Amnesty Hearings

MR BOOYENS: Sorry Mr Chairman I apologise, in fact I think I jumped the gun. The Committee hadn't indicated whether they finished with the previous witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Finished.

MR BOOYENS: I call Mr Lotz, page 10 to 19.

GERHARD LOTZ: (sworn states)

MR BOOYENS: May I ask for an amendment Mr Chairman, paragraph 13, right at the top of the page the 1(a)

"Kidnapping and death of the four persons and any other offence or dillict that might come from this"

Thank you Sir.

Mr Lotz, check the amnesty application before you. On page 10, is there anything else you want to add?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR BOOYENS: Page 11?

MR LOTZ: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Page - when we arrive at page 12 at 9(a), is there anything you want to add there?

MR LOTZ: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: What - in 1985 when this incident took place, what exactly was your function?

MR LOTZ: I was a field worker at the security branch Mr Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: With the rank of?

MR LOTZ: Warrant Officer.

MR BOOYENS: What was your field work, what did it ...

MR LOTZ: I was - I had to identify and find activists.

MR BOOYENS: And where did you operate, in other words where did you work?

MR LOTZ: From Port Elizabeth but in the whole Eastern Cape Region or division as it was known at that time.

MR BOOYENS: Can you tell us the situation at grassroots level as you've experienced it?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairperson, if I could give some background about myself and certain incidents that influenced my life. After I matriculated I went directly to the police force and after six months of training I was in count-insurgence where I was at the station for a month.

From there I went to Ovambuland when I was 19 years old and for the first time I encountered terrorism. After that I returned ...[intervention]

MR BOOYENS: Not to go into too much detail, if you talk about terrorism in Ovambuland, what do you mean?

MR LOTZ: At that time when the police were also sent to the border because of SWAPO and the liberation of South Africa ...

MR BOOYENS: And what was your involvement there, what did you do? Did you do normal police work?

MR LOTZ: No, we made war there, to put it that way.

MR BOOYENS: And in this war? Can you briefly state, were you involved in any attacks?

MR LOTZ: During the first time when I was there I was involved in skirmishes and after that I returned to normal police station work. And during 1981 I went to Koevoet and from there, I worked from there and we were involved with skirmishes with terrorists.

Just to add, during that time, because of problems at home at my parent's home, I returned to Port Elizabeth and my service period was there.

MR BOOYENS: You say in paragraph, the 2nd paragraph on page 12

"During '87 I was involved in skirmishes with terrorists, amongst others Motherwell, Veëplaas and New Brighton"

Can you just tell us some details so we can get some understanding of this.

MR LOTZ: I would just like to go a step backwards Mr Chairperson. In 1983 I was on a course in Pretoria, it was the same time when the Church Street bomb exploded. The same day that this happened I was at the scene and it made a gruesome impression on me because of the manner in which people were killed.

One one side I put it this way but at that stage, if one could say the liberation fighters, the ANC, I hated them because of what they did to us. And this incident up to now - because we saw limbs lying all over and the circumstances of that incident would stay with me for the rest of my life.

Afterwards we were in Port Elizabeth itself in several skirmishes with terrorists in Motherwell, Veëplaas, New Brighton, where people were killed Mr Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Can you paint a picture for the Commission from the eyes of a police person, the situation at grassroots level as you experienced it in '84?

MR LOTZ: During that time there were consumer boycotts, school boycotts, and those actions were the order of the day. The fact that in the eyes of those organisations that human lives meant nothing. I speak under correction, I approximately encountered 120 necklace murders just in Port Elizabeth.

And day and night you would see a vehicle burnt or smoke, you would think there's another person who was necklaced. How they attacked us with petrol bombs, the shooting incidents that happened, I think the normal person on the street would never understand the circumstances under which we lived at that time.

There were stages where the normal police could not go into the townships where members of the security branch went in to do their work during that time Mr Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: You've mentioned Port Elizabeth and earlier you said you worked in the whole Eastern Cape and you painted a picture in the rural areas for us.

MR LOTZ: We were - at several times we went to Cradock where there was unrest and we helped to re-establish and we helped to re-establish order so that normal people who were not part of the political activities, that they could carry on with a normal life in those.

In those instances we were shot at and we were thrown with stones, general policing came to a stop.

MR BOOYENS: You've mentioned Cradock, were you ever at any other places? Just now just let's talk about strikes and throwing of stones.

MR LOTZ: We were at Fort Beaufort, Grahamstown it was ...[indistinct] for our division.

MR BOOYENS: If you have to guess today, in how many incidents were you involved where there was throwing of stones, petrol bombs or shooting at you, do you know?

MR LOTZ: It's difficult to say because after some time you stop counting because it was just about a daily occurence. I cannot say how many times it happened, I can really not say.

MR BOOYENS: Give us some more detail, you say you were at the terrorist tracking desk.

MR LOTZ: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: What was your job there?

MR LOTZ: My primary duties was the identification of persons who left the Republic of South Africa to receive military training abraod and we had to identify people who had military training and we returned to the RSA to come and make war. That's how I saw it. And then to eliminate them, or not to eliminate ...

MR BOOYENS: You've mentioned Cradock. Any of the deceased, did you see them? Did you know them by seeing them personnaly?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairperson, I've seen during the times at Cradock, I speak under correction, when they were question I cannot say with 100% surety who, some of the decease in this matter, I cannot state pertinently who or who not.

MR BOOYENS: I did not mention questioning, who of them did you see?

MR LOTZ: Ten to one it's Mr Goniwe and Mr Calata and Mkhonto.

MR BOOYENS: You apply, on page 12, 13, under paragraph 9(a) you set forward the details, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That's correct Mr Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Let's get to the facts of this matter, how did you become involved?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairperson, at some stage before the 27th, I do not remember the precise date, Captain van Zyl approached me to ask me or instructed me to become involved in an operation to eliminate persons.

MR BOOYENS: What was said to you in this instruction, who, what?

MR LOTZ: The whole operation would be primarily revolving around Mr Goniwe and his cohorts and people who were actively involved with him.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Goniwe's name was mentioned, do you remember if other names were mentioned?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairperson, other person's names were mentioned, amongst others the deceased. I speak under correction to say if the time when Mr Mhlawuli's name was also mentioned - I cannot say exactly when this happened.

MR BOOYENS: The name of Mhlawuli, did you hear this before the 27th or on the 27th, what is your position on that?

MR LOTZ: I would believe that it was on the 27th Mr Chairperson, that he - if I can put it, the 27th Captain van Zyl confirmed to me the four persons or the deceased and I think that's where it ended, where my involvement would have ended.

MR BOOYENS: This position - after you received the instruction, were you aware who was with you, involved in this operation?

MR LOTZ: Yes, Captain van Zyl did tell me that Taylor would also be involved in this operation. That was the only persons that I knew of that would be involved in this operation. I believed and I assumed that a senior of Captain van Zyl would have given him the instruction. Who the person was I would not know.

MR BOOYENS: Did you ask?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairperson no. I don't think during such instructions or operations you ask those type of questions, who, what where and when or who decides and those types of questions, you didn't do that.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Lotz, from the instance when Mr van Zyl gave the instruction, in the time before the 27th to the 27th, what if any did you do to prepare for this operation?

MR LOTZ: Because of my work circumstances which was the identification of persons who left the country Mr Goniwe's name came to the fore, Mr Calata's name, Mr Mkhonto's name and I knew of this.

MR BOOYENS: You say - in the investigation of people who left the country you mentioned these three names, just explain.

MR LOTZ: This was around the recruitment of these people, recruitment of people to leave the country that was done by these three persons.

MR BOOYENS: The nature of this information, how did you get it?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairperson, if the persons left the country they usually applied for political asylum in neighbouring countries, Botswana, and then we received information again as to which country it would be.

And it happened oftern that some of these persons who wanted to leave the country were arrested before they could leave the country and that questioning that was given to them, here from their names came.

MR BOOYENS: In this concern, was this before the instruction from Captain van Zyl or afterwards, do you know?

MR LOTZ: It was before the instruction.

MR BOOYENS: During this time, after you had received the instruction, before were eliminated, what did you do then?

MR LOTZ: Primarily, and I can mention that I'm talking under correction, it happened a long time ago, about 2400 refugess were in the Eastern Cape. I looked at the refugees from Cradock and the possible involvement in Port Elizabeth and the environment from where people skipped the country from there and tried to determine whether some of the names which were put forward during disucussions with van Zyl, whether that was not mentioned.

MR BOOYENS: You are referring to names coming from Captain van Zyl, how many names had come from van Zyl?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairman, I'm talkging under corerction but I think there were six names. I think Makahula, Madora Jacobs and I think there was also another name, I can't remember that. It was perhaps Melelo Goniwe, but I can't remember exactly.

MR BOOYENS: Did you obtain any information from those files?

MR LOTZ: From these files Sikelu came to the fore and it was a possible indication, it could have been Mhlawuli, I couldn't confirm that. During that time I spoke to people right across the country who did they same type of work, who did this type of work.

CHAIRPERSON: How many people around the country would you have consulted?

MR LOTZ: I think I spoke to people from the Western Cape, I spoke to people in Pretoria, I spoke to people in Ladybrand. I'm speaking under correction, I can't remember exactly whom but I tried to establish whether they couldn't assist me in identifying those people but we couldn't get anymore information.

CHAIRPERSON: Even from Oudsthoorn?

MR LOTZ: I'm not sure, there was nobody I knew in Oudtshoorn. If I can explain, during those times we held conferences regarding the identification of refugees and the poeple I met during those conferences I contacted them because I knew them. I don't think there was anybody at Oudtshoorn at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: You mentioned the Sikelu, and what happened then? You obtained information, what did you do with this information?

MR LOTZ: I handed this information to Captain van Zyl. It was not confirmed information but the information I did obtain was handed to him.

MR BOOYENS: We've heard from the previous witness about confirmed and unconfirmed information, please explain to us what the difference is.

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairman, unconfirmed - to have confirmed information, that is a fact, unconfirmed information I would not say is a fact, if I can put it like that. If I had more than one source of information who supported one another, I would say that that was confirmed information. The information came from two various sources.

MR BOOYENS: And how ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: And that would be a fact? If two people told you the same thing, that would be a fact?

MR LOTZ: No, Mr Chairman, not two people, I said two sources. A person and perhaps something technical. I wouldn't say two, actually I'm saying more than one. In some instances there were informers who provided facts and somebody else would come and they confirmed that, that was called confirmed information.

MR BOOYENS: And if you refer to technical, do you mean if you tapped the telephones and those types of things?

MR LOTZ: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: You said this information was conveyed to van Zyl, how did you do that?

MR LOTZ: I contacted him personally.

MR BOOYENS: No, but I mean, did you write reports to him, did you convey it to him orally?

MR LOTZ: I conveyed it to him orally.

MR BOOYENS: Did you and Mr Taylor also talk to one another at this stage?

MR LOTZ: Yes, Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: Specifically with reference to this case and the information, did you discuss that?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct Mr Chairman.

MR BOOYENS: What was the eventual purpose of this information gathering exercise during this period between van Zyl gave you the instruction and the eventual elimination? Why did you gather information?

MR LOTZ: For me, Mr Chairman, it was to do research about these people, their movements, to estblish a pattern, to see whether we could establish a pattern from their various movements to get this operation going and to handle it accordingly.

MR BOOYENS: In other words it was about how you would execute the elimination, is that what you're trying to tell us?

MR LOTZ: That is correct Mr Chairman, depending on the information we would obtain. One can speculate this way or that way but we could say: "If this would happen you could do that", or otherwise.

MR BOOYENS: In other words, did you decide - you were interested in their movements and the purpose was to determine how they moved so that you could get hold of them in one or other way?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MR BOOYENS: And the method you used, how would that be done?

MR LOTZ: We would have made it appear to be a vigilante attack. During that time there was a fight between the UDF and AZAPO, where these people fought against one another, they had a vendetta against one another. They attacked people, the killed people, they burnt people and various methods were used at various times.

But primarily they attacked people with sharp objects and killed them afterwards, and sometimes, while the people was still alive, to burn them.

MR BOOYENS: The burning of bodies, was that a certain significant aspect?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that was the way they acted.

MR BOOYENS: Do you want to add anything to what happened before the 27th, do you want to add anything which you've not said before?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairman, I myself personally did gather much more information, it came primarily from Lieutenant Taylor. The information I had about th recruitment of these people, I provided that information.

MR BOOYENS: Tell us, what happened then on the 27th?

MR LOTZ: I'm talking under correction, as far as I can remember what happened that day, Captain van Zyl came to me, he confirmed that this operation would take place that evening, we would execute the operation.

And he confirmed that the operation should appear like a vigilante attack and we had to prepare ourselves. That entailed that we had to take knives with us to kill those poeple.

MR BOOYENS: You expected to kill a person or persons with a knife?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Good, what were your instructions?

MR LOTZ: At 5 o'clock that afternoon we had to gather at Algoa Park.

MR BOOYENS: Who were: "we"?

MR LOTZ: It was Captain van Zyl, myself and Taylor.

MR BOOYENS: Go on.

MR LOTZ: After we had gathered there, I and Lieutenant Taylor left in his vehicle, van Zyl drove his own vehicle. We drove in the direction of Olifantskop Pass when we came to a suitable place.

That is from where we could watch the traffic coming from Port Elizabeth on it's way to Cradock.

MR BOOYENS: You mentioned knives, did you have a sharp object with you?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I did.

MR BOOYENS: What?

MR LOTZ: It was an old bayonet I had. I brought that from Ovambuland.

MR BOOYENS: And then when you came to Olifants Pass, did you stop there?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes. We stopped one behind the other and while we were waiting, that was around about - till 11 o'clock that night, I saw a vehicle passing.

At that stage I was standing outside the vehicle together with a guard who was sitting in the vehicle and on the opposite side of the road - I went to the opposite side of the road without the approaching vehicles being able to see me.

MR BOOYENS: Did you know for which you were looking out?

MR LOTZ: We were waiting for a Honda Ballade.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, the vehicle passed you then, what happened?

MR LOTZ: Then I went back and reported it to van Zyl and Taylor. I told them, and then we left and we followed that vehicle. I'm talking under correction about the distance, it could have been 8 - 10 kilometres, I'm not sure.

And we followed this vehicle till we saw there was no traffic from either side. We put a blue light on our vehicle and we pulled that vehicle off the road and we told them that we were going to arrest them.

MR BOOYENS: You said: "us", who were the people who put up the blue light?

MR LOTZ: It was me and Taylor.

MR BOOYENS: It was you and Taylor who put up the blue light?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And then? You told the people you were arresting them?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Did you recognise any of these people?

MR LOTZ: I immediately recognised Mr Goniwe and the other two people coming from Cradock. I recognised - we had a description of Mr Mhlawuli and I ascertain that it was Mr Mhlawuli, I recognised him. I've see a photograph of that person which was in Captain van Zyl's file.

MR BOOYENS: What did you do then?

MR LOTZ: Two persons were put into van Zyl's vehicle, they were handcuffed, another one was put in Taylor's vehicle and the other one we asked to remain behind in the Honda.

We turned around and drove back to Port Elizabeth. I drove the Honda Ballade till we came near Oliphantskop Pass where there was a certain point on the mountain. We stopped there, we checked the handcuffs to see whether everything was in order, then I took number plates from van Zyl's car and put it on our car.

MR BOOYENS: Why were these number plates there? Why did you attach new number plates?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairman, to use other number plates was to hide the identity of the car because we were returning with this vehicle to Port Elizabeth.

MR BOOYENS: How did you attach these number plates?

MR LOTZ: I'm talking under correction, but I think I just used elastic to fix it over the other number plates.

MR BOOYENS: You checked the cuffs, you attached the false number plates?

MR LOTZ: And then we left on our way for Port Elizabeth. When we came to the St George's turnoff we went to the beach and parked in the bushes. The person in my vehicle, I handed him to Taylor. He was still handcuffed.

I think van Zyl did the same. I and Captain van Zyl then left in the Honda and his own vehicle and we went near the racing course. Captain van Zyl took petrol from his vehicle and I cut the petrol pipe from the Honda and I set the vehicle alight.

MR BOOYENS: You said Mr van Zyl took petrol from his vehicle, you cut off the petrol pipe, what happened to the petrol being in van Zyl's vehicle?

MR LOTZ: We threw that feul over the vehicle and then we set it alight.

MR BOOYENS: After you set the vehicle alight, what did you do then?

MR LOTZ: We departed from there and returned to Lieutenant Taylor. We told him that we had set this vehicle alight. Captain van Zyl ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Where was Taylor when you told him that, that you had set the car alight?

MR LOTZ: I think he was standing outside his own vehicle after we've come back.

CHAIRPERSON: And the people you people had in custody, where were they?

MR LOTZ: They were inside the vehicle.

ADV POTGIETER: When you then arrived there, Taylor was standing outside the vehicle?

MR LOTZ: No, only when we arrived there he got out of the vehicle, when we arrived there he got out of the vehicle and the other person remained sitting in the car.

MR BOOYENS: You and Mr van Zyl arrived there, what happened then?

MR LOTZ: I spoke to Taylor, I think van Zyl could have been there, I'm talking under correction. Captain van Zyl then took one of these detainees from the car and put him into his car. At that stage I was not sure what the purpose of all this was because he left.

It was strange - I've spoken to Taylor about that, I think at that stage we were still standing outside the vehicle and the detainees were in the vehicle, but he could not give me a clear answer about why van Zyl had left.

MR BOOYENS: And Mr van Zyl did not give you an explanation at that stage?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR BOOYENS: He left with that person, what did you do in the meanwhile, you and Taylor?

MR LOTZ: We were next to the vehicle all the time, we were speaking to these people. The persons, according to me, were not uncomfortable. I don't think they suspected anything at that stage.

MR BOOYENS: How long did van Zyl stay away?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairman, I can only guess that it happened a long time ago, it could have been an hour or an hour and a half, I can't say with certainty.

MR BOOYENS: When he came back, was he alone or was there anybody with him?

MR LOTZ: After he had returned two other people, Faku, Shepherd who was an Askari and Duka were in the vehicle ...[intervention]

ADV POTGIETER: I'm sorry, while van Zyl was not there, what were you doing, where were you?

MR LOTZ: I was standing with Lieutenant Taylor near the detainees.

ADV POTGIETER: Were you standing in the bushes?

MR LOTZ: We were standing there where we had parked the vehicles, there near St George's beach.

ADV POTGIETER: Were you standing there among the bushes?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Outside the vehicle?

MR LOTZ: We could have been in the vehicle at a certain stage, we could have got out of the vehicle, it was a long time ago. To say that I'd been in the vehicle for a long time or standing outside is difficult to say now.

ADV POTGIETER: There were four people in the vehicle?

MR LOTZ: No, there were three people, one of them had left with van Zyl.

ADV POTGIETER: Why would they sit - where were they sitting in the vehicle?

MR LOTZ: All three of them in the rear seat.

ADV POTGIETER: ...[No English translation]

MR LOTZ: I could have been sitting in the vehicle, it was cold at that stage. I could have been standing outside, I'm not sure.

ADV POTGIETER: And Taylor?

MR LOTZ: The same, he could have been in the vehicle or standing outside. Inside or outside, I can't say 100% where he was at that stage.

ADV POTGIETER: And the people who were arrested?

MR LOTZ: They were in the vehicle.

ADV POTGIETER: The whole time?

MR LOTZ: All three inside the vehicle.

ADV POTGIETER: You can remember that distinctly?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I can remember that.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

MR BOOYENS: You mentioned three people who came back with van Zyl, who were they? You said the one was an Askari, who were the others?

MR LOTZ: The other was Sergeant Faku who worked with me, I'm talking under correction, and Glen Kaduka. I think he worked with Lieutenant Taylor.

MR BOOYENS: These other three people who came back with van Zyl, were they attached to the security branch?

MR LOTZ: Yes, they were all members of the security branch. The Askari, I can't say he was a member of the security branch, he did work with us.

MR BOOYENS: They were associated with the security branch.

MR LOTZ: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: What happened then?

MR LOTZ: Captain van Zyl then took another person from the vehicle. One of the black members left together with him. If I can come back to something, after they had arrived there Captain van Zyl told Taylor about the person who tried to escape and that something had gone wrong and he had to shoot the person and he decided then to go and fetch the black members.

I can only mention that that afternoon before we had left he mentioned that there were black members on stand-by if something would possibly go wrong.

MR BOOYENS: While we are talking about people who were there, at that stage there were six people of the security branch of Port Elizabeth, was there anybody else involved in this operation, physically present when this operation took part besides the six of you?

MR LOTZ: No, no other people.

MR BOOYENS: Do you know Eric Winter, the Commanding Officer at Cradock?

MR LOTZ: I know him.

MR BOOYENS: Did you see him at any stage that evening?

MR LOTZ: No, not at all.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Zyl - and you said he and some of the black members left with another deceased.

MR LOTZ: Please excuse me I just want to mention here and I'm talking under correction once again, during this time Captain van Zyl, when he returned, he explained to us that he would take these persons away one by one and then would eliminate them and this is why he had taken the first person away. But because of the problems which had developed, he decided to involve the black members.

MR BOOYENS: In this offence?

MR LOTZ: In this offence. He also said, if it depended on him he did not want myself and Taylor to be involved in the elimination, he wanted to do that himself.

MR BOOYENS: Mr van Zyl then left with some of the black members, do you know how many?

MR LOTZ: I'm talking under correction, I'm not certain, I think it was Faku and the Askari who could have gone with him. I'm not sure who went with him.

MR BOOYENS: They stay away for a while and then came back?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: And the person whom they had taken away, was he not with them anymore?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I see it's nearly a quarter to, this may be an appropriate time - quarter past.

CHAIRPERSON: How long are you going to be still?

MR BOOYENS: I think we're looking at about another 15, maybe 20 minutes or so Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well do so, we'll finish his evidence in chief.

MR BOOYENS: Okay.

Mr van Zyl then returned?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, I ...[intervention]

MR BOOYENS: Pardon?

MR LOTZ: No, you can go ahead.

MR BOOYENS: What happened then?

MR LOTZ: I then took one of the persons out of the vehicle while he was still cuffed and made him walk ahead of me. I had a steel spring with me which I brough along. While the person walked ahead of me I hit him on the back of the head with the spring after which he appeared to be unconscious or dead, he wasn't moving.

MR BOOYENS: This steel spring, was it a flat spring?

MR LOTZ: No, it was a round spiral spring.

MR BOOYENS: Of thick metal?

MR LOTZ: Approximately as thick as a writing pen, that would have been the thickness of every spiral.

