I know is that at that stage this man or his father had a shop somewhere in kwaNdebele, and the reason why I know this is, after they took him we had to guard the bakkie because someone had to stay there to look after the bakkie and there were gas containers on the bakkie and somebody said that they had a shop. And that is all that I know of that man.

MS COLERIDGE: And in relation to the burning of the houses in kaNyamazane, did you do any follow-ups after the incident, if anybody was injured or killed?

MR BOSCH: Yes, Chairperson, the people from the Nelspruit Security Branch gave us feedback the following day, and it was only upon one occasion that they said that someone had burnt, and the person who reported this to us was Dan Greyling.

MS COLERIDGE: Was it serious burns, did the person die as a result of the burns, or was it just injuries?

MR BOSCH: As far as I understand it was light injury.

MS COLERIDGE: And the Oshoek incident, was the operation planned outside the borders of South Africa, or inside the borders?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, this operation for Effesis House, was planned on the outside, from the South African side, but the house that we burnt was not planned on the outside. I'm not aware of any prior planning, we were told at the side of the road that we were going to this house.

MS COLERIDGE: And then the last incident, the Vryburg incident, the photocopy machine, why did De Kock instruct you to burn the photocopy machine?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, I think that he wanted to get rid of it. I didn't burn it, I blew it up, I used explosives and I blew it up.

CHAIRPERSON: I was just distracted, what did you blow up?

MR BOSCH: The photostat machine

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, very well, I understand, I was just distracted for a second.

MS COLERIDGE: And the Oshoek incident, Mr Bosch(sic) states that there were shots fired into the house, why were there shots fired into the house?

MR BOSCH: Chairperson, as I've stated, Col de Kock jumped through the window with a firearm and I don't know whether he jumped through and opened fire in the room, because someone shouted: "He's got an AK, he's got an AK", but we never found this man, there was no-one in the house. It was very confused at a certain stage, everything happened very quickly.

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Bosch, wasn't it your evidence that you cannot recall the shooting?

MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, I think the confusion flows from the question by my learned colleague who says that Bosch says this, she actually referred to Fourie's application which refers to the shooting.

MS COLERIDGE: That's correct, it's Mr Fourie.

MR MALAN: Yes that is indeed correct, but the question is that Mr Fourie referred to the shots and you testified that you recall seeing Mr de Kock jump through with the firearm and then someone shouted: "He's got an AK, he's got an AK" and the shots followed, but your testimony was that you didn't recall the shots because you don't know anything about it.

MR BOSCH: I didn't hear the shots.

MR MALAN: Thank you. Ms Coleridge.

MS COLERIDGE: Did you see anybody run away from the house that evening?

MR BOSCH: I personally did not see anybody run away.

MS COLERIDGE: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS COLERIDGE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Coleridge. Panel, questions?

ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination, Mr Rossouw?

MR ROSSOUW: I have none, Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Bosch, you are excused, thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw.

MR ROSSOUW IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I'm not sure if Mr Fourie is here yet, if you'll allow me I can present you with my very short argument on these two applicants in their various applications. If you'll allow me I'll start with Mr Nortje.

Mr Chairman, in respect of the Vryburg incident I submit that - let me argue both Mr Bosch and Mr Nortje at the same go in this instance. Mr Chairman, I submit that firstly, they have complied with the requirements of the Act, the formal requirements. It's common cause that they will both be covered by Section 200(b) or (f), Mr Chairman, as far as their qualification for amnesty is concerned.

These were really the footsoldiers who carried out the operation, there were senior people there, they had to rely on the information provided to them. Corroboration for the fact that the Church was in fact used for ANC or UDF purposes, Mr Chairman, flows from the evidence by Mr Nortje, that there were pamphlets found put up against the walls and T-shirts found. You'll find that in his application as well. So I submit as far as the political objective is concerned, Mr Chairman, that they have made out a case that this was an arson attack with a political objective.

Mr Chairman, as far as full disclosure is concerned, I submit that they have given you the information that they possess at this stage and they've told you all relevant facts relating to this incident. I therefore submit that both the applicants, Mr Chairman, that you should consider it favourably to grant them amnesty and that your Committee can be satisfied that they have qualified for amnesty in respect of this incident.

CHAIRPERSON: And the photocopier, what's the position with that?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I would submit that it is really immaterial whether it was stolen or whether it was burnt. The purpose was in fact to deny the Church or the people using that Church, the use of this photocopying machine in the means distributing propaganda, Mr Chairman. Whether it was achieved by removing it or destroying it totally, Mr Chairman, is really immaterial, the purpose ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But what is the offence? Because if it was stolen, and of course you're asking for amnesty in respect of theft.

MR ROSSOUW: Theft as well, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Whether it was destroyed, then you're asking for amnesty in respect of malicious injury to property and in respect of both of those you must make out a political objective.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes. Mr Chairman, I would submit that the political objective lies in denying the users of that Church the use of this machine, it doesn't matter by which offence it was achieved, Mr Chairman, that would be the political objective. And I would submit that both offences did occur here because there was a time lapse. Firstly, it was stolen with the intent of denying the owner of that machine, the use thereof ... (interven-tion)

CHAIRPERSON: That is the problem, I mean what evidence have we got in that regard? Nortje says it was just done on the spur of the moment type of thing, he's not sure whether there was any direct instruction from De Kock to remove this thing. He sketches the situation almost of having fortuitously come across something and then it's just removed. Bosch comes, Bosch says yes, well the other people said you must take that photocopier, what for we don't know. And then it's blown up later on, at some later stage at Vlakplaas. How do we conclude that this has got anything to do with politics or anything to do with the main objective of attacking this particular premises?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, let me first say to you, and there are three aspects I wish to address you on. The first one is that one should follow, or one should consider the evidence in toto, not only Mr Nortje's evidence, but Mr Bosch who specifically said that De Kock said: "Do not throw petrol over this photocopying machine". Now Mr Nortje's evidence as far as I can recall, is that he cannot recall that De Kock gave an order that it should be removed, but the possibility at least existed, Mr Chairman.

Now if you consider that together with the evidence by Mr Bosch, I would submit that there's a clear instruction. Whether it was tacit, whether it was implied, Mr Chairman, I would submit there's a clear instruction from the Commanding Officer, Eugene de Kock, that this photocopying machine should not be destroyed here and it was removed with his consent, he didn't object to it.

So firstly, the chain of command, Mr Chairman, that's my first argument. Secondly, Mr Chairman, how does it relate to politics? I would submit that coming back to what was the initial purpose, destroy this building because it was being used for the distribution and production of propaganda material.

Now Mr Chairman, that would include everything inside that building, the means by which the propaganda material was produced. And whether they then destroyed it or blew it up right there or outside, or 10 kilometres away, or two days later, becomes immaterial Mr Chairman, because the evidence before you is that in fact by any of these means the political objective of prohibiting the distribution and production of propaganda material, was achieved. That is how it's got to do.

And Mr Chairman, the third argument and this is the one which I suspect you wish to hear me on, was this not just thing for personal gain, wasn't it just on the spur of the moment that somebody decided but here's a nice thing, let's steal it, let's take it away, and it's really got nothing to do with the political objective. Mr Chairman, these two applicants were the footsoldiers, they carried out instructions, definitely on their part there was no personal gain in this. Whether it might have existed with Mr de Kock or the Vryburg Security Police, well definitely it won't be with them, they weren't present, but whether it was a thought in the mind of Mr de Kock, Mr Chairman, is not something that can be imputed to these two applicants.

And I submit that there are instances, Mr Chairman, I know of one, I know you're not bound by the decision of the previous Amnesty Committee Panels, but there's a decision where a Commanding Officer instructed personnel to fire on a bus, apparently carrying IFP supporters and he had no instruction, Mr Chairman, he acted on the spur of the moment and amnesty was denied to that person. But the footsoldiers who carried out his orders, Mr Chairman, were granted amnesty. And ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, I follow all that, the problem is just that the applicants before us must have acted bona fide in furtherance of some or other struggle, political struggle. So the point is, Nortje says - I asked him whether this could have any political objective and he said no, but he can't think of any political objective, and I can understand the basis for his response. Because if they wanted to just destroy whatever was used to produce what they referred to as propaganda, why don't they just burn everything out like they've done with the other things, why did they remove this thing? They obviously removed it to get some benefit out of it. Now that benefit could be political, it could be personal, but we don't know, there's nothing before us to draw any clear inferences. And under those circumstances, can you submit that we must be satisfied that this is associated with a political objective, the theft at least there on the scene, the theft of the photocopier? That's the only query that I have.

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, I understand your concern Mr Chairman. Firstly, I would submit that you have to look - we know according to the Norgaard Principles, that the test is a subjective one, certainly Mr Chairman, there cannot be any inference that there was any intention for personal gain by these two applicants, they did not make use of this photocopying machine, they did not keep it for themselves. So firstly, on the subjective level there would not be a personal gain for these two ... (intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, there's not, I'm just - the thrust of the query is, is this associated with a political objective and can we be satisfied on what is before us at this stage, that this was anything but just a spur of the moment theft?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, at the risk of belabouring the point, I would submit yes. The simply fact of the matter is that the means, or rather the ends was achieved, it does not matter by which means Mr Chairman. That would be my answer to your question. Eventually Mr Chairman, the photocopying machine was destroyed.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that might be so, but we are on the scene, we are dealing with the offences on the scene and that is respect of which they are asking for amnesty. Now if they want amnesty for the theft of the photocopier there on the scene, forget about what happened later on, perhaps that was destroyed, but it could have been used for something personal in the meantime by somebody else, nothing to do with politics. So I'm focusing on the scene where the offences were committed. Is there sufficient before us to satisfy us that that theft occurred with a political objective.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, yes, because it was stolen, the use and the means of production, producing the propaganda material was removed. It could also have been done by just blowing it up right there on the scene, Mr Chairman, but the same result was achieved by a different means. And if you see it like that, I submit that there is a political objective that was achieved by stealing it ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Mr Rossouw, sorry for interrupting you. But if the objective of the individual was to get that, of course, the political objective is to deny the UDF or its affiliate the use of the machine, but if there was a second objective to have this machine for personal use, then clearly that would have the theft of an instrument, which would not qualify, because his motivation was to keep that for himself. My question really is, should we not look - and I'm not sure, but my memory serves me that Nortje said something about the photostat machine or the copier, whatever he called it there, removed and then he simply mentioned something about a possible use, for possible use. He didn't expand on it. Could we make an argument that that machine clearly was not found in the possession of anyone for personal use, but was found at Vlakplaas and destroyed at Vlakplaas? What should we make of that?

MR ROSSOUW: Unfortunately Mr Chairman, if we had a little bit more indication as to the timeframe, it might have been a little bit easier, when it was found at Vlakplaas. Mr Bosch just said later, we didn't go into specifics there.

MR MALAN: Why is the timeframe important? Let me just put it to you, and assume for the moment it was taken, your argument that they were to be denied the use of it as the political objective. Secondly, have they intended to use that at Vlakplaas, because they could have used it, it could fall under the type of example where motor cars were stolen and the past for use by the Security Police, where amnesty was granted. We've had such incidents. Why is the timeframe important if the machine is found at Vlakplaas? It might have been used, it might not have been used. Change of intention. And it's destroyed.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, my reference to timeframe will only be relevant, or is relevant Mr Chairman, if we could have determined that it was removed with the intention of eventually destroying it at Vlakplaas, but it could not be done immediately because they first had to go to Ovamboland. Coming back it was found at Vlakplaas, say two days later and then they blew it up.

MR MALAN: Mr Rossouw, I think we can really accept that the intention was not to remove it in order to destroy it, otherwise it could have been burnt there and then on the premises.

MR ROSSOUW: I agree with that, Mr Chairman ... (interven-tion)

MR MALAN: The question is really, are we in our own minds and in your mind, and you can address us on this, what should the deduction be that it was removed? The probabilities, for personal use by one or other of the individuals, De Kock? Clearly, De Kock if the instructions came from him, or by Vlakplaas, for potential use by Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, let me first - addressing you on the probabilities, the reference that Mr Nortje made, you are correct he did mention some possible use thereof, but I think that was in regard to the Vryburg Police Security Branch, because Mr Nortje's recollection is that it went to the Vryburg Security Branch. We now know that it did not go them, it found its way to Vlakplaas. And I submit, Mr Chairman, that on the probabilities, ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: You see there are so many possibilities, we don't have the evidence here. It might have been intended for Vryburg, they might have found themselves in the position where they said we don't want this here, it can be recognised, people may identify ...(inaudible) may eventually be linked to that office again, that they might have sent it to Vlakplaas. If we're satisfied that it's the same machine that was eventually destroyed at Vlakplaas.

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman yes, the probability that I would submit is that it was in fact, or could have been in fact been intended for use at Vlakplaas for their own, not personal gain, but for Vlakplaas use, Mr Chairman. And this not evidence before you, but I would submit that you can take notice of the whole of Eugene de Kock's application, I'm sure of which you've seen the better part, Mr Chairman, and as far as I recall his evidence in other matters dealing with Vlakplaas, the intention of Vlakplaas, Mr Chairman, the only aspect where personal gain came into it is where claims were falsified by members of Vlakplaas. And the evidence as far as, and I'm speaking under correction, Mr Chairman, was that that only started happening after 1990, when the political winds of change were coming into play, then it was sort of decide but, look everybody is abandoning us, let's try and make some money for ourselves out of this. But before that, Mr Chairman, Vlakplaas was run as an operative unit and everything that was done was done with the aim of achieving political objective, there was no personal gain in any of the instances before at least 1990. I know it's not evidence before you, Mr Chairman, but it's evidence before the Amnesty Committee as a whole, from Mr de Kock. And on that basis I can make the submission that there's a probability that it could have been stolen for use at Vlakplaas.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we've heard your submissions on that, Mr Rossouw. I've interrupted you, do you want to carry on?

MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Then as far as the application of Mr Nortje is concerned, relating to the burning of the motor vehicle, Mr Chairman, I think in the application mention is made of arson, this would definitely not be arson, it's a moveable asset, so it would be malicious damage to property and theft, Mr Chairman, that he would be applying for in that respect.

I submit that there's no contradiction, there's nothing in his application or the evidence that suggests that he should not be granted amnesty as far as full disclosure or political objective is concerned, Mr Chairman.

Then Mr Chairman, turning to Mr Bosch and the first incident which we dealt with him on the latter three, the burning of the houses at kaNyamazane. Mr Chairman, I submit that the applicant should provide you with all relevant facts. You've heard that from what happened there and the instructions that he received, that he's in possession of the facts to give you the names or the addresses of these houses. It would have been so much easier. He's told you, Mr Chairman, that they were taken there and the house was identified, "this is the one, target it", that's it, by the personnel from the local Security Branch. So as far as his knowledge is concerned, he's given you all the relevant facts, Mr Chairman. It would have been very helpful if he was able to identify.

As far as the political objective is concerned, Mr Chairman, you must have heard on numerous occasions that there were retribution attacks or attacks in a similar vein, fight fire with fire, from politicians those statements were made, Mr Chairman, and that was in fact the orders, as you've heard from commanding officers. And this is in fact what happened here. You burn one of the informers houses or members of the town council or policemen, we'll burn one of your houses.

I would submit that on the political objective, Mr Chairman, and full disclosure, that the applicant has qualified for amnesty, and I would request you to grant him amnesty for arson, malicious damage to property, which I forgot to mention to him, but obviously there will be some moveable assets inside the house as well, and then attempted murder Mr Chairman, in that respect. You've heard the evidence that he did foresee that there would be people inside the house and by going ahead and accepting that risk, that is in fact dolus eventualis. That's the intent and he went ahead with it and he did it, so that would be attempted murder.

Mr Chairman, then the second one dealing with the abduction of the unknown person. Initially I had my doubts as to whether there was an offence committed here by the applicant, he was not involved in the abduction, he was not involved in the assault and he was also not involved in the questioning of this person, but thinking about it again, Mr Chairman, he could be an accomplice to abduction and that's the only thing that I would submit that he can apply for, because he knew about what was going to happen.

ADV SANDI: Didn't he, as a member of the Police Force, didn't he have a statutory duty to do something about this? He knew that this abduction had taken place and he took no action whatsoever.

MR ROSSOUW: Afterwards, Mr Chairman, that could be defeating the ends of justice, but initially he knew about the planning, so he would be an accomplice to abduction. He was not a co-perpetrator, but he was definitely an accomplice. And then Mr Chairman, yes, as a police office he is - we know that he's not supposed to unlawfully, or if that comes to his knowledge he should act on that. Mr Chairman, I would submit that that is a duty that would cover every single instance for which a Security policeman would apply. So yes, there would be some thought given to that.

But Mr Chairman, you are also aware that there are two schools of thought on the defeating the ends of justice doctrine, whether it should be an active step, interfering in an investigation, or whether you are just by omission, not providing information is, one school of thought says that's not really defeating the ends of justice.

MR MALAN: Mr Rossouw, from the evidence is it not clear that the applicant, Bosch was part of that team, he was outside with the other white officers, the feedback in terms of what was said to De Kock he's overheard, in that sense wasn't he part of the team?

MR ROSSOUW: He was indeed part of the team, Mr Chairman, I'm not trying to place him away from away from the incident, all I'm trying to say is that he was not part of the carrying out of the abduction, he was not part of the carrying out of the questioning and assault.

MR MALAN: But he did know of everything, so as you say at least he's an accomplice, but I'm not sure that he wasn't a co-perpetrator in this, even though he happened to find himself under orders.

ADV SANDI: He associated himself clearly with the abduction.

MR ROSSOUW: That is so, Mr Chairman, that would make him an accomplice, not a co-perpetrator. If the Committee is of the opinion that he should be a co-perpetrator, Mr Chairman, because my definition of a co-perpetrator should be somebody who actively partakes. The old textbook example, Mr Chairman, of 20 people in the Orient Express who puts the knife inside the body, that's co-perpetrators. Accomplice would be somebody who knew about what was going to happen, but didn't put the knife inside the body. Mr Chairman, I've got no hesitation to ask for amnesty in respect of a co-perpetrator if that's your feeling and if you come to decide, but I would submit that the evidence is really not, according to my definition, not really in that respect covers it, not a co-perpetrator here.

Mr Chairman, then the last incident, the burning of the house at Oshoek, or close to the Oshoek border post. The offences, Mr Chairman, I know this happened outside the border ... (intervention)

ADV SANDI: I understood the last witness on this particular incident to say even the decision to carry out this act took place outside the borders of the country.

MR ROSSOUW: Indeed, there was no conspiracy which would be an offence inside the Republic, for which he can apply, this all took place in Swaziland. But Mr Chairman, the Act makes mention of applications for incidents inside and outside. So the specific offences that I would be applying for here, what the legal status of that might be, we'll debate in another forum one day, but I would be applying for - well Mr Chairman rather, the applicant would be applying for arson, malicious damage to property, the conspiracy to kidnap the owner of the house and also the illegal crossing of a border.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, so that's what your client is applying for, and you say that you concede that all of the elements of this occurred outside of the borders, but you are submitting that it is an incident, an offence that is susceptible to amnesty in terms of the Act, in spite of the authority of the Supreme Court of Appeal in respect offences which are not extraterritorial, in terms of our law. You say that we should disregard that and we should grant your client amnesty?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I'm not saying you should disregard it, all I'm saying is that the Act calls upon an applicant to apply for incidents inside and outside, which was carried out inside and outside the borders of the Republic. This is in fact what the applicant has done. Whether, Mr Chairman, it will in the end boil down to a comprehensive application which must be seen in the light of full disclosure with reference to his other incidents for which he's applying, Mr Chairman, might be so.

I would submit that what the applicant has done here is, he's applied for this, whether you are in a position to grant him amnesty and whether that amnesty would have any legal affect, Mr Chairman, is something which is immaterial at this stage for his application purposes. And that's as far as my argument goes.

CHAIRPERSON: You say we should take our jurisdiction very seriously and defend it very jealously and leave it for the other authorities to come and frown on us, that we've acted in breach of South African law, or international law. I'm not sure what kind of law this is, but in any event ...

MR ROSSOUW: No, Mr Chairman, I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is this Mr Chairman, that theoretically, should there be an application for extradition of Mr Bosch, with reference to this incident, the Magistrate who will first decide it, or eventually the Minister who will decide on whether he should be extradited, Mr Chairman, will take notice of his application before in this respect. And whether that was done as a full disclosure in respect of the total of his amnesty application, or it was not done with the intent of getting amnesty to refute or to block an application for his extradition, we know it will not have affect on Swaziland should they apply for his extradition. But Mr Chairman, with respect, I know where my problems lie in this incident and what you are entitled to, I'll leave it in your hands. I can take it no further than what has been placed before you.

CHAIRPERSON: It doesn't affect the illegal entry issue, that seems to be on its own, separated from the house.

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, it would seem to be on its own.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think we understand each other.

MR MALAN: Mr Rossouw, will you or Mr Lamey be representing Mr Fourie?

MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I will be representing Mr Fourie.

MR MALAN: So we will still be hearing Fourie's evidence on this incident?

MR ROSSOUW: That's correct, Mr Chairman.

MR MALAN: Which will also inform our decision.

MR ROSSOUW: That's correct, Mr Chairman. I don't know if Mr Fourie has arrived yet, Mr Chairman, but ... he seems to have arrived. Can I just ask for a short adjournment, maybe it's convenient to take the tea adjournment now, Mr Chairman. I have not had the opportunity to quickly consulting with him, it won't take longer than half and hour.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we'll take the short adjournment at this stage.

MS COLERIDGE: All rise.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw, just in respect of the matters that we were engaged in earlier, have you concluded what you wanted to submit in respect of those matters?

MR ROSSOUW: I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: Is your argument concluded in respect of the other matters?

MR ROSSOUW: Yes, my argument is concluded there.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Mr Coleridge, did you want to make any submissions on those issues before we go to Mr Fourie.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairperson, I have no further submissions to add, unless the Committee requires me to address a certain issue.

NO ARGUMENT BY MS COLERIDGE

CHAIRPERSON: No, that's fine. Thank you.

MS COLERIDGE: Chairman, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Eugene Fourie.