Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Who is next now? Mr Snyman?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, the next applicant is Mr Snyman.

MR JANSEN CALLS

DANIEL LIONEL SNYMAN: (Duly sworn, states).

EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Chairperson, before I start leading Mr Snyman's evidence, I would like to point out to the Committee, on a point of order, that Mr Snyman's application consists of an original section which forms part of the paginated documents from page 58 up to page 60 or 68 and his application was supplemented by 68(A) to 68(H) and after these pages were bound, certain pages were omitted, and this has now been supplemented by roman numerals up to page 68 and follows. I request that that form part of his total application.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, this is 68(i) to (vi) or whatever, and then after that it follows up to (g), does that replace the entire application or are there still old pages not taken up into this?

MR LAMEY: No, the documents handed over yesterday do not replace the application, it simply supplements the volume as it has been paginated.

Mr Snyman, you are applying for amnesty arising from your involvement in the Motherwell bomb incident, in which four members of the then security police were killed. Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Initially, if I can refer you to page 58 you filled in the prescribed form for amnesty. Is that your signature which appears on it, on page 64?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: In the initial application which you first completed accompanied by a statement, did you personally draft that?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: During the drafting of this document, you did not have legal representation at that stage?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: You simply listed the incident in which you were involved with some background information. Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: After you obtained legal representation you set out in more detail the incident in which you were involved, as well as specifically the Motherwell incident. Correct?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: The supplementary pages, 68(i), that's the supplementary form, as far as 68(v) - your signature appears on all these pages?

MR SNYMAN: Correct.

MR LAMEY: There are also further supplementary particulars as appears on page 68(vi) relating to your background and training, and which runs up to page 68(x).

MR SNYMAN: Correct.

MR LAMEY: Do you confirm the correctness of the contents of this part dealing with your background and training?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You also mention that you are currently 44 years old and that you were a member of the South African Police for a period of 23 years, and that you retired with the rank of warrant-officer?

MR SNYMAN: Correct.

MR LAMEY: Could you tell the Committee briefly why did you retire from the Police?

MR SNYMAN: I was declared ...

INTERPRETER: The speaker is inaudible.

MR LAMEY: You mentioned that you qualified as a counter-insurgency instructor and that you were involved in development of armaments and weapons and that you also gave follow-up courses and refresher courses for members who went on border duty?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR LAMEY: You also mentioned that during your career in the counter-insurgency unit, that on several occasions ...

INTERPRETER: Speaker is inaudible, interpreter cannot interpret.

MR LAMEY: You mentioned that you had seen the trauma caused by terrorist attacks against members of the public. Thank you, Mr Chairman. It was a bit too far from the microphone.

Mr Snyman, in your application you say that along with the motivation of senior offices and politicians it became clear to you that everything possible had to be done to halt the onslaught of the ANC/SACP alliance, the Communist onslaught?

MR SNYMAN: Correct.

MR LAMEY: Could you tell the Committee when did you become a member of Vlakplaas?

MR SNYMAN: End of '88, beginning of '89, I joined Vlakplaas.

MR LAMEY: And how long had you been at Vlakplaas when this incident happened?

MR SNYMAN: Approximately one year.

MR LAMEY: In that year you were also involved in other incidents which forms the subject of your amnesty application?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: In your amnesty application you also say in paragraph, on page 68, that the incidents which you set out in your amnesty application, and the particulars of the offences for which you apply for amnesty, you want to bring it to the attention of the Committee, that you are sketching it to the best of your recollection. You refer to the fact that you currently are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as appears from the reports annexed as Annexures X1, X2 and X3, and which also causes your memory to be affected?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct. I was also questioned about this at the Motherwell hearing.

MR LAMEY: You also say that it is however not at all your intention to omit any relevant facts.

MR SNYMAN: Correct.

MR LAMEY: The reports attached to your application, could you please look at 68(d)(iii), that is a report from Mr Russel Matthews, who is a psychologist?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Are you currently still under treatment?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And Mr Russel Matthews is in charge of your treatment?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: There is also a report from a psychiatrist, Dr Jan Robertson, I am referring to page 68(d)(vi), is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: You also consulted him?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: There is also a report from Dr J J Grove, on page 68(d)(viii). You consulted him as well?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: During the Motherwell trial you testified as a State witness?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Is it further correct that after testifying and during judgment you received indemnity in terms of Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act?

MR SNYMAN: Correct.

MR LAMEY: You also in terms of the police statement, which you made before the Motherwell case, you incorporated this in your amnesty application as Annexure Y?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Is that the statement which appears on page 69(e) and follows as far as page 68(h)?

MR SNYMAN: Correct.

MR LAMEY: In your statement you mention that during December of 1989, you were at Vlakplaas?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that's correct.

MR LAMEY: Could you tell the Committee what happened there whilst you were there?

MR SNYMAN: We were busy doing some kind of work and I was called to Mr De Kock's office.

MR LAMEY: Who else were called?

MR SNYMAN: It was Mr Vermeulen and Mr Ras.

MR LAMEY: And who else were present?

MR SNYMAN: Mr Nieuwoudt was present as well, with Mr De Kock.

MR LAMEY: Was any information given to you as to where Nieuwoudt and De Kock had come from?

MR SNYMAN: At that stage I assumed that they had come from head office. I think it might have been mentioned at some point that they had come from head office and we were told that the three of us, I had to accompany Mr Nieuwoudt to Port Elizabeth security branch, as a result of problems which had arisen in Port Elizabeth and that we had to help the Port Elizabeth security branch in carrying out an operation there.

MR LAMEY: Yes?

MR SNYMAN: What was said was that there was an Askari who had caused trouble there and that we would be further informed by Mr Nieuwoudt whilst we were journeying down to Port Elizabeth.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall - you referred to an Askari. Can you recall what the nature of the problem was that was sketched to you, which this Askari was said to have caused?

MR SNYMAN: Apparently it was a problem in connection with security breach, that intelligence had been passed on to the ANC from the security branch in Port Elizabeth.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether anything had been mentioned regarding money that had been stolen?

MR SNYMAN: Mention was made of stolen money, I can't remember at what stage that was done, but that was not the main purpose of our coming down to Port Elizabeth. It was as a result of the breach of security which had taken place.

MR LAMEY: What was explained to you in regard to the security breach?

MR SNYMAN: That information was passed on to the ANC or PAC, I am assuming it was the ANC, and that as a result of this information which was conveyed to the ANC, the entire intelligence network and structure in the Eastern Cape could be prejudiced thereby and could endanger security members, and certain - it would also lead to certain people that could be identified as people who co-operated with the police and that these people and their families would then appear in grave danger, should the information reach the ANC.

MR LAMEY: Was all of this told to you at Vlakplaas or is it possible that it happened later and that it was told in more detail?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, as I said it was just very briefly told to me at Vlakplaas, the order was given and I was given a Makarov pistol and I was told that further information would be given to us by Mr Nieuwoudt.

MR LAMEY: Who said that further information would be given by Nieuwoudt?

MR SNYMAN: Mr De Kock said that we would receive further instructions from him. There was no time to elaborate any further, because we had to leave for Port Elizabeth immediately.

MR LAMEY: In your statement on page 68(f), paragraph four, you say that you regarded this instruction as a valid and legal order and that it was in the national interest.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that's how it was put to me.

MR LAMEY: By whom?

MR SNYMAN: By Mr De Kock.

MR LAMEY: You also say that you formed the impression that it was an organised operation. Why do you say that?

MR SNYMAN: Well, I understood they had come from head office. So obviously I assumed that the matter had been authorised by head office and I didn't make any further enquiries. Mr De Kock gave me the order which to me, was a legal order, and I think he also mentioned that security technical people would be involved in the operation.

In other words, it wasn't just something which he had arranged all by himself?

MR LAMEY: Who gave you the Makarov pistol?

MR SNYMAN: Mr De Kock gave me the Makarov pistol.

MR LAMEY: Do you know why specifically it was a Makarov pistol that was issued to you?

MR SNYMAN: That was in case the operation as planned went awry and then Mr Ras, Mr Vermeulen and myself would have to eliminate the people, and Makarov pistols would be used so that that could create the impression that it had been the enemy of the opposition who had eliminated them.