MR BOOYENS: Approximately 5mm?

MR LOTZ: Approximately.

MR BOOYENS: And how long was this spring?

MR LOTZ: I estimate about 50 to 70cm.

MR BOOYENS: And you then hit the man, did he fall?

MR LOTZ: Yes, he fell to the ground, as I said, unconscious.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you get this spring from?

MR LOTZ: I think I brought it along with me from my home.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Lotz, might I interrupt? Was any sign given to you that it was now your turn or did you spontaneously get up and take the person? I don't understand.

MR LOTZ: Well, I'm speaking under correction. Captain van Zyl may have instructed me, I would almost say that he would have said: "It's your turn" but it wasn't exactly that, it would have been something similar upon which I reacted.

ADV BOSMAN: Before there was any agreement, final agreement on how things would take place ...[intervention]

MR LOTZ: I don't understand that aspect.

ADV BOSMAN: Captain van Zyl told you that he wanted to take the persons individually, one by one.

MR LOTZ: That was after he returned and the person had escaped, he left that plan.

ADV BOSMAN: Did he at that stage indicate to you that there should be a positive participation from your side?

MR LOTZ: That's correct, that's how I interpreted it and that's why I went ahead.

ADV POTGIETER: WHy did you bring the spring along?

MR LOTZ: To knock the person unconscious first before he would be stabbed with a knife.

ADV POTGIETER: But you would not have participated in the activities.

MR LOTZ: Well, at that stage I did not know that van Zyl wanted to eliminate the individuals alone. Before we seperated I would have participate that's why I brought along the knife.

ADV POTGIETER: Whose idea was it to knock the person unconscious? Where does that come from?

MR LOTZ: I'm speaking under correction, I'm sure they said to bring along a baton or something like that. I didn't have a baton and that is why I brought along this steel spring, I thought it would be an appropriate weapon with which to knock a person unconscious.

ADV POTGIETER: Did they say why you had to bring a baton along?

MR LOTZ: In order to knock the person unconscious.

ADV POTGIETER: So you were told?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: By whom?

MR LOTZ: I think it was Captain van Zyl but I'm speaking under corretion.

ADV POTGIETER: So he told you to bring along a baton with which to hit the person unconcscious, what would you do then?

MR LOTZ: And after that they would be stabbed with knives and burnt with petrol.

ADV POTGIETER: So all those things were agreed upon before the time?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And that is why you brought along the spring?

MR LOTZ: That's correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And what did Taylor do? What did he bring?

MR LOTZ: I don't think he brought anything along.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not?

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

ADV POTGIETER: Wasn't he also told to bring along a baton to knock someone unconcscious with?

MR LOTZ: It might have been so but I don't know why he didn't bring anything along.

ADV POTGIETER: When he took the spring from you, didn't you ask him: "Well, where's your weapon"?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't.

MR BOOYENS: Just in terms of the questions which Mr Potgieter just asked you, at the stage when you received your instructions from Mr van Zyl, did you know that the black members would be participating or did you expect to do the stabbing alone?

MR LOTZ: No, I expected to undertake this alone or at least I believed that I would.

MR BOOYENS: I know that we're jumping ahead again but we are now at the point where you hit the person, he fell down, he was either unconscious or dead.

MR LOTZ: That's correct.

MR BOOYENS: What happened then?

MR LOTZ: The black members then stabbed the person with knives, it was with their own knives. On thing that I can recall is that Sergeant Kaduka didn't take part in the stabbing and why that was I don't know but he did not participate but the other two did.

MR BOOYENS: Did you also stab?

MR LOTZ: No, I did not.

MR BOOYENS: Then, when you were finished there?

MR LOTZ: In the time that I had taken the person out of the vehicle I did not know that Lieutenant Taylor had followed me, and after I had hit the person and saw that the black members had stabbed him I turned around and saw Lieutenant Taylor diagonally behind me.

And by nature of the fact, he obviously must have been watching what had been happening and what I'd done, upon which he took the spring and walked back to the vehicle upon which he removed the other person from the vehicle and I watched from a distance how he hit the person with the spring. I'm speaking under correction, I don't know if it was on the head or on the neck.

MR BOOYENS: On his upper body in either case?

MR LOTZ: Yes. He hit him and then I turned around, walked back to the vehicle. I did not see which members stabbed the second person.

MR BOOYENS: Very well. What was done after that?

MR LOTZ: To be honest, my recollection of that is extremely vague. I know that the persons were then set alight and the evidence which I have heard regarding what happened. I cannot remember, I think it happened -I think at that stage I entered a state of shock, to put it that way. Lieutenant Taylor left a short while after that.

MR BOOYENS: And Mr van Zyl ...[intervention]

MR LOTZ: The black members also left and there were radio conversations and that kind of thing but exactly what happened there is extremely vague.

I assume that this entire episode was quick a shock for me. It was an extremely unpleasant order which I carried out. I ...[intervention]

CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you go and fetch the remaining person in the motor vehicle and do the same to him as you did to the one before?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, to put it this way. In order to establish a connection between the persons, that the one wouldn't turn around and say: "Well, those two people murdered these persons", for that reason everyone was involved and everyone participated in the incident.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was a type of culture that had developed amongst the security policemen who indulged in this type of activity?

MR LOTZ: I wouldn't call it a culture, I just think that it was done in order to protect everyone involved, that one person couldn't say: "Oh, but I never participated, I wasn't there, I wasn't involved", possibly later turn around and tell.

ADV POTGIETER: No-one made it compulsory for you to do it. MR LOTZ: From the very beginning the order was issued I accepted that I would be participating in the elimination of the persons involved.

ADV POTGIETER: But you were not obliged to do what you said you have done at the scene.

MR LOTZ: I don't understand your question, obliged to do what?

ADV POTGIETER: To take the person, to hit him with a steel spring until he was dead or unconscious.

MR LOTZ: I was not compelled but I did it.

ADV POTGIETER: So you took a decision.

MR LOTZ: Yes, because it was part of my orders to eliminate the person and that's why.

ADV POTGIETER: But at the scene, did anybody tell you: "Lotz this is enough, kill him"?

MR LOTZ: No. Chairperson, to take the life of another is not just the question of doing it.

ADV POTGIETER: That's my question, you told us it was so difficult and that you entered a state of shock and that you are vague regarding what happened and that's why I'm asking you, did someone tell you: "Do it", or did you take the decision yourself to eliminate the man?

MR LOTZ: As I've said before, I imagine that Captain van Zyl, after he returned, said that I should take that person and I did it.

ADV POTGIETER: You imagine?

MR LOTZ: No, I imagine that he gave me the order to take that person.

MR BOOYENS: I still don't understand what you're imagining, are you imagining that there was an order or what the content of the order was? I still don't understand.

MR LOTZ: After Captain van Zyl had returned he said: "Go, take the person and eliminate him". Those were not his express words but it was something in that line.

MR BOOYENS: Okay. You were telling us that you are very vague regarding what happened after that, the burning of the bodies and so forth. You were telling us how you felt about it, could you expand or elaborate?

Let me put it this way, I think you were telling the Chairperson, that it wasn't easy to commit such an act, and that you entered a state of shock and then the - one of the panel members asked you a question. Can you remember what you were going to say after that?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, for me it was a very traumatic event or experience to have taken a person's life and to live with that knowledge for the rest of your life. In Ovamboland and in Port Elizabeth I was involved in a number of incidents where quite a number of people were shot dead, but that didn't have nearly the impact that this incident had on me - that person's blood is on my hands.

The fact that I was not personally involved with the stabbing, was always like a relief to me, in comparison with that which I had done, that I didn't have to be involved with the stabbing.

MR BOOYENS: How do you feel today, it is 13 years on down the line?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, unfortunately one cannot predict the future. If I had known then what I know now, the incident probably would never have happened. I was not involved with the initial issuing of the orders for the elimation of these persons. If one could look into the future, I don't think that any of these incidents would ever have occurred.

It was the time and I felt that we were in a state of war. He was my enemy and on that foundation, I participated in the elimination of the persons.

MR BOOYENS: You said that you hated the ANC and the liberation movements?

MR LOTZ: After the Church Street bombing.

MR BOOYENS: After the Church Street bombing? These persons who got murdered, did you see them as part of the liberation movement?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct and I believe that today the family will surely hate me for what I have done.

MR BOOYENS: How do you feel personally, you have told us why you had done it at that time. You said that it would never have happened if one could have looked into the future?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, after the facts, I am sure the only thing that one can say is I am sorry. I don't think that it would be accepted, I am sorry about what happened.

It was a very difficult time, it was a very difficult order and it was carried out. After the facts, the only thing that remains to be said is I am sorry about what happened.

MR BOOYENS: Is there anything else that you would like to say regarding the matter?

MR LOTZ: No, I have nothing further to say.

MR BOOYENS: Then, if we can just return to your application. You have given additional political motivations, but do you confirm then the full content of your statement?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I do.

MR BOOYENS: Chairperson, subject to my discovery that I might have omitted something, this is the evidence that I intend to lead. I think that I have led everything.

CHAIRPERSON: Would anybody be inconvenienced if we start at nine o'clock tomorrow? Nine o'clock?

MR BOOYENS: Certainly Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we will adjourn till nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

GERHARDUS JOHANNES LOTZ: (still under oath)

EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: (cont)

Mr Chairman, I indicated yesterday afternoon that I thought I had covered everything, I noticed however there is one aspect that I didn't deal with so with the Commission's permission I would just like to deal with that aspect.

Mr Lotz, will you go to page 13 of your application?

MR LOTZ: I am there Chairperson.

MR BOOYENS: Underneath the nature and details, the description begins at the 27th of June, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: You testified yesterday however, regarding aspects which occurred before the 27th, which are related to this, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR BOOYENS: Why does the application begin on the 27th, could you please explain to the Commission?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, at the time when we compiled the statements, Chris McAdam was present. He first discussed it with Lieutenant Taylor and worked through his statement with him, compiled his statement, and after that, he came to me upon which he and I compiled a statement, and we began on the day that the operation would be executed.

That is why I began my statement by saying on the 27th, although other things had happened before, we began on the 27th in compiling the statement.

MR BOOYENS: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS: .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, my name is Mtshaulana. As my learned friend, Mr Bizos has said, I will begin with Mr Lotz on behalf of the family.

Mr Lotz, can you turn to page 13 of your application?

MR LOTZ: I have it Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did I understand correctly that you added something on (b)? Did you add something yesterday on (b), did you amend (b) to add something?

MR LOTZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you read what you added?

MR LOTZ: It has not been added to my section.

MR MTSHAULANA: Don't you have it from your counsel next to you?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: I would like you to read what has been added?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, what was added and it wasn't added to 1(b), it was added to 1(a) - it is the amendment I asked for and I think it should read "or any other misdemeanour which may emanate from this incident". I actually thought it up myself, I didn't write it in.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Mr Booyens, what concerns me is that if that is so, then it is not the actual application of the applicant.

MR BOOYENS: In what sense Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: That what is added as I understand is to cover all legal possibilities.

MR BOOYENS: Flowing from this incident, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I would have expected that the applicant would understand that.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, it is not a question of the applicant not understanding it, I mean it is like a matter of pleading, I take instructions from a client, I draw up, I deal with the technical aspect, that is purely a technical aspect.

When I consult with my client and I say to him well, it becomes apparent to me during consultations that for example there may be something like say a conspiracy or something like that, then surely where I am here to do the legal technical aspect, it is not for the client to do the legal technical aspect.

The same frequently happens in practice when one is dealing with your pleadings in any civil matter.

CHAIRPERSON: May I ask you then this, that should by chance or by some reason, a crime or an activity which is covered by what you inserted, become relevant at some stage, are you then going to argue that the applicant has in fact applied for amnesty in respect of that other crime?

MR BOOYENS: Provided that it is covered by the facts, yes. In other words, Your Lordship is no doubt aware of the section in the Criminal Procedure Act from another side, where if you have got a situation where the evidence would prove another offence, the prosecution can apply for an amendment.

The facts must still be there.

CHAIRPERSON: It gives me trouble - your approach, but I am not going to argue about the matter. If and when such an occasion arises, we will have to deal with it then.

MR BOOYENS: Yes, I said initially it was just done ex abundanti.

CHAIRPERSON: But I think I must bring it to your attention, that in such an event, one would then have to question whether the applicant, who doesn't understand that, and yet applies for that indemnity or amnesty for that crime, really made a full exposure.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, with respect. How many applicants know what a delict is?

CHAIRPERSON: I am not going to argue about the legal technicalities Mr Booyens. I am just pointing it out.

MR BOOYENS: Certainly Mr Chairman.

MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman, that what has been added is part of your affidavit, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: So you are applying for any other delicts which are connected with this one?

MR LOTZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: Have you been advised that when someone is applying for amnesty, you don't get amnesty, blanket amnesty, but in respect of an act for which you have applied?

MR LOTZ: That is correct Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: You know that?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, you gave evidence in the second inquest, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: And if I could sum up your evidence, then it was briefly that that morning of the 14th of December you borrowed a car from Mr Niewoudt?

MR LOTZ: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: That you returned the car?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And that by some coincidence that evening you were doing some overtime work?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And that by some coincidence at about eleven o'clock, whilst you were doing overtime, a telephone came in Mr Roelofse's office, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And that because Mr Roelofse was by some coincidence not in his office, you answered the telephone?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And that by some coincidence, Mr Niewoudt was calling, wanting the car which you had used that morning?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: He then asked you to bring the car?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And he gave the car to some other people?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And ten minutes later the car exploded?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And in that car, the people who were in that car were Faku, Mgoduka and Sepathi?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And these people had been with you coincidentally by the way, these are the same people who had been with you killing Goniwe and his colleagues?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: I will come back to that. I want us to go to the scene. Did I understand you correctly as saying you don't know which of the four people you killed?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairperson, at that stage when I made the statement, I wasn't sure who I had killed.

MR MTSHAULANA: But do you know now who you have killed? But do you now know who you killed?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairperson ...

MR MTSHAULANA: Who did you kill?

MR BOOYENS: There is a problem with the microphone Mr Chairman.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, do you hear me?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF - ON RESUMPTION

GERHARDUS JOHANNES LOTZ: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MTSHAULANA: (continued) I was saying that I would like to take you to the scene. Do you now know who you killed?

MR LOTZ: That is correct Chairperson. If I can just explain, when I made the statement I wasn't one hundred percent sure who I killed. During consultation with Mr Booyens, and Mr Taylor and Van Zyl, it came to light, there were photo's of the scene, that were shown to us and after Mr Taylor then said that he killed Mr Calata, that I killed Mr Goniwe.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, I would like you to describe to the Committee how this incident took place. I would like to start with Mr Van Zyl has come back, he has given you expressly or impliedly an order to take out one of the people. Just describe what happened.

MR LOTZ: After that I took one of the people from the vehicle. I let him walk in front of me, then I hit him with this iron object over the head.

MR MTSHAULANA: As he ...

CHAIRPERSON: That motor vehicle from which you took him out, how far was that from the place where you hit him?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, to say it was 15 or 20 metres is very difficult. It happened 13 years ago and I really cannot say in all honesty that it was 20 metres or 15 metres. I really can't say that to you.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you. Can you take Exhibit E and turn to page 10 of Exhibit E.

MR LOTZ: I've have the place.

MR MTSHAULANA: I see two spots, I assume those are the places where the corpses were, is that correct? In the middle of that horse shoe where there is no growth?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And I take it that Mr Goniwe's body is the one on the right if you are looking there, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: I accept it like that.

MR MTSHAULANA: And the body next to the bush is Mr Calata, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, unfortunately when the photo was taken, your car had already left?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you estimate about where the car was?

MR LOTZ: It is going to be very difficult to say. I really cannot remember where the vehicle was.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, from what direction had you come there?

MR LOTZ: I cannot give you those answers, I really cannot remember.

MR MTSHAULANA: You have no idea where the car was? I am not saying exactly the spot, but it could have been somewhere out of the photo?

MR LOTZ: It could have been at any place as far as I can remember.

MR MTSHAULANA: Okay, let us just make assumptions. Assuming that it is on the right hand side, where would it be about?

MR LOTZ: I don't know. I would imagine that it would not have been on this open spot, that it would have been on the left hand side behind the bushes.

MR MTSHAULANA: On the left hand side behind the bushes?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: So in other words you moved with this person for some distance away from the car?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And at that time, you moved with both persons, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: No, just the one person went with me. Lieutenant Taylor took the other person later.

MR MTSHAULANA: And then when you were there, at that spot there, with whom were you?

MR LOTZ: I walked on my own and all three black people were there, and then they stabbed the person afterwards with the knives, after I had hit him.

MR MTSHAULANA: But when you were walking, you walked with them?

MR LOTZ: They were behind me. The person walked ahead, in front of me.

MR MTSHAULANA: You were walking with this (indistinct)

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And then suddenly the fatal blow, you delivered the fatal blow?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you remember Mr Lotz how you hit Mr Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: I hit him from the back over his head.

MR MTSHAULANA: In your application you say "oor die kop"?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you demonstrate to the Committee did you hit him from the top?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: From the top?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I hit him from the top.

MR MTSHAULANA: Where do you think you hit him?

MR LOTZ: On his head.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, the head is big?

MR LOTZ: I would have hit him in the middle of the head, there abouts. I am not ...

MR MTSHAULANA: But the blow was such a heavy blow, that the man collapsed like a pack of cards?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: It must have been a heavy blow?

MR LOTZ: It was.

MR MTSHAULANA: And the other person was according to your evidence, some 15, 20 metres away?

MR LOTZ: Which person?

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Calata?

MR LOTZ: Yes, he wasn't near.

MR MTSHAULANA: No, yesterday you said he was 15, 20 metres away.

MR LOTZ: Approximately.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes.

MR LOTZ: At the vehicle.

MR MTSHAULANA: Approximately means 15 or 25?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: But he didn't hear this big blow?

MR LOTZ: I don't think he would have heard it.

MR MTSHAULANA: And this man collapsed like a sheep, he didn't even make a grin so heavy was the blow?

MR LOTZ: As I said yesterday, I thought after I had hit him, that he was either dead or unconscious.

MR MTSHAULANA: How did you come to this conclusion?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, if that blow that you had given him, if that had caused the death, would you have been surprised?

MR LOTZ: No.

CHAIRPERSON: So you say you hit him hard enough to possibly kill him?

MR LOTZ: I think so.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you have expected injuries?

MR LOTZ: As a result of the blow itself?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes? What kind of injuries?

MR LOTZ: I don't know whether his skin was opened up, I didn't really look afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: And his skull?

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman. But any way, what made you come to the conclusion that he must have been dead?

MR LOTZ: Because he was laying still, he didn't move at all.

MR MTSHAULANA: So after you hit him, whilst you were walking, he fell like a pack of cards, he did not move?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, I beg leave to hand in a copy of the English medical report, post mortem report.

CHAIRPERSON: Is this a translation of the Afrikaans, official one?

MR MTSHAULANA: No, Mr Chairman, there were two reports made, one by Mr Botha from Johannesburg on behalf of the family and one by Mr Knobel.

CHAIRPERSON: II?

MR MTSHAULANA: II, Mr Chairman. Mr Lotz, in your application, or in the amnesty application, I would like you to turn to page 165, 155, I am sorry. Are you there?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I am.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, somewhere at the bottom next to the signature, do you see there they say that the causes of death - could you read that?

MR LOTZ: Could you please repeat?

MR MTSHAULANA: What is written there?

MR LOTZ: At (b) multiple injuries and the result thereof.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you make any comment about that in the light of what you have just said to Mr Chairman?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, I am not a Medical Practitioner, that is what I thought at that stage had happened.

If that was the cause, then I did not kill him, but only hit him unconscious.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, in fact, according to this if this is correct, you should only apply for amnesty for a lesser - any way turn to 156 Mr Lotz, do you see there somewhere in (indistinct) and where it starts with head and neck, do you see that?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I do.

MR MTSHAULANA: What does it say there?

MR LOTZ: Skull, nothing abnormal was found.

MR MTSHAULANA: Nothing abnormal was found? No sign of a beating?

MR LOTZ: That was their finding.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes. Can you read number 9 - neck structure?

MR LOTZ: It also says nothing abnormal was found.

MR MTSHAULANA: The Doctors did not find any sign of a blunt object in the head or in the neck.

MR LOTZ: No, I don't think it would have been in the neck.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, any way in the neck, not? Now, the picture you've painted Mr Lotz, of how you killed Mr Goniwe, is a very civilised way of killing, you hit the man and he died peacefully, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is what happened Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: And therefore if Mr De Kock says that Mr Goniwe fought, you would say that is not correct?

MR LOTZ: That is not correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: I said to the Chairman that there were two medical reports made, one on behalf of the family and one by the State. The one we just read was by the State Pathologist.

Can you turn to page 9 of II, the one we've just submitted now, I would like you to read the comment there.

MR LOTZ: The immediate cause of death was stab wound which transfixed the right ventricle of the heart resulting in massive (indistinct) bleeding, the body was burnt after death.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes. Can you turn to page 3 of II. Head and neck, what does Dr Botha find there?

MR LOTZ: Head and neck. (5) Eyes, no abnormality detected.

MR MTSHAULANA: And can you read number 9 on the following page?

MR LOTZ: Skull. The skull is intact, there is no evidence of sub or neurotic haemorrhage on (indistinct) of the skull.

MR MTSHAULANA: And the neck, number 11?

MR LOTZ: No abnormality detected.

MR MTSHAULANA: And Mr Lotz, do you insist that there was a big blow by a blunt object on either the head or the neck, on the head?

MR LOTZ: On the head, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, could you give us an indication how heavy that iron was?

MR LOTZ: Mr Chairman, it is difficult. I would have to give an estimation.

CHAIRPERSON: Please.

MR LOTZ: Three, five kilograms.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you be satisfied with an estimation of three to five kilograms?

MR LOTZ: It could have been heavier, it is difficult to say.

CHAIRPERSON: But at least three kilograms?

MR LOTZ: At least, yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: I was still saying that the picture you have painted, is a picture of killing someone in a very civilised way, hitting him once to avoid pain. Is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, I would not say that the primary reason was to prevent him from having pain but to immediately start stabbing him, could have resulted in screaming and a noise, and the other people would have heard that, and that could have caused further problems.

MR MTSHAULANA: That is what I mean by civilised.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, may I just ask Mr Lotz, when you took Mr Goniwe out of the car, did you tell him where you were taking him?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't say anything to him.

