Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: October, the 7th. We are still busy with Mr Lotz.

GERHARDUS JOHANNES LOTZ:: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV LAMEY: (cont)

Mr Lotz, I want to start by putting the versions of the two applicants whom I represent here, what their evidence will be.

Firstly, I think that I have already put it to you that they drove their vehicle themselves from Glenconnor to the point where they met the other persons, and now I am referring to the other members of the Security Branch. So they drove themselves from Glenconnor to Port Elizabeth. That is not your version, is it?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV DE JAGER: I am sorry Mr Lamey, who drove the vehicle?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Koole drove the vehicle. Did you hear the statement?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: From that point, that is the point near the Security Branch, which is also close to the railway station, another vehicle was followed right up to the airport and at the airport Captain Venter told them at one stage, just after they had parked in the area, that they had to park a little bit further away from the airport and later Captain Venter told them that they - can't you hear the question?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV LAMEY: It seems to be a problem Mr Chairperson. Can you hear now? Can you hear me now? I will just repeat my statement to you. At the airport after they arrived there, and parked the minibus, Captain Venter came to them and showed them where they had to park the minibus?

MR LOTZ: That is not how I saw these things happening.

ADV LAMEY: Their testimony is also that while they were standing there, they saw how four to five white men, amongst others, Captain Venter move towards the entrance of the airport building and that at one stage, three persons arrived there and there was movement around these three people and they were then apparently in a normal manner, taken to the minibus and the three people then got into the minibus?

MR LOTZ: That is not true.

ADV LAMEY: They will testify further that from there the vehicle was driven to a forest path nearby?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: At one stage one or two white men, but this time not Captain Venter, I am saying that it is not Captain Venter or Beeslaar, took over the driving of the minibus?

MR LOTZ: Not according to what I can remember.

ADV LAMEY: And from there this person, or a certain white man, unknown to them, drove the bus to Post Chalmers.

MR LOTZ: I was not present.

ADV LAMEY: They will also say that the Pebco 3 were blindfolded at one stage and also handcuffed while on the way to Post Chalmers?

MR LOTZ: I was not present.

ADV LAMEY: Do you know who drove the minibus from the airport to Post Chalmers?

MR LOTZ: No, I do not know.

ADV LAMEY: At one stage as far as they can remember, they arrived at a road blockade?

MR LOTZ: I have no knowledge of this, I never passed through a blockade that evening.

ADV LAMEY: And they will testify further that on their arrival at Post Chalmers, the interrogation was started and the first person who was interrogated was Mr Hashe. MR LOTZ: I am not sure who was interrogated at that stage. I don't know whether he is referring to the time when we had arrived or prior to this. I am not sure.

ADV LAMEY: The persons arrived at Post Chalmers being blindfolded and handcuffed.

MR LOTZ: I was not aware of this.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Hashe was also assaulted.

MR LOTZ: Not in my presence.

ADV LAMEY: After the interrogation of Mr Hashe, one of the other persons were also interrogated.

MR LOTZ: That can be true.

ADV LAMEY: They say that this interrogation did not take very long, and then they went to sleep.

MR LOTZ: That can be.

ADV LAMEY: I am referring to the interrogation of Mr Hashe and this other person. Mr Mogoai says this other person was Mr Godolozi.

MR LOTZ: That could be.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, could my learned friend just clarify one thing. He said then they went to sleep. Who is the they? Is that everybody involved in the questioning or just the askaris or the men from Vlakplaas, if my learned friend wouldn't mind clearing that up, it is not exactly clear.

ADV LAMEY: They were referring to Mr Mogoai and Koole, the askaris.

ADV BOOYENS: I am indebted to my learned friend.

ADV LAMEY: They will testify further that they were not given instructions to guard the Pebco 3. They went to sleep in their minibus and it was not parked directly in front of the garage, so that the people inside could not get out of the garage.

MR LOTZ: As far as I know, the minibus was parked in front of the garage for the specific purpose of guarding these people.

ADV LAMEY: At one stage with your arrival, it was said that one of the persons had to be taken to a cell. Do you have any knowledge of any cells at Post Chalmers?

MR LOTZ: There were cells but nobody was detained in the cells, I am sure of that.

ADV LAMEY: Regardless of the fact that you weren't there all the time?

MR LOTZ: Then I would say that while I was there, nobody was kept in any cell.

ADV LAMEY: Do you know that Hashe was interrogated about an AK47?

MR LOTZ: There was something said about an AK47, but I don't have knowledge about the details.

ADV LAMEY: Was this done in your presence or is it just what you heard?

MR LOTZ: It was not done in my presence, it was something I must have heard.

ADV LAMEY: While you were present there, do you know whether they were interrogated about terrorists, weapons and the Pebco structure?

MR LOTZ: As I said, Lieutenant Nieuwoudt spoke to them most of the time and it was mostly in Xhosa which I could not understand and that is why I withdrew.

ADV LAMEY: Their version is that according to Koole who knew Nieuwoudt, Mr Mogoai does not know who the person was, but there was one of the PE members who was in control of the interrogation and Koole said that it was Nieuwoudt and that he interrogated the people in Xhosa, but it did not only take place in Xhosa.

MR LOTZ: That is possible