MR LAMEY: Did you know whilst you were at Vlakplaas, that the main objective of this operation would be elimination by means of an explosion, a bomb explosion?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I did, because the technical people were to come with us.

MR LAMEY: Are you trained in explosives?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I am an explosives expert.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall how you left Vlakplaas?

MR SNYMAN: We left in two Vlakplaas vehicles. Mr Nieuwoudt had flown up from Port Elizabeth and he didn't have transport. So he drove with me, Ras and Vermeulen in two Vlakplaas cars.

MR LAMEY: Is it correct to say that at your arrival in Port Elizabeth you went to a certain house where other people were present?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, we came to a certain house where other people were. As I said in my statement I did not know who they were.

MR LAMEY: In your statement you mention that Gert Lotz was there and Carl Edwards and also a short stout colonel with light brown hair. That was in the police statement you made earlier.

MR SNYMAN: That is what I said.

MR LAMEY: Today, if you think back, can you comment on that, regarding which people were there?

MR SNYMAN: I can't remember precisely. At that stage I did not know who were there, but I knew that the technical staff were there.

MR LAMEY: This reference to Lotz in your statement, was it possibly a mistake?

MR SNYMAN: The mention of Lotz's name was a mistake in my statement. He was also acquitted during the Motherwell trial.

MR SNYMAN: You stayed there for the night and at a certain stage a white Jetta vehicle was fetched. Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And you were taken to a certain farm. Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Can you shortly describe what you remember what you did on that farm, what you did to the vehicle?

MR SNYMAN: On the farm explosives were put in the Jetta under the seats and a transmitter, a radio transmitter was attached to that.

MR LAMEY: Were you involved in the placing of these explosives and the arming of the transmitter?

MR SNYMAN: Those were the technical people and perhaps we assisted to take out a seat or something, but the technical staff placed the explosives.

MR LAMEY: Referring to the technical personnel, who were they?

MR SNYMAN: It was Mr Du Toit and Mr De Kock.

MR LAMEY: You also mentioned there was a remote control device placed in the boot.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that was the receiver part.

MR LAMEY: In your statement you say that later you went for lunch or you had something to eat. Before you went to get something to eat, can you remember whether you were taken to the place where this explosion would take place?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, during the day we were taken to this place - I can't remember exactly when - to see what the environment was like.

MR LAMEY: Can you remember who took you there?

MR SNYMAN: I think it was Mr Nieuwoudt.

MR LAMEY: Later that evening you went to this crossing again, where this explosion would take place?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, we returned there and from there we took the Vlakplaas vehicles and hid them away from there. We came back to the crossing where we hid behind some bushes to be out of sight, when this vehicle with these people in them would arrive.

MR LAMEY: Where were you standing?

MR SNYMAN: It was about 40 or 50 paces from where Mr Nieuwoudt was standing.

MR LAMEY: Where were you standing - did you have to be visible or what did you do?

MR SNYMAN: No, we had to be invisible, we were hiding behind some bushes.

MR LAMEY: From there, could you see what was happening?

MR SNYMAN: I could see that people were moving there, there was some light in the background, but because it was too dark, you couldn't recognise specific persons, but you could see the figures moving.

MR LAMEY: Could you see how many people were in the Jetta, how many people got into the Jetta?

MR SNYMAN: No, I could not see that, but just before they got into the Jetta, they had arrived there with a Kombi, and they got out of the Kombi and got into the Jetta.

MR LAMEY: Could you see who those people were, did you recognise them?

MR SNYMAN: No.

MR LAMEY: Did you know beforehand who those people would be?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, those would be the people involved in leaking the information to the ANC.

MR LAMEY: No, but I mean, did you know the identity of those people?

MR SNYMAN: No, I did not know them, I did not know their names.

MR LAMEY: In your statement you said initially something about an Askari, and I want to know from you, after Vlakplaas, did they tell you that more people than an Askari would be involved?

MR SNYMAN: I think it was during the journey to Port Elizabeth that Mr Nieuwoudt told us or provided more detail and he said that three members of the security branch were also involved in leaking the information.

MR LAMEY: Do you know mean three in total or three additional to the Askari?

MR SNYMAN: No, I mean it is the Askari plus three policemen.

CHAIRPERSON: When did he tell you that?

MR SNYMAN: It was some time in the trip down from Pretoria towards Port Elizabeth. I don't know exactly when. It wasn't given to me at Vlakplaas at that time. As I said as we were coming down Mr De Kock said that Mr Nieuwoudt would supply us with more information.

MR LAMEY: Could you, from the position where you and Ras were standing, near the crossing, could you observe and hear what happened afterwards?

MR SNYMAN: No, we could not hear what they were saying, regarding what they were saying we couldn't hear anything, we were too far from there.

MR LAMEY: What happened afterwards?

MR SNYMAN: From where I and Mr Ras were sitting, we saw the Kombi leaving and then we saw the Jetta leaving and shortly after the Jetta had left, there was this explosion.

MR LAMEY: After this explosion, can you remember what you and Ras did then?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, we went there to see what had happened. We saw that there were no people alive. The Kombi returned. Mr Lotz picked that up, picked us up, took us to Mr Vermeulen and from there we returned to Pretoria. I mention it in my statement that was passed that scene, but I don't think - I assume that we went directly from the vehicles to Pretoria. Because we have already observed the scene by foot, but in my statement I said we passed it, we used a vehicle.

MR LAMEY: Could that have been wrong?

MR SNYMAN: The statement could have been wrong.

MR LAMEY: Was it possible that you have the facts wrong?

MR SNYMAN: It could be.

MR LAMEY: Mr Snyman, I want to refer you back to page 68(b).

CHAIRPERSON: Let me just ask this to clarify something for us. As I understand you Nieuwoudt told you on you way to PE that there were four people to be killed.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, he said he was, at Vlakplaas, I was said that it was an Askari and on the way down he gave me more in full, not full information, but more information regarding three people from the Permanent Force of the Police, who were also involved, that would make our four.

CHAIRPERSON: So at the time when you took up your positions, around the scene, before these people were killed, you knew already that four people were to be killed?

MR SNYMAN: That is what were supposed to be, but I did remember that at the time, the afternoon, he was looking for people there, there were only three people. He could not get all the people together and I heard him asking over the radio about the person that he could not find.

CHAIRPERSON: Then I don't understand the last sentence of your statement.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, as I say, at that time it was three people that were supposed to be there, and as I said, earlier in the day I heard him asking for somebody that he could not find, and after - I only later, after arriving there, I saw that I heard that it was four people that were there.

CHAIRPERSON: I am trying to get the witness directly on my ear-phone, and instead I am getting a translation. Let us start again.

MR SNYMAN: In the afternoon at some time or at the start of the operation, there would have been three people. I later, after we had arrived there, I was told that four people were there, that they had found the other person or that the other person had also arrived. I cannot remember by who it was, by Mr Lotz or by Mr Nieuwoudt, or what the exactly was done on there, but at that time I only heard that there was four people or if it may have just been before we went to hide behind the bush, or when we came out from the bushes, to go and check the scene. At some time at that stage I only heard that there was four people.

CHAIRPERSON: To be killed?

MR SNYMAN: That were involved, but as I say, in the afternoon earlier there were only three. There were only three people, according to me, at that time, would have arrived, but as I say, I recall having looked for somebody earlier in the day and I accepted that that was all of the people.

CHAIRPERSON: What does - look at page 68(h). I am looking at the bundle.

MR SNYMAN: At the ...?

CHAIRPERSON: It will be paragraph 9, Mr Lamey.

MR LAMEY: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: The last sentence thereof.

MR SNYMAN: There would have been three initially, but possibly the fourth person was a friend of the person who presumably caused the problems. I later heard that there was a fourth person in the vehicle. There would initially have been three, but the fourth person was a friend of the person who caused the problems.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I understand the statement, if you could have gone a sentence further. You said later on you went back to Col De Kock and told him that the operation was a success.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, we did tell him that.

CHAIRPERSON: But the impression you are giving here is that it was only later, later when you were in Pretoria, after you had already given a report to Mr De Kock.

MR SNYMAN: It was before I got to Mr De Kock that I gave him, that I knew that there was four people.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean "ek het later", what is "later"?

MR SNYMAN: Later, later after the operation had started, when we arrived there ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: No, it was not later already, this was before this operation.

MR SNYMAN: Before the operation I was told that an Askari was involved. On my way to Port Elizabeth he told me three security branch members were involved. That afternoon there were three people. Three people would be brought there in the vehicle. But, when we were on the scene already ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: In your statement you say

"I later realised or heard that there was a fourth person in the vehicle".

MR SNYMAN: But I heard from Mr Nieuwoudt that there was four people in the vehicle. So he must have found the person that he was looking for during the day.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. There would have been three initially?

MR SNYMAN: When we went to the scene for the operation to be done, there was only three people that could be found, that would arrive at the scene.

CHAIRPERSON: There would have been initially three. It doesn't mean there would be three?

MR SNYMAN: No, there were three, three people were available, as I could say, available. Three people were found, three people would arrive.

CHAIRPERSON: I see. Is that what you are saying?

MR SNYMAN: That is three people would arrive. Then I heard that a fourth one did arrive.

ADV DE JAGER: But you said the fourth one was found.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I said found because I take it that it was a person that they were looking for earlier in the day.

ADV DE JAGER: Were they looking for a fourth one?

MR SNYMAN: They were looking for somebody who could not be found.

MR LAMEY: Mr Snyman, just for elucidation of this aspect. Do we understand your evidence correctly, that before this explosion would take place, you knew or you heard that there would be four persons. It would be three security branch officers and the Askari. At a certain stage, before this operation was executed, there were three people and they were still looking for a fourth person. There were problems to find the fourth person.

MR SNYMAN: That was what I heard over the radio.

MR LAMEY: You heard it over the radio that they were looking for a fourth person?

MR SNYMAN: We did not have radios ourselves, we heard that Mr Nieuwoudt was using a radio to look for the fourth person.

MR LAMEY: I want to return to pages 68(h), 68(b). You are not on the right page, 68(b). In your amnesty application you also refer to your political objectives. Can you tell the Committee on the basis or how did you see this operation or what was the political objective of this operation or why was it in the national interest?

MR SNYMAN: It would have been in the national interest because it was security branch members who had in their possession sensitive information, would be conveyed to the opposition to be used against the security forces and also against members, specific members of the security forces.

MR LAMEY: Why are you saying that that information was sensitive?

MR SNYMAN: It was sensitive because the information could be leaked to the ANC and the security structure in the Eastern Cape and countrywide would have been affected by that. And the present government of the day would have been prejudiced by that.

MR LAMEY: Did you personally understand or were there inherent dangers associated with this information being leaked?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that would have resulted in problems or dangers for members of the security branch and also for Askaris, if information regarding the activities were given to the opposition.

MR LAMEY: Which dangers would have developed?

MR SNYMAN: People's lives would have been in danger, especially the members of the security branch, loyal Askaris who co-operated with the security branch, whose names would be provided to the opposition. To all probabilities they would have been killed or attacked or necklaced or whatever. The activities could have been done to them.

MR LAMEY: What was your personal experience as a member of the security branch? Did things like this happen?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, these type of things certainly happened, policemen were attacked, informers were killed and even if somebody was suspected that he did not co-operate with the so-called ideas of the struggle, even because they did not assist them, some of these people were even necklaced.

MR LAMEY: What were you told was the question in this case that the information would be leaked or was there something more to this, as you could gather?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, information had already been leaked, and there was a threat that they would defect to the opposition and would give even more information to the ANC.

MR LAMEY: You mention that your personal motivation for your involvement was that this motivation as presented to you was a legitimate purpose, and that was done to protect Askaris and members of security police.

MR SNYMAN: In the security police the activities of people who were affected, was regarded as the utmost form of treason.

MR LAMEY: Mr Snyman, pages 68(d), you refer to the fact that you have received an order and an instruction. And you also mentioned that a request came from Deon Nieuwoudt, from the security branch in Port Elizabeth, and it was channelled via Pretoria and Van Rensburg was the commanding officer of C1, but your direct instruction to provide assistance came from the commanding officer of Vlakplaas, Eugene de Kock. Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: In this trial, evidence was given that De Kock was on leave during that time. Can you just tell the Committee why you accepted an instruction from him?

MR SNYMAN: De Kock was the commanding officer of Vlakplaas and at that stage he was on the farm, he was present on the farm and that was why I received this instruction from him.

MR LAMEY: Did you know he was on leave?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I can remember that he was on leave at a certain stage, but he did not go away when he was on leave. He might have been on leave, but he was also on Vlakplaas.

MR LAMEY: So you are saying he actively function on Vlakplaas and still gave instructions, even if he was on leave?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, he would still give us instructions, if he had been there. If he was not available, it would have come from a different person.

MR LAMEY: Under whose command were you in Port Elizabeth?

MR SNYMAN: We were under the command of Mr Nieuwoudt.

MR LAMEY: Under whose instruction were you under Mr Nieuwoudt's command?

MR SNYMAN: We were under Mr De Kock's instruction, and according to that, we agreed to work under Mr Nieuwoudt's command.

MR LAMEY: Mr Snyman, when this instruction was given at Vlakplaas, was there an urgency related to this?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, it was regarded as urgent, because they told us to leave immediately.

MR LAMEY: What time this morning was the instruction issued

MR SNYMAN: It was round about 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock this morning. I just went to fetch my clothes, picked up Mr Nieuwoudt and we left on our journey to Port Elizabeth.

MR LAMEY: Did you arrive there the same day?

MR SNYMAN: We arrived there that night.

MR LAMEY: This activity led to the killing and elimination of other colleagues, an Askari and members of the security police. Can you comment that in the light of the instruction given - let me just rephrase this. What did you accept in this regard from your commanding officer?

MR SNYMAN: When he gave us the instruction he told us that it was very urgent and very necessary to go as quickly as possible.

MR LAMEY: But what I am trying to determine, is would Col De Kock involve you in something like this? Just merely to act against people who were ordinary criminals?

MR SNYMAN: No, he would not have done that. Earlier he had already told us that by virtue of an instruction from anybody, whether we were working in another division and whether they ask us to act there, that we would not act without his permission, and after he had cleared it with head office.

CHAIRPERSON: If the operation had nothing to do with politics but it was just to punish these people for their criminal actions, would you have refused to carry out those instructions?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I am sure I would have refused and I am also sure that Col De Kock would not have allowed it if it had not been given to him the way that it was, and put over the way to us that it was, that it was political and for security reasons. We did not usually work ordinary crime, we only worked ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: No, I think you are just complicating your answer. I think you have given an answer. You said if it had been purely for criminal, for purely criminal actions, you -if it had been for purely criminal actions, you would not have carried out those instructions, full stop. I think that's what you should say.

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Snyman, under these circumstances when these instructions were given, did you feel that being a member of Vlakplaas under the command of Col De Kock, and also the circumstances surrounding this specific day, that you could refuse an order?

MR SNYMAN: No, I could not refuse this order. I know it was expected from me to do this, it was - there was this extreme urgency concerning this operation and I realised that there was no way that I could refuse this order. I would not refuse it, based on the fact that it would have been detrimental to me or prejudice me if I did not execute this.

MR LAMEY: In which way would it prejudice you?

MR SNYMAN: Firstly, it would have been posed a question whether I was loyal to the security forces, because I refused to execute a very urgent command. Because of the sensitivity of this operation and also of other operations in which I had been involved before this, it could have been that I on the one or other time, because of my disloyalty, would be eliminated by the higher structures. I cannot exclude that proposition.

ADV DE JAGER: I think Mr Lamey, you have given enough attention to this matter, is there anything else you want to present?

MR LAMEY: Yes, I just want to get instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: We can adjourn now.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I just want to say something. My questioning has been completed. The psychologist whose reports have been included, is present here. I don't think it is necessary to lead his evidence at the moment, but should the Committee require that or any of the other legal counsel want to listen to his evidence, if they can give an indication, he can be called.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until 11:00.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hugo?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: I thank you, Chairperson, the name is Hugo on behalf of Mr De Kock, I have a couple of questions.

Mr Snyman, in paragraph 4 of your application on page 68(e), I will just tell you what it says there. You don't have to read it. You refer at the bottom of the page, you said mention was also made of the fact that there was an Askari and you mention money that had been stolen. Now when you say it was mentioned, I am assuming that it was Mr De Kock who said that?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, it was Mr De Kock, who at that stage had spoken about the Askari involved in some money business. It wasn't explained to us fully. He simply mentioned to us that there was money involved and that some of the members had used money for their own personal gain and that should they be charged, they would then defect to the ANC, but that in fact they had already passed on information.

MR HUGO: And when you say that there was suspicion that he wanted to go back to the ANC, you are also referring to a communication which Mr De Kock made to you?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, the person was intending to turn back ... (intervention).

MR HUGO: Mr Snyman, could you please just listen to the question. The question is whether you were referring to Mr De Kock. We don't want to hear the whole story again. What we want to know is whether you were referring to Mr De Kock, when you say that mention was made of whatever.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, Mr De Kock told me these things.

MR HUGO: Mr Snyman, when a meeting was convened directly before you departed for Port Elizabeth on that day, was that the only meeting at which Mr De Kock was present on that day?

MR SNYMAN: Before we left Nieuwoudt, myself and he were present. I didn't see him earlier that morning or later on.

MR HUGO: So there was only this one briefing at which these orders were given to you?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, these were Mr De Kock's orders.

MR HUGO: And during this discussion was Mr Ras present?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, Mr Ras and Mr Vermeulen.

MR HUGO: I am not understanding. You are saying that Mr Ras was present?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR HUGO: Both Mr Ras and Mr Vermeulen say that Mr De Kock referred to more than one person who had to be eliminated during this discussion. Are you aware of that?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR HUGO: Now this all happened quite a long time ago. Is it possible that you are simply making a mistake and that Mr De Kock in fact referred to more than one person to be eliminated?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I am sure that he said that there were members of the security branch although here I only mention an Askari.

MR HUGO: So your statement in this connection is not entirely correct, there was reference to more than one person?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR HUGO: I just briefly want to deal with the leave aspect. Were you at that stage aware that the Harmse Commission was on the point of commencing its inquiry?

MR SNYMAN: Now that my memory has been refreshed, I can recall that.

MR HUGO: Were you aware of the fact that Mr De Kock was at that stage on suspension?

MR SNYMAN: I knew he was on leave, but he was still on the farm.

MR HUGO: Did you know that this so-called leave or suspension was just a trick of the generals to try and create a certain impression amongst members of the public and the Press?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I think I can recall something like that, but I can't remember specific dates.

MR HUGO: The Makarov pistol to which you referred, can you recall where it came from?

MR SNYMAN: It came from the stores of Vlakplaas.

MR HUGO: And just very briefly, the weapons in these stores, where did that come from?

MR SNYMAN: It came from Ovamboland.

MR HUGO: Mr Snyman, information came to us via yourself, after the applications had already been lodged, and I would like to take up this issue. Is it true that you in the recent past have had contact with Mr De Kock and told him that you in respect of a person working at head office in this period and before this operation, that you had heard from this person that tea or coffee had been taken to an office where generals were busy conducting a meeting and that this person then told you that he or she had overheard a conversation in which the generals had said that De Kock should be eliminated?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I have, somebody told me that.

MR HUGO: And is it correct that at this stage you didn't want to divulge the identity of this person who told you this, but if necessary, you will do so?

MR SNYMAN: I do not want to divulge it at the moment. It could endanger the person's life.

MR HUGO: And this information you passed on to Mr De Kock?

MR LAMEY OBJECTS: Chairperson, at this stage I just want to come in here. It sounds like a very sensitive question to me. I don't know what the relevance is at the moment.

MR HUGO: Chairperson, the relevance is once again, to indicate what the dilemma is in which Mr De Kock found himself when he was given the orders to carry out the operation.

ADV DE JAGER: Yes, but Mr De Kock said that he was actually acting under coercion because he couldn't refuse. In this specific case he was convinced that the order was in the national interest.

MR HUGO: Yes, the only reason why I am trying to place the evidence on record, is simply to sketch the background as to the dilemma he found himself in. You then conveyed this information to Mr De Kock, is that correct?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just want to say that I think that this aspect is simply not relevant at this stage, and Mr De Kock also did not testify about this during the proceedings. It is a bit of an embarrassment for us at this stage. It has taken us by surprise. We have heard about it now for the firs time.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't see in what respect it is embarrassing to you. He is not even wanting to know the name of the person.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, De Kock testified and it was not mentioned at any stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Your client is the best source, not Mr De Kock, in regard to this bit of information, De Kock is not the best source. Your client is the best source. In the absence of that other person who informed your client.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson.

MR HUGO: I don't want to take the matter any further, Chairperson. I simply wanted to sketch the circumstances in which Mr De Kock operated at the time. In fact, I have no further questions.

ADV DE JAGER: Just to clarify something here. When was this conversation meant to have taken place, the one overheard in the tea room? Was it during those days or was it yesterday or was it three months ago or what is the position?

MR SNYMAN: The conversation took place before the Motherwell operation and when the Harmse Commission was about to start proceedings.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Snyman, do you know when that conversation took place?

MR SNYMAN: I think it could have been during that time, I can't recall a specific date.

ADV DE JAGER: When did you hear about this conversation?

MR SNYMAN: It was some time during those days.

ADV DE JAGER: Why didn't you immediately tell Mr De Kock about this?

MR SNYMAN: I did immediately inform him, as soon as I received that information, because this person asked me to convey to De Kock immediately.

ADV DE JAGER: So the information you gave him immediately?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, as soon as it was given to me.

MR HUGO: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens?

MR BOOYENS: No questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BOOYENS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen?

MR JANSEN: On behalf of applicant Ras, no questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius. On behalf of the seventh applicant, Vermeulen, no questions, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Kemp?

MR KEMP: Mr Chairman, on behalf of the fifth and six applicants, no questions, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR KEMP

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ford?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FORD

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Snyman, your home language is Afrikaans.

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR FORD: I am going to read you certain portions in Afrikaans and therefore my questions to you will be in Afrikaans.

When did this post-traumatic stress syndrome that you are suffering from, when did it develop?

MR SNYMAN: It was during 1993.

MR FORD: And during 1995, what was your condition in that year?

MR SNYMAN: I felt that I was improving.

MR FORD: When the statement in your application, a statement by Mr Mark Wale, the investigation officer in the Motherwell case?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR FORD: The statement was taken during August of 1995?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR FORD: And you were much better at that stage?

MR SNYMAN: Correct.

MR FORD: And when did you testify in the Motherwell case?

MR SNYMAN: I can't remember the specific date, but I am sure it is on record.

MR FORD: As I understand the judgment of Mr Justice Van Rensburg, you spent a long time in the witness box and you were questioned by a senior advocate acting for the defence?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR FORD: Is it true, Mr Snyman, that when you testified, you testified on the basis of the information in the statement?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR FORD: During your testimony you testified that Mr Lotz was present as appears on page 68(f). Would you please look at your statement, Mr Snyman. 68(f), paragraph five.

MR SNYMAN: That's correct.

MR FORD: You there refer to your arrival at the house in Port Elizabeth, and you say

"On our arrival there, there were already some people there, and as far as I can remember Gert Lotz, Carl Edwards and a short stocky colonel with light brown hair were at the house."

MR SNYMAN: That is how I can recall that.

MR FORD: You then continue in paragraph six, you say

"The next morning Deon Nieuwoudt came to fetch us at the house and from there we went to the security head office, where we fetched a white Jetta motorcar. Nieuwoudt or Lotz drove the white Jetta. From there we went to the farm. We all arrived there together. It was myself, Snor, Ras, Waal du Toit, Kobus Kok, Nieuwoudt and Lotz."

MR SNYMAN: That is correct.

MR FORD: "Waal du Toit, Kok, Nieuwoudt and Lotz

were busy concealing explosives in the white Jetta." Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR FORD: Is it correct that you constantly referred to Lotz's involvement before the night on which the white Jetta had been delivered at the particular point?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I mentioned his name.

MR FORD: You did not only mention his name, you testified as to his involvement.

MR SNYMAN: Correct.

MR FORD: And you stood by that during the criminal trial?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR FORD: It is also true that if we turn to page 68(h) - the Chairperson read some of this to you, but I just want to read the whole portion, because I am going to put it to you that there is a very clear impression created by this. I am starting from the fifth line, in the middle of the fifth line

"We immediately drove back to Pretoria, although halfway we stopped to sleep a little bit. The next day we arrived at Vlakplaas and reported to De Kock. He was told that the operation had been carried out successfully. De Kock thanked us and added that we should keep it quiet. I later learnt that there was a fourth person in the car. Initially there would only have been three, but apparently the fourth person was a friend of the person who had caused the problems."

There is no mention here of the fact that this was a different person, a person who Mr Nieuwoudt had been looking for and he couldn't find and that the explanation that he was present in the car - it was clear that Mr Nieuwoudt had found him. There is no mention of that here. Do you agree?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR FORD: Am I correct in saying that during the trial that is how you testified? You did not in any way testify along the lines of the explanation which you have today given to the Chairperson. You didn't give that during the criminal trial?

MR LAMEY OBJECTS: I have got the record of the Motherwell, the evidence of Mr Snyman available and I can hand it over to my learned friend.

MR FORD: Mr Chairman, I will say immediately, this is why I asked him it was correct. I have not had an opportunity to peruse the record. I was going on instructions, certain instructions which I was given. If my learned friend assures me that - I'm sorry, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I was going to say that because I don't know, something went wrong with the sound system at some point. I was waiting to hear you, whether you were going to say, to tell us how he testified. Whether what Mr Ford is putting to the witness is not in accord with the record as you have it or not?

MR LAMEY: Yes, I just wanted to point out that I have the record here and I have given, also now marked the page to my learned friend, where reference to that specific aspect, as I see it, from the record, was made by Mr Snyman in his evidence in the Motherwell case.

CHAIRPERSON: In what context? In the context that the witness is saying indeed or in the context in which Mr Ford says he didn't?

MR LAMEY: Well, Mr Chairman, I just ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: What does he say?

MR LAMEY: I cannot, I can - we can read it to the Committee from the page which I have now handed over.

MR FORD: Mr Chairman, I will be grateful if my learned friend would, because I certainly don't read into it, on my quick reading of it, what he appears to read into it.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, read it to us so that we could know what he said?

MR LAMEY: Yes. I just want to read on page 369 of the verbatim record

"When did you hear about more than one person who is busy causing the problem?

That was during the course of the evening when I heard that there was more than one person who was a friend of the other person.

It was also previously said that there was a specific one, but that he had sources working with him, but it was more than one who had been causing the problem and it turned on one specific person."

Further on, on page 370, mention is made -

"No, there was speculation on the previous day whether they would all be together or whether it was only the one person. I can't say exactly when that was."

CHAIRPERSON: For my part I am not sure whether what you have read is neutral to the point or whether it takes it one way or the other. I think - I tried my best earlier on to get - I earlier started canvassing this point with the witness, but I didn't succeed in clarifying this matter. And I think perhaps - it is up to you.

MR FORD: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I would certainly like to try and get it cleared up.

Mr Snyman, I am putting it to you once again, that from the extract which your legal representative has read, there is no mention there of the fact that the evidence in the statement, that it was wrong and that Mr Nieuwoudt had actually been looking for somebody and that therefore there would be four people in the car and not only three, as you would have expected.

MR SNYMAN: That is the way I - the story was that there were three people and that they were looking for one.

MR FORD: Did you hear my statement to you, Mr Snyman, that you didn't mention it like that during the trial?

MR SNYMAN: I suppose I didn't mention it. It wasn't asked of me, it wasn't relevant at that stage. I have no reason to try and omit any facts. I testified against these people, what was said was said. The statement was written and the statement was taken by Mr Wale in regard to specific information which they wanted.

MR FORD: You were not very ill when the statement was taken? You were in your sound and sober senses.

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I am normally.

MR FORD: Now why you are now testifying before the Committee that the evidence regarding Mr Lotz's involvement, that that testimony was a mistake. It has been clarified that he was not available or he wasn't present at that stage.

MR SNYMAN: I believe that he was present and that's why I said so.

MR FORD: So why are you saying it is a mistake if you believed that he was there?

MR SNYMAN: Because apparently it was pointed out by all the other people that that was a mistake and that Mr Lotz only arrived at a later stage as everybody else testified. I could have made that mistake and I admit that I made a mistake there. But that is what I believed at that stage and that's what I said.

MR FORD: You see, Mr Snyman, I want to read portions of the judgment of Mr Justice Van Rensburg regarding your evidence and it is on page 532.

"The State witness Snyman made a favourable impression on us in the witness box. We are very well aware of the fact that Snyman, on his own admission, have made false affidavits in the past in relation to operations in which he has been involved and which could have criminal consequences for him."

And then the next page, the top of the page, the third line, after the learned Judge had dealt with the criticism against the evidence, he said -

"We are of the view that there are no valid reasons for this criticism, notwithstanding the fact that Snyman was subjected to protracted and very thorough cross-examination by a senior advocate. He remained calm and in control of himself in the witness box."

And then the next page, 534 -

"In this context it is important and significant that Snyman gave a very comprehensive statement covering all operations which he gave to the investigating team. According to Snyman the Motherwell operation was also mentioned in that statement, but not dealt with in any detail. The taking of a detailed statement in this context was left to Inspect Wales."

Now is that true, that at that stage you also made a very detailed statement about all the other matters?

MR SNYMAN: No, about the matters mentioned here? No. There was no such detailed statements taken at that stage in connection with all the incidents.

MR FORD: I am talking about the Judge's words, that Snyman gave a comprehensive statement dealing with a number of operations. Did you make such a statement?

MR SNYMAN: I made a statement at that stage relating to certain things in which I had been involved and I think one or two things in which they were very interested in, and I perhaps dealt with that in more detail, but there was no comprehensive statement relating to all incidents.

MR FORD: So was the Judge wrong when he said that?

MR SNYMAN: I suppose that he just accepted that that had been one, but I am sure that at that stage there were still statements outstanding. I'm sorry, I also mentioned that there were still cases in which I might be involved and at that stage I hadn't yet given all the information to the Commission, which I had already given to the Attorney-General as a result of the fact that there could still be outstanding cases against me.

MR FORD: I want to read two further extracts from the judgment. On page 537, second paragraph

"We, therefore came to the conclusion that Snyman is a credible witness and one on whose testimony one can rely completely."

And on 565, Mr Snyman, second paragraph -

"That brings us to accused number 2, that is Mr Lotz. His position is different to accused number 1. In his case Vermeulen did not implicate him in the commission of the offences and he did not place him on the scene where the Jetta was placed full of explosives and he did not identify him as being present on the scene of the explosion. So there is therefore only the testimony of Snyman, which implicates him in the commission of the offence. There is, however, no corroborating evidence for the evidence of Snyman which implicates him and accordingly, we have doubt as to whether accused number 2's guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and we, therefore ..."

I can't read the rest of the sentence.

What I am putting to you is that the, according to the Judge your evidence was that Mr Lotz had been involved both on the previous day and at the farm, in connection with the explosives.

MR SNYMAN: That's what I believe. It happened a couple of years ago. Mr Lotz was there. I identified him and that what I said there I said, and I stood by that, and I believe that is correct, because that is what I could remember.

MR FORD: Although he accepted the evidence because there was no corroborating evidence, he gave Mr Lotz the benefit of the doubt?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, apparently.

MR FORD: Now I want to ask you, Mr Snyman, once again, why do you say it was a mistake, if you are still of the firm belief and after you have been cross-examined and where Mr Vermeulen did not corroborate your version, why are you saying it was a mistake?