ADV SIGODI: You just took him out of the car and you led him into the bush?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: And was he just walking normally?

MR LOTZ: There was nothing abnormal about his walking, he walked in a normal way.

ADV SIGODI: And did he have his hands cuffed to the back, his hands to the back?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Was he cuffed on the legs?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV SIGODI: So he was just walking normally?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV SIGODI: He could have run away if he wanted to?

MR LOTZ: No, I don't think that he would have done it at that stage, he could if he wanted to, but with hands cuffed behind his back, it would be quite difficult to try and run away with your hands cuffed. It didn't happen.

ADV SIGODI: Then can you show me how you held this iron, did you hold it with both hands?

MR LOTZ: Yes, with both hands.

ADV SIGODI: And can you just indicate how you hit him, the amount of force which you used?

MR LOTZ: I hit as hard as I possibly could.

ADV SIGODI: With both hands?

MR LOTZ: Yes, with both hands.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, can you stand up and demonstrate how you delivered this fatal blow?

MR LOTZ: Can I demonstrate it on him.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, don't hit him too hard.

MR LOTZ: He was shorter than me, and I hit him in this way.

MR MTSHAULANA: But you say you hit him as hard as you could?

ADV POTGIETER: I am sorry. Mr Lotz, you demonstrate almost like a blow with an axe, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it could be something like that, yes.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, and how far was he from you when you delivered this blow?

MR LOTZ: Approximately a meter or a meter and a half in front of me.

MR MTSHAULANA: How long was the steel spring? Just indicate with your arms?

MR LOTZ: Approximately ...

MR MTSHAULANA: About a meter?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: Less than a meter?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Then he was less than a meter away from you, is that not correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes, if I straighten my arms, then it would be approximately a meter.

MR MTSHAULANA: When you were delivering this fatal blow, where are the vultures, where are the vultures, the blacks?

MR LOTZ: They were behind me as far as I can remember.

MR MTSHAULANA: They were behind me?

MR LOTZ: Behind me.

MR MTSHAULANA: As soon as he fell, they went for him?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And what were you doing as they were stabbing, standing there?

MR LOTZ: At one stage I was watching, then I turned around.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, you couldn't look at this vicious stabbing?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: You let the black people to do the dirty job?

MR LOTZ: If that is so, then yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Of course they were willing to do so, not so?

MR LOTZ: Yes, they were not forced to do it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you have a knife yourself?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I did.

MR MTSHAULANA: Have you ever stabbed someone before?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: You hadn't done so then and now?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you stab someone?

MR LOTZ: Depending upon the circumstances.

MR MTSHAULANA: That is a difficult thing for you to do?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it would be.

MR MTSHAULANA: I want to go back to the picture you have painted. You are painting a picture of a big blow which made the man to collapse and yet the medical evidence does not indicate that there was a big blow.

Mr Lotz, I want to put it to you this is a lie. This man was slaughtered like a sheep by a group of vultures that stabbed him from all directions, what do you say to that?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, I was there, I hit the man and that is what happened.

MR MTSHAULANA: You know what is funny Mr Lotz, is that I want you to turn to the medical report if you can, 156.

MR LOTZ: I have it Mr Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, you see number 3 it is written that...

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, I didn't get the page?

MR MTSHAULANA: Page 156. The second sentence of number 3 "the limbs show heat rigor mortis from the muscles, the body is in the general position of the fighting attitude, struggle attitude. How do you explain that fighting attitude?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, perhaps my learned friend should look at the document handed in by himself, Exhibit II 3(iii).

CHAIRPERSON: I think the point Mr Booyens is trying to make mr Mtshaulana, is that on your own documentation it seems that that fighting position would be a natural result of being burnt.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, unfortunately the photo copy machine is working very slowly. I am hoping that in the course of my cross-examination, I am going to produce the other medical reports. In the mean time we can look at the others and I do want to ask this witness this question, I will leave it to the Doctor across to explain later on argument that the probabilities. In the mean time I do want to put it to this witness in the light of Mr De Kock's evidence, because as I say if the probability is as my learned friend argues, then why is this posture not present in the other bodies which were also burnt?

CHAIRPERSON: You can argue that.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I think what Mr Booyens is pointing out to you is that by the evidence of the document that you produced, I assume it is drafted by the Doctor appointed by the family, that it would seem that as a result of heat, this posture is a natural result of the heating of the body.

But it doesn't preclude an argument at the end.

MR LOTZ: I beg your pardon Chairperson, I just want to ask a question. May I please have the opportunity to study this document?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, I think that your Attorney has set matters straight. If it is necessary you will be granted the opportunity later, to study the document.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, I was saying that in the light of Mr De Kock's evidence that Mr Goniwe fought, can you explain, are you in a position to explain, let me put it that way, the coincidence between Mr De Kock's evidence about what he was told by Mr Van Zyl and what Mr Van Zyl did not contradict and the medical evidence, are you in a position to explain?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, all that I can say is that Mr De Kock was not there. I was there and I know what happened.

What I have explained, is what I will abide with, that is what happened.

ADV POTGIETER: I am sorry. Mr Lotz, when the Advocate put it to you that what you actually wanted to do or what you had in mind, was to use a very humane manner to commit this action and to minimize the pain, but you said that was not actually what it was about.

Can you tell us what the basic idea was then?

MR LOTZ: As I have explained, I said that that was not the sole reason. If the person had been stabbed without being hit over the head, it would have led to a lot of screaming and the other persons were not far away enough that they would not have been able to hear it. That would have caused a great deal of noise.

If I think back, it was a more humane manner to spare the person all the pain, I can understand that.

ADV POTGIETER: But your primary consideration was to prevent that the person would make a noise and attract attention?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, our orders were to kill those people.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Lotz, can you clarify the following for me please. You were at the scene where the incident occurred, on the assumption that Captain Van Zyl would kill these persons one by one, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: After he had returned, after the shooting had occurred at (indistinct) ...

ADV BOSMAN: Let me put it to you differently, originally you had the idea that Captain Van Zyl would kill these people individually, one by one?

MR LOTZ: No. Then we wouldn't have been told prior to the incident to bring knives.

ADV BOSMAN: Then I don't understand Captain Van Zyl's testimony.

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, if I may put it this way, during the two to three weeks prior to the incident, when we discussed it, we were told or we decided that the incident would resemble a vigilante attack and we were told to bring knives along, and Captain Van Zyl was so to speak the leader of the group, and he also would have brought along a knife.

ADV BOSMAN: At which stage did he tell you that he wanted to do it alone, one for one?

MR LOTZ: After he had returned.

ADV BOSMAN: At which did you discuss the idea that there should not be any noise, and also the consideration that you should perform it in such a manner that there would not be too much pain?

MR LOTZ: That was before the time.

ADV BOSMAN: When before the time, before you killed them or when you began the operation?

MR LOTZ: Before we began the operation.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, can you take Exhibit O. Just the page outside, do you see (e) there?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: I understand you pointed that to the people of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, I don't know Port Elizabeth, you know it, you have been walking Port Elizabeth in the middle of the night, in the dark, in the bushes, but what I have understood is that where (e) is, is in town?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Round about the area of Mbeki Avenue?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it could be any place in Port Elizabeth.

MR MTSHAULANA: In town?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: That is where the blacks were waiting?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: What does (e) indicate?

MR LOTZ: May I explain?

MR MTSHAULANA: No, I asked a question. What does (e) indicate?

MR LOTZ: If one looks inside, that is where Captain Van Zyl picked up the black members, Brighton police station, it is definitely not in Mbeki Avenue in the inner city.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, I asked you a question and that was is (e) in the town, and you said yes, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: If one consults the map ...

MR MTSHAULANA: I asked you a question, is (e) in town, and you said yes, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And I asked another question, is (e) the place where Mr Van Zyl was going to meet the blacks?

MR LOTZ: If one considers the black neighbourhoods, where they are on this map, then yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Van Zyl met the blacks at (e), yes or no?

MR LOTZ: No, Chairperson. This map is too small to indicate that. If we could find a bigger map, I would be able to indicate clearly where allegedly he picked them up.

The point is New Brighton police station, which is quite far from Mbeki Avenue which you mentioned earlier.

MR MTSHAULANA: I told you I don't know PE, but I understand that the Donkin Reserve is in the town, do you agree with me?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And the point you pointed out on the map, is a point not far from Donkin Reserve?

MR LOTZ: It is far, I am speaking under correction, approximately 10 kilometres, I am not certain of what the distance is.

MR MTSHAULANA: What I understand Mr Lotz, is that New Brighton is somewhere between (e) and (d) round about the area where there is R334, R368, somewhere there?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: But that is not where you have pointed out Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, on this map as I have explained just now, it is very difficult to point out the neighbourhoods and residential areas in PE. If we had a larger map it would be much easier in order to indicate New Brighton and these other areas.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did the blacks have a radio?

MR LOTZ: Yes, they would have had a radio.

MR MTSHAULANA: They had a radio?

MR LOTZ: They always had radio's.

MR MTSHAULANA: And you were in constant communication with them?

MR LOTZ: No, I was not.

MR MTSHAULANA: Was Mr Van Zyl in communication with them?

MR LOTZ: He may have been, but I wasn't in his presence when he spoke to them.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, so as far as you know, there was no radio communication?

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

MR MTSHAULANA: You don't know? As far as you know?

MR LOTZ: I can't say, I didn't hear them talking.

MR MTSHAULANA: I am asking about what you know.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, with respect, he has answered the question.

MR MTSHAULANA: I am asking as far as you know there was no radio communication?

MR LOTZ: No, there were no radio conversations.

MR MTSHAULANA: As far as you know?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: So at the point at which the blacks must have been waiting, must be one point, unless there was communication?

MR LOTZ: They must have been waiting at some point, where exactly it was, I can't say.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you take Exhibit N.

MR LOTZ: Is it this map?

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, that map. Do you see point DE?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I do.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Van Zyl moved from that point, to point (a) with Mr Mkonto, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is how I understood it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, and then from there he moved from this point which suddenly changed somewhere between New Brighton and Port Elizabeth?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, that is how I understood it.

MR MTSHAULANA: And then from there, he went back to (a) with the blacks?

MR LOTZ: That is how I understood it.

MR MTSHAULANA: How long was he away?

MR LOTZ: As I said yesterday, an hour to an hour and a half, I can't say exactly.

MR MTSHAULANA: Your estimation is about an hour, that is what is in your application and I will keep it at that.

According to what he told us, at the time when he went to fetch the blacks, he had already shot the man, Mkonto, you heard him saying that?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And then he went to this point which nobody knows where it is, to fetch the blacks?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: He came back with the blacks, and they stabbed him?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: So will I be correct in saying that if we assume that is correct, as we must, because he was alone, the cause of when they came with the blacks, when he came with the blacks, the men must have been dead?

MR LOTZ: I could accept that.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, I beg to hand in Exhibit JJ and that is the other medical report by of Mr Mkonto.

Can you turn to page 165 of your application? Can you turn to 165?

MR LOTZ: I have it Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: And I would like you to read (b) there at the bottom, the cause of death.

MR LOTZ: A bullet wound through the head and a stab wound to the heart.

MR MTSHAULANA: So the cause of death was both the wound, stab wound and a bullet?

MR LOTZ: That is what it says here.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes. Can you read the last page comment of the Exhibit JJ.

MR LOTZ: Death was due to multiple injuries, the most significant being a gun shot that sound or found to the head and the two stab wounds through the heart.

The deceased could not have survived any of these three injuries. The absence of carbon (indistinct) material in the respiratory tract indicates that the body was burnt after death.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes. I suppose there is not much you can say because you were not there, I just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that again the findings of the Doctor seem to be not exactly the same as we were told, but that is not your problem.

ADV SIGODI: Sorry, Mr Lotz, can you tell me where was Mr Mkonto burnt?

MR LOTZ: The precise place I do not know, I wasn't there.

ADV SIGODI: You were not there?

MR LOTZ: No.

DR TSOTSI: Mr Lotz, Mr Van Zyl asked you to bring knives with you, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

DR TSOTSI: And that was for the purpose of stabbing the deceased, is that right?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

DR TSOTSI: Did you bring the knife with you?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

DR TSOTSI: Did you use the knife to stab the deceased?

MR LOTZ: No, I did not.

DR TSOTSI: Why not?

MR LOTZ: The black members did that after I had hit the person.

DR TSOTSI: Did I hear you to say that the blacks used their own knives to stab the deceased?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

DR TSOTSI: Why didn't you give them your knife, why did they have to use their own knives to do so?

MR LOTZ: I simply accepted it as that, if I would have had to use my knife, I would have used my own knife, not somebody else's.

DR TSOTSI: Did the blacks know beforehand what role they had to play in this murder?

MR LOTZ: I do not know what was said to them, I was not present.

DR TSOTSI: But after you had hit Goniwe, and he fell down, you called upon them to proceed with the stabbing, is that?

MR LOTZ: I didn't call them, they came of their own accord and commenced with the stabbing.

DR TSOTSI: So you didn't say anything to them, you just hit the deceased around the back, he fell down, and the blacks just attacked him and stabbed him with their knives?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

DR TSOTSI: Is it a coincidence that I think three of the people had stab wounds in the heart? You don't know, were the blacks given instructions to stab the deceased in the heart?

MR LOTZ: No, I can't say for certain.

DR TSOTSI: So as far as you are concerned, it is purely coincidental, is it?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Just by the way, Mr Lotz, just by the way, does this following name say anything to you, Tungatha?

MR LOTZ: Which one are you referring to?

MR MTSHAULANA: Are there many?

MR LOTZ: There are two that I know.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you tell me a little bit about both of them?

MR LOTZ: The one is Butler Tungatha and the other one is Emay Tungatha.

MR MTSHAULANA: How do you know them?

MR LOTZ: Both were members of the Security Branch.

MR MTSHAULANA: And where are they now?

MR LOTZ: Butler I think he is at Kamegapark police station. I don't know if he is with the uniform or Detective, I don't precisely know what he does there.

And Sergeant MA Emay Tungatha, he could be a Warrant Officer or Inspector now, and he has been transferred to Kimberley, that is what I heard.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Butler Tungatha employed with the South African Police Services?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: For how long now?

MR LOTZ: As far as I can remember, always.

CHAIRPERSON: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recollect that he was convicted of some serious crimes?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: A few years ago?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I can't remember when, but I remember that there was a court case where he was involved.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, and he was convicted of dishonest behaviour?

MR LOTZ: I cannot say for sure what it was.

CHAIRPERSON: And after that, he was still employed by the South African Police Services?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, he is still there today as far as I know.

MR MTSHAULANA: And he was a member of the Security Branch?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: I mean he is?

MR LOTZ: He was at that stage, he isn't any more.

MR MTSHAULANA: I thought that you just said that he is?

MR LOTZ: No, he was, he is now at Kamegapark. I don't know if he is with the Detective or the uniform branch, I am not quite sure.

MR MTSHAULANA: He was not involved in this incident?

MR LOTZ: No, he was not.

MR MTSHAULANA: I will leave it there for the time being. Now, let me come to the simple stuff.

Did I understand you correctly yesterday to be saying when Mr Van Zyl came to give you the order, and I want to use your words, I don't believe that you ask who gave the order. Did I hear you correctly?

MR LOTZ: Yes, something alone those lines.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, something in those lines. When he gave the order, he did not give explanations, he did not need to give explanations, am I correct, is that what you mean?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Because in the Police Force, it is not normal that Commanders give explanations, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: I would not say in the Police Service - in the Security Branch it was different.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, an order was an order, am I right?

MR LOTZ: Depending on what the order was.

MR MTSHAULANA: Oh, there was room for flexibility?

MR LOTZ: As I said depending on what the order was.

MR MTSHAULANA: We will discuss that later. But Mr Van Zyl was not in the habit of giving unofficial orders?

MR LOTZ: No, not to me.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, therefore you had no reason to want him to explain to you, you just took the order?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: I would like to take you to page 14 of your application, the second paragraph.

CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on with that, never mind who gave the order, who is responsible for it. Do you know where the idea of killing Mr Goniwe and his colleagues, was born?

MR LOTZ: I have no idea. I don't know where it originated from.

CHAIRPERSON: You were one of the people who worked on the ground as you put it.

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now you write in your affidavit as far as I have knowledge, I was informed by Captain Van Zyl, that this was an authorised operation.

That cannot be correct in the light of what you have just told us? He was not in the habit of giving explanations for his orders, and as he was not in the habit of giving orders that were not unauthorised, so that cannot be correct?

MR LOTZ: As I have said earlier, that was 13 years ago. When I did this statement ...

MR MTSHAULANA: It was true then, but not any more?

MR LOTZ: He didn't tell me that Colonel Snyman had said, or that person had said that this was the instruction that we received, he didn't tell me that.

MR MTSHAULANA: I am putting it to you Mr Lotz, that that sentence in the light of what you have just said, was deliberately inserted to mislead the Commission?

MR LOTZ: No. This statement was compiled by myself and Mr McAdam of the Truth Commission, how could he then mislead the Truth Commission?

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr McAdam was not there when this thing was happening, so he only wrote what you said and you signed? Or am I correct, were you with him?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: When you killed Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: No sir.

MR MTSHAULANA: So what he wrote, was what you told him and you signed?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: I am saying that sentence cannot be correct in the light of what you have just told us, what do you say to that?

MR LOTZ: As I have explained, that is how I saw it at that stage, it is 13 years ago that it occurred. To now recall Mr Van Zyl's exact words, is impossible.

MR MTSHAULANA: Are you saying that 13 years ago, he explained to you, he told you that he had - that this was an operation which was authorised, but now he did not say? I don't understand it.

MR LOTZ: No, I am not saying that he did not say it.

MR MTSHAULANA: I am asking you about that sentence, I am saying that sentence cannot be correct if what you have just said that when you were given orders, you acted - you did what you were told, because your Commander was not in the habit of giving orders that were not authorised?

MR LOTZ: If I can refer to my statement, in the beginning I said as far as my knowledge goes. As far as I know, that is what I could recall at that stage.

MR MTSHAULANA: What I am then saying is, it cannot be correct.

MR LOTZ: I could have interpreted it that Mr Van Zyl would not have given me an illegal instruction or order to go and kill people.

MR MTSHAULANA: We will leave it there Mr Lotz. You told the Committee yesterday that it was Mr Van Zyl who told you about the operation, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did I understand you correctly that this was about two, three weeks before the incident?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did I understand you correctly that when he told you, he also requested you to assist or independently collect information about the people?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: In fact, Mr Taylor told us that in the course of the three weeks, you shared information together, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And yourself, yesterday you said I discussed it with Taylor, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Information gathering in the sense in which Mr Taylor was involved, was not really your speciality in the Anti-Terrorist Unit, am I correct?

MR LOTZ: No, it is not the same but information gathering remains the same.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, your information gathering is more in the sense of reconnaissance for a specific order, for a specific operation?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: But you were doing some information gathering any way?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And the information gathering for this particular operation that you did, you shared information with Taylor?

MR LOTZ: Taylor and Van Zyl, that is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Had you been involved in information gathering about these people before, about his specific people, or was this the first time that you were involved with the collection of information about them?

MR LOTZ: Everybody handled the informers.

MR MTSHAULANA: Excuse me?

MR LOTZ: Everybody handled the informers, people who worked in the Security Unit, the field workers.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you handle informers regarding to Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: No. I just want to explain. All the members of the Security Branch, handled informers.

If the informer brings information to me about another case which is not specifically relevant to what I am doing, then I would give the information to the person who is working with it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Okay. Before you got the instruction from Mr Van Zyl, you were not involved with Goniwe or anyone of the people, were you?

MR LOTZ: With regard to people who left the country, I did.

MR MTSHAULANA: You had some information that related to recruitment?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: I am going to ask you in the three weeks before this terrible incident, what information did you obtain about I am going to start one by one, Mr Calata?

Did you get any information in that three weeks about Mr Calata?

MR LOTZ: If I can explain. When we got the order, the first thing that you would do ...

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you answer the question now?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, if my learned friend gives him the opportunity, he will, but if my learned friend persists to interrupt him, he will not do so.

CHAIRPERSON: Answer this question. From the time you knew what the plans were till the eventual execution of these people, did you get any additional information about Mr Calata?

MR LOTZ: That is what I want to explain and then I will explain what my position was.

MR MTSHAULANA: Why don't we start by answering the questions before we give the explanations?

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.

MR LOTZ: When I was informed about these people, about their personal backgrounds, I didn't have much. I went to the files, I scanned through the files and there was the history and memorandum and I would have made copies of that.

That I would have gone through, all the information contained in there, it would have been new information that I would have given to Mr Van Zyl. That is also a way of getting new information, it was new information for me.

For other people it could have been old information. With all the people on the list, Goniwe, Calata, all the other two, three people, who were also additional there, we had information about all those people, we gathered the information, we got photo's and we then gave it to Mr Van Zyl.

That is the starting point. If you don't have that basic background, it doesn't help to go outside, because you don't know who the people had contact with and if you say okay, we are planning an operation and you go to the informers and you ask them what can you tell me ...

CHAIRPERSON: That explanation explains what the Security Police had.

MR LOTZ: That was new information to me.

CHAIRPERSON: I accept that. Now, let me put it differently. Did your reconnaissance expedition produce further information about Mr Calata?

MR LOTZ: What was there, no. I didn't get anything new.

MR MTSHAULANA: So after this long story, your answer is you personally did not get any new information about Mr Calata in the three weeks, or am I understanding you incorrectly?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Accept for the old, rotten information which everybody had access to in the file, which Mr Van Zyl could also look at?

MR LOTZ: I was the junior at that stage, and I had to do that, that is how it works. I took the files, and I got the information that was contained in there to get a better picture of the person.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, I think the question is not aimed at finding out what you personally knew or did not know about Mr Calata. As I understand the question, it is aiming at finding out what the Security Police or then at least those who were involved with the operation, what did they find out, new information about Mr Calata in preparation of the killing of Mr Calata?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, there was a lot of new information that came to light. To say what it was now, I can't do that.

CHAIRPERSON: In those three weeks?

MR LOTZ: Things came to the fore that we didn't have previously.

CHAIRPERSON: I think that is the point, the question.

MR LOTZ: I am sorry, I understood that to be myself, that I in fact produced new information.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you understand now?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you tell the Committee what new information emerged in this three weeks about Mr Calata?

MR LOTZ: I really cannot, in no way I can say that, I cannot say that this was added or whatever, we had thousands of files that we worked with and to say now what it was, I really cannot and also not with respect to the other people, I can't do that.

MR MTSHAULANA: The problem with that answer is the following: I am going to put it to you that in the month before he was killed, Mr Calata was not in the Eastern Cape. That is going to give you problems.

I am going to put it to you that Mr Calata was not in the Eastern Cape, and if it is necessary, we will call witnesses to say where he was and that is why it becomes important for you to tell me what information you got about Mr Calata.

MR LOTZ: I can't tell you.

CHAIRPERSON: Did I understand it incorrectly? I thought that you said that there was nothing new that emerged in the last three weeks, in the three weeks that you monitored?

MR LOTZ: Things emerged, but from me personally no.

CHAIRPERSON: In the context of the Security Police, or rather those who were involved in the operation, was there anything new that emerged in the three weeks monitoring that you did not know of prior to first finding out about the plan?

MR LOTZ: There would have been new information, definitely. New information would have emerged. If you have a specific target and you concentrate, then obviously new information would emerge.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you get information that Mr Calata was not at home, in those three weeks?

MR LOTZ: I can't say that.

MR MTSHAULANA: So if we called Mr Winter to give evidence that on the 27th of May, when he had a round-up at Mr Calata's home, Mr Calata was not at home?

MR LOTZ: He can say that, I can't say that.

MR MTSHAULANA: If we called a Physiotherapist to say that in those weeks up to the Saturday before he was killed, Mr Calata was undergoing medical treatment in Johannesburg, what would you say to that?

MR LOTZ: That could be possible. If the person is going to testify it, well ...

MR MTSHAULANA: And therefore the only new information you could have found in that weeks about him, is that he was sick if you got information at all?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, please correct me if I am wrong. During this whole trial, I understood it that the three weeks' monitoring, was to find out what the three or four people did to prepare for their killing?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The decision concerning information why they should be killed, was already in the hands of the Security Police and those decisions had already been taken?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why the statement is important that if the monitoring was done only to find out how Mr Calata, where he drives to, what his habits are in preparation for killing him, then the statement made by the Advocate becomes important, because he says that Mr Calata was not in the Eastern Cape at that stage, or for most of that time.

MR LOTZ: But the fact remains I cannot say whether he was here or not, but if we had picked it up, then it would have been new information.

The fact that they came down to Port Elizabeth on the 27th, confirms that that was new information. I don't want to say that we now got new information to motivate the operation.

The order was already given, whether new information was given or obtained that they were busy organising, whatever, that would not have played a role in the fact that they had to be killed.

The instruction had already been given, but there would always be new information emerging.

MR MTSHAULANA: Especially in the line of reconnaissance as I said before, where he is, how can we get him, but any way I will leave that. I want to go back to this information gathering.

In relation to Mr Calata you told the Committee that you went to the files. Let's take a second person, Mr Mhlauli. You went to the files as well, did you find anything?

MR LOTZ: No he didn't have a file, Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: So, how did you find information about Mr Mhlauli?

MR LOTZ: He had an index card.

MR MTSHAULANA: So you saw the index card?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Was it amongst the files?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: Where was this index card?

MR LOTZ: The index cards are kept in a separate filing system, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: When does a person qualify to have a formal file, I understand there are formal and informal files? When does a person qualify to have a file such as Mr Goniwe had and not only to be mentioned on an index card?

MR LOTZ: On the Eastern Cape, I can put it to you this way, what I worked with, let's say for example we get information about a person that is going to leave the country, and then - I can't remember the specific file reference - but all the information is then put in a general file.

If the person is positively identified that he had left the country, that he applied for political asylum, then a formal file is opened.

It is sent to Pretoria, it gets a specific number and they inform you what this number is and then there is a formal file on this person. In the organisations, if a person I don't know what his activities should have been, but if he emerges prominently in the sense, not that he is now a leading figure, but that he is now moving in that direction, then a file would be opened.

I cannot give you the precise details, but that is more or less how the files are opened.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Mhlauli did not have a file, he only had these index cards?

MR LOTZ: In PE only the index card, yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: How big are these cards?

MR LOTZ: Half a folio page more or less?

MR MTSHAULANA: An A4?

MR LOTZ: No, half of that.

MR MTSHAULANA: Oh, half of that? How many of these cards for Mr Mhlauli?

MR LOTZ: It could have been one or two. As information is added, a photo, then it would be added to the ...

MR MTSHAULANA: I know how the system works, but I just want to know, Mr Mhlauli, how much information did you have and how many cards was that information?

MR LOTZ: I could be incorrect, it could be one or two, I am not sure.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you make an estimation?

MR LOTZ: I said one or two.

MR MTSHAULANA: One or two?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: There was not much information, or was there a lot?

MR LOTZ: You can write quite a lot on a card, but how much information it was, I cannot say.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Mhlauli had two loose cards, that was all that there was about him?

MR LOTZ: I said one or two.

MR MTSHAULANA: It could have been more? Can it be more?

MR LOTZ: No, I doubt it, one or two.

MR MTSHAULANA: So there were two loose ...

MR LOTZ: No, they are stapled together so that they keep together.

MR MTSHAULANA: So there were two pieces of papers, cards, was there no photo?

MR LOTZ: Yes, there was a photo. The photo is added to the back.

MR MTSHAULANA: That is a third thing that you have, isn't it?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And when you were given this order, this was about two, three weeks back, when you went to look for information, that is all you found?

MR LOTZ: That was all that I found.

MR MTSHAULANA: That was about two, three weeks before the incident?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is what I found yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: That was two, three weeks before the incident?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

ADV SIGODI: Can you remember what information was contained in the index?

MR LOTZ: No, I can't remember.

MR MTSHAULANA: But you also shared information with Mr Taylor and Mr Van Zyl?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, when they came with this information, didn't you - did they add an extra card?

MR LOTZ: No. I took the card, took the information off the card, I left the card there.

MR MTSHAULANA: Where did you leave it?

MR LOTZ: I left it in the filing cabinet.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

GERHARDUS JOHANNES LOTZ: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MTSHAULANA: (cont)

Mr Lotz, I understand and appreciate that is 13 years ago and I can thus imagine that you might have forgotten certain things.

What I want us to do is to try to imagine about these cards. These cards of Mr Mhlauli, they were not blank cards?

MR LOTZ: No, they were not.

MR MTSHAULANA: They were full of information, they had information?

MR LOTZ: I wouldn't say that it is information, I might be able to describe if I could explain it in the form of references, they were references in the form of reports which were placed in files.

If one would consult his index card, there would be a reference number of a file on it, and there would have been a date on it of when the report was written.

Then there would also be information such as his name, his address if available, an identity number in order to identify the person to put it that way.

And there would be references to other files where his name appears or regarding the subject if the subject didn't have a file. If he had a file ...

MR MTSHAULANA: Why don't we stop and talk about, I mean I asked you a question you said he did not have a file?

MR LOTZ: I am trying to explain if a person had a file ...

MR MTSHAULANA: Let's talk about Mr Mhlauli.

MR LOTZ: Mr Mhlauli did not have a file.

MR MTSHAULANA: What we are asking then is what was on the index card or cards?

MR LOTZ: That is what I have just explained.

MR MTSHAULANA: When you spoke you spoke in general terms, you say it will contain references. Are you saying that the index cards of Mr Mhlauli were making references to reports that had been made about him?

MR LOTZ: That is correct. That is what I am explained. I am not saying what was specifically contained on his card ...

MR MTSHAULANA: In Mr Mhlauli's cards, you say there were references to reports that had been written about him?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: So there had been reports written about him?

MR LOTZ: Yes, by nature, other wise it wouldn't have appeared on the card.

MR MTSHAULANA: I take it that on the card, if he did not have a file, on the card there was also his name?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: His profession?

MR LOTZ: If it was available?

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, where he stays or where he normally engaged in activities?

MR LOTZ: No, that is - I do not want to say that is too much information, but the primary information on the card would be in order to identify the person, a name, a surname, an ID number, a possible residential address.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, that I understand, but if the index card is only an index card as I understand an index card, then it is a reference to some file? There must be somewhere where there is information about him to which the index card refers?

MR LOTZ: That is correct. One or more files, it might have been various files.

MR MTSHAULANA: And in those cards, in those files which the index card was referring to, there was then the information about Mr Mhlauli?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And I assume that the information that would be in those files to which the index cards were referring, was information about his name, his profession, where he stays or normally engage in activities?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, I can't remember, but it would have been more about his political activities.

MR MTSHAULANA: If there was no information on the card about the G-plan, then the index card would refer to some file where Mr Mhlauli is connected to the G-plan?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And therefore, when Mr Mhlauli dies, and the Security Police are told that a certain Mr Mhlauli is dead, they would then take the index cards and go to the files to which it was being referred and they will get the information, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: I can't understand, I don't understand your question, why would they consult the files?

MR MTSHAULANA: I will put it differently. Let's take Exhibit HH. In fact GG Mr Lotz, I am sorry.

If the Security Police, you see the last page there, C(1) for information.

MR LOTZ: I can see it.

MR MTSHAULANA: If the Security Police in PE had information about Mr Mhlauli and his activities, why would they request Cradock SWD to give them information about him? Can you explain that?

MR LOTZ: I don't know if they required any further information or whatever the case was, I cannot speak for the persons.

MR MTSHAULANA: You see, can you read that, can you see that sentence?

MR LOTZ: C(1) for information.

MR MTSHAULANA: It is known ...

MR LOTZ: No, that is not how I understand it. It is asked whether he is a teacher in Oudtshoorn. They are trying to confirm whether or not Mr Mhlauli was a teacher in Oudtshoorn.

MR MTSHAULANA: In other words, even that elementary information about him was not known to PE?

MR LOTZ: I can't see it that way.

MR MTSHAULANA: It wasn't known with certainty, other wise they wouldn't have asked for confirmation.

MR BOOYENS: My Lord, if my learned friend wouldn't mind speaking one of the official languages, but I don't think with all respect, if one looks at the Afrikaans context there, that document does not say I would like to know whether you know Piet, that is what it means.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, do you see - Mr Lotz, I asked you if that sentence means that the information was there, but you wanted it to be confirmed by Oudtshoorn?

MR LOTZ: It is possible.

MR MTSHAULANA: I mean in the Afrikaans meaning?

MR LOTZ: I understand by the sentence that these people must have known that he was a teacher, and that they wanted confirmation whether or not he was a teacher.

MR MTSHAULANA: That is my question.

MR LOTZ: That is right.

MR MTSHAULANA: That is my question and I do not understand that the lawyer is interfering.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Lotz, there is a rumour or a suspicion or an allegation that he was a teacher in Oudtshoorn, and they wanted confirmation?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is how I understand it.

MR MTSHAULANA: And if you read further, it is asking about his political or his political connections, for what political organisation he is active or if he is active at all with any organisation, am I correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes, they ask what his organisatory connections are, not necessarily political.

MR MTSHAULANA: So how do you understand that?

MR LOTZ: Whether he belonged to a specific or any other organisations in the SWD and such areas.

MR MTSHAULANA: So you say that it is not about his political activities?

MR LOTZ: No, I am not saying that, I am saying that what stands here regarding his organisatory activities ...

MR MTSHAULANA: But in the context, wouldn't you say that organisatory means organisation in the political sense?

MR LOTZ: I can't say that.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes. Can you go to page 1 of the first, of GG.

MR LOTZ: I've got that.

MR MTSHAULANA: Do you see number 4 there, it does not say no file, it says unknown.

MR LOTZ: I see it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, so it is not a question of we just have index cards, but we don't have a file yet, but that man is unknown?

MR LOTZ: No, that is not what is written there. That unknown refers to his reference number, which is unknown, not the person himself.

If one looks at the others, directly after each name, the S4 of Mr Makahula, S414532 Fort Calata, S463442 Sparrow Mkonto, S4 and so on. They all refer to a reference number or a file number of a person. That unknown represents that that person's file number is not known, and that is how I understand that.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, can you go to page 13 of your application? The last few sentences, the last sentence, you say at this stage I was aware that the four political activists, Mr Goniwe, Mr Calata, Mr Mkonto and Mr Mhlauli were identified as a regional threat. Is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And you go further to say that they had activities which were connected with chaos, violence. Can you remember some information which connected Mr Mhlauli in the Eastern Cape with all these things?

We were told yesterday that he was going to export the G-plan by Mr Taylor?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now you are saying that was not the only reason he was killed, he was also killed because his name was connected with violence. Can you tell me one incident which you know, whether you got it from the card, which connected him with all these things you mentioned?

MR LOTZ: Such specific incidents I can't remember right now.

MR MTSHAULANA: But what you remember is that in these three weeks of before, it was generally known that his name was connected with those things?

MR LOTZ: That is correct. If I might just explain, daily meetings and conferences were held at the Security Branch before this operation was put into action.

Representatives from other branch offices also attended and it was submitted to us where these persons' names had been mentioned, what they had been involved with in terms of unrest and violence and other such matters connected therewith.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, I just want to refer you to your evidence yesterday.

You just told the Committee now that early in the beginning of this period, you went to the index cards and you got the information about Mr Mhlauli, isn't it?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And the same thing you did with Mr Goniwe or Mr Calata and so on?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, can you explain that what you said yesterday that it was difficult to get information about Mr Cicelo Mhlauli, did you say that yesterday?

MR LOTZ: Surrounding that which I worked with, those who left the country, is that what you are referring to, that I liaised with others in the Western Cape?

MR MTSHAULANA: No, you said yesterday it was difficult to get, and if I am wrong, you must tell me, I am speaking under correction, it was difficult to get information about Mr Mhlauli, did you say that?

MR LOTZ: In the context that I have placed it now, in terms of the identification of persons who recruited people to leave the country, correct.

I spoke yesterday of Sicelo, that is the name which emerged, and for example if I had phoned Western Cape and told them about Sicelo Mhlauli, and asked them for confirmation, whether that person had come to their attention beforehand, regarding the recruitment of people to leave the country, I would have made contact with people in that way. I struggled to get that kind of information.

MR MTSHAULANA: You got it, did you get some information about him?

MR LOTZ: At a later stage, there may have been confirmation. But I can't say with certainty whether it did or whether it didn't, but I imagine that it did, although I can't say with certainty.

MR MTSHAULANA: Who did you contact?

MR LOTZ: I phoned many people.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you call Mr Winter?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't phone him.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you call Mr ...

MR LOTZ: With regard to the identification of persons, I would not have phoned a Branch Commander, I would have phoned those on ground level. When I made contact with Cape Town, I wouldn't have spoken to the Commander there.

As I explained yesterday regarding the meetings that we had from time to time, I had certain individuals whom I would phone from time to time, and from whom I could obtain information if I needed it.

MR MTSHAULANA: So you did not call Mr Winter or anybody in that area?

MR LOTZ: I could have phoned people in Cradock, but I can't say who.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you call Mr Roland in SWD?

MR LOTZ: Not at all, I did not know him.

MR MTSHAULANA: And also not somebody there in that area?

MR LOTZ: I didn't know anybody there.

MR MTSHAULANA: On the day of the murder, you travelled in Mr Taylor's Cortina, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: But before this day, Mr Van Zyl had told you that there was a possibility or did he tell you that day, that the blacks would be involved?

MR LOTZ: No, before that I did not know that the black members would be involved.

MR MTSHAULANA: You only heard that particular day?

MR LOTZ: That they would possibly be involved?

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: And it was really a possibility, it was not sure? It was a possibility?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And on the way to Olifants Pass, Mr Taylor informed you that the incident would have to appear as if it was a vigilante incident?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: That was the first time you heard about it?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: Have you been told before?

MR LOTZ: By Mr Van Zyl.

MR MTSHAULANA: But can I refer you to your application, page 14.

MR LOTZ: I have it.

MR MTSHAULANA: When we travelled Lieutenant Taylor told me that - am I understanding that, I know that I don't speak this official language, but am I understanding it correct that you mean there that on the way, whilst you were driving he told you this?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes.

MR LOTZ: He then also told me, otherwise I wouldn't have taken the necessary precaution.

MR MTSHAULANA: I don't speak Afrikaans, but I can read it. I don't see also there, do you see it?

MR LOTZ: Excuse me?

MR MTSHAULANA: "Also", I don't see "also" there.

MR LOTZ: No, I am saying that.

MR MTSHAULANA: So the sentence as it stands there, is that you were told on the way to Olifants Pass how the operation was going to look like?

MR LOTZ: Lieutenant Taylor told me before we left, before we travelled.

MR MTSHAULANA: Are you changing that statement Mr Lotz?

MR BOOYENS: Let him just finish his answer Mr Chairman, please.

MR LOTZ: Beforehand Van Zyl told me.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, can you show me where in your application you say that you were told before?

MR LOTZ: It is not in my statement.

MR MTSHAULANA: That is why I am asking the question.

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Are you changing what is on the application?

MR LOTZ: If I have to change it in order for it to be correct, I would like to to rectify things.

MR MTSHAULANA: You are changing what you wrote here?

MR LOTZ: That sentence, in order to make it sound correct, if I might do that, I would like to.

MR MTSHAULANA: Are you also changing that he told you on the way that you are going to use knives?

MR LOTZ: If it is there, then he did say it to me sir.

MR MTSHAULANA: Are you changing that you heard this for the first time?

MR LOTZ: I didn't hear it for the first time.

MR MTSHAULANA: But in the context of your application, that is what it meant.

MR LOTZ: That is so, that is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: I put it to you Mr Lotz, that you are changing your evidence before the Committee, or the evidence you have given this afternoon is different from what you have put in your application. I put this to you, what do you say to that?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, when I made this statement, it was 12 years subsequent to the incident and in the mean time I have spoken to my legal counsel and to my co-applicants, and many of the errors which were in my application, were rectified.

MR MTSHAULANA: What has that thing to do with photo's?

MR BOOYENS: Mistakes.

MR LOTZ: Mistakes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Your lawyers were not present, you are not for any second suggesting that they were present, so they don't know, they cannot correct your faults about facts what happened, the order of things. They can assist you only in technical things.

MR LOTZ: I am saying that at the time when I spoke to them along with the other applicants during consultation, the others also made their own statements, I could not recall all the facts as it had happened 12 or 13 years ago.

MR MTSHAULANA: If I am understanding you correctly Mr Lotz, you are changing your evidence so that it can be in line with what the others have said?

MR LOTZ: No, that is not the case.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Lotz, for what conceivable reason would Van Zyl once again tell you on the way to Olifants Hoek that it should resemble a vigilante attack and that knives should be used?

MR BOOYENS: With respect Commissioner, it says Taylor in the application.

ADV POTGIETER: Well, whoever, Taylor then? Why?

MR LOTZ: Captain Van Zyl could have said it to me separately, Taylor might not have been present. He might just have confirmed it with me, that is the only reason that I can think of.

I knew it beforehand, otherwise I wouldn't have had the steel spring and the knife with me.

ADV POTGIETER: Well, why did he tell you this again on the road?

MR LOTZ: Well, I don't know why we discussed it and why he said it.

ADV POTGIETER: Do you agree that it doesn't make any sense? How would you explain it?

MR LOTZ: I don't think that it was wrong to mention it again while we were on our way. It might have been my imagination that he said so at that time.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, let's follow up the changed version.

Tell me, when did Mr Van Zyl tell you how the operation is going to - the modus operandi if you like, when did he tell you?

MR LOTZ: In the preceding two to three weeks before the operation took place.

MR MTSHAULANA: So all of you who had been having meetings and sharing information, you knew how the modus operandi would be?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Then therefore there would be no reason for him to tell you once more in the car, Mr Taylor?

MR LOTZ: That is how I remembered it at that stage, and that is why I wrote it that way. There was no other reason why I wouldn't include or omit it.

MR MTSHAULANA: When Mr Van Zyl told you, whenever it was, what did he say the operation is going to be like? Can you explain?

MR LOTZ: A vigilante attack.

MR MTSHAULANA: I don't know a vigilante attack, don't assume I know. I have never been a vigilante. Tell me what did he say.

MR LOTZ: At that time, there was a vendetta under way between the ANC and AZAPO in which they were killing each other by using axes and knives, chopping each other up, burning each other, that was a vigilante attack.

Our operation had to appear as one of those incidents.

MR MTSHAULANA: What distinguishes a vigilante attack from a general, normal attack or murder?

MR LOTZ: I don't think petrol and unnecessary violence are not used in an ordinary attack.

MR MTSHAULANA: So what did he say you were going to use, I want to know that because I don't want, when I go home, I want to know exactly what he told you.

MR LOTZ: A knife.

MR MTSHAULANA: He said you should bring a knife? Did he say that you must also bring petrol?

MR LOTZ: No, he did not tell me to bring petrol.

MR MTSHAULANA: What did he say about petrol?

MR LOTZ: He said nothing about petrol, I assumed that he would supply it himself.

MR MTSHAULANA: The only thing he told you is you must bring ...

MR LOTZ: That I would have to bring a knife and an object to hit someone over the head with.

MR MTSHAULANA: He said you must bring an object to kill the person?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: At five o'clock, did he say the same to Mr Taylor?

MR LOTZ: I don't know if he said it to him.

MR MTSHAULANA: You don't know? At five o'clock, when you left, you went with Mr Taylor's car?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And there you were going to his car with a knife and a big steel spring? Is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did he ask you why you had this steel spring?

MR LOTZ: No, he didn't ask.

MR MTSHAULANA: I take it, he had his own?

MR LOTZ: I assume that.

MR MTSHAULANA: I beg your pardon?

MR LOTZ: I assume that.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did he use his own?

MR LOTZ: No, he used the same spring that I used.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, when Mr Van Zyl told you you must bring a knife and an object to stab, you knew at that time, yes, today is the day, I have to stab someone for the first time in my life, isn't it?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: What did you say to him?

MR LOTZ: I didn't say anything.

MR MTSHAULANA: You were going to do it?

MR LOTZ: I would have done it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes. Why didn't you stab one of those guys?

MR LOTZ: There was no reason for it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Why, you had to kill him like a vigilante, why was there no reason?

MR LOTZ: The black members did it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Pardon?

MR LOTZ: The black members did it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you ask Mr Van Zyl, if we are going to have this vigilante, and I must bring a knife and this object, who is going to bring the petrol?

MR LOTZ: I didn't ask him.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What happened to that culture of participating to the extent that it develops into a guarantee that nobody would turn coat?

MR LOTZ: I don't understand the question.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you remember yesterday you told us that there was a procedure within the group that each had to do something to ensure that the other would not expose the incident, do you remember that?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, what happened to that procedure when you had the opportunity to stab, and you didn't?

MR LOTZ: I think the fact that I had already hit the person over the head, puts me on an equal level as the person who carried out the stabbing.

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Lotz, when you were in Taylor's vehicle with him, did you see the object?

MR LOTZ: I am not sure, I can't say whether he saw it or not.

ADV POTGIETER: It is rather a large object, you explained it to us, it is not something you can conceal in your clothing.

MR LOTZ: Yes, I agree.

ADV POTGIETER: So, where was the spring?

MR LOTZ: I don't know. I am trying to remind myself. I might have kept the spring in Captain Van Zyl's vehicle, I am not sure.

ADV POTGIETER: And the knife, or did you have a bayonet?

MR LOTZ: I had a bayonet. I am not sure if I kept it on my person - I would have to speculate.

ADV POTGIETER: Is it possible that Taylor saw the weapons that you had?

MR LOTZ: It is possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Was there only one of those iron pieces, only one during the entire operation?

MR LOTZ: Yes, as far as I know.

CHAIRPERSON: What does that mean?

MR LOTZ: I only had the one, it is the only one that I saw.

CHAIRPERSON: And Van Zyl?

MR LOTZ: He had a baton. He had a baton.

CHAIRPERSON: Where was that?

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you see it?

MR LOTZ: I heard about it.

CHAIRPERSON: When?

MR LOTZ: Well, I have to speculate and say when it was. I cannot say for sure.

CHAIRPERSON: The reason why I am asking the question - if it was planned that these people had to be killed and the plan was to hit them unconscious, and Van Zyl drove off with the first deceased, how would he have hit him unconscious?

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: So you can't say?

MR LOTZ: No, I can't talk on his behalf.

MR MTSHAULANA: Didn't you say yesterday that you were not told to bring the steel spring? Didn't you say yesterday that you were not told to bring the steel spring?

MR LOTZ: I don't understand the question.

MR MTSHAULANA: The steel spring, that blunt object.

MR LOTZ: Yes, yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you say yesterday that you were not told to bring it?

MR LOTZ: I brought it on my own.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, but did you say yesterday in your evidence in chief, that nobody told you to bring it?

MR LOTZ: Not the steel spring, no that I brought on my own.

MR MTSHAULANA: What were you told to bring?

MR LOTZ: It had to look like a vigilante attack, and then you had to have knives to stab the person with. I brought the steel spring to hit the person over the head.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, but you were not told to bring a blunt object to kill the person?

MR LOTZ: I can't remember to say whether they did or not. Whether I had to bring something or not, I brought it alone.

MR MTSHAULANA: But I just asked you a few minutes ago what Mr Van Zyl told you and you said he had told you to bring a knife and a baton?

MR LOTZ: I didn't have a baton.

MR MTSHAULANA: (Indistinct) I understand that, but what I am saying is you said you were told to bring a knife and something to hit the person unconscious, you said that, isn't it, just now?

MR LOTZ: I could have said it, I can't remember.

MR MTSHAULANA: Are you changing your evidence Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: No, I am not changing it, this is what I say.

MR MTSHAULANA: Where is the steel spring now?

MR LOTZ: I think when we returned, I threw it away along the road.

MR MTSHAULANA: On the way to this hearing?

MR LOTZ: No, after we had executed the operation.

MR MTSHAULANA: Was it full of blood?

MR LOTZ: Not that I can remember.

MR MTSHAULANA: Where did you throw this thing away?

MR LOTZ: I am not sure. It could have been ...

MR MTSHAULANA: In your garden, you could have thrown it in your garden?

MR LOTZ: No, the Swartkopsriver, I think I threw it in there, it was on the way back.

ADV POTGIETER: Why do you imagine this?

MR LOTZ: As I said, after we hit the people I went into a shock position.

ADV POTGIETER: But you still had the clarity to get rid of the murder weapon, despite the shock that you experienced?

MR LOTZ: That is why I can't really remember where I did it.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not?

MR LOTZ: Because I forgot it. I wanted to get rid of the whole incident. I tried to get it out of my thoughts.

ADV POTGIETER: So you succeeded in forgetting, taking away from your thoughts, the place where you got rid of the murder weapon?

MR LOTZ: I would not say that I succeeded, but I am not sure. I really cannot remember where I threw it away.

ADV POTGIETER: But didn't you think that this weapon could be a very important piece of incriminating evidence against you and therefore if you get rid of it, you have to be quite sure, that it would not be found?

MR LOTZ: That is why I say I think I threw it in the Swartkopsriver.

ADV POTGIETER: But that is why I am asking you, why do you now say that you think it, just now you said that you imagined it, now I am trying to determine why the uncertainty?

MR LOTZ: Well, I would not have thrown it out into the open somewhere, I was a Police Official and I knew that they would look for evidence and so forth.

ADV POTGIETER: I think perhaps you should think a bit harder. There will still be some time during this application and it might just be important.

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you. I am referring to the murder weapon, I am only referring to that particular aspect.

MR LOTZ: Thank you.

MR MTSHAULANA: Didn't you think that the Police or the Investigator will pick it up and get your finger prints?

MR LOTZ: No, they would not have found finger prints, it was rusted to such an extent that they would not get any finger prints.

MR MTSHAULANA: Where did you get this rusted piece of iron steel?

MR LOTZ: I picked it up.

MR MTSHAULANA: Where?

MR LOTZ: In Sea View?

MR MTSHAULANA: Where?

MR LOTZ: In Sea View.

MR MTSHAULANA: When did you pick it up?

MR LOTZ: Before the operation.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes. When?

MR LOTZ: I can't say.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, where do you live?

MR LOTZ: At the moment I live in Port Elizabeth, at that stage I lived in Sea View.

ADV BOSMAN: Mr Lotz, could you just tell me why you picked it up? Did you have a specific aim in mind?

MR LOTZ: Your Honour, my apology, at that stage I had just completed building my house, and you need such objects at your house, and that is why I picked it up, so that I could use it at a later stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Before the execution of this plan, where about in Sea View did you pick it up?

MR LOTZ: It is difficult to say. At that stage I lived in one of the back row houses, and it was an old farm and there were many such object laying around.

CHAIRPERSON: You know, I seem to remember that you told us yesterday that you took it out of your garage? I don't know if I remember correctly?

MR LOTZ: I picked it up long before this incident, and it was in the garage. I didn't pick it up and then used it during the operation and then got rid of it.

CHAIRPERSON: So on the day of the execution of the plan, you didn't pick it up at the farm house or anything, but you took it out of your garage?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, tell me are you finished with that answer?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Whereabout in the Swartkopsriver did you dispose of that weapon?

MR LOTZ: On the bridge.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that the bridge that one can see when you ...

MR LOTZ: At Blue Water Bay, that bridge.

CHAIRPERSON: That is on the N2?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What time of day was it when you did so?

MR LOTZ: It was after we had executed it.

CHAIRPERSON: What time of the day was it?

MR LOTZ: I think it was approximately four, five o'clock.

MR MTSHAULANA: Where is the knife?

MR LOTZ: I got rid of it, I threw it away.

MR MTSHAULANA: I beg your pardon?

MR LOTZ: I got rid of the knife and I threw it away.

MR MTSHAULANA: When?

MR LOTZ: It was quite some time after the incident.

MR MTSHAULANA: I beg your pardon?

MR LOTZ: It was a long period after the incident.

MR MTSHAULANA: What happened to the other knives that were used in the stabbing?

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Why did you throw your bayonet away?

MR LOTZ: It was something that reminded me of the incident, and that is why I got rid of it.

CHAIRPERSON: But it wasn't used?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: Are you saying you threw away your bayonet because it reminded you of the incident?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you also throw away your pistol which you had that day?

MR LOTZ: No, I did not.

MR MTSHAULANA: Why not? Didn't it remind you?

MR LOTZ: No, the pistol would never have been used, it is an official weapon.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you use the knife Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: As I said no.

MR MTSHAULANA: Why did it remind you of this incident if you didn't use it?

MR LOTZ: Because I took it along with a specific purpose.

MR MTSHAULANA: You took it with the aim of killing?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: But you did not use it?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't use it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Then why does it remind you of this incident?

MR LOTZ: Because at that stage it did, and that is why I got rid of this knife.

MR MTSHAULANA: In your application Mr Lotz, you write that you were shocked after this incident. Am I right?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz tell me, you say that you discarded of your bayonet because it was a reminder of the incident?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So what was the problem with that that it reminded you of this incident?

MR LOTZ: To be involved in such an incident, is not something enjoyable, it is not a nice memory.

Every time that I would touch that knife, I would have thought about that incident, and that is why I got rid of it, not to be reminded.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you beginning to have regrets about it?

MR LOTZ: No, I would not say that. It is an incident that you don't want to think of the whole time.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR LOTZ: Because of the nature of the operation.

ADV POTGIETER: What about the clothes that you had on?

MR LOTZ: I think I burnt it?

ADV POTGIETER: And the shoes?

MR LOTZ: As well. I burnt it, the clothes and the shoes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Why didn't you throw away the clothes?

MR LOTZ: I burnt it Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: Why did you burn them, they had blood on them I suppose?

MR LOTZ: Yes, there was blood on my pants.

MR MTSHAULANA: How did you get the blood Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, if you did not stab and you were standing far, how did you get the blood on my clothes?

MR LOTZ: I can't say how the blood came onto my clothes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Any way what you can say is that you burnt the clothes?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I did.

MR MTSHAULANA: Because they had blood on them?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: I put it to you Mr Lotz, you stabbed, you participated in the brutal stabbing of Mr Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: I did not.

ADV POTGIETER: Why did you burn the shoes?

MR LOTZ: The tracks that could have been left on the scene.

ADV POTGIETER: There was nothing on the shoes?

MR LOTZ: No, there was nothing on my shoes, it was because of the tracks.

CHAIRPERSON: So the burning of the shoes should have occurred shortly after the incident?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand from one of my colleagues on the Committee, that you also apply for another incident, is that correct that has already been finalised to an extent?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: The clothes that you had on during that incident, did you also burn it?

MR LOTZ: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR LOTZ: It didn't have any blood on it.

CHAIRPERSON: I see.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, you threw away your knife and the blunt steel spring, you burnt your clothes because they all reminded you of this incident, am I understanding you correctly?

MR LOTZ: The clothes I burnt because there was blood on.

MR MTSHAULANA: The others, the weapon you threw away because ...

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: What did you use to kill the Pebco 3?

MR LOTZ: It was a weapon that Captain Van Zyl provided.

MR MTSHAULANA: What happened to it?

MR LOTZ: I think he got rid of it by throwing it into the sea.

MR MTSHAULANA: I didn't catch that?

MR LOTZ: He threw it into the sea.

MR MTSHAULANA: Who is he?

MR LOTZ: Captain Van Zyl.

MR MTSHAULANA: I asked you a question about the Pebco 3.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, that is what he answered.

MR MTSHAULANA: Sorry Mr Chairman, I had not understood that Mr Van Zyl was involved in Pebco 3.

CHAIRPERSON: Carry on, he referred to that weapon used in that incident being thrown in the sea.

DR TSOTSI: Can I just interrupt at this stage here, can I just say something? Mr Lotz, did the throwing away of the weapon that you used and the burning of your clothes, succeed in the facing the memory of this incident from your mind?

MR LOTZ: No, it did not.

DR TSOTSI: It did not?

MR LOTZ: No.

DR TSOTSI: Did you expect in fact that it would?

MR LOTZ: I had hoped it to be the case, but it didn't happen.

DR TSOTSI: When did the consciousness or the need for a transformation of yourself or your character arise in relation to the incident?

I think you said was it 1990 or something? When was it actually when you felt the need that you must - not you, Mr Taylor, not you yourself?

MR LOTZ: That is right, Mr Taylor referred to this.

DR TSOTSI: But you yourself have you ever felt that what you did, was wrong?

MR LOTZ: Yes, now after the incident. As I said yesterday if one could see the future.

DR TSOTSI: How long after the incident did you get this feeling that what you did, was wrong?

MR LOTZ: I cannot ascribe it to specific incidents.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it before 1990 or after 1990?

MR LOTZ: I cannot link this to a particular time.

CHAIRPERSON: It must have been close to the time that you decided to get rid of the weapon, the bayonet as part of your constant reminder of this unfortunate incident?

MR LOTZ: To put it in this way, I cannot say.

CHAIRPERSON: After you went through this period of wanting to rid your mind of this event, why did you not go to the Investigating Officer and say look, I am prepared to say what happened?

MR LOTZ: There were other people who were involved with me. If I did this, then I would have committed treason, and I would not have done that.

CHAIRPERSON: Treason? Is that what you said?

MR LOTZ: No, betrayal. That would be betrayal yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you ranked your loyalty to them higher than your own guilty conscience?

MR LOTZ: If you want to put it in that way, yes. I was involved, I was part of it and they too. That is how I felt about it.

ADV POTGIETER: Could you not just have made your own part?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Why not?

MR LOTZ: It would not have worked in that way.

ADV POTGIETER: I am not following?

MR LOTZ: I would have had to give names of whom were involved.

ADV POTGIETER: Why?

MR LOTZ: What is the use then to go to the Attorney General or one of those people and to say I want to tell what happened?

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, you then tell what was your part. You have problems with your conscience regarding what you had done and now you are coming to say what you did.

MR LOTZ: From what I would have told them, that would have led to the arrest of the other people.

ADV POTGIETER: Perhaps I don't follow how it works.

MR LOTZ: If I had told what had happened, and they put two and two together, then definitely they would have linked it to the other people.

ADV POTGIETER: So you didn't even try to just give your own part, to disclose your own part?

MR LOTZ: No, I did not.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, I have a lot of difficulties with the last reply you gave to the Chairman of the Committee.

I said I have a lot of difficulties with the answer you have given about betrayal and loyalty to the group. Let me explain why.

Earlier on you changed your evidence to bring it in line with the rest of the evidence of the other group. I want to put it to you that I will argue that because of your loyalty and your fear of betraying your other colleagues, you have changed your evidence, and that your whole evidence is a lie.

MR LOTZ: No, Mr Chairman, it is not.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz, you committed purgery during the second inquest, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: In 1993 and 1994?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: You did it to protect or to ensure that the traces or tracks of the killers of Goniwe would not be found?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Is that correct, it is correct? I am saying you committed the purgery in order to ensure that the tracks of those who had killed Goniwe would not be found?

MR LOTZ: No, it didn't have anything to do with them. The inquest was about the Motherwell explosion, and not this inquest.

MR MTSHAULANA: I thought the inquest was about the Cradock 4 and Motherwell came just by the way?

MR LOTZ: I testified about my involvement ...

MR MTSHAULANA: In Motherwell?

MR LOTZ: Yes, in Motherwell.

MR MTSHAULANA: So that evidence would come up that the three policemen were killed because of their knowledge of the killing of Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: I don't know what the Motherwell story was, what it concerned initially. I heard about it in relation to the amnesty application.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you never during that trial, were you never asked whether you knew who had killed Mr Goniwe and his colleagues, whether you had any information about that?

MR LOTZ: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Never?

MR LOTZ: Not that I can remember. That had to do with the Motherwell explosion. That was where I testified, it didn't have anything to do with Mr Goniwe himself.

MR MTSHAULANA: I am told by my learned senior who was involved, that Mr Nafsa and Mr Mostert put it to you in their cross-examination.

CHAIRPERSON: What did they put to him?

MR MTSHAULANA: They asked him whether he knew about the Goniwe killers. What do you say to that?

MR LOTZ: Mr Mostert never cross-examined me during that trial.

MR MTSHAULANA: Any way Mr Nafsa did?

MR LOTZ: Perhaps if we could get the record, and we could have a look at that, then perhaps I could make sure while that is also some time ago. I cannot say whether that was the case or not.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't Judge Zietsman ask you?

MR LOTZ: No. As I said, the part that I gave testimony dealt with the Motherwell case.

MR MTSHAULANA: Judge Zietsman, I am informed, did appeal to everyone to come forward about the killers of Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: I was not involved in the case the whole time, I gave testimony and then I withdrew.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did I understand you as saying that it was just a coincidence that the three were killed, but it had nothing to do with removing of threats?

MR LOTZ: I didn't know why the policemen, why they were killed, no I didn't know.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yesterday you were asked by one of the Chairpersons whether you were ordered to kill and you gave an answer and you must correct me, I am speaking under correction, to use your words, you said some form of indication was given whether it was said or impliedly, but there was something that made you to understand that Van Zyl expected you to take one of the two. Am I interpreting your evidence correctly?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: You further said that there was a culture that when a thing like this one was done, everyone who was involved, had to participate, do something, other wise you know, it becomes a sensitive thing if one person is not participating.

Did I understand you correctly?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I said that the people who were involved, that there was a culture. Yes, the Chairperson used that word, I didn't use it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes. And Mr Taylor told us earlier on that you were a family, the Security Police were a family. They were a family, close and you told us this morning that you were loyal to each other, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: Where was your loyalty to your black colleagues that you blasted into pieces in the bomb?

MR LOTZ: I was not involved.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I object to that question. On what basis does my learned friend make the statement that this witness blasted his black colleagues into pieces with the bomb?

MR MTSHAULANA: On the basis of what I told him this morning. I told him his evidence this morning, what he told me.

MR BOOYENS: He gave no evidence of blasting black colleagues into pieces with a bomb Mr Chairman. I object against that question.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you want to argue that Mr Mtshaulana?

MR MTSHAULANA: This morning Mr Chairman, I gave the evidence of Mr Taylor as he gave it at the inquest and the evidence was amongst others that he dropped the car, and the car exploded ten minutes later.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that Mr Taylor's evidence?

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Lotz' evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: If my learned friend is saying it was a coincidence just as it was a coincidence that he was doing over time, just as it was a coincidence that he had borrowed the car that morning, I will not take the matter further. If that is the argument of my learned friend.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, my learned friend is obviously not aware of the facts in the Motherwell application, neither is he obviously au fait with the facts in the Motherwell bomb case, the case itself.

It will be wrong to make this statement to this witness, I know the facts on that one. And even on what my learned friend has put about the so-called coincidences and ten minutes later the car blew up and he was working over time and so on, that still doesn't prove that this witness had anything to do with it?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, did this witness make an application for indemnity on that matter?

MR BOOYENS: Only on the basis that he was an accessory after the fact, that he found out subsequently that he very briefly, his evidence there was the following. He was told to take the car to a certain point, not knowing that he was driving a bomb.

The car was then used to kill the people, and he found out subsequently that he drove the bomb car, so the reason why he is an accessory after the facts, is because he's got a duty as a policeman to speak.

CHAIRPERSON: If that is the case, can you proceed on that basis?

MR MTSHAULANA: I will proceed Mr Chairman, except that because of the close connection in between the Motherwell bomb and this case, I think for purposes of full disclosure, this witness should have told ...

CHAIRPERSON: We don't know if there is any connection between the two, unless you want to lay this basis.

MR MTSHAULANA: It is possible Mr Chairman, that it is just a coincidence. I will proceed.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if it is possible that it is just a coincidence, let's leave it at a coincidence.

MR MTSHAULANA: I will proceed Mr Chairman. My question is, did you or did you not have any loyalty to your black policemen, black police colleagues?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I did.

MR MTSHAULANA: And when you subsequently heard they had been killed, did you do anything?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't.

MR MTSHAULANA: Where was your loyalty to them, when you knew the killers?

MR LOTZ: I did not know the persons who were involved with that incident. I knew some of them, and that was that. The others who were involved, I did not know.

MR MTSHAULANA: Let's go back to the culture, the criminal culture. You say there was a culture that if people were involved, everyone had to throw a stone or do something, isn't it?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: You also say that Mr Mgoduka did not throw a stone, he did not do anything?

MR LOTZ: In my presence he did not do anything.

MR MTSHAULANA: When you say he did not kill, he did not participate in the killing of Mr Goniwe and Calata?

MR LOTZ: I don't know about Calata, but definitely about Mr Goniwe.

MR MTSHAULANA: You were not there when Mr Calata was killed?

MR LOTZ: I was nearby, but I did not witness the actual stabbing. I could see the people were busy with something, but I could not identify exactly what.

MR MTSHAULANA: You make a accession in your application, page 16 the last sentence, again Afrikaans is not my mother language, I do not understand, you will have to explain to me.

If I remember correctly Warrant Officer Mgoduka was the only person present who did not participate in the stabbing. I do not see something that in your presence. As I read that Mr Mgoduka did not take part in the stabbing?

MR LOTZ: Where I was involved, whether he was with Captain Van Zyl and participated there, I cannot say because I wasn't there.

MR MTSHAULANA: But when he did not participate in your presence, didn't you ask yourself did he partake where I was not present, because if he didn't he was a threat to the group in the culture?

MR LOTZ: I did not question it, I did not see it in that light.

MR MTSHAULANA: The reason why you did not see it in that light Mr Lotz, is because there was no culture like that. You killed willingly, not because Mr Van Zyl or anybody told you. You could have abstained as Mgoduka did?

MR LOTZ: No, I don't think it was a fact that he didn't want to participate.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, at this moment I am finished with this witness, but we would like him to stand down because we would like to check the record on whether or not it was put to him as I said earlier.

CHAIRPERSON: In this inquest before Judge Zietsman?

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: How long will that take?

MR BIZOS: May I just say we don't know. I am trying to find the page in the heads of argument that we submitted then, and I haven't been successful yet.

But we will find his evidence during the lunch hour if that will not inconvenience you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay, we will adjourn and reconvene at about two o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

GERHARDUS JOHANNES LOTZ: (still under oath)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR MTSHAULANA: (cont)

Mr Chairman, before I deal with the Exhibit we just gave in, I would like to hand in two other Exhibits, which I would like to be before this one.

That is the medical evidence of Mr Calata and Mr Mhlauli. That will be Exhibit KK and LL. Mr Chairman, I suggest that Mr Calata's post mortem be KK, and Mr Mhlauli, LL.

Mr Chairman, may I then hand in an extract of Mr Lotz' evidence at the inquest, the second inquest as Exhibit MM. That one has already been distributed Mr Chairman, it is probably in front of your table.

Mr Chairman, can I proceed with the witness. Mr Lotz, can you turn to page 1665 of the evidence. Do you remember earlier on you were asked if you had the opportunity to come forward, do you remember that?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Now, go to number 14, line 14 after yes, do you see that sentence?

CHAIRPERSON: What page are you referring to?

MR MTSHAULANA: Page 65 Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Of what?

MR MTSHAULANA: MM. Can I read it to you?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: It is written there, can you remember what you did on the 27th? And you answered, I cannot remember Your Honour. I carried on with my usual daily duties, do you see that?

MR LOTZ: I see that Chairperson.

MR MTSHAULANA: When that was put to you, when you were asked, I suppose you remembered like daylight what had happened on the 27th of June, isn't it?

MR LOTZ: I would have known, I did know.

MR MTSHAULANA: So you had the opportunity at that time to explain to Judge Zietsman, didn't you?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it is so, but I think that under those circumstances my position was that I was still a member of the Force and that I would have betrayed the others, and that is why I did not discuss it.

CHAIRPERSON: In comparison to your earlier answers, when I asked you whether during that trial you were asked about the day, your answer was that you were not asked about this but about the Motherwell incident.

MR LOTZ: Your Honour, no, you misunderstand. That specific testimony was about my share in the Motherwell bombing, which was discussed at that stage because of the inquest for the deceased.

CHAIRPERSON: I understand that. That is precisely the way that you answered earlier, but according to this record, you were clearly asked what you did on the 27th. I therefore take the 27th of June 1985, I take it to be that date?

MR LOTZ: I understand what you are saying.

CHAIRPERSON: I asked you whether you had the opportunity during that trial before Judge Zietsman to bring to the light what happened with Mr Goniwe and his colleagues, and as I understood your answer you said that you were not questioned about that and that during that trial you actually testified about an aspect regarding the Motherwell incident.

MR LOTZ: That is correct Chairperson. I can't even remember that I was questioned about these things. I see it now, it may have been asked of me, but at that stage I had also been at the witness stand for two days.

Now that I see it, I can say that I was questioned regarding this.

MR MTSHAULANA: So when you said you must have been doing your daily work, you lied, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: If you look at the first page, page 1661, you say at line 21 there, no, let us think about 1985 that was the time when Goniwe was popular among the masses, it was a time of rioting and unrest. Can we accept that during June 1985, there was large scale unrest and rioting in the Eastern Cape and especially in the Port Elizabeth area, can we accept this, and then you say we can accept this.

And if you turn to the second page, line 10, do you know Goniwe's name? Can you read what you said?

MR LOTZ: I have heard about him.

MR MTSHAULANA: Was that a lie?

MR LOTZ: I have heard about him, I did know who he was.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you say you know him or did you say you had heard of him?

MR LOTZ: I have heard about him. I heard of him.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you see what is the question there?

MR LOTZ: Do you know Goniwe's name.

MR MTSHAULANA: And come to the next sentence, was he one of the people who were behind the rioting?

MR LOTZ: It may be so.

MR MTSHAULANA: So you pretended not to know?

MR LOTZ: Probably.

MR MTSHAULANA: Had you forgotten?

MR LOTZ: I made it appear so.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, I am asking you another question, have you forgotten or did you deliberately lie to mislead the Judge?

MR LOTZ: I probably lied in order to deceive the Judge.

MR MTSHAULANA: In other words, you did not just kill Goniwe but you have also been busy with all types of activities thereafter to mislead and prevent that the truth is known?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you turn to on the same page, 10, do you see about line 15 there is a quoted passage there "did you not regard Mr Goniwe as an enemy of the State", and what did you say?

MR BOOYENS: That is not what he said. If my learned friend will read it properly, it is a quote from Winter's evidence. In other words it is Winter that said it.

MR MTSHAULANA: Yes, thank you for that correction, and you read Winter's evidence and the question that had been asked from Winter was, "did you not regard Mr Goniwe as an enemy of the State", and Winter said I did, yes, Your Honour.

Now you were asked, did you regard him as an enemy? Do you see that sentence there, six lines down?

MR BOOYENS: That is Mr Snyman's evidence My Lord.

MR MTSHAULANA: And then at the end of the page there, you are asked your views after you had been asked about your seniors. How did you regard Mr Goniwe? What did you say?

MR LOTZ: I think he was a suspect.

MR MTSHAULANA: A suspect in terms of which charge?

MR LOTZ: That they were probably busy with inciting the people and that type of thing Your Honour.

MR MTSHAULANA: Had he ever been charged?

MR LOTZ: I am not certain Your Honour.

MR MTSHAULANA: But you did not regard him as a enemy?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: That was a lie, isn't it? You said, which one is the truth, what you told then or now?

MR LOTZ: I am not following him, in terms of what he wants.

MR MTSHAULANA: Whether you did not see Mr Goniwe as an, whether he was a suspect for example?

MR LOTZ: At that time he was a suspect.

MR MTSHAULANA: And did you also consider him as an enemy?

MR LOTZ: Yes, Your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you think he was suspected of?

MR LOTZ: That he was involved with the unrest at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: That is what you said to Judge Zietsman?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, my opinion if I might express it, is that I would have said that he was also an enemy of the State at that point in time.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but that is what you said to Judge Zietsman.

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't say that.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were asked about your view of Mr Goniwe, you stated that you thought that he was a suspect?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is what you said to Judge Zietsman?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But when you testified before Judge Zietsman, you knew that Mr Goniwe was dead?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: And you knew why he was killed?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, he was an enemy of the State. That is how we regarded him.

CHAIRPERSON: You did not think at the time of his death that he was a suspect? The question of being a suspect was not in question?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, I don't follow. At the time that he had died, are you asking what I thought of him then?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR LOTZ: At that time he was an enemy of the State.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you didn't think of him as being a suspect because being a suspect did not enter the equation?

MR LOTZ: No, Your Honour.

MR MTSHAULANA: Can you look at line 18, Page 1663. Do you see that question, Sergeant Faku's name appears and you say that is correct, and then the next question was he part of the black section, that is correct Your Honour, and he was also one of the deceased in the Motherwell incident, is that correct? That is correct Your Honour. What was Sergeant Faku's duties, what was he occupied with, and what did you say?

MR LOTZ: Among others, he also helped me with my duties with which I was busy during that time.

MR MTSHAULANA: Was that also part of his duties to monitor people like Mr Goniwe and other leadership figures when they were in Port Elizabeth, can we accept this?

MR LOTZ: No, I don't think it is possible, I don't know. I cannot say that it was part of his duties.

MR MTSHAULANA: Was that true or not true? Did you know Mr Faku's duties at the time?

MR LOTZ: Yes, he did work with me. He assisted me also with the identification of terrorists and other things. He was not appointed to someone specifically to work with.

MR MTSHAULANA: And he also helped you to kill Mr Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And you didn't tell this to the Court?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't.

MR MTSHAULANA: If you could turn to the next page. We were speaking of Major Sakkie van Zyl, also a former Koevoet man, what were his duties, what was he occupied with in the security field? What did you say?

MR LOTZ: The same Your Honour, he was also involved with the identification of persons who among others had left the RSA.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you have the chance at that moment to tell the Judge he was also involved in tracing Mr Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: I could have said that to him, but I didn't.

MR MTSHAULANA: In other words Mr Lotz, you had the opportunity to explain your role in this murder at the inquest, am I right in saying so?

MR LOTZ: I had the opportunity, yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: And you did not do it, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: I did not do it.

MR MTSHAULANA: In stead you told the Judge a few lies?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: And in your own words, because you wanted to cover up, you were loyal to your other colleagues, your other white colleagues?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, also towards the Police and the State for which I worked at that stage.

MR MTSHAULANA: I said you lied because you wanted to cover up, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I did.

MR MTSHAULANA: In order to cover up?

MR LOTZ: That is what I just answered, I did.

MR MTSHAULANA: You lied because you were loyal to your white colleagues who were with you in the murder of Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: I did, yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: How must this Committee now know whether you are not lying in order to protect your colleagues?

What criteria must this Committee use to find out whether you are now telling the truth?

MR LOTZ: I came to this Committee out of my own free will, in order to tell the truth. There was no possibility that I was a suspect in this case. If we hadn't come forward, then I don't know whether this case would ever have been solved.

That is why I came to this Committee in order to tell the truth regarding what I had done.

MR MTSHAULANA: Are you sure that this Committee would not know?

CHAIRPERSON: Was there nothing that prompted you to come here, except your need to take advantage of the benefits that arises out of amnesty applications?

MR LOTZ: As I said, at that stage, as far as I know, there was no evidence which would point at those who had been involved.

And after General Van der Merwe was in Pretoria, he told us that we should use this opportunity and this is what I have done.

MR MTSHAULANA: He did not give an order, did he?

MR LOTZ: No, I have done this of my own free will.

MR MTSHAULANA: Who of your group behind you, suggested that you must as a group go for amnesty?

MR LOTZ: My legal counsel.

MR MTSHAULANA: He knew about your involvement before you came to him?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR MTSHAULANA: Who of your group suggested that you must apply for amnesty and I don't include the people on your left hand side.

MR LOTZ: After the Motherwell case with which I was involved, I spoke to my legal counsel and it emanated from that.

MR MTSHAULANA: In other words, when Motherwell came, after the case in Motherwell, during the case in Motherwell, you saw that there was a reasonable chance that some of these things will come out?

MR LOTZ: No. I was found innocent in that case.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you know when you applied that Mr De Kock had applied?

MR LOTZ: No, I did not know that he had applied.

MR MTSHAULANA: Did you speak with Mr Van Zyl before you applied?

MR LOTZ: I am not certain. I may have spoken with him.

MR MTSHAULANA: You are a very forgetful man Mr Lotz.

MR LOTZ: Yes, I know.

MR MTSHAULANA: Earlier on or in your application, you even forgot with whom you travelled, isn't that correct? In your application you say you don't even know with whom you travelled?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR MTSHAULANA: Do you know now?

MR LOTZ: Yes, after we have consulted, I do know.

MR MTSHAULANA: But when you were asked where you dropped the iron bar, you were very clear where you threw it.

MR LOTZ: I am still not one hundred percent sure where I disposed of it.

MR MTSHAULANA: You don't know where you threw the weapon?

MR LOTZ: I am saying that I am not a hundred percent sure.

MR MTSHAULANA: Are you one hundred percent sure you killed Mr Goniwe, Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: If I hit him to death, yes.

MR MTSHAULANA: You are one hundred percent sure you participated in this incident?

MR LOTZ: Yes, Your Worship.

MR MTSHAULANA: Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR MTSHAULANA: .

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Lotz, Mr De Kock was a State witness in the Motherwell incident?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And his testimony was accepted in Court?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: Did they find him a credible witness?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: It must have been clear to you from that trial, that Mr De Kock was busy telling everything that he knew?

MR LOTZ: One could make that inference. I did not know that he had applied regarding this case.

ADV POTGIETER: Regardless of that, at that stage it was clear that what Mr De Kock was doing, was that he was telling all?

MR LOTZ: Regarding that with which he was involved or knew anything about.

ADV POTGIETER: And also where some of his colleagues may have been involved, he was willing to testify against some of his colleagues?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And you also applied subsequent to Mr De Kock's sentencing?

MR LOTZ: I am not certain when his trial came to an end.

ADV POTGIETER: Well, when he testified for Motherwell, it was either still commencing or it had been finalised?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV POTGIETER: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, didn't you perhaps make the application because of testimony that was given by other people, from which it seemed that everything would be told concerning this particular case?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. Mr Lotz, if you could please turn to page 17 of your application. I refer you to paragraph 10(a). You state there clearly that I was informed that this operation dealt with the fact that these activists had been identified as persons who was a threat to the government and the political dispensation, because their activities could not be controlled by means of normal policing and judicial application of the laws of the country at that stage.

Can you please tell us who informed you of this?

MR LOTZ: As I have said earlier, we had conferences at the Security Branch on a daily basis and there we looked at different ways of controlling these people.

Because of that, it is possible that there could be no policing or judicial application of laws on them.

MS PATEL: You refer quite specifically to the activists who were killed in this matter in this specific paragraph, not to a general discussion. Are you saying that these four activists were specifically discussed before the instructions came to monitor them and take part in the operation?

MR LOTZ: No, I am referring to it in general. The circumstances at that stage was of such a nature that the persons themselves, they weren't involved themselves. But the way in which they incited other people to do the work for them, the burning of houses, the unrest itself - they didn't participate in that, or they weren't involved with that, but by means of their speeches, it resulted in it happening.

And in that time to get witnesses to testify in criminal cases, was impossible.

MS PATEL: So you are speaking really in very broad and general terms here, you are not referring to these activists as you state in that paragraph?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I don't know how to answer the question.

MS PATEL: What are you having problems with?

MR LOTZ: No, I don't have any problems, but this application dealt with the four people and they were part of the unrest and the violence of the day.

MS PATEL: So are you saying that this paragraph doesn't refer to a specific discussion about these four activists and how they contributed to the state of unrest at the time?

MR LOTZ: No, I would not say that it is a specific discussion.

MS PATEL: You also state further that it was explained to you why the elimination of these four people would be in the interest of the State, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Who explained that to you?

MR LOTZ: By putting it to take the people away from the scene, the organisations would then be without a leader and the unrest would have decreased and it would have stopped.

MS PATEL: Why was it necessary for this to be explained to you Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: It wasn't explicitly explained to me, I knew it. But one could say that the reason was that the format of these applications required it, and that is why it was written in this way.

MS PATEL: What do you mean that the format required it to be explained in this way? There are no specific rules in terms of how you explain your political motivation or your political objective at the very least.

MR LOTZ: If I can explain it further, it could be that it had to do with the instruction part of this operation. I don't know whether that would be - make more sense.

MS PATEL: Are you then saying that when the instruction was handed down to you, there was a discussion about it?

MR LOTZ: No, there wasn't a discussion on the political feeling. As I said in the beginning my feeling of these people, it was already there. They were the enemy and we were in a war situation, and that is how I felt at that stage.

MS PATEL: Then please explain to me Mr Lotz, I fail to understand why it was necessary for this to be explained to you?

MR LOTZ: Perhaps it is the way in which it is written here. It wasn't explained to me, I was in the Security Branch at that stage, I knew what was happening outside on the political level. It was compiled with the assistance of my legal counsel, and that is how it was compiled.

MS PATEL: So there were definitely no discussions held around the instructions?

MR LOTZ: No, there weren't discussions on the political motivation.

MS PATEL: It appears from, with the way the paragraph is drafted, it appears to me in any event, and you can correct me if I am way off the mark, but it appears to me as if the instruction didn't come to you without some kind of motivation, and because of that there was a discussion around it, and the reason I say this to you, and what I actually want to put to you, is that if there is a discussion around it, then it means that there was room for you to say how you feel about the operation and for you to make a decision at that stage about your involvement in the operation?

MR LOTZ: When Captain Van Zyl came to me the first time and discussed it with me, I accepted it. He gave me an order, I accepted it and identified myself with it. I didn't do it for my enjoyment or to gain anything. The only thing that I would gain from that, is that the unrest and the violence would decrease and that there would be peace in those areas where the unrest was quite severe.

MS PATEL: All right.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you not question him about where this order may have come from or through?

MR LOTZ: No, I did not.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR LOTZ: It wasn't done at that stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, as I remember there were rumblings within the government circles at the time as well, not so? The President, the State President of the time, was not as popular as he thought he was, not so?

MR LOTZ: It could be.

CHAIRPERSON: And if there was an order to kill a government official, would you just have accepted it or would you question it?

MR LOTZ: That wasn't part of our duties to monitor the State's people, I monitored the enemy, that was my duty.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I am not talking about monitoring. The monitoring came about in preparation to assassinate Mr Goniwe and his friends.

You accepted that without any question. All I am asking is if you were so bent on following orders within the realms of your duties, if an order had come that a government official had to be assassinated, would you have just accepted the order and complied with the instruction, or would you have questioned it?

MR LOTZ: If I had no background about the person, I would probably have asked questions. If I had known that the person was involved with illegal activities, then I probably would not have asked any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying Mr Goniwe and his friends were involved with illegal activities?

MR LOTZ: Yes, they were by incitement, arson, murders, things that flowed from that, yes, I believe it was illegal.

CHAIRPERSON: And yet you thought that by charging them and perhaps getting them convicted and sentenced to jail, as was normal at the time, was insufficient?

MR LOTZ: At the time, the problems that we had to in fact get them by means of evidence was impossible, other wise it would have been used.

CHAIRPERSON: In any event, you say had an order come the other way around, as it were, you would have questioned it because you wouldn't have had information about the target?

MR LOTZ: To explain, I am trying to think of an example.

CHAIRPERSON: I have given you the example. If Van Zyl had to come tell you that they were planning the assassination of a government official, would you have questioned it?

MR LOTZ: If I had not know what this person was involved with, I would have asked. If I had known that he was involved with illegal activities, then I would have continued and I would have executed the operation.

MS PATEL: Mr Lotz, were you aware of the fact that there was a recommendation to have Mr Goniwe reinstated as a teacher?

MR LOTZ: I had no knowledge of that.

MS PATEL: Were you not involved in the gathering of information?

MR LOTZ: Not on that point, no.

MS PATEL: Did you not have access to the files at some stage?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I had access to the files, but I definitely didn't read through all the files.

MS PATEL: So which files did you read through? I am referring to the files of the four deceased of course, or the three deceased, as we know that you only had three files.

MR LOTZ: I only took things to get background information, I didn't read or have knowledge about all the issues surrounding his appointment.

MS PATEL: If there were discussions as you say, held prior to the instructions having come to you, regarding the state of unrest and the activists who were involved, then surely you would have had some knowledge at least, of Mr Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: No, that wasn't part of my duties at that stage.

MS PATEL: Then what was the content of those discussions then?

MR LOTZ: I just want to ask which discussions are you referring to now, is that between myself and Captain Van Zyl and Taylor or ...

MS PATEL: No, Mr Lotz, let me clarify. The discussions that you referred to when I questioned you regarding paragraph 10(a) in terms of who informed you of the relevance of the operation?

MR LOTZ: Is that the time when I was instructed by Captain Van Zyl, are you referring to that?

MS PATEL: No, prior to your instructions.

MR LOTZ: Every day at the Security Branch, we had meetings.

MS PATEL: And what was discussed at those meetings?

MR LOTZ: Everything that happened in the Eastern Cape, in short notes, the people who worked with the different cases, they were more interested in what they were busy with.

My responsibility was, it concerned the new terrorists leaving the country, and tracing those people. We heard a lot of things, but I really cannot remember everything that was said at those meetings.

Some things you were not interested in, because it doesn't have any relevance for you.

MS PATEL: Are you saying that Mr Goniwe was not discussed at these daily Security Branch meetings?

MR LOTZ: As I have just put it, there were hundreds of people who were discussed, but if it didn't have any relevance for me, I didn't pay as much attention as to those things that I was interested in.

MS PATEL: But surely it had a bearing on the state of unrest and would indirectly have effected your specific task, not so?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it did. Because of the unrest, hundreds of people left the country and that made my work so much more difficult to identify the people.

MS PATEL: Was it not stated earlier either by yourself or by one of your colleagues, that Mr Goniwe was in fact involved?

MR LOTZ: That is correct. I could have said it. I don't know whether the others did, but there was information regarding that, that he had been involved.

MS PATEL: So would it not have interested you if his name was mentioned by one of your other colleagues at the meeting? Surely that would have given you a better picture of the man that you were interested in?

MR LOTZ: To put it in this way, it was general knowledge that he would have been involved with these kinds of things. If you have a look at the G-plan, I am not an expert, but at the end of the day it dealt with getting people out of the country, to train them in a military sense, to get them back into the country and then to overthrow the government of the day.

Some of those people we arrested before they left the country, and to get the people to testify against him in a court case that he assisted with the arrangements to get people to leave the country, that would have been impossible, the people would not have done that.

MS PATEL: At the very least then, you will concede that you had some knowledge of him in terms of at least your own job description?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I knew about that. With regard to his appointment at the school, I really didn't, I wasn't interested in that.

ADV POTGIETER: But what would you have done if you had learnt about it?

MR LOTZ: What could I have done?

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean what could you do?

MR LOTZ: On the question of what would I have done if I had learnt of the fact that he was involved with the school issue.

ADV POTGIETER: You are not understanding what I am saying. What would you do if you learnt that an action committee of the Security Council under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Minister of Law and Order, Mr Vlok, that they made an recommendation that Mr Goniwe had to be reinstated in his teaching post. What would you have done with this information, you are on the point of killing him?

MR LOTZ: I didn't have any knowledge about it, to speculate about this now, I can't.

CHAIRPERSON: The question is what would you have done if you had come to know of this?

MR LOTZ: I don't know. At that stage, I didn't receive any knowledge about that, so I can't say.

CHAIRPERSON: Why can't you say?

MR LOTZ: Because I am going to speculate, I don't know what I would have done if I had known that. What they planned, I didn't have any knowledge about that.

CHAIRPERSON: There were decisions, whether you were part of it or not, you followed instructions that this person had to be killed. And I put it to you if the plans of the Deputy Minister had come to your knowledge, that was quite different from the plans that you had, and the indications are that Mr Goniwe had to live and that he had to go back to the school, a dead man cannot teach?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: What would your reaction have been regarding these plans to kill him?

MR LOTZ: If another instruction came that he did not have to be eliminated any more, then he would not have been eliminated.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't think that we can see the document of Mr Vlok's committee as an instruction, but it is quite clear what they planned. What would your reaction be?

MR LOTZ: What the effect would have been afterwards if he had been reappointed ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, before you killed the person. If you had learnt that Mr Vlok is busy to make a decision on Mr Goniwe's future, and that entailed that he would have to go and teach at his school again, and that would mean, according to me that they didn't want him killed. What would your reaction have been?

MR LOTZ: This is what I am saying, if there was another instruction or if that came to the fore, then we would have executed that instruction. If they had said no, he should not be eliminated, he would not be eliminated, but there was no other instruction that repealed this first, original instruction.

DR TSOTSI: Mr Lotz, you are saying that if an instruction had been given to you by Mr Van Zyl, to proceed with the killing, you would have done so regardless of whether or not a superior authority had decided otherwise? That is in effect what you are saying?

MR LOTZ: If I got another instruction, I would have done it, yes.

DR TSOTSI: As far as you were concerned, Mr Van Zyl was the ultimate authority?

MR LOTZ: No, that is not what I am saying. I don't know who gave him the original instruction. I don't know who gave the instruction to that person.

DR TSOTSI: But you were satisfied to obey his instructions regardless of the fact that you did not know who gave the instructions?

MR LOTZ: I did.

DR TSOTSI: In other words he was your ultimate authority, he was your authority regardless of who gave other instructions?

MR LOTZ: He gave me the instruction and I executed it.

DR TSOTSI: Yes, that is so, we know that. What I am saying is this, that he was your ultimate authority, you looked up to him, and he gave you the instruction to proceed with the killing of these people, you would have done so even if there was other opinion from a superior body that Mr Goniwe should be given a chance?

MR LOTZ: If I had not known of the other body or organisation, or whatever who gave the instruction, then I could not do anything else but to execute his instruction.

DR TSOTSI: Did you proceed with this mission because Mr Van Zyl instructed you to do so or because you felt that it was the right thing to do or both?

MR LOTZ: Both. If I did not agree with it, then I would not have participated in the operation. I agreed and I executed this operation with him.

DR TSOTSI: So that you were then your own authority to operate in effect, you used your own authority (indistinct)

MR LOTZ: No.

DR TSOTSI: No, you didn't?

ADV POTGIETER: Mr Lotz, do you agree that the scenario which the Chairperson has just sketched for you, at face value presents clashing attitudes in terms of Mr Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: The one says that he should die, the other one says that he should live?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

ADV POTGIETER: And the one who says that he should live is relatively high up in the State Security System. If that fact had come to your attention, would you have questioned it, would you have said well, shouldn't we first find out about this other initiative?

MR LOTZ: Yes, Chairperson, I can understand what you are saying. I just have a problem, because I don't know where the original order came from.

ADV POTGIETER: No, I understand that, I don't want to interrupt you unnecessarily. You said that you were given an order and that there was no other order, and let us leave it at that for a moment.

MR LOTZ: Yes, I understand that. But it, how can I explain?

ADV POTGIETER: I understand, it had to have come from some or other figure of authority?

MR LOTZ: From figure of authority and I didn't know which one was higher.

ADV POTGIETER: I understand. You didn't even know about this initiative to reappoint him, but what we are asking you now is that if it had come to your attention and if you had been aware of these two conflicting initiatives, wouldn't you have asked questions, wouldn't you have said well, we are supposed to kill this person, but shouldn't we first find out what the situation is regarding the other initiative?

MR LOTZ: Well, to speculate Chairperson, if news had come of this saying that Adriaan Vlok was involved, maybe we would have asked questions.

ADV POTGIETER: And then you would have said well, let's wait a while and see if there aren't exclusions regarding this new initiative?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes, well then one could have proceeded from that point and examined it and said well, okay the other one was a higher figure of authority, go ahead or not.

MS PATEL: Mr Lotz, the purpose of the Security Branch meetings, was one of them not to share information that different people who operated from different desks, could share with each other and thereby learn from each other and thereby become more effective?

MR LOTZ: That is correct. Certain information was tabled as such, but not all the information was tabled. And there were many things which I didn't know about while I was working there.

What it concerned, I would have to speculate, the identity of informers and that type of thing, there are many reasons for this, but I can't say why all the information was not tabled.

However, the information which was brought it, was tabled and that was in order that everybody might share in the information.

MS PATEL: Was part of your duty given that Mr Goniwe was directly, or allegedly directly involved in transporting or ensuring that people left the country, was it not part of your duty to monitor Mr Goniwe? Would that not have been the prudent thing to do?

MR LOTZ: It would have, but once again, to reiterate to establish a situation where Mr Goniwe would be speaking to someone, you would have only two people, Mr Goniwe and the person he is speaking to.

One wouldn't be able to get him on a platform, an open platform where one would know that he is telling someone to leave the country.

MACHINE SWITCHED OFF

GERHARDUS JOHANNES LOTZ: (still under oath)

MS PATEL: Mr Lotz, was Mr Goniwe in fact monitored by you or your personnel prior to the instruction of course, from Mr Van Zyl?

MR LOTZ: The persons at Cradock would have monitored him, but I am speaking of others. I am saying that he would have, I am not saying that he was.

MS PATEL: The question is Mr Lotz, would you or your personnel have monitored Mr Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: No, we didn't.

MS PATEL: Would you have had an interest in the information that other people who would have monitored him, have gathered?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, it depends. If it was of application to me in terms of what I was working with, then I definitely would have had an interest in it.

MS PATEL: You have already conceded Mr Lotz, that you would have had an interest in Mr Goniwe, because part of what he allegedly was doing, directly had an influence on what you were doing?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct if it was of application to me.

MS PATEL: By extension then, can one accept that you as part of your duties, assimilated information regarding Mr Goniwe and that you would have been in touch with personnel from Cradock and from perhaps your own Branch who were involved in monitoring him?

MR LOTZ: With regard to the recruitment of people, yes.

MS PATEL: How did information then come through to you, would you have asked for specific information or would it have come through to you in terms of broad reports in terms of what Mr Goniwe was doing across the board?

How was information filtered through to you?

MR LOTZ: In terms of the recruitment of people, if someone was recruited to leave the country, his application for political asylum would have come to me, and the letter - I would have written a letter.

Let me put it this way, if the person had defected from Cradock, then the application would have come to me, I would have written a letter to Cradock and they would have investigated further for me to establish whether the person was from Cradock, what his activities were and they would have reported back to me.

And that would have been how I would have managed it at that stage.

MS PATEL: Part of the tasks then that you would have assigned to the Investigative Team in Cradock, would also then have been who assisted the person who has applied for asylum, not so?

MR LOTZ: If it was known, yes.

MS PATEL: And given that Mr Goniwe was allegedly involved in this, you would then have received information regarding Mr Goniwe, not so?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: I find it strange then that you would not have had a broader picture of Mr Goniwe than you would like us to believe?

MR LOTZ: The entire Eastern Cape and all of those who were involved in the recruitment, to have their background would have been an enormous task and to monitor them, and such would have been completely impossible for me to gather all that information.

CHAIRPERSON: We are not talking about just any person, we are talking about a person who was destined to die.

Can you answer the question in that light, in that context?

MR LOTZ: Yes, in terms of what she asked me, that was before we received the instructions to continue with the operation.

MS PATEL: Was the information at that stage not that Mr Goniwe was a high profile activist?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Then surely he would have received special attention?

MR LOTZ: From others, not from the activities that I was busy with.

MS PATEL: Are you saying then that his involvement, or alleged involvement in that activities that you were concerned with, was minimal? Was so minimal that you wouldn't have paid any special attention to him, is that what you are saying Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: As I have said just before, in that light, there were many others who were also involved in recruitments and I could not have paid attention to all of them.

I could not have had profiles of every person and their background to say that this person was doing such and such and this person this and that. There were approximately 2 400 refugee recruiters who needed my attention.

MS PATEL: What do you mean by refugee recruiters Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: Persons who are recruited to leave the country, and to apply for political asylum in foreign countries, receive training and then return to the country to make war.

MS PATEL: In order to curb the level of recruitment, would it not have been prudent of you then to rather consider the network that was supporting the recruitment, rather than the people who were leaving the country?

Wouldn't that have been an easier approach, more logical approach?

MR LOTZ: Could you repeat the question, I am not entirely sure what you are asking.

MS PATEL: You stated that you at that stage had over 2 400 refugee recruiters.

MR LOTZ: Refugees.

MS PATEL: Refugees, okay. In explanation thereof you are saying that that took up a lot of your time. My question to you is would it not have been easier to concentrate your efforts on the support system of those refugees, the persons who assisted these people to leave the country and then come back, rather than on the people who in fact left?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it is easy to put it that way now. To have done it in that fashion, but on ground level it didn't work that way.

MS PATEL: What do you mean it didn't work that way?

MR LOTZ: To pay attention to all those who might have helped people to leave the country, it would have been an impossible task.

MS PATEL: Are you saying then that your information regarding Mr Goniwe's involvement in this regard, was non-existent?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS PATEL: It was minimal then?

MR LOTZ: No, as I said before to gather evidence that he had been involved, for example Mr Goniwe and that person would be talking and Mr Goniwe would say to that person, you would be a very good candidate to receive training in another country, if that conversation had occurred, I wouldn't have known.

The person had left the country, and he had received his training.

MS PATEL: So then what information did you specifically have that Mr Goniwe was involved in this kind of activity?

MR LOTZ: During the arrest of persons who had returned, after they had received training, it came to light.

MS PATEL: Approximately how many of these arrested persons, referred to Mr Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: I cannot give you names, I can't assign a figure to this.

MS PATEL: Was it the vast majority of people whom you caught?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS PATEL: Was it 10 percent, was it 5 percent, give us an indication.

MR LOTZ: I am sorry I can't. He was active in the entire Eastern Cape rural area, I would not be able to give you a figure.

MS PATEL: My question was very specific Mr Lotz, in terms of the people whom you arrested, not in terms of the many other people who may have been leaving or coming without your knowledge, in terms of the people you arrested, surely you would have had an indication of how many people had stated to you that Mr Goniwe, he is the one who has assisted us and in fact suggested that we leave?

MR LOTZ: Those that I was involved with in terms of arrests, didn't even mention him. Those who had been sent back to South Africa, could have come from Cradock and then been told to go to Johannesburg and be active there.

Then if that person had been arrested there, a complete report of his questioning would have been compiled, who have recruited him, how he left the RSA and that sort of thing.

Those whom I arrested, had not been recruited by Mr Goniwe to leave the country.

MS PATEL: So then, what was the basis of Mr Goniwe's involvement then in terms of your specific tasks?

MR LOTZ: That he was involved in the recruitment of people to leave the RSA.

MS PATEL: And you say that was based on your information from persons whom you would have arrested?

MR LOTZ: Not those who I arrested, but those who were arrested in the RSA.

MS PATEL: Where would this information have come from?

MR LOTZ: As I have just explained, the minute that someone would be arrested, that person would be questioned intensively anywhere in the RSA.

And that information would be sent to Head Office and then later to all the divisions where memorandums regarding the person would be included.

MS PATEL: Are you saying then that your information at that stage was that Mr Goniwe was involved in the recruitment of persons throughout the Republic and not just in your jurisdiction?

MR LOTZ: No Chairperson. I will try to explain once more. I will use an example: Mr Goniwe recruits a person in Cradock to leave the country. After this person has left the RSA, he receives military training in Angola or wherever, then after that he is given an order to return to South Africa and they tell him to go to Johannesburg to go and see a person there and that he would be operating from Johannesburg.

If that person were to be arrested, they would begin with his political involvement and it would emerge that he had been recruited by Mr Goniwe. That report would then be channelled to Head Office and from Head Office it would be distributed throughout the entire RSA and then it would come to my desk.

And the information in this report which was of application to people in our jurisdiction who were in another country, that is how we would determine that Mr Goniwe was involved in the recruitment of people.

MS PATEL: Be that as it may Mr Lotz, the information surely that came through to you, could not have been of sufficient volume and sufficient gravity to warrant that he be monitored as opposed to being treated as one of the many people in your jurisdiction who would have been involved in this kind of activities?

Because of that was the case, you would have ensured that this person was monitored not so?

MR LOTZ: No, there were too many who were involved in the recruitment of people for military training.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me Mr Lotz, who informed you that Mr Goniwe was involved in the recruitment of people to receive training wherever?

MR LOTZ: As I have just explained, it came to us in reports of those who had been arrested.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, I find this very strange because it is the first time in almost two weeks of testimony that I can remember, where it is now alleged that Mr Goniwe himself was involved in the recruitment of people for training?

MR LOTZ: That is what I worked with, that is what I am testifying about. I am speaking under correction ...

CHAIRPERSON: I would just like to determine to which extent Mr Goniwe posed such a threat to the State that he had to be killed and I don't remember that any one of the applicants in their applications, mentioned this fact.

MR BOOYENS: Chairperson, might I assist you with regard to this. When you are speaking of applications, are you including any of the verbal testimony or only the written application?

CHAIRPERSON: The applications, the written applications.

MR BOOYENS: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: But Mr Booyens, who else mentioned something about this?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, I think that Mr Van Zyl said that there was also unconfirmed information that he was involved in the recruitment of defectees.

A distinction was made and this was on a question of Mr Potgieter, what was the difference between confirmed and unconfirmed sources of evidence and there was that whole aspect of unconfirmed.

CHAIRPERSON: That just aggravates it Mr Lotz. You are testifying as if you possessed confirmed evidence that he was involved in the recruitment of people to receive training?

MR LOTZ: The information which I received from Headquarters was contained in reports. If one finds five different people that they were recruited by one single person, then I think that one could consider that to be confirmed evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: And these people who made the decision in Port Elizabeth and possibly the person who ultimately made the decisions, they must have known about this? Do you agree?

MR LOTZ: They did know about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I find it strange that no one mentioned this in their applications, that no one made this kind of allegation? Do you have any comment?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, I cannot speak on behalf of others who applied. This was pertinently out of my line of function, that that information came to light.

CHAIRPERSON: Then why wasn't it mentioned in your own application?

MR LOTZ: I probably didn't ...

CHAIRPERSON: I know you didn't mention it, what I want to know is why?

MR LOTZ: I didn't deem it necessary to mention it. I think all the information that we had at that stage ...

CHAIRPERSON: So you did pay attention to it, but you didn't deem it necessary to include it in your application?

MR LOTZ: I didn't mention it in my application.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I know. Thank you.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, as I questioned Mr Van Zyl and the other applicants, may I be permitted to say that according to my recollection, this question of confirmed or unconfirmed information about recruiting related to Mr Mhlauli and not to Mr Goniwe.

And also in relation to anyone having suggested that there was any such information in relation to Mr Goniwe, each one of them agreed that it did not appear in K1 and K2, where one would have expected to find it if there was such information.

I think that I am giving an accurate summary of what the evidence of the previous witnesses have been and it may be of some assistance in resolving the apparent uncertainty as to what the evidence was, thank you Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: I put it to you Mr Lotz, that you yourself in terms of your own job description at the time, didn't have any information regarding Mr Goniwe that is why the elimination of Mr Goniwe in fact had to be motivated to you rather than just a bold instruction being given to you that this high profile activist needs to be killed?

MR LOTZ: No, that is not the case.

MS PATEL: Let's move on. You stated earlier in your evidence that the number plate that was attached to Mr Goniwe's car, that that was changed.

You said that you took it out of our car. Whose car specifically were you referring to?

MR LOTZ: It came from Captain Van Zyl's vehicle.

MS PATEL: Do you know where he got it from?

MR LOTZ: No, I cannot say.

MS PATEL: During the investigation of this matter, when that number plate was traced, certain traffic fines had been attributed to that number plate, can you dispute that?

MR LOTZ: No, I have no knowledge of that.

MS PATEL: Furthermore, when it was further investigated it was also noted that these traffic fines were attributed to the specific number plate or vehicle after the vehicle had in fact been scrapped and that the owner of the vehicle couldn't be traced or of that registration car, couldn't be traced. Can you dispute that?

MR LOTZ: I cannot comment on that.

MS PATEL: Would you then agree Mr Lotz, that a lot more preparation went into the sweeping of evidence in this matter than you and the applicants who have testified before you, would like us to believe?

MR LOTZ: What I have knowledge of, that I told you.

MS PATEL: Okay, fine. To go back to the question of the three black members who were involved. You stated that they were only to be involved in case of emergency is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: You stated also that Mr Van Zyl's plan at the time was that the members would, or that the deceased would be killed off one by one, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: By himself?

MS PATEL: Could you please then explain how the shooting of the first deceased amounted to an emergency that would have warranted the use of three extra black members for the sole purpose of stabbing the deceased?

MR LOTZ: I cannot comment on that. I wasn't involved with that.

ADV POTGIETER: Do you agree that it is strange?

MR LOTZ: I don't know what Captain Van Zyl thought at that time, I don't know what the circumstances were, I don't know why he did that.

ADV POTGIETER: We also don't know what he was thinking. I am asking you.

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

ADV POTGIETER: Where we are talking now as reasonable people?

MR LOTZ: I cannot think why he took the decision, I don't know.

ADV POTGIETER: We know. I cannot expect it from you to tell us, but do you also find it strange? That is the point that is put to you?

MR LOTZ: He took a decision and that is how it proceeded.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, we know that. The question is do you also find it a strange action?

MR LOTZ: No, I cannot say that it is odd or strange, we don't know what the circumstances were or why he did it. I would have to speculate and say that it is quite strange.

ADV POTGIETER: I am asking you purely for your comment, we know what the facts are. We know exactly what he did as he told us.

We accept his testimony, but don't you find it quite strange?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV POTGIETER: Nothing strange?

MR LOTZ: If he at that stage decided that he wanted to involve the people, then he involved them.

ADV POTGIETER: Then he went to fetch them and he brought them back?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MS PATEL: The only task that was assigned to the black members, was the stabbing of the deceased, is that not so?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: They were not used to hold the deceased down or to assist in anything else?

MR LOTZ: Not at the incident that I was involved with.

MS PATEL: So then there was really no need for them to be a part of this operation, not so? The stabbing could very easily have been done by any of the other remaining members there?

MR LOTZ: To speculate, it is pure speculation and you can think of it in any direction. I can't say whether it could or couldn't, it is pure speculation.

MS PATEL: Given as you say that the deceased was calm and were cooperative at all times, and that there was no struggle involved, you surely would have been in the position to stab the deceased, to make it look like a vigilante attack if that was their only role? Mr Taylor could have done that, Mr Van Zyl himself could have done that?

There was no real emergency to warrant their participation, not so?

MR LOTZ: I didn't take the decision. I can't say that they had to be involved or not. I wasn't part of that decision.

MS PATEL: Fair enough, one accepts that you were not part of the decision. The question to you simply is that given the circumstances under which the killing took place, do you not agree that there was no need for the black members to be present?

MR LOTZ: Originally they would not have been involved. They became involved and that is what happened.

CHAIRPERSON: No Mr Lotz, the question is now that you are thinking about this, to kill the deceased the black members weren't needed, is that correct?

You hit one of them unconscious, he lay there, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You could have stabbed him quite easily?

MR LOTZ: I could have, yes.

MS PATEL: By extension then, it surely places into question the plan that was put into place for the killing of these deceased not so?

MR LOTZ: I don't understand the question.

MS PATEL: What is it that you don't understand Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: I don't understand the question. You said something about an extension, I am not sure what you mean.

MS PATEL: If one accepts that there was really no need for the black members involved, then surely it raises questions about the plans to keep them waiting at some distant spot, about driving around with them in the manner in which Mr Van Zyl chose to drive around with them and the entire manner in which this operation was carried out?

MR LOTZ: Are you asking me a question?

MS PATEL: Yes, of course Mr Lotz, of course I am asking you a question.

MR LOTZ: I don't understand your question. Are you asking that there are many questions about what had happened?

CHAIRPERSON: Let's put it in this way. After you had conceded that the black members, it wasn't necessary that they had to kill the people, are you now telling the truth when you say that they were involved, because the plan was that they would only become involved in certain circumstances which had not been there?

MR LOTZ: Yes, they were involved Your Honour.

MS PATEL: Can you perhaps estimate how long it took for this entire operation from the time that the deceased were arrested at Olifants Hoek Pass?

MR LOTZ: I have to estimate, we took them at about 23h00 and it was approximately at five o'clock that we concluded the operation.

MS PATEL: I am sorry, I didn't hear your response, was it two to three hours?

MR LOTZ: No, at approximately 23h00 we got the people at Olifants Pass and we concluded it at approximately five o'clock in the morning, that would be more or less six hours. I think that is more or less the duration.

ADV POTGIETER: If you say that you had finished that ...

MR LOTZ: That was after we left the scene.

ADV POTGIETER: After the last person had been killed?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV POTGIETER: That was five o'clock in the morning?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I am just guessing, I estimate that to be the case.

MS PATEL: That is at least six hours then, or approximately five to six hours?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: And during that five to six hours, there was quite a bit of driving around and movement from one place to the other, not so?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Were you and your colleagues not afraid that you would have been stopped at a roadblock or spotted during all this movement from one place to the other, because it appears as if all of you and Mr Van Zyl, moved around very freely?

MR LOTZ: It didn't happen. That is all that I can say, it didn't happen. It could have happened, but it didn't.

MS PATEL: We all know that it didn't happen Mr Lotz, the question is why were you not concerned that it may happen? And more than that, were precautions then not taken to ensure that that won't happen?

MR LOTZ: If any other precautions had been taken, I have no knowledge of it.

MS PATEL: The reasonable thing to do would have been to ensure that precautions had in fact been taken, not so?

MR LOTZ: I was not involved in any of the precautions.

MS PATEL: No, that is not the question Mr Lotz. The question is very simple, would you please answer the question.

MR LOTZ: I am trying to explain my role in this operation. If someone else had done that, I have no knowledge about it.

MS PATEL: You will concede though that it is highly improbable that whoever planned this operation, didn't ensure that that didn't happen?

MR LOTZ: To also approach other people outside of this operation, it would have made it more dangerous. That is why I think no precautionary measures were taken.

MS PATEL: Are you saying now for certain that no precautionary measures were taken, or are you speculating?

MR LOTZ: No, I am speculating. I am speculating.

MS PATEL: All right. To move onto another point, the distances between the bodies of Mr Goniwe and Mr Calata, can you give us an indication of how far apart they were?

MR LOTZ: I will have to speculate, I didn't measure it, 15 to 20 metres, I can't say for sure.

MS PATEL: How far away from you was Mr Taylor standing at the time that you were killing the deceased?

MR LOTZ: I am not sure how far he stood behind me. Only after I had given the blow, I turned around and I saw him, so I am not sure how far he was.

MS PATEL: Why are you not sure Mr Lotz, surely it is a very simple thing, it wasn't a chaotic at best, killing? In terms of the evidence it was a very calm, peaceful event. There is not too much to remember about it?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it easy to say it if you are not involved, that it would have proceeded in that way. It was a traumatic experience for me.

MS PATEL: Was he standing close, he obviously was standing close enough for you to see?

MR LOTZ: As I have testified he stood behind me. I didn't see him up to the point that I had hit the person. I did not know that he was standing behind me up to the point that I had hit the person.

ADV POTGIETER: Why didn't you see this? So if there had been an eyewitness, a fisherman who was busy catching fish, that you did not see him?

How do you operate?

MR LOTZ: The person walked ahead of me, I didn't stand around to see who was with me or what was happening. This person was in front of me, at some point I had to hit.

ADV POTGIETER: You are going to commit a crime, you are going to commit a murder, but you walk without paying attention to what is happening around you?

MR LOTZ: I did not see him that he was walking with me, after I took the person from the vehicle.

ADV POTGIETER: But the question is why not, we can't understand that? That is why the question was put to you?

MR LOTZ: Because I didn't look behind me.

ADV POTGIETER: Weren't you interested in what was going on around you?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I did, but I didn't look to what was going on behind me, whether someone walked with me, I didn't see that.

ADV POTGIETER: Or were you shocked?

MR LOTZ: Yes, afterwards I was shocked.

ADV POTGIETER: That was only after the blow that you were shocked?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MS PATEL: Did you not hear him walking behind you then Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: No, I did not.

MS PATEL: All right. After you killed Mr Calata ...

MR LOTZ: I did not kill Mr Calata.

MS PATEL: Sorry, sorry Mr Goniwe. Did you witness Mr Taylor hit the blow to Mr Calata's head?

MR LOTZ: I stood at some distance and I watched.

MS PATEL: And at what distance would that be, could you indicate from perhaps from where you are sitting to wherever?

MR LOTZ: Approximately from where I am sitting to where you are sitting, that is an approximation, I can't really say.

MS PATEL: So then it wasn't as dark as Mr Taylor would have us believe that evening, isn't it?

MR LOTZ: It was dark, yes. But if you are focusing your attention on something specific in the dark, then you can still see even in the dark.

MS PATEL: I fail to see how one's eyesight suddenly improves in the dark, just because one is trying to focus on something specific, but in any event.

ADV SIGODI: Was there no form of light where this was happening?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV SIGODI: Didn't you have the car lights on or something to see?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV POTGIETER: What about the moon?

MR LOTZ: I can't speculate about the moon, I can't remember. I didn't pay attention to that.

ADV POTGIETER: Yes, we can determine that.

MS PATEL: Did you stay at the scene until Mr Calata was in fact killed?

MR LOTZ: At some stage I turned around and I walked.

MS PATEL: Where did you walk to?

MR LOTZ: I went back to the vehicle.

MS PATEL: Prior to you leaving the scene, can you recall whether Mr Calata still had his shoes on or not?

MR LOTZ: No, I can't remember. I can't see why he would not have had his shoes on.

MS PATEL: Then you also couldn't explain why his shoe was laying next to Mr Goniwe's body as indicated on photograph 11 of Exhibit B?

MR LOTZ: I can't.

MS PATEL: You agree that it is strange?

MR LOTZ: Yes, it is.

MS PATEL: There was no one else on the scene besides the people who were involved in this operation with you?

MR LOTZ: That is correct. What happened afterwards, I have no knowledge of.

MS PATEL: You will agree though that no one is going to remove a shoe off a burning body if someone else had pitched on the scene afterwards?

MR LOTZ: I would also have to speculate about that. I can't talk of someone else, I would not have done that.

MS PATEL: The shoe would in fact have been burnt as the remaining shoe that was left on his foot, as indicated by photograph 12. It indicates that the shoe is just next to his body?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I understand what you are saying.

CHAIRPERSON: You say you can't explain this?

MR LOTZ: No, I can't.

MS PATEL: None of the survivors there can explain how a man who quietly, being handcuffed is led to his death, looses his shoe, can you explain?

MR LOTZ: I can't explain that.

MS PATEL: I put it to you Mr Lotz, as I have put it to your colleague before you, that in fact this murder didn't take place in the manner in which you say it did. That there must have been some fear on the part of the deceased, that there must have been some suspicion on their part and that they would have resisted?

MR LOTZ: Not where I was present. What I said happened.

MS PATEL: Okay. Just to go back a bit. You stated that when Mr Van Zyl came back, after the burning of the vehicle, of Mr Goniwe's vehicle, you were with him, not so when the vehicle was burnt?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: That when you came back, Mr Taylor got out of the car, and that you stood near the car chatting, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: And you told him that the vehicle had in fact been burnt out, not so?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: If you were standing at the car, would the occupants, being the deceased, not have heard you?

MR LOTZ: No, we would not have talked in such a way that they would have been able to hear us.

MS PATEL: All right. Then just, there is one curious thing that I have noticed on - sorry, give me a moment, let me find the photograph - on photograph 10 of the bundle, there is a bag on the right hand side of that photograph, do you notice that bag?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I do.

MS PATEL: Do you recognise that bag?

MR LOTZ: No, I don't recognise it, I don't know whose bag this is.

MS PATEL: Was it not with one of the deceased when they came?

MR LOTZ: No, not that I can remember.

MS PATEL: Okay. A final point, if anyone else had unexpectedly arrived on the scene and had witnessed what was happening, would you then have killed that person as well?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS PATEL: What would you have done with him or her?

MR LOTZ: I don't know. It didn't happen. I would have to speculate, I can't say, it is not just about killing people.

MS PATEL: It is also about disposing of evidence, not so and if there is someone or something around that can still point to your involvement in the incident, you would have destroyed it, not so, as you had burnt your clothes and your tackies and gotten rid of the iron bar in the river as you say you did, burnt the car, used false number plates? How far would you have gone Mr Lotz, let's speculate.

MR LOTZ: If a person had arrived, I don't think I would have killed them.

MS PATEL: To go back to the Motherwell incident, is that not the reason why they were killed, the three black officers, because they knew too much?

MR LOTZ: As I have said before, I was not part of the Motherwell operation, the pre-planning and I did not know why they were killed.

MS PATEL: You have made an application Mr Lotz, in the Motherwell incident?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: Was it for a crime that you did not then commit, for knowledge that you did not then have?

MR LOTZ: After the explosion, I heard what had happened, and I had told nobody about it. That makes me an accomplice and that is why I have applied.

MS PATEL: How does it make you an accomplice to drop a vehicle off at a particular spot ...

MR BOOYENS: That is not what the witness testified. He said he heard about it afterwards, my learned friend should know of the authority that say that there is a duty on a policeman to disclose if he knows about a crime, and if he keeps quiet about something like that, it will make him an accessory after the fact.

MS PATEL: All right. In terms of your loyalty to your fellow colleagues, do you have any personal relationship with any of them, your co-applicants at the very least?

MR LOTZ: How do you mean, I don't understand the question?

MS PATEL: The question is, do you have a personal relationship with any of the applicants in the matter?

MR LOTZ: Only Mr Van Rensburg, he is my father in law.

MS PATEL: Are you married to his daughter?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS PATEL: When did this happen?

MR LOTZ: When was I married?

MS PATEL: Yes.

MR LOTZ: In 1984.

MS PATEL: Could this explain the basis of your involvement in this matter then, your personal relationship with him?

MR LOTZ: No, I don't know, but according to me, no.

MS PATEL: So it is your loyalty to the State that motivated this, not your loyalty to any particular family member?

MR LOTZ: Before the operation took place and afterwards, I did not know that he was involved.

MS PATEL: I am sorry, I didn't get the interpretation. Would you care to repeat your answer?

MR LOTZ: Before we applied for amnesty, we did not know that he was involved.

MS PATEL: Are you saying that you did not know that Mr Van Rensburg was involved in this operation?

MR LOTZ: I did not know.

MS PATEL: Even though he was the second in command at the Security Branch, you did not know this?

MR LOTZ: I did not know.

ADV POTGIETER: And this is your father in law?

MR LOTZ: I don't know where you are heading, but I know that I received the orders from Captain Van Zyl.

ADV POTGIETER: Don't worry.

MR LOTZ: No, I am not worried.

ADV POTGIETER: Listen to me. Don't worry where anything is heading, the question is is your testimony that regardless of the fact that Mr Van Rensburg is your father in law, you did not know until you applied, that he was involved in this incident?

MR LOTZ: I didn't know.

ADV POTGIETER: Did you see each other regularly?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I saw him regularly. He was my second in command.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo, surely you haven't got any questions.

MR HUGO: Mr Chairman, you are badgering me now with all respect. I do have and I was going to say two or three questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a promise?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Mr Lotz, if I understand your testimony correctly, you said that regarding the disposal of the iron bar, you would not simply have thrown it away in the veld, because you are an experienced policeman and you knew what the possible consequences of that might have been, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MR HUGO: Among others that there might have been finger prints on it, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: Not finger prints, as I have said, it was quite rusted.

MR HUGO: Very well, but you wouldn't have just simply thrown it away in the veld?

MR LOTZ: That is what I have said. I am not one hundred percent sure what I did with the iron spring.

MR HUGO: Very well, I would like to ask you a question regarding the preparation, the items which you took with you on this operation. We have it on record already that you and Mr Van Zyl took petrol, you took a bayonet and also the iron bar. Is there anything else which you took along with you with regard to the execution of this operation?

MR LOTZ: Not that I can remember right now.

MR HUGO: Among others, did you also take along cuffs?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MR HUGO: Well, didn't you take anything like a balaclava or hand gloves?

MR LOTZ: No, not that I can recall.

MR HUGO: What do you mean when you say that you can't remember, did you take gloves or didn't you?

MR LOTZ: I can't remember.

MR HUGO: Is it possible?

MR LOTZ: I can't remember. If I could remember it, I would have said so.

MR HUGO: Well, would you please tell us again regarding the exchanging of the number plates, who did that the first time?

MR LOTZ: I did it.

MR HUGO: And if I understand your testimony correctly, you did it by means of an elastic which you placed around the number plates?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR HUGO: At that stage, did you wear gloves?

MR LOTZ: No.

MR HUGO: All right. Would you please look at Exhibit E, photo 7. Do you have it in front of you?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I do.

MR HUGO: Firstly I would like to ask you, you would see at the back where the registration number or plates of this vehicle, should be, there isn't one, can you explain it?

MR LOTZ: No, I can't.

MR HUGO: You didn't remove it?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't.

MR HUGO: And then you would see, right at the bottom on the left, there is a registration place, CAT8479?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Whose registration number or plate is that?

MR LOTZ: I think it belonged to that vehicle.

MR HUGO: The vehicle of Mr Goniwe?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

MR HUGO: I am putting it to you that during the inquest, it was determined that no finger prints were to be found on this number plate, can you explain that?

MR LOTZ: I didn't touch the number plate.

MR HUGO: Well, how did it get there?

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

MR HUGO: Mr Lotz, I don't understand. Only you and Mr Van Zyl were on the scene. You were the one who placed the false number plates over the original.

MR LOTZ: Number plate.

MR HUGO: Yes, so now I want to know how it came to be there, and why there weren't any finger prints?

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

MR HUGO: Then I would like to refer to your application on page 15, there you say at the bottom of page 15. Captain Van Zyl left after that for Chetty, see (e) on the attached plan, where he would meet the black members, where did you receive this information?

MR LOTZ: When Captain Van Zyl returned, as I previously said, my statement isn't one hundred percent as I wrote it, but Chetty is the place where the Captain shot that person after he had tried to overcome him.

MR HUGO: But in what regard do you say that your statement is not correct? The sentence reads where he would have met the black members?

MR LOTZ: Exactly, that is not where he met the black members.

MR HUGO: Very well. Do I understand your explanation ...

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Hugo. Where do you say that Mr Van Zyl would have shot the person?

MR LOTZ: At Chetty.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that a neighbourhood in Port Elizabeth?

MR LOTZ: If you drive on the Uitenhage road before you get to Xamagako, there is a bridge and it is referred to as Chetty and that incident occurred nearby to that place and that is what I am referring to when I am referring to the place where Captain Van Zyl would have shot the person.

CHAIRPERSON: Can you give us a distance between where you were left behind and Chetty or the place where the person was shot?

MR LOTZ: Chairperson, I didn't know. If I could see a map, then perhaps one could calculate it.

CHAIRPERSON: Let's discuss the bridge near Chetty on the Uitenhage road?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How far between the point where he left you behind and the bridge?

MR LOTZ: It is quite a distance, I suppose one could say ten kilometres.

CHAIRPERSON: Only ten?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I estimate that it could be ten kilometres.

CHAIRPERSON: Look at Exhibit N. Is that map good enough?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is Chetty there at (a)?

MR LOTZ: Well, just a bit more to the left. If you have the map in front of you, it would be a bit more to the left.

MR HUGO: Mr Lotz, you also testified that your pants had blood stains on them, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR HUGO: Could you explain how this happened?

MR LOTZ: I cannot.

MR HUGO: May I ask you were the black members who were involved in this attack, were they - did they have blood stains, to what degree?

MR LOTZ: Well, it was dark, I cannot say whether they had blood stains on their clothing and how much blood there was.

MR HUGO: Couldn't you notice anything on their hands?

MR LOTZ: No. They probably wiped it off, I don't know.

MR HUGO: What do you mean ten to one they wiped it off, did you see?

MR LOTZ: I am speculating, I am not certain.

MR HUGO: Then I would like to ask you with regard to the items which were found on the deceased, were there watches on the bodies?

MR LOTZ: I did not inspect the bodies and what they had on them.

MR HUGO: Didn't you check to see if there were purses containing their names or identification and such?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't.

MR HUGO: And didn't you check for other documentation which could have indicated that they had attended a meeting or which could have given an indication whether or not they were UDF members and so forth?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't.

MR HUGO: So, are you saying that there was no such documentation or that you simply didn't check?

MR LOTZ: I didn't, I wasn't looking for anything like that.

MR HUGO: Then I did not understand your testimony correctly regarding the disposal of this iron bar. You would have to correct me if I am wrong. I understood that you said that approximately four o'clock that morning you drove, you are not sure to which place, but you went and threw away the bar in the river at Swartkops?

MR LOTZ: As I have said, I am not one hundred percent sure.

MR HUGO: One hundred percent sure of what?

MR LOTZ: Where I disposed of the iron.

MR HUGO: But of the time?

MR LOTZ: The time I said was approximately five o'clock.

MR HUGO: Well, my record says four o'clock, but we will accept five o'clock.

MR LOTZ: I said six hours from 23h00, I said five or six hours.

MR HUGO: Will you once again tell us, the operation had been finished, what did you do until the point that you threw the bar into the river?

MR LOTZ: Is that after we left the scene?

MR HUGO: Yes.

MR LOTZ: Then we left the scene, we drove over the bridge, and we threw the bar over the bridge.

MR HUGO: Well, when you say that you left, to whom are you referring?

MR LOTZ: Lieutenant Taylor and me.

MR HUGO: You stopped at the bridge and you threw the bar into the river?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MR HUGO: Well, I find that rather strange because Lieutenant Taylor does not refer to anything like that in his application?

MR LOTZ: That is why I am saying that I am not sure, that I am speculating regarding what happened to the iron bar.

MR HUGO: Did you start suffering from amnesia at that point?

MR LOTZ: I haven't said that I am suffering from amnesia.

MR HUGO: Pardon?

MR LOTZ: I didn't say that I have amnesia.

MR HUGO: Well, why can't you tell us what you did with the murder weapon?

MR LOTZ: It was 13 years ago, I can't remember.

MR HUGO: But it is quite important Mr Lotz, what happened to the weapon?

MR LOTZ: I can't remember.

MR HUGO: If Mr De Kock then says that he was told by Mr Van Zyl, that some of the documentation had been burnt on a farm or a smallholding and that Winter had threatened you with death, you wouldn't be able to say whether that is correct or incorrect, because you don't remember what happened after the incident?

MR LOTZ: Mr Winter was nowhere to be found.

MR HUGO: Why can you remember that, but you can't remember what happened to the murder weapon?

MR LOTZ: That would have involved other people who were involved in the incident. There was no smallholding mentioned.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, if you can't remember what happened to the murder weapon, why are you choosing the Swartkopsriver as your point of disposal?

MR LOTZ: I thought that would have been the most logical place.

CHAIRPERSON: We will accept that if you can remember what happened to the weapon, but you are saying that you can't remember at all what you did with the weapon?

MR LOTZ: I am not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, thus I am asking you why then the Swartkopsriver?

MR LOTZ: It is a river which flowed directly into the sea.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not the Bakensriver?

MR LOTZ: We drove over that bridge on our way home after we had conducted the operation.

MR HUGO: One final aspect. Who drove the vehicle while you were driving in the direction of Swartkops?

MR LOTZ: It was Lieutenant Taylor's vehicle, so he would have been driving.

MR HUGO: I have no further questions, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO: .

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Lotz, you have painted a picture here for us about a culture of loyalty which reigned among the members of the Security Police, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And you said that under no circumstances would you break this loyalty towards the other members who were involved?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: It was so serious and such a great secret among your small group, that you didn't even discuss this matter with your father in law, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: I did not.

MR VAN DER MERWE: So one could assume that it would have been improbable that one of the persons who were involved, would have discussed this matter with someone else who was not involved in it?

MR LOTZ: I concur.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You heard during the testimony of Mr Van Zyl, that it was put to him that he had discussed this matter with Mr De Kock?

MR LOTZ: I heard that.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Well, I do not want to repeat all the evidence that Mr De Kock gave in his application, but what he does say there is that you were threatened by Mr Winter with death, can you recall any such incidents?

MR LOTZ: No, Mr Winter was not present. He could not have threatened me.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE: .

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BOOYENS: My colleague has asked you why your memory is so bad, why did you leave the Police?

MR LOTZ: Due to post-traumatic stress disorder.

MR BOOYENS: Do you use medication?

MR LOTZ: I did. I am no longer on medication.

MR BOOYENS: Were there any symptoms regarding your amnesia in terms of your post-traumatic stress disorder?

MR LOTZ: There were.

MR BOOYENS: Which?

MR LOTZ: Forgetfulness.

MR BOOYENS: Mention was made of the number plate, Mr Hugo mentioned a false number plate to you, what were you trying to say?

MR LOTZ: There was only one number plate on the front of the vehicle.

MR BOOYENS: That is all Chairperson. Just regarding the question of the distance, that can be of assistance to you Mr Chairman, as far as distance is concerned, Exhibit GG, paragraph 9 gives the distance between the various distances between the car and the two murder scenes and so on, it is about ten kilometres in any case, according to this. That concludes my re-examination Mr Chairman, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS: .

ADV BOSMAN: Could you please go to page 19 of the bundle, Mr Lotz? I don't understand 13(a). The question is posed whether civil proceedings were pending, etc, etc and you said that it had already been settled. What were you referring to?

MR LOTZ: I speak under correction, I think it refers to after the inquest.

ADV BOSMAN: Is that the inquest with Judge Zietsman?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV BOSMAN: Did you settle any civil matters then, you don't

have to provide details?

MR LOTZ: It was against the State.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

MR BIZOS: Mr Chairman, may we place on record that the civil proceedings were in fact settled, in which both the Army and the Police Force made a contribution, four widows and the children Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, tell me do you know who burnt these people?

MR LOTZ: The persons with whom we were involved, I think it was Lieutenant Taylor, I didn't do it.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you watch?

MR LOTZ: I was not directly involved, I did not see it.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you have seen?

MR LOTZ: I could probably have seen, but I didn't see.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR LOTZ: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Where were you when the bodies were being burnt?

MR LOTZ: I was at the vehicle, at Lieutenant Taylor's vehicle.

CHAIRPERSON: Inside or outside?

MR LOTZ: Outside, it would have been outside.

CHAIRPERSON: And didn't you watch what was happening to the bodies?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, this is the end of an expedition that was planned. The actual result was that which you wanted, and that was that the people would be dead. And the only thing that you did was to knock someone unconscious and then you walked away.

Didn't you do the trouble to confirm whether or not the person was actually dead?

MR LOTZ: I assumed that the persons were dead, they would not have been able to survive it.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, before we adjourn, I would like actually to ask for these proceedings now to be postponed. I understand there is a date available in June.

The reason being Mr Chairman, there has been a fair amount of documentation handed in that one in a very limited time had to study, one obviously would like to investigate the possibility to see if there is not other documentation which may be available somewhere in the vast machinery of the erstwhile State.

So in the circumstances, if I may ask whether we - I am alive to the fact that we would have been supposed to carry on tomorrow, but I would ask that the matter be adjourned at this stage, that is my one reason.

My other reason is that I don't think the next witness in any event, could be finished in a day and I would submit it would be very unfair for somebody to start with cross-examination and expect him to carry on three months down the line sir, so I would ask for an adjournment.

ADV POTGIETER: Why does the cross-examination have to start? You know Mr Booyens, you know that we are under a public duty.

MR BOOYENS: I am fully aware of that.

ADV POTGIETER: Just a minute, just a minute please, don't interrupt me. We are under public duty to get through an almost impossible work load in very limited time.

These proceedings have been set down for two weeks, and it is set down for tomorrow. And really if you expect us to just concede to an application for a postponement, you will have to motivate it very well.

You are suggesting that one of the grounds is that you haven't seen documentation, what kind of documentation is that?

MR BOOYENS: No Mr Chairman, I said documentation has been handed in that we have to study. Documentation has been handed in that we have got to go and look and see if there is not alternative documentation available. That is what I am suggesting. And it is for that reason that I submit that in order to present my client's case adequately, I will have to do it that way.

ADV POTGIETER: But which client now, which client are you referring to? Who is your next witness?

MR BOOYENS: Du Plessis would be my next witness Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: Now, how does this impact on his testimony?

MR BOOYENS: That is what I don't know at this stage Mr Chairman.

ADV POTGIETER: But you haven't seen any documentation, so you don't know if anything would impact on his case?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, that is exactly the point. If we - I am fully aware of the duty of the Commission. On the other hand my client is entitled to fair administrative justice, and if we - a lot of documents had been handed in that we didn't expect to be handed in, we didn't know about it beforehand. I am talking about documents handed in by my learned friend, that had been used. That is what we want to check and see if there are not other documentation available, there may be other answers to it.

ADV POTGIETER: But I can appreciate that, I can appreciate that you would want to see if there is anything, I want to know why can't we hear the evidence in chief of Mr Du Plessis between now and tomorrow when the dates for which this matter has been set down for a long time, with in fact, the dates were settled in conjunction with yourself and all of the other legal representatives?

MR BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, could I ask for an adjournment, I would like to discuss the matter with the Chairman in chambers please.

MR MTSHAULANA: Mr Chairman, I beg leave to ask one or two questions which arose after I had finished my questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I will give you that opportunity just now. Mr Bizos, have you got any objections to the request for postponement?

MR BIZOS: ... attitude in relation to this matter Mr Chairman. A day may be important, is important in any proceedings, but it is quite obvious that we cannot finish this matter this week, it is a factor to be taken into consideration, but we leave the matter to the Committee Mr Chairman.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I am also neutral Mr Chairman.

MR HUGO: I am also totally neutral Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Can I just ask before we adjourn, Mr Hugo, assuming that we are amenable to the, it seems to be a request from Mr Booyens, that he must be given an opportunity to consider what he should be doing further in regard to his case, assuming that we are amenable to that, are you in a position to proceed with the testimony of your client?

MR HUGO: I take it you mean tomorrow morning, yes, most certainly so Mr Chairman, yes.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mtshaulana, do you still want to ask questions?

MR MTSHAULANA: No, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, the Committee has considered the application by Mr Booyens and have come to the conclusion to come to his assistance in allowing him time to deal with matters that he needs to deal with.

However, in the meantime, we are going to allow Mr Hugo to call Mr De Kock. That will be done tomorrow, to when we are postponing this matter to nine o'clock. Nine o'clock tomorrow morning.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS