ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, the following witness which we would call, with your permission, is Mr Koos van den Berg. Just to refresh your memory, what we said at the beginning, Mr Van den Berg and Mr Fourie are the two links between the receiving of the information, Mr Chairman and the actual events. So we are just covering the links and we will come to the event.
Mr Chairman, may I refer you to page ...
MS KHAMPEPE: It is page 31.
ADV VISSER: Page 30 and following of B. Thank you, Ms Khampepe.
ADV DE JAGER: Will you please stand to take the oath.
J P VAN DEN BERG: (Duly sworn, states).
EXAMINATION BY ADV VISSER: Mr Van den Berg, do you have in front of you a copy of your amnesty application?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
ADV VISSER: You are an applicant and you are requesting that amnesty be granted to you for any offence or delict which may have been found to have been committed by you during certain events which took place from May to the 10th of July when six insurgents were shot dead at Eendvogelpan near the Botswana border.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That's correct.
ADV VISSER: Your statement, do you confirm that you have read through this statement and that the facts are true and correct?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, I do.
ADV VISSER: In your statement you refer to a document titled - it is on page 37, Chairperson, titled The Submission of the Foundation for Equality before the Law, and you also refer to a submission made by Genl Jan Velde van der Merwe on the 21st of October 1996 before this Amnesty Committee and you are requesting that the facts in those submissions in so far as they are applicable to you, must also be incorporated in your application. Is that correct?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes.
ADV VISSER: As far as the political objective which you sought to achieve is concerned, that you set out in paragraphs 10(a) and (b) and do you confirm that you stand by that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, I do.
ADV VISSER: And lastly, you refer to the amnesty application of Andries Johannes Gerhardus Erwee and you are requesting that that application should be incorporated into your application as far as the facts of the event are concerned.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Correct.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Visser, sorry to interrupt you. This submission from the Foundation for Equality before the Law, that submission, as far as I know has never been placed before the Amnesty Committee. So we are not aware of the contents of that submission and hasn't yet been submitted in evidence before us.
ADV VISSER: Chairperson, the information which Adv De Jager has now placed on record, we only found out about that yesterday from Mr Black, that you are actually not in possession of the document. In other words, the explanation would be that the statement or the submission was not made or submitted to the Amnesty Committee but to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. My attorney has told me that these documents are indeed available at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and he said that we should put it to you that he undertakes to arrange for the document to be made available to you and if the TRC can't do so, then we will make a plan to do it ourselves. May I just consult with him for a moment?
Chairperson, my attorney also informs me that he has a clean copy of that submission with him, if you want to have a look at it immediately. As we said at the outset it is not our idea to actually deal with that background detail at the moment, but rather to leave it for a later stage. If it pleases you we can focus on that at a later stage. At this stage it is important to firstly place the evidence before you, but the copy is available if you want to have a look at it.
ADV DE JAGER: My problem, is I don't know what the document contains. I don't know whether there are facts contained in that document which I might want to put to this witness or whether some of the other legal representatives want to cross-examine about it.
ADV VISSER: Mr Chairperson, I am told that it is approximately 400 pages.
Mr Chairman, I heard what Mr De Jager said and of course that is correct. The only point which we would stress here, is that there will be no prejudice at all because the witnesses who apply here for amnesty know that they have got to keep themselves ready and hold themselves available in case in future, this Committee wishes to put any further questions to them and for them to be recalled as witnesses. They are fully aware of that. So that Mr Chairman, I would submit that we can go on with the work in hand at the moment, to get the evidence on record. It should appear later that there are questions as Mr De Jager suggests, that he would have liked to have put to the witness, they will simply be recalled, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: Can I suggest a compromise somewhat for now, for the purpose of this hearing. Is it possible for you to tell us in broad terms just what this is all about?
ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, in broad terms it gives a complete history of the strife of the past in this country. It commences with the establishment of the ANC in 1912. The split between the ANC and the PAC in 1960. It deals with the important incidents throughout the history.
It really is a comprehensive summary of the history, Mr Chairman. It gives a clear insight, we submit, in the commencement of the struggle; what prompted that struggle to commence and may I add, it is a fairly objective work, in our submission. What happened as a result of conditions pertaining at the time and how people reacted, and how those incidents and reactions led us to where we are today. It is an interesting document. It is also being summarised somewhat in book form and that book is available on the book shelves, Mr Chairman. It is a book called The Other Side of the Story. The author of that is Genl Herman Stadler. That book perhaps, Mr Chairman, it is a book that costs, I think R50,00. I am not promoting the sale of the book. I am just saying that that is really a condensed form of the document which we are now referring to, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: You know, one reads so many documents, you know, and all that, but is this a document which in the end or somewhere - I thought this was the document. I may be wrong, but I thought it was a document which in the end emphasises the fact that there be even treatment, or evenness in the treatment of the people who committed crimes or atrocities, who were so-called liberation fighters on the one hand and also the security forces. It is not that book?
ADV VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have no doubt, speaking from recollection, I have no doubt that that subject would possibly be touched on, but that certainly is not the purpose of the work.
CHAIRMAN: I see. Maybe I am confusing it with something else.
Well, anyway, it gives a historical perspective of the events.
ADV VISSER: And that is the value of that.
CHAIRMAN: No, well, we have an idea of what it is all about.
ADV VISSER: Perhaps, Mr Chairman, one should place this perspective on it. It may well be that when next time we come together and we discuss more fully the political background, the political objectives, in regard to this application, and as you well know, there are many other applications, Mr Chairman, and our intention is not to repeat this every time an application for one of the clients of Mr Wagner, who appears before you, that the whole thing will be rehashed and repeated. But once we arrive at the point where it is convenient for you to call upon us to make a representation regarding the background, et cetera, for all these incidents, the idea of this document's incorporation, is that we would then be able to place before you that evidence at least against the background of something which you will have in your possession.
Lastly, Mr Chairman, my attorney says that he is going to make immediate arrangements for that document to be reproduced and to be given to you. I doubt whether it will happen this week, but we will do it as soon as we can.
CHAIRMAN: Then we can continue in the meanwhile.
ADV VISSER: Well, my attorney tells me he is going to have it done today, Mr Chairman. You are going to have it this week.
Mr Van den Berg, where were we? Your career in the police, you also set that out in your amnesty application. Do you confirm what appears on page 32 and 33, as being the highlights of your police career; where you were stationed, where you were transferred to, et cetera?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
ADV VISSER: And to sum up, in April 1976 you joined the South African Police and you are currently still in the South African Police?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I joined the police in 1967 but in January this year, I received a severance package.
ADV VISSER: So you retired from the service as a captain?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes.
ADV VISSER: Can you in your own words, Mr Van den Berg, tell the members of the Committee what you know of these events and what your role was in May 1986 to the 10th of July 1986?
MR VAN DEN BERG: During 1986, Matthews Sehlwana and I handled an informer, Mabena in Botswana, and it was somewhere in May when this informer reported to Matthews that he, the informer, had been approached by a person to bring other people into the country, into the Republic of South Africa. I think that he reported it first to Matthews and that Matthews then reported that to me. I apologise.
As a result of this report several questions arose. Such as, were these illegal immigrants, were they MK members, were they PAC people who wanted to infiltrate the country. I sent this information, conveyed it to Mr Coetsee as soon as possible after I received it. He was at that stage my direct commander. There was an arrangement between Matthews and the informer that he would meet the person who had approached the informer.
During May, I think the arrangement was made to meet in the afternoon. I think it was supposed to have taken place at 12 noon. Myself, Matthews and Kobus Fourie - now I can't remember whether we drove in separate vehicles or - no, I am going to correct myself there. It wasn't Kobus Fourie, it was Tokkie Fuchs. We went to the farm Kruitfontein, where the meeting was scheduled to take place.
ADV VISSER: Kruitfontein?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, it is K-R-U-I-T, Kruitfontein, yes. Tokki Fuchs and I took up certain observation posts to be able to observe the meeting.
ADV VISSER: Just before you continue, I am sorry to have to interrupt you. Can you sketch a picture for the Committee as to what the terrain looked like there? Were you together, you and Tokkie Fuchs or were you at the one observation post and he at another, and exactly where were these posts, and which side of the border, et cetera. Just paint a picture for us.
MR VAN DEN BERG: On this day we were on the South African side of the border. We were together and by three o'clock or four o'clock the afternoon, the meeting had not yet taken place.
We started having doubts as to whether the meeting would materialise. At about five o'clock - or perhaps I should just explain to you now what the surroundings looked like there. It is mountainous. We were on a little koppie or hill, five to 800 metres from the river. That's where we took up our positions.
We were well concealed amongst trees and rocks. At about 16:30, between 16:30 and five o'clock that afternoon that afternoon we heard somebody whistle, and I immediately realised that that was Mabena actually carrying out this arrangement or appointment. Matthews approached and the donkey cart with Matthews and the person and Mabena stopped at the Botswana side of the river. They then walked to the river bank or maybe just a couple of paces away from the river bank. They chatted there for a while.
Matthews came back to the South African side.
ADV VISSER: How wide is this river? Approximately?
MR VAN DEN BERG: There?
ADV VISSER: No, there,right there.
MR VAN DEN BERG: It could have been 100 to 150 metres, but it was dry at that stage.
ADV VISSER: So there was no water in it, it was just sand?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, sand and stones.
ADV VISSER: So Matthews returned.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Tokkie Fuchs and I went back to the place where we met Matthews again.
ADV VISSER: So Matthews reported to you?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, he reported to us.
ADV VISSER: What did he say?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That it was a person who wanted to get people into South Africa.
What I inferred from what Matthews said, was that there was a possibility that they could be terrorists.
ADV VISSER: What caused you to draw this conclusion?
MR VAN DEN BERG: The fact that the meeting too place in such a secretive way and also the way in which he spoke to Matthews. According to Matthews he spoke a language not normally spoken in Botswana, Zulu or Xhosa.
ADV VISSER: In other words a South African Black language?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes.
ADV VISSER: You don't have to give too much detail, Mr Van den Berg, you could perhaps just stick to the main points of your version.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Certainly. Afterwards we returned to Pietersburg. I reported to Mr Coetsee. At some stage, now I can't remember whether it was on that day or at a later meeting with Matthews, that person decided on a date as to when this infiltration should take place.
ADV VISSER: I apologise for the interruption. How many people would have come into the country, 20, how many?
MR VAN DEN BERG: At that stage only three people.
ADV VISSER: You said that at some point you received the information from or via Matthews that a date had been set for the entry of these people into the country.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Correct.
ADV VISSER: Can you remember when that was?
MR VAN DEN BERG: It was the 24th of June.
ADV VISSER: Why do you remember this day so well?
MR VAN DEN BERG: It was also my wife's birthday. It was on my wife's birthday that I had to be in the bush to actually monitor this operation.
ADV VISSER: So they were supposed to enter on the 24th of June. Now what was the planning and the further execution of that plan on that day?
MR VAN DEN BERG: The planning was that there would be observation posts at the point of infiltration. Matthews would transport the people with the Toyota Corolla Sedan, a light brown car. He would transport them with this car and then an Army fixed-wing plane would have followed this car right to Pietersburg, because at some stage Matthews had been told that these people wanted to go all the way to Pietersburg.
ADV VISSER: What was the point of allowing them to go as far as Pietersburg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Well, we wanted to arrest them, and we wanted to also trace these safe houses and sympathisers and helpers and identify those.
There were also observation points along this route, with people posted there to observe what was going on. I don't know exactly who was posted where. Because on the 24th it was Kobus Fourie and I. We did our observation work very close to the point where the first meeting had taken place, the day that Tokkie Fuchs and I had monitored what had happened.
The 24th came and went and the infiltration did not take place. That night I slept on the farm Eendvogelpan. I once again reported to Mr Coetsee that the people had not infiltrated.
ADV VISSER: What happened the next day?
MR VAN DEN BERG: The next day, once again nothing happened. That was on the 25th of June.
ADV VISSER: Did you follow the same system, was it the normal procedure?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, correct.
ADV VISSER: And then what happened next?
MR VAN DEN BERG: What happened next was that the people made an appointment with Matthews and set a date for when they wanted to infiltrate. According to Matthews' explanation to me, it was still at this stage only three people. The date was set for the 8th of July.
Matthews also mentioned to me that money had been handed to him and that he was supposed to buy clothes for some of these people. He also showed a sort of a sweater to me at some stage, which he had bought for these people.
At this stage I didn't know whether the people would be armed or not. But there was the suspicion that they could be armed.
ADV VISSER: Was the plan still that they continue as far as Pietersburg and that you would arrest them there?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, that was still the plan. Further planning sessions were done. Mr Coetsee and I and perhaps some other people were present. We planned that we should monitor the whole process once again. That Sunday I then went with ... (intervention).
ADV VISSER: Is that the sixth?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, that's the 6th, the 6th of July, the Sunday afternoon. I went to Alldays, to the runway there, and we contacted some of the Defence Force radio operators who had been contacted by Mr Van der Merwe or Mr Coetsee and they were supposed to accompany us to go and activate observation posts.
ADV VISSER: Now why were they supposed to go along?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Because we had very little radio communication in that area. Even the Defence Force radios weren't hundred per cent effective. We had a problem with communication.
ADV VISSER: So their radios were better than yours?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes.
ADV VISSER: Now how many Defence Force went along with you, and how many went along with Kobus Fourie?
MR VAN DEN BERG: One White and one Black man went along with me and with Kobus Fourie, I also remember one White and one Black man, maybe more.
ADV VISSER: You then went to the crossing point on Kruitfontein?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes. Two of these Defence Force men, the White and the Black man and myself, then went into Botswana, perhaps as far as two kilometres, perhaps a little bit less. There was a koppie, a little hill alongside a path which came down to a fountain, and that is where we took up our position.
ADV VISSER: Can you remember the names of these Defence Force men who were with you?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No.
ADV VISSER: Right, continue, you were on this koppie. Alongside this road which led to a fountain. How far was the fountain from your observation point?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Approximately five to 800 metres, perhaps a little bit more. But I could actually physically see the fountain through the binoculars.
ADV VISSER: Tell the members of the Committee, did Matthews know of all these arrangements and what you were planning to do and what was expected of them; was he told this?
MR VAN DEN BERG: In my opinion Matthews had been informed.
ADV VISSER: Was he present during the planning?
MR VAN DEN BERG: He wasn't at each and every planning session.
ADV VISSER: Were you satisfied that he knew what was expected of him and what was to happen?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, I was satisfied that he knew, and according to me he was not under any compulsion.
ADV VISSER: Yes, that wasn't the question, but please continue.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That night the two Defence Force men and I moved into this observation point, that is the Sunday night. We stayed there on Monday and then on the Tuesday morning, four o'clock, maybe half past four that morning, that is the morning of the 8th of July, one of the Defence Force members woke us up, me and this other person, and said that he could hear a vehicle. Our observation post about from where I am to those doors away from the path, about 60, 70 metres. ADV VISSER: Fifty metres?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Chairperson, I don't know. I am not good at estimating distance in buildings.
ADV VISSER: So it is about 30 metres? Please continue.
MR VAN DEN BERG: But that's how far our observation post was away from this little path.
Now when we saw that there were vehicle lights approaching us we concealed ourselves behind a stone, closer to the path. There was also a gate through which this vehicle had to pass. The vehicle stopped. At that stage we were about ...
ADV VISSER: Please continue.
MR VAN DEN BERG: At that stage we were about 50 metres away from the path. ADV VISSER: Mr Van den Berg, please forgive me - Chairperson, I really don't think that you are interested in all the fine detail. Mr Van den Berg, won't you please just get to the main points. It is not really relevant how far away you had hidden yourselves. If it is important we can return to it. Just tell us what happened that day and then we go to the next event.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I saw that there were six people in the back of the vehicle, it was a red Toyota Hi-Lux, with a white canopy. In the front there were three people, Mabena drove the vehicle. They drove down to the fountain. They stopped there, switched off the lights, and when it became light we saw some of them moving around there. Matthews came through the river and met the people there. He came back. Kobus Fourie contacted us on the radio and told us that the people were not armed or that they were waiting for arms and money. Later that afternoon the two Defence Force people and I withdrew and we went back to the South African side. We then heard that the infiltration had been postponed for the morning of the 10th.
ADV VISSER: Did you speak to Matthews?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I spoke to Matthews at Alldays.
ADV VISSER: What did he tell you?
MR VAN DEN BERG: We didn't talk much about what had happened there. He told me that there were six people who were planning to infiltrate, and that the infiltration had been postponed for the 10th.
ADV VISSER: Was anything said regarding weapons?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Between Matthews and myself, I am not sure, but between myself and Kobus Fourie, he did say that they were waiting for weapons.
ADV VISSER: So the infiltration was postponed for the 10th. Did you report this to Mr Coetsee?
MR VAN DEN BERG: The infiltration was postponed to the 10th. I reported to Mr Coetsee and I heard later that the Corolla car broke down and was towed away or removed. I then also told Mr Coetsee that there were now six people and that the car would be too small to transport them all, and he gave me the assurance that he would make arrangements for a bigger vehicle.
ADV VISSER: Now did you stay at Kruitfontein or in Vogelpan the whole time or did you come back to Pietersburg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I was at Alldays and at some stage, I am not quite sure when, it might have been Tuesday, I came to Pietersburg to report personally.
ADV VISSER: Now what happened on the 10th?
MR VAN DEN BERG: The evening of the 9th myself and three Defence Force members went back to the same observation points. We heard Kobus Fourie saying on the radio that Matthews had arrived at the border fence and had stopped, gone through to the fountain. We had seen movement at the fountain. It was very close to half past eight that morning when Kobus Fourie said that they were crossing the border and that Matthews and his people were entering a Kombi.
ADV VISSER: Now at that stage was the planning still the same; namely, that the people would be allowed to drive as far as Pietersburg and that there would be a rest there or had the planning changed?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, the planning was different. The planning was now that they would be arrested next to the road.
ADV VISSER: What was the reason for this change of plan?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Because these people were to be heavily armed and because there were six of them and no longer three.
ADV VISSER: Can you recall that Matthews told you at some stage that he had learnt that the group would split up into three groups of two each and that one group would go to Phalaborwa, another group to Johannesburg and the third group to Pietersburg, and what they were supposed to do in those areas?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I don't know whether it was before or after the event. I know that he said that the police station and Checkers or OK Bazaars and so forth, here in Pietersburg, they were involved.
ADV VISSER: So there were places that were targeted in Pietersburg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, and Johannesburg was also mentioned.
ADV VISSER: I am sorry, I interrupted you. We have heard that Kobus Fourie told you that the people had already crossed the river, that they were in the Kombi. What happened from then onwards, what did you do?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I stayed at my observation point and a couple of minutes after nine o'clock, we heard shots. First "doef, doef, doef", and then a whole volley of shots. But really, many, many shots.
ADV VISSER: And was that in the direction of where this incident took place?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, I was about 12 kilometres away from this.
ADV VISSER: Now is it correct that if you go from Kruitfontein or drive through Kruitfontein down to the river, you first have to drive through Eendvogelpan, before you get to the Breslau or Alldays road?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Correct.
ADV VISSER: And you weren't present during the incident?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No.
ADV VISSER: Did you speak to each other afterwards about what had happened at the incident?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes.
ADV VISSER: Was there any mention made of Tokkie Fuchs having shot somebody who were lying on the ground?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, that was never mentioned.
ADV VISSER: Did you speak to Matthews?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Matthews and I worked together for years afterwards and the first time that I heard that was when Matthews phoned me one night and told me that Mr De Lange had come to pick him up. He was phoning from Thabazimbi and that we were in trouble. I then phoned Mr Erwee and told him what had happened and Mr Erwee then communicated that to me, that there have been these allegations that Tokkie Fuchs shot somebody who was lying on the ground.
ADV VISSER: Last Sunday, did you see Matthews?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes.
ADV VISSER: What was the occasion?
MR VAN DEN BERG: He came to ask me where this hall was and I gave him directions. We spoke about the matter, sort of superficially, asked each other are you scared, are you afraid and I said no, we must just all speak the truth. And he mentioned to me that the investigating officer in this case, Capt Mshlapu had mentioned to him that Deputy Minister Mbeki and the Minister of Defence, Joe Modise had said that Matthews should go to Cape Town at some point.
ADV VISSER: He didn't elaborate any further and you didn't ask him any further questions?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No.
ADV VISSER: And you didn't draw any inferences from that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Not really.
ADV VISSER: Please just allow me a second.
Mr Van den Berg, you were present in the hall when Mr Van der Merwe and Mr Coetsee gave their evidence. Was there anything in their testimony which sounded wrong to you, or do you agree with what they said?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Broadly speaking I do agree. Here and there there are a couple of things which I experienced or noticed which wasn't quite the same as the way they described it. But substantially, yes, I agree.
ADV VISSER: Now do you feel that you did anything wrong, Mr Van den Berg?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Personally I don't think that I did anything wrong. But Col Erwee made enquiries at the investigating team of the Attorney-General and they said that they were investigating a case of conspiracy to commit murder against us, and that is why I am here.
ADV VISSER: And you are accordingly, asking the Amnesty Committee, to grant you amnesty for any crime or delict which may be found to have been committed by you in relation to this incident?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Correct.
ADV VISSER: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions at this stage.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV VISSER
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Van den Berg ... (intervention).
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV VISSER: Chairperson, if I may interrupt my learned friend at this stage. I forgot something, Mr Van den Berg. Did you speak to Matthews Sehlwana afterwards, as to what had been said in the Kombi, from the river to the place where the incident took place?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
ADV VISSER: Can you tell us what Matthews had told you as to what was said in the Kombi?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Matthews told me that when they got to Eendvogelpan's house, the person who sat in the front of the van, in the passenger seat, told his comrades "get your guns and be ready". It was also said to Matthews that if we land up in a road-block, not only us will get hurt, you will get hurt along with us.
ADV VISSER: Did he also tell you why the apples were handed out?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, correct.
ADV VISSER: I apologise, Chairperson, I forgot to mention this piece of evidence.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRMAN: Are you saying that you asked Matthews as to what was discussed in the Kombi?
MR VAN DEN BERG: You must remember that Matthews and I were still working together for a couple of years after the incident. I asked him a couple of days afterwards, I asked him what happened in the Kombi, because it was essential for me.
CHAIRMAN: Well, then it is slightly worded now. You might have asked him what happened in the Kombi, but I think earlier on you - let's leave the question as to whether you asked him what had happened in the Kombi. You said to a question by Mr Visser that you asked Matthews as to what was discussed in the Kombi, between him and his passengers.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, that's how I understood the question, what was discussed in the Kombi.
CHAIRMAN: Now I would understand if he decided to tell you what had been discussed in the Kombi, but I don't understand why you would ask him as to what had been discussed in the Kombi. Why would you ask him that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: It was important to know, to know what had led to the shooting. These persons were armed and I wanted to know what their reaction was in the Kombi.
CHAIRMAN: But were you not in command of the operation.
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, I wasn't in command of the operation, but long afterwards this took place or it took place after the events.
CHAIRMAN: What drove you after some time to think of asking him what was discussed in the Kombi?
MR VAN DEN BERG: As I said, Matthews and I still worked together for a long time after this incident, and it was a natural thing for me and it was also because I was a security policeman.
CHAIRMAN: And you say he said to you that something was discussed and they told him that if they find a road block ahead he would also be hurt or injured.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN: And if that is what Matthews told you, it would mean that in fact they are asking about something which he knew was going to happen?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN: He knew that there was in fact going to be road block ahead of them?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Matthews knew.
CHAIRMAN: And despite a clear warning to these people that if you find a road block ahead you are going to be hurt, he continued to drive with them?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN: And this information, the information that you got from Matthews that they told him that if we find the road block ahead, you would also be hurt, you got it some time after the incident from Matthews?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN: Was any communication installed in the Kombi so that you could, anybody could hear the conversation between Matthews and the passengers?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, there was no such communication device.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Visser?
ADV VISSER: That's all, thank you, Mr Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV VISSER
CHAIRMAN: Mr Rossouw?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Mr Van den Berg, to just continue with that point, did you put it to Matthews as a general question what was discussed in the Kombi?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
MR ROSSOUW: You said that for you as a security policeman it was important to find out what had been said in the Kombi.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: You didn't ask him whether the passengers in the Kombi had made certain communications to him as to where they came from and where they were going to?
MR VAN DEN BERG: We did talk about it. He mentioned Johannesburg, he mentioned Pietersburg, and he also mentioned Checkers, the OK and the police station.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Van den Berg, I understood that he had received that information at a previous stage not on that morning, the morning that he collected the people.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That I cannot tell you, I heard that afterwards from Matthews.
MR ROSSOUW: You said that Matthews wasn't present at all the planning meetings.
MR VAN DEN BERG: He wasn't involved in all the planning meetings, but he was informed.
MR ROSSOUW: So there might be certain aspects about which he could be unclear and that could be the explanation.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: Now regarding these three people you said that you understood from Matthews' explanation, that is now before the last time that it was decided to continue with the three people, you said that from Matthews' explanation you understood that there were three people and that the date was set for the 8th. Matthews also told you then that money had been handed to him to go and buy clothes. Is that correct?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Correct.
MR ROSSOUW: You used the words "Matthews' explanation". So it is not the same as if he said that there were three. Is it possible that he referred to having to buy clothes for three people?
MR VAN DEN BERG: It could be that he had to buy clothes for three people, but the way I understood it, at that stage it was only a matter of three people involved.
MR ROSSOUW: You heard his evidence that he was not aware of that, that he knew about six people and that he had to buy clothes for three of them?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, I am aware of that.
MR ROSSOUW: Can you give a possible explanation for such a misunderstanding?
MR VAN DEN BERG: It is not possible for me to explain.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW
CHAIRMAN: Mr Black?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BLACK: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Could I just get some of these time sequences, time sequences in order. You said that on the 8th of July, where did you sleep that night?
MR VAN DEN BERG: On that night I slept in Botswana on that koppie.
MR BLACK: Then on the 9th during the course of the day of the 9th, what did you do?
MR VAN DEN BERG: During the day I was at some stage on the RSA side and that evening I went with three Defence Force members back to the RSA. You must realise that an additional Air Force member joined us.
MR BLACK: Did you take part - we have heard the evidence of ... (intervention).
ADV DE JAGER: I'm sorry. You said back to the RSA, you mean back to Botswana, on the evening of the 9th?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, yes. I apologise.
MR BLACK: During the course of the day of the 9th, did you take part in this reversal which was acted out?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, I didn't take part in that.
MR BLACK: I understood that on the night of the 9th you slept at Alldays then?
MR VAN DEN BERG: From the 6th until after the 10th, I didn't sleep at Alldays, I slept at Botswana every night.
MR BLACK: So when did - sorry. You see I just got the - I just want to get one thing ... My notes speak about you are speaking to Matthews at Alldays and when you learnt about these six people planning to infiltrate. Are you referring to after this event? Because I have got on the 10th.
MR VAN DEN BERG: On the 8th, that afternoon, I saw Matthews at Alldays, or perhaps the morning of the 9th and I spoke to him then.
MR BLACK: Now what I just want to understand; you described that on the actual day of the incident you heard shots from your observation point. After that did you go to the scene of the shooting? Did you go from your observation point and go and investigate and find out what had happened?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, I stayed at my observation point until we received a radio message that people had been killed and wounded during the shooting. I then withdrew. It might have been an hour or half-an-hour afterwards.
MR BLACK: What was the message that you received?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I received a message that here had been a shooting, that people had been killed and that a person from the security forces had been wounded.
MR BLACK: When you say that, did they just say people had been killed or did they say how many people had been killed?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I can't remember exactly whether it said how many people died, but what I can recall is that the message said people had been killed and wounded.
MR BLACK: Then you say you withdrew from your observation post. Where did you withdraw to?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Quite some time afterwards I withdrew and I went to Kobus Fourie's observation post. Afterwards I went to Alldays with Kobus Fourie.
MR BLACK: So at no stage did you go to the actual scene of the shooting on that day?
MR VAN DEN BERG: On my way to Alldays we passed that place.
MR BLACK: Were the people there still?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, this was about two to three hours after the incident, perhaps three hours, yes, when we passed by there.
MR BLACK: Now from your observation post where you were posted, did you see what had happened there, that a Casspir stopped? Did you see the shooting?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No. I couldn't see the place because the area there was mountainous and it was about 12 kilometres away from where I was.
MR BLACK: Subsequent to this event, I should imagine there must have been a lot of talk amongst your colleagues as to what had taken place?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, there was talk about the incident..
MR BLACK: I note from your evidence that whenever a particular stage of an operation could either not be carried out or had to be aborted or a further development took place, in an operation which you had set out to achieve, in other words, initially to keep tabs on these three persons, you always reported back to Brig Coetsee?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Right. And is that in fact the practice of, as a security policeman, your other colleagues would also be expected to report on what they had done and what had taken place and they would report to Brig Coetsee?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I reported to Brig Coetsee because I had manned a strategic point in Botswana.
MR BLACK: Now when you returned to Pietersburg, are you - you say that there never was any talk about Tokkie Fuchs having shot a wounded occupant of that vehicle.
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, that was never ever mentioned in my presence by Matthews or by any other person.
MR BLACK: But at a later stage was it mentioned to you by Matthews?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No. The first time that I came to hear of this, is as I testified just now.
MR BLACK: Is when?
MR VAN DEN BERG: When Col Erwee came from the investigating team of the Attorney-General in November.
MR BLACK: You see you say that at one stage, years you worked with Matthews, for years afterwards, and at a stage Matthews, if I may refer to that, that is Mr Sehlwana, said to you that a certain Mr De Lange had called him and said that you were in trouble, "we were in trouble", you and him.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I assumed that it wasn't just the two of us, but that it referred to the whole team who acted on that day, and that is why I contacted Col Erwee and told him about this.
MR BLACK: Did Matthews not elaborate and say what type of trouble or what De Lange, what De Lange was investigating?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Matthews told me that De Lange would take him on the next day to go and make certain pointings out at the scene and that I had to go with to the scene. I told him that I was working and that I wouldn't go.
MR BLACK: But it would be pointless for you to go. You were never at the scene anyway. Why would Matthews even suggest that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I don't know.
MS KHAMPEPE: May I interpose, Mr Black, so that I can be on the same page as you. I seem to be a little lost. Was this conversation with Matthew about Mr De Lange and the pointing out, did that conversation take place in November, last year? Is that what you are saying?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, yes.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
MR BLACK: Thank you, Ms Khampepe. And are you aware of the fact that there was a tape-recording made of the incident? Or during the course of the incident, of the shootings?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct. I am aware of that.
MR BLACK: Did you ever have occasion to listen to the tape recording?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, I did listen to the tape-recording.
MR BLACK: Was it at Pietersburg security offices?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I assume it was in Pietersburg, I can't say exactly.
MR BLACK: Was it some time after the incident?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, it was quite some time after the incident.
MR BLACK: Sort of, you are talking about months or weeks?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I think a matter of weeks.
MR BLACK: And I just - Mr Van den Berg, did you know Mr Francois Jacobus van Zyl, who was working with the security branch?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes.
MR BLACK: And this morning I had discussed this with your legal representatives, and I just want to confirm, just for the record, that - because we didn't have ... If he testifies to the effect that some time during 1989 during winter time, he was travelling with you on the Alldays/Breslau Road, and you started to tell him and talk to him about this particular incident, of the Alldays shooting and that you told him that there were, what you call it, rehearsals or exercises which took place in order, before the operation, in order to ensure that it was successful. Do you recall that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I do remember that the two of us were driving in that area. We actually drove past that area and I mentioned to him that the shooting had taken place there. I can't remember that I told him about the rehearsals beforehand, because I was not aware of those rehearsals beforehand.
MR BLACK: Are you telling us now that during the planning stages and the plans that you had with Brig Coetsee, prior to this incident, this wasn't discussed? This wasn't part of the plans, that there would be a rehearsal as to what and where - what Matthews was to do when - after he had stopped the Kombi and should there be trouble?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That was discussed, but at the scene
itself I only came to know on the day of the 10th exactly what happened.
MR BLACK: Yes, that's not the question. You were aware of the - I am putting it to you that you must have been aware of the fact that they were going to rehearse as to what Matthews would do, after stopping the Kombi. I understood from Brig Coetsee that this is all part of the planning, and that you were present.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
MR BLACK: So it is not correct for you to say that you only became aware of this rehearsal, you weren't aware of it before the time.
MR VAN DEN BERG: As to the fact that there was to be a rehearsal or rehearsals, that I knew beforehand, but I didn't know where it would take place.
CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr Black. The question asked, it doesn't matter really whether you knew that there was going to be a rehearsal or whether you were personally at the rehearsal. You might have heard about the rehearsal later or you might have been present when it was discussed. And indeed, you might not have been present when the rehearsal took place, but that is not the question. The question is, did you tell Van Zyl that there was a rehearsal?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I told him what had happened there. Whether I told him about any rehearsal, that I don't know, I can't remember that.
CHAIRMAN: Is it possible that you could have told him?
MR VAN DEN BERG: It is possible.
CHAIRMAN: So if he says you did tell him, you would not deny that?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I could not deny it.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr Black?
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Van den Berg, I am sure you must have known about the rehearsals, even though you were not personally present during the rehearsals. You were part of the initial planning, which led to the rehearsals taking place and you must have been told later by your colleagues when you discussed this matter fully, after the incident had taken place.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct. I was aware of the rehearsal, exactly what form these would take and all exact details, that I was not aware of.
MS KHAMPEPE: I think Mr Black's point was that you were aware of the rehearsals. I think he is actually belabouring that point, particularly because you are saying you couldn't have known about the rehearsals because you were not there, and that is not the point which is at issue. The point that is at issue, is whether you could have known about the rehearsals or not.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I could have known.
MR BLACK: Thank you. Mr Van den Berg, I am just covering certain aspects about the evidence, if I may make it clear, which, if necessary, Mr Van Zyl will testify to. He also mentions that you told him at a stage that you sat on the koppie and that you kept observation there, and you could see what was happening, and you saw that a Casspir vehicle stopped in front of the bus or the Kombi, and that Matthews, the driver jumped out and ran away. He first ran in the wrong direction. Then he turned around and then he ran in the correct direction. Thereafter there was shooting at the Kombi. Could you have said that, would you have said that to him or is he just hearing this because it was part of the whole story, that people were generally talking about?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I would definitely have not told him that. Because I was 12 kilometres away from the scene. I was in Botswana. There were mountains between us. He would have immediately have been able to realise that I was lying.
MR BLACK: You weren't lying if you told him these details, because that is in fact what happened. In other words, perhaps I will concede ...
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, you have put it to the witness that Van Zyl would say he was sitting on the koppie and that he in fact saw the Casspir and saw the shooting. So in fact he would be lying if he was 12 kilometres away.
MR BLACK: That's, I was about to correct myself. Thank you, Mr De Jager. If in fact you said you could see that as the Commissioner correctly points out, then that wouldn't be correct that - I am just putting the general terms. I am not, I am saying that my information is that he was - Van den Berg told Mr Van Zyl, you told him, that you didn't point out which koppie you were sitting on, but that you were just keeping observation and that you - and then the events are related as to, in accordance with the evidence we have already heard. So I understand your answer to be you couldn't have said that to him, because you were not in a position to observe what had happened.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
ADV DE JAGER: But Mr Van den Berg, you could have said to him I sat on a koppie over there, but what happened at this place is this and that and the following and that could have been the story that you had heard from the other people who were present. You could have told him what had happened. Isn't that correct?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Thank you. Because this was generally discussed exactly what took place. I mean, these facts as to what took place you became aware of after the event, by way of discussions which took place during, amongst your colleagues. Is that correct?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I did become aware of the facts.
MR BLACK: And at a later stage, according to Mr Van Zyl, you were travelling in the direction of Botswana and during the course of the conversation with him, you came to the Eendvogelpan and during the course of the conversation with him, you told Van Zyl that Matthews had told you that this is where - this is the stage at which the occupants of the Kombi all cocked their AK-47s. Could you have mentioned that to him?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is possible.
MR BLACK: Okay. Now there is another issue which I just want correct the record. You are saying that shortly before this hearing Mr Sehlwana came to you and asked you directions to the hall. Is that correct?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Correct.
MR BLACK: But it not only stops there. He gives you some story that the captain, the investigating officer, a Capt Molapo gave him further information. It that so?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, that's correct.
MR BLACK: You clearly remember him mentioning Capt Molapo's name?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
MR BLACK: Did he say that this is a man who told him to come to attend the meeting? To attend the hearing, sorry.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, he said that Capt Molapo had phoned him about three weeks before and told him about these hearings.
MR BLACK: Well, and that in addition to that, Capt Molapo said to him that after the hearings he would be going to Cape Town and to meet Joe Modise and the Deputy President, Thabo Mbeki?
MR VAN DEN BERG: He told me that Capt Molapo had told him that he would have to go to Cape Town after this hearing, on the instructions of the Deputy President Mbeki and Minister Joe Modise.
MR BLACK: Well, I must tell you that Capt Molapo ... (intervention).
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Black, I am sorry to interrupt. If I understand it correctly, Matthews told you that he had been phoned three weeks ago. Was there only the one discussion between Matthews and yourself this past Sunday or did you speak to each other again recently?
MR VAN DEN BERG: He also came to my house on a previous occasion, it could have been a month or two months ago. During that discussion nothing of importance was said. This discussion took place on Sunday afternoon.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you, Mr Black.
MR BLACK: Thank you. Well, you see, I find this very strange, this evidence. Capt Molapo, first of all denies that he had ever - would say such a thing to Mr Sehlwana, there is absolutely no reason for him to do so. I am just giving you that information. Secondly, Mr Sehlwana who is represented by attorneys, and it was through his attorneys that it was communicated to him about the dates of the hearings, where the hearings would take place, et cetera. I asked Capt Molapo as to whether he had served notices on Mr Sehlwana and he says no, because we had summonsed him to this hearing through the means of his attorneys. But in fairness to you, Mr Van den Berg, I did not ask Capt Molapo whether he at any stage had telephoned Mr Sehlwana. And that is a fact which I can ascertain. But certainly it was put, as I understood it, that he had been told to attend the hearing when it was put to Sehlwana, it was understood that the proposal put to Sehlwana was that Capt Molapo had told him to come to these hearings, and thereafter he would go and see the Deputy President and the Minister of Defence. When I canvassed that with Capt Molapo he denied it. Would there be any possible reason that you can think of, that Sehlwana, if he did in fact report this to you, would come up with such a fairytale?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I don't have any idea. It is simply something which he mentioned. He mentioned it spontaneously.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Van den Berg, where have you ever heard the name Molapo before in your life?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I heard it from Sgt Sehlwana.
ADV DE JAGER: Did you ever meet Capt Molapo and spoke to him?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, I didn't, I met him at the start of these hearings, I saw him for the first time.
ADV DE JAGER: And how did you know it was Mr Molapo?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I heard him saying to somebody outside here that he was the investigating officer in this case.
MR BLACK: Mr Van den Berg, the name Molapo, are you sure that you have received that name from Matthews, and that you didn't just discover it here at the hearings, when people were looking through papers or whatever?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, I am quite certain that I heard it from Matthews for the very first time.
MR VISSER OBJECTS: Mr Chairman, I am sorry to have to interrupt my learned friend, but there is something which I think we must get clarity on. There seems to be developing in this hearing an idea that there are two parties against each other in front of you; that Sehlwana is say the one party and as opposed to him stands the other applicants. That's altogether not the situation, Mr Chairman. With great respect, the legal representative of Mr Sehlwana does not oppose our application. We do not oppose his.
We are not here in conflict with each other in the sense that one witness has to be broken down as far as credibility is concerned merely because he says something different from another. We didn't tender this evidence to make anything out of it. We tendered the evidence merely because we believed it is something that happened that you should be aware of. We are not making any point of it. But we do find it objectionable, Mr Chairman, that this witness is cross-examined as if he is sucking something out of his thumb, because frankly, Mr Chairman, it has nothing to do with the merits of our application for amnesty. We suggest to you that we are wasting time, with all due respect to my learned friend, if we are - you will remember that we didn't attack Sehlwana's credibility. I didn't cross-examine him.
What we did in our questions, was to lift out areas where his evidence coincided with ours and where they differed. We didn't cross-examine him because it is not necessary, Mr Chairman, and you can allow it to go on, but we wish to place on record, that we are busy with something which is totally irrelevant to what we are about here, namely the applications for amnesty.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Visser, the problem is some of the questions which perhaps Mr Black asked, are the questions which perhaps I might not have asked and one always hopes that when a question is being asked there is a reason for it, and one would keep on being optimistic and thinking that maybe that some foundation is being laid for the purpose of argument and the like. But I think Mr Black, you heard what Mr Visser is saying, and do you want to comment on that?
MR BLACK: Yes, Mr Chairman. I don't propose to belabour this point any further, but I think in fairness to Capt Molapo I should put that to this witness. In argument I will slightly disagree with Mr Visser in saying that there was no purpose or objective or sinister purpose or other objective to make such a statement or put such a statement to Mr Molapo, sorry, to Mr Sehlwana. Clearly, I will submit in due course and elaborate, if necessary, that a seed of doubt, a seed was trying to be planted that Mr Sehlwana is going to either receive favourable treatment or some reason or other by meeting with the most senior members of the ANC.
CHAIRMAN: But just remember that that statement was put to Mr Sehlwana and he denied it.
MR BLACK: Yes. No, that is so.
CHAIRMAN: And I would have thought that well, he has denied it and there was no need to really go into it that much, I mean.
MR BLACK: No, I hadn't - before the interruption, I wasn't going to proceed any further along those lines. But as I say, I will confirm, and I think I have made it clear to Mr Van den Berg, that all I asked Capt Molapo as to whether he told Mr Sehlwana to attend and the story about the ANC.
CHAIRMAN: But just remember ...
MR BLACK: But I am not ...
CHAIRMAN: Just remember, you know, Mr Molapo is not a witness.
MR BLACK: No.
CHAIRMAN: You are not going to call him and you know, the person who was a witness who was Mr Sehlwana and this thing was put to him and he denied it.
MR BLACK: Yes, okay. I just wanted to also clear Capt Molapo's name. I don't propose pursuing that line any further. I have no further questions for this witness either, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BLACK
MS KHAMPEPE: Mr Van den Berg, earlier you were asked by the Chairperson in connection with a discussion which allegedly took place in the car between Mr Sehlwana and the cadres that he was transporting, and that information was basically to the effect that if there was a road block on the way, not only will they be in trouble, but that Mr Sehlwana was also, will also be in trouble. What I wanted to find out from you, is that was that information from Mr Sehlwana elicited by you for any particular purpose, like probably for purposes of making a report as Mr Sehlwana was a person who was working directly under you?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No, it wasn't obtained for a specific purposes. It was simply that I was interested.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did you pass that information over to your superiors, did you discuss it with Mr Van der Merwe or Mr Coetsee?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I think I would have done so at some stage. I can't remember the exact day or date on which we discussed it.
MS KHAMPEPE: Did you not present any written reports of information obtained from Mr Sehlwana to your superiors?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Are you referring to after the incident?
MS KHAMPEPE: Generally, because I think the evidence of Mr Sehlwana was that he was working directly under you, he reported to you as a security officer.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Sehlwana reported to me on a continuing basis and I reported to Mr Coetsee on a continuing basis.
MS KHAMPEPE: And was information obtained from Mr Sehlwana in the course and scope of his duties as a security policeman, passed over by you to Mr Van der Merwe or to Mr Coetsee in writing? Was that information in writing or you would merely report orally to your superiors?
MR VAN DEN BERG: It was mainly oral information and was orally transferred.
MS KHAMPEPE: Never in writing?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Head office was sometimes informed of events by letter or by fax.
MS KHAMPEPE: Thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: You made mention of a tape-recording to which you listened to at some stage?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Correct.
ADV DE JAGER: What was on this tape-recording?
MR VAN DEN BERG: There was the sound of a whistle.
ADV DE JAGER: Yes?
MR VAN DEN BERG: There were numerous shots audible on this tape-recording. And somewhere, I can't remember whether it was at the beginning or at the end, there was a person using the word "mosono kojoko".
MS KHAMPEPE: Will you please come again, Mr Van den Berg about the last word you said?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I am not able to speak Zulu, but that's how I heard it, "mosono kojoko".
ADV DE JAGER: Did you hear any other words or any other orders which you heard? Any discussion which you heard?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Those are the important things which I heard. There might have been something else, I don't know.
ADV DE JAGER: I want you to think back. Who had this tape-recording and where did you hear it?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I think that I listened to it at the office and Mr Van Dyk made the tape-recording.
ADV DE JAGER: Was it according to you a tape-recording of the events, the incident there when the road block was carried out and the people were shot?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Correct.
ADV DE JAGER: What was Mr Van Dyk's function in this operation, if you can tell us?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I don't know.
ADV DE JAGER: What was his normal role or function in the security police? Was he an ordinary photographer or he did have any special function or was he an ordinary policeman?
MR VAN DEN BERG: He was an ordinary policeman.
ADV DE JAGER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: We were told that an interview was taped, an interview between an injured person and some members of the security police there at the scene. Could there have been that kind of interview on that same tape?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, there could have been such an interview.
CHAIRMAN: I would have thought that if there was such a conversation you would remember.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I did not listen to the tape-recording intensively, I don't know why, but it could be that I heard it, and that I just forgot about it. But if it was on the tape and I deny it, then it is simply that I wasn't aware of it, it is not that I am trying to lie about it.
CHAIRMAN: No, I appreciate that you might not be lying, but I must just express my surprise that you would be able to recall that there was a whistle on the tape, which to me, I mean a whistle I would have thought would be something less significant. What's the meaning of a whistle on a tape? I would have thought you would remember a conversation between the police and the person interviewed, rather than remembering the whistle.
MR VAN DEN BERG: It is possible that I only listened to half or that half of the tape-recording. I am not sure.
CHAIRMAN: But a conversation or an interview between the terrorists as they were seen to be, on the one hand, and the police on the other hand, and I assume the police would not have been asking useless or nonsensical questions. They must have asked him important questions, and such a conversation must have been of some importance. Therefore, it would be something that you would remember.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I agree with you that it would have been important, but I can't remember that I heard such a thing.
CHAIRMAN: You said earlier on that Sehlwana told you that his passenger said that should they meet a roadblock they would shoot.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Those specific words weren't used. The commander told them cock your guns and Mr Sehlwana was told if we meet with the roadblock you will also get hurt, along with us. Perhaps different words were used, but the gist of it was the same.
CHAIRMAN: Well, to cock their weapons that would indicate that they are preparing to shoot.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, according to me that is the case.
CHAIRMAN: There was an inquest in this case, wasn't there?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I assume that there was.
CHAIRMAN: Did you make a statement?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I didn't make a statement.
CHAIRMAN: Are you aware that what the picture which was presented to - which was presented to the inquest was that the police acted in self-defence?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN: Did you convey the information which Mr Sehlwana to the investigating officer?
MR VAN DEN BERG: No.
CHAIRMAN: Well, wouldn't that have been, if Mr Sehlwana did tell you that, would that not have been important to the whole question of self-defence? The fact that they told him that they must ready themselves up for a possible shooting.
MR VAN DEN BERG: That I did mention to Mr Coetsee. I assumed that the investigating officer would come to me to take a statement from me.
CHAIRMAN: Well, were you surprised that he didn't?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I didn't pay much heed to that. It is only now at this hearing again that the matter came back to me. The fact that there were no proper statements taken, as it came back to me now.
CHAIRMAN: Well, let me tell you that Mr Sehlwana also told us that he was not approached for a statement, for the purpose of an inquest. This, according to your version, notwithstanding the fact that he had said that these people told him that they must cock their weapons and ready themselves up to shoot.
MR VAN DEN BERG: According to me that was the task of the investigating officer to take the necessary statements.
CHAIRMAN: Anyway, for your part you did what you felt you should do. You passed on that information to your seniors or one of your seniors. The information which Sehlwana told you.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Correct, yes.
CHAIRMAN: Shall we adjourn?
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
J P VAN DEN BERG: (Still under oath).
CHAIRMAN: Re-examination?
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Yes, Mr Chairman, there is just one thing that I wish to clear up. Mr Van den Berg, I omitted to ask you originally. That which you did during, before and during this incident, did you do this - as you saw it - in the course and scope of your duty in terms of orders that you had to perform as a policeman?
MR VAN DEN BERG: That is correct.
ADV VISSER: I have no further questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Van den Berg, you are excused.