MR SNYMAN: There was more evidence here which made it clear that he wasn't present and involved in that way. So my memory is not a hundred per cent, I admit that. There are certain things which will differ, and I wasn't trying to conceal anything, I didn't want to falsely implicate Mr Lotz.

MR FORD: As far as I can recall, you were not available here, you were not present for a couple of days. Did you hear all the other evidence here?

MR SNYMAN: I was not present yesterday.

MR FORD: Was it only yesterday?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR FORD: I'm sorry. Now you also heard Mr De Kock's evidence that there was mention of two members and an Askari, as it was called, that needed to be eliminated.

MR SNYMAN: I wasn't present yesterday when he testified.

MR FORD: Well, I am putting it to you that that was his evidence. You were here when I cross-examined Mr Nieuwoudt and put it to him like that, that that appears in the application of Mr De Kock. Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: I can recall something like that. I asked Mr Nieuwoudt whether the possibility could possibly exist that a fourth person in that car was simply there at the wrong place at the wrong time, and that he was killed, because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. What are your comments?

MR SNYMAN: I couldn't say that, because as I have already said, I had heard that there were Askaris or one Askari and three police members. Now that makes four.

MR FORD: That's what you are saying now, Mr Snyman, but in your sworn statement which you made to the investigating officer you didn't say that.

MR SNYMAN: Here I am saying that there would have been three initially, but apparently the fourth person was a friend. In other words of the group involved. He was a friend of the person who was causing the trouble. So he was part of them, and that is how I arrived at the number of four, but he wasn't available. You see, as I said, there was one person short and there would only have been three, and after we had already arrived at the scene, the fourth person arrived. I don't know exactly how what happened there, I wasn't there at that stage. I didn't know the finer detail about the operation. As you know not everything was revealed to us. So what happened there and how it happened, I don't know. I didn't know the people.

MR FORD: Would you agree with me, Mr Snyman, that the first time that you now are telling us this, is today?

MR SNYMAN: No, I don't believe that.

MR FORD: But then when did you come up with this explanation beforehand?

MR SNYMAN: Well, I said there that another person arrived as well.

MR FORD: But you said there would only have been three.

MR SNYMAN: I said there were only three. There were three people that afternoon or whenever, in the course of the day. That is what I understood that there were three people who were there already, and as I said, there was another person they were looking for or something like that. I didn't make those arrangements and I don't know how the whole story fitted together.

CHAIRPERSON: We mustn't be childish here.

MR SNYMAN: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: We musn't put up some childish arguments here. What do you mean, when you say the fourth person was a friend, how can you say to us that because he was a friend of that other person, you also - you took him also to be one of the people who gave information to the ANC?

MR SNYMAN: By friend, I mean, in the group that was giving information to the ANC.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but you are separating him. You have got three on the one side and you have got one person, the fourth person on the other side. The three would be the people who would be giving the information to the ANC and you separate the fourth person, that's why you speak of the fourth person. You have just spoken of four people. And the fourth person and you separate him, you say he was a friend of the other one.

MR SNYMAN: We ...

CHAIRPERSON: That cannot mean that - now you are trying to say to us that by saying, by reason of the fact that he was a friend to one of those people, that also means that he was giving information to the ANC.

MR SNYMAN: That is what I understood, your Honour.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, why didn't you say four people who gave information to the ANC, full stop?

MR SNYMAN: That is what I mean.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that is not what you mean here.

MR SNYMAN: Sorry, it was misunderstood but ...

MR FORD: Mr Snyman, you understand that the whole purpose of this questioning is to place all the relevant facts before the Committee?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that's what I am trying to do.

MR FORD: And then what I am putting to you is that the facts which you are revealing today on this point, and as far as Mr Lotz's involvement is concerned, that that is not the truth which you are emerging with today.

MR SNYMAN: I have to tell the truth. I have said everything which I could. The fact that they said that Mr Lotz was there, that is proof of the fact that I didn't have the correct belief at the time. That is what I believed at the time but it was wrong. It was a mistake and I admit it.

What I said about Mr Lotz was a mistake, but I did believe it, otherwise I wouldn't have put it in my statement, and then I wouldn't have said what I am saying today.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you at any stage give the impression to the Court during the criminal trial that you were uncertain as to the part played by Mr Lotz or his presence? Did you ever convey that uncertainty at the trial?

MR SNYMAN: I did the best, tried to keep to what I had there, because I was at that time confronted with so much that I couldn't remember that there was something wrong with me, I tried to keep to my statement as well as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: And you are testifying a couple of years after the incident?

MR SNYMAN: That is correct, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: I appreciate that, but did you at some stage indicate to the Court that you could be wrong with regard to Mr Lotz? Did you ever convey that to the Court?

MR SNYMAN: I don't think I did.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it at some stage put to you by counsel for Mr Lotz, that Mr Lotz will deny those allegations?

MR SNYMAN: I think it was a few people that said that they deny my allegations.

CHAIRPERSON: And what was your reply when it was put to you that Mr Lotz will deny this and will deny these allegations, what was your response to that?

MR SNYMAN: I said that is what I believed in, that is what I believe that I could remember that I put down.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't say to them well, it is maybe that I am wrong, you didn't say that, did you?

MR SNYMAN: I can't remember what I said at that moment any more, Sir.

MR FORD: Let us approach this matter from another point of view. Your evidence or what is contained in the annexure, that is page 68(e), you are referring to what happened at Vlakplaas and in the last three sentences it is said, it is also mentioned that there was an Askari in Port Elizabeth causing problems and something had to be done about it. It was said that money was stolen and he was a danger for the members of the security branch there, and that they suspect that he wanted to defect to the ANC. Is that all that was mentioned to you at that stage at Vlakplaas?

MR SNYMAN: No, it was not mentioned that he had stolen money, no. It was mentioned specifically that there were people who were leaking information to the ANC and those people were going to defect to the ANC.

MR FORD: Why didn't you mention it in your statement, Mr Snyman?

MR SNYMAN: You are asking me, I can't remember. That was what I said. You are asking me now, this is what statement I made. I have said what I believed in and that is what I have mentioned. On our journey Mr Nieuwoudt explained the rest of the detail and all the information was not conveyed to me at Vlakplaas specifically. While I was driving down to PE with Mr Nieuwoudt and when we switched the vehicles he gave me certain information. I can't remember what was what.

MR FORD: Now I don't understand your evidence. You say you can't remember what was what, but you say at that stage mention was made of the leakage of information to the ANC. What is what?

MR SNYMAN: Definitely at Vlakplaas it was told to us that it was a very serious situation that information was leaked by these specific people at Port Elizabeth to the ANC. And that was why it was so urgent to leave immediately. At a certain stage it was also mentioned, the money was also mentioned, which had illegally or used by these people for their own gain. I can't remember at which stage or in which order it was said.

INTERPRETER: The speaker is inaudible.

MR FORD: Mr Snyman, you are mentioning other people who are involved. In your statement you only mentioned an Askari at that stage.

MR SNYMAN: What I am saying is, I said in my statement, I mentioned an Askari. It was specifically told me that there at Vlakplaas, they mentioned specifically an Askari causing problems. I can't remember specifically the sequence of the events but definitely reference was made to more people being involved. The other people were members of the security branch. There is a difference between an Askari and a member of the security branch. As I recollect it, the Askari caused the problem at that stage. I can't unfortunately give you more clarity regarding the sequence of events, but as a whole I tried to convey what I am conveying to the Committee.

MR FORD: Where did Mr Nieuwoudt give you further details regarding where, when and what?

MR SNYMAN: That was in the car driving to Port Elizabeth from Pretoria.

MR FORD: But you are not telling the truth, because you did not drive down with him.

MR SNYMAN: We switched cars on our way. Snor and I were not in the same car the whole way. At a certain stage I was in a car with Mr Nieuwoudt, because we switched cars. We did that at a specific stage of the journey. That was where I obtained my information. De Kock also said, had said that Nieuwoudt would give us further information.

MR FORD: This is also something wrong in your statement, Mr Snyman, that the two of you travelled together.

MR LAMEY OBJECTS: On page 68(f) it is stated

"We travelled and on our way we switched cars."

That is what is written.

MR FORD: I beg your pardon, that was like that. I withdraw this question. I am sorry for that.

Mr Snyman, there where you changed the vehicle, how far were you away?

MR SNYMAN: I was about 40, 50 metres from there.

MR FORD: This Mr Lotz, did you know him well at that stage?

MR SNYMAN: I did not know him well but I have seen him before.

MR FORD: Where had you seen him before?

MR SNYMAN: It could have been on the stage that they were involved in Koevoet and when he came to Pretoria.

MR FORD: There where you changed or you gave over the vehicle, was it dark then?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, it was dark.

MR FORD: Could you recognise the people then involved in handing over the vehicle?

MR SNYMAN: From where I was sitting I could not recognise these people.

MR FORD: Did you see whether they arrived there with the white Jetta?

MR SNYMAN: The white Jetta came there, Mr Lotz drove the Jetta, because we talked to him.

MR FORD: Because you have no doubt that it was Mr Lotz who brought the Jetta there. What was Mr Lotz's involved in handing over this vehicle, did you discuss something?

MR SNYMAN: The white Jetta was given to the deceased and Mr Lotz had to return with the Kombi.

MR FORD: Was this arranged beforehand?

MR SNYMAN: I think so, I did not make that arrangement. It was made by Mr Nieuwoudt or Mr Lotz.

MR FORD: How long, did they have a conversation while this handing over took place?

MR SNYMAN: It was just a question of a few minutes.

MR FORD: Did you see whether Mr Lotz was involved in this discussion?

MR SNYMAN: I can't say that he was involved in this conversation, because I couldn't hear it.

MR FORD: Then this Kombi left driven by Mr Lotz and then the Jetta departed, driven by one of the deceased, and how far from this point of handing over did the explosion take place?

MR SNYMAN: About a 100 metres.

MR FORD: Was the Kombi still in sight, could you see it?

MR SNYMAN: No, we couldn't see it any more.

MR FORD: Did the Kombi leave a while before the Jetta or did they depart simultaneously?

MR SNYMAN: I can't remember precisely, I think it left a bit earlier. Not a long time, it was just a question of a few minutes beforehand.

MR FORD: When this explosion had taken place I understand your evidence, did you and Mr Ras go there quickly, and there you found Mr Nieuwoudt. That must have happened within a few seconds or a few minutes at the most.

MR SNYMAN: It was within a few minutes. Not a few seconds, but a very short time.

MR FORD: As I understand the Kombi came back quickly and it was still driven by Mr Lotz, and what happened then?

MR SNYMAN: We got into the Kombi and we went to Mr Vermeulen where the other vehicles were standing.

MR FORD: You got into the Kombi without discussing anything?

MR SNYMAN: We knew that he would take us back to our vehicles.

MR FORD: If this had been planned beforehand, arranged beforehand and then Mr Lotz knew about this operation which were taking place?

MR SNYMAN: I do not know how much he knew.

MR FORD: Let's go back. He arrived there, he got into the vehicle without talking and you drive away?

MR SNYMAN: This is what I remembered.

MR FORD: Then he had to know what was going on. He knew beforehand what was happening.

MR SNYMAN: I believe he did know beforehand, yes.

MR FORD: He did not jump from the Kombi, ran to Nieuwoudt and ask what was going on, what explosion had happened there, what was going on?

MR SNYMAN: I can't remember that he did that. I can't remember that. I did not see him doing that. I would say we got into the Kombi and we drove off. I did not see him talking to Mr Nieuwoudt.

MR FORD: Where did you go to?

MR SNYMAN: We went to where our vehicles were hidden.

MR FORD: Did Mr Lotz know where those vehicles were?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, he knew that was hidden on another path.

MR FORD: You went there directly? It was not necessary to indicate to him where the vehicles were?

MR SNYMAN: I don't know Mr Ras told him, I did not.

MR FORD: Mr Snyman, you were in the car.

MR SNYMAN: I cannot remember that I told him that in which direction he had to drive.

MR FORD: You would remember it if you did that; you were with him and you would remember if Mr Ras had told him that?

MR SNYMAN: I was with him, but I can't remember Mr Ras telling him anything.

MR FORD: Then we have somebody like Mr Lotz arriving there, asking no questions, you got into the Kombi and you drove directly to where your cars were hidden.

MR SNYMAN: That is how I remember that. Because he was still sitting in the Kombi when we got into it. Whether beforehand he got into the Kombi, I don't know, but when I got into the Kombi he was sitting there already.

MR FORD: And at no stage in the Kombi he asked you what was going on here; what was the explosion, what had happened?

MR SNYMAN: If he asked that we would have told him but he did not, I can't remember. No, I can't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Not too many people ask a lot of questions, Mr Ford.

MR FORD: Well, yes, Mr Chairman, but this in stark contrast to the evidence of Mr Lotz, who said he had arrived there, he had no idea what had happened and he had to ask Mr Nieuwoudt and be given certain assurances in that regard. That is the point I am making, Mr Chairman. You will bear with me, Mr Chairman?

One last aspect, Mr Snyman. When you arrived in Port Elizabeth, while you were driving to Port Elizabeth, Mr Nieuwoudt explained to you exactly what was going to happen and who were the people who were involved. Is that correct?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, he explained to us that the people were members of the security branch, working with him.

MR FORD: Did he at any stage mention the names or the identity of the people?

MR SNYMAN: No, I did not know them at all.

MR FORD: Did you know that this operation was intended to kill colleagues?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, that had been told to us in Pretoria already.

MR FORD: Who told that to you in Pretoria?

MR SNYMAN: Mr De Kock.

MR FORD: Where did that happen?

MR SNYMAN: At Vlakplaas.

MR FORD: Do you remember that now?

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

MR FORD: I see. Did you have any problem with that?

MR SNYMAN: It was a very serious thing to consider to think that such drastic steps had to be taken.

MR FORD: Did you ever consider to ask whether there was no other way?

MR SNYMAN: If Col De Kock and Nieuwoudt had come from head office and Col De Kock had already explained the urgency and that it had already been cleared with head office, I would not doubt it and question Mr Nieuwoudt about this again.

MR FORD: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FORD

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

MR BRINK: No, thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Snyman, let me take you back to page 68(h).

MR SNYMAN: 68(h)?

CHAIRPERSON: Now apparently I was wrong in placing the events in the correct sequence, because if you look in the middle of paragraph (ix) or rather at the top of paragraph (ix), you speak of the Jetta and you take us to or you tell us about what happened after the explosion and that thereafter you people went back to Pretoria and reported to Mr De Kock, which brings me to the sentence

"We arrived at Vlakplaas the following day and reported to De Kock. We told him that the order had been completed successfully. He thanked us."

And what confused me was as follows:

"I later found out ..."

Now because you had already taken us back to Pretoria and to Vlakplaas, I thought when you say "ek het later verneem" (I later found out), I thought you meant your learnt about the fourth person only when you were already back in Pretoria. I thought you are conveying that it was in fact after you had already reported to De Kock when you learnt about the fact that there was a fourth person in the vehicle. Is my impression wrong?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, Sir, because I did know, it was said to me at some stage or if it was not said to me directly, just before the operation, before the actual explosion took place, was that a fourth person had also arrived.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, in the way that you have been giving a narration of the events, this portion is misplaced.

MR SNYMAN: It could be ...

CHAIRPERSON: It should have come a little bit earlier.

MR SNYMAN: Yes. It could be, it could have been earlier. Perhaps it was just before we went to go and hide away.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes?

MR SNYMAN: Behind the bush, that it may have been given then at that time or that it was given at the time when we went back to Mr Nieuwoudt to go and look at the scene. I mean, that is what I mean "ek het later ..." ... (intervention).

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but why does it found itself at the wrong place?

MR SNYMAN: If I recall it, it must be that at the time of the writing of the statement that Mr Wale may have asked at that time when did I learn about, when did I hear about the fourth one. I cannot explain it, but as I say I came to hear of it at the very end, at the moment it was about to happen.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, it is a little bit puzzling to me.

MR SNYMAN: Sorry?

CHAIRPERSON: It is a little bit puzzling to me that; that's why I understood it in the way that I did earlier on when I asked you questions. Because, if what you are telling us is correct, then this portion is misplaced, it should have come a little bit earlier on. You understand my problem?

MR SNYMAN: I understand the problem, Sir, but what I am explaining is what I believe.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Now let us look at that very last sentence

"There would have been three initially, but obviously supposedly the fourth person was a friend."

Did somebody tell you that the fourth one was a friend or another?

MR SNYMAN: Using the term "friend", the term here "friend" I mean, it is one of the group of, that was involved.

CHAIRPERSON: We have already dealt with that. I have already dealt with that, and it is not what I am asking you.

MR SNYMAN: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: What I am asking you, is when you say "blykbaar, "blykbaar was die vierde persoon" (apparently, apparently there was a fourth person) on what basis do you say that? That he was a friend, in whatever sense you want to define "friend" here. On what basis do you say the fourth person was a friend? Why do you say that? Did somebody tell you or did you come across the facts which suggest that "blykbaar die vierde person was 'n vriend" (apparently the fourth person was a friend).

MR SNYMAN: I don't mean it as a friend, he was part of the group which gave the information. If he was a personal friend of that one is not what I mean, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: In whatever sense you mean, who told you that he was a friend? I am trying to find out. You say "blykbaar was die vierde persoon 'n vriend". (Apparently the fourth one was a friend). In whatever sense that you can define him, who gave you that information?

MR SNYMAN: I must have heard it from Mr Nieuwoudt.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Lamey, do you want to re-examine? Do you wish to re-examine?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Just one question, Mr Chairman. Mr Snyman, you heard during questioning that your evidence in the Motherwell trial and also in your statement also referred to the involvement of Mr Lotz. Can you explain to us today, while you are giving evidence here, do you doubt that fact, and if you are in doubt, will you tell us what you ascribe this to?

MR SNYMAN: As I have said I apparently was wrong regarding Mr Lotz's involvement, but like I have explained the sequence of events, Mr Lotz was not present so much as Mr Nieuwoudt. That was why under the circumstances I became confused.

MR LAMEY: To what would you ascribe this problem?

MR SNYMAN: Because I have already said Mr Lotz was there the previous evening while he was not there actually.

MR LAMEY: Maybe you don't understand the question correctly.

To what would you ascribe the fact that you perhaps are making a mistake today; does it have anything to do with your loss of memory perhaps?

MR SNYMAN: It could be.

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Mr Chairman, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Snyman, are you saying that the reason why you doubt the correctness of your own version with regards to Mr Lotz, is because a number of people say something different?

MR SNYMAN: It could be so, that is why I accept that I made a mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: What makes you think it is a mistake?

MR SNYMAN: The reason that Mr Lotz said that he was not there, two other people also said that he was not there, and he was acquitted in court as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, just because Mr Lotz says he wasn't there and a few other people say the same thing, then you begin to think that you are wrong?

MR SNYMAN: That's correct. I accept that I was wrong.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you wrong?

MR SNYMAN: (No audible reply).

CHAIRPERSON: Were you wrong?

MR SNYMAN: I hope I was not, cannot be said I was wrong. I specifically believe what I said at that time, what I am saying I believe is what I know at the moment. I believe it.

CHAIRPERSON: What is it that you know at the moment, that you believe in?

MR SNYMAN: That what I am saying is right and what I said at the inquest that Mr Lotz was involved and it has come out that he is not involved, may be my mistake.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you still believe that what you are saying is right?

MR SNYMAN: I believe what I am saying is right.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you see if you are really sure of what you are saying, Mr Snyman, I would expect you, notwithstanding the fact that Mr Lotz might deny it, I would expect you to have the courage to stand by your conviction, to stand by what you believe in.

MR SNYMAN: That is what I tried to do, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, do you stand by any conviction with regard to Mr Lotz at the moment?

MR SNYMAN: Yes, I still believe that he was there as it was out now.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, which of the psychologists are available?

MR LAMEY: I am sorry, Mr Chairman, I did not hear the question?

ADV DE JAGER: Which of the psychologists are available here?

MR LAMEY: Mr Russel Matthews is available.

CHAIRPERSON: When did they consult with the witness, do you remember, off-hand?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, are you referring to the psychologists?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. I see he consulted with Mr Matthews or at least the report is dated 27 June 1997 and Mr Roberts' report is also, I hope I am coming through the machines - Mr Roberts' report is also dated 1997, that is May, 10th of May 1997 and Mr Grove's report July, this year, as well.

ADV DE JAGER: Ja, I see that Matthews - well, knows him since 1993. At that stage he was consulted and analysed.

And your client was taken up in Weskoppies?

MR LAMEY: That is correct, those are my instructions.

ADV DE JAGER: For how long was he there?

MR LAMEY: I have no clear instructions, but this aspect was also mentioned during evidence in the Motherwell trial. I can take instructions from the psychologist to determine how long he was in Weskoppies.

Mr Chairman, the psychologist instructed me that he was at Weskoppies for seven days in 1994. And since then, he is under medication, and under treatment from Mr Matthews. Regarding the dates of the reports there are earlier reports in possession of the psychologist. These attached reports, as I see, those are the latest reports regarding his condition. And that's why we have these later dates as reflected.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Snyman, you may step down.

MR SNYMAN: Thank you, Sir.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Unless somebody tells us otherwise, we will take it that each applicant has now closed his case?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, Mr De Jager has asked the question whether the psychologist is available. If the Committee feels that I should call him, then I will do so.

CHAIRPERSON: I have my own observations to make in this regard, but let me confer with my colleagues.

Well, for our part as the Committee, we have the copies of the reports and for our part we don't see the need to call that particular witness. But it is not for us to tell you how you should conduct your matter, and for our part we don't as yet see the need to call those experts. We don't certainly think that there will be a need for us to hear the evidence.

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman. May I just take instructions?

Mr Chairman, I have taken instructions, thank you very much. I think it is not going to be necessary to present his evidence, it is contained in the reports, and the psychologist wishes to emphasise that one of the results of this syndrome, namely the post-traumatic stress syndrome have the effect that the witness' memory is affected by that. I refer specifically to the report on page 68(d) that this stress-related condition is aggravated by stress factors such as appearing before courts or councils, and that Mr Snyman's condition has also deteriorated after he testified in the Motherwell trial. I mention this specifically should this aspect of the psychologist will be tested by any other legal counsel or family member, and then the psychologist will be able to respond.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Anyway, you indicated this morning that the witnesses - including this witness as well - are available for anybody who wants to have them called into the witness box and we heard you. Thank you very much.

Mr Brink, do you have any witnesses to call?

MR BRINK: No, Mr Chairman, I have no witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ford?

MR FORD: Mr Chairman, I wonder if I could ask a short indulgence from the Committee at this stage. Only five minutes is all I ask. I have taken preliminary instructions. I don't think they would have changed, but just in the light of certain of the evidence this morning, I would like a brief opportunity just to consult finally with my clients and I don't anticipate calling any witnesses at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: All right. We will adjourn then for a few minutes.

MR FORD: Thank you.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ford?

MR FORD: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am indebted to you for that indulgence. I have consulted with Mrs Mgoduka and Mrs Faku, Mr Chairman, and they do not feel that they are in a position to give any evidence directly relevant to the relevant facts of the applications, to merely stand up and express their grief, would probably serve no purpose and would be extremely distressing. They do not wish to testify, Mr Chairman, and I do not intend calling any other witnesses.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, that concludes the evidence in the applications that we have been hearing. Gentlemen, I understand that each one of you prefer to submit written argument, and like we indicated in chambers, such written argument should be received by the 30th of November, to enable us to come to a conclusion with regards to all these applications. Is there anything anyone would still like to possibly place on record before we finally adjourn? And before anyone would like to do so, I would like to appeal to the public to please leave the head-phones on the chairs when you leave the hall. So that in future other people would still be able to make use of them, particularly, because I understand there will be yet another hearing next week. So let those who come next week still find that there are some head-phones to be used.

It seems to me there is nothing to be placed on record or anything to be added. We thank everybody for having helped us in running these proceedings smoothly and we also want to appreciate the co-operation from the public. The matter is therefore adjourned.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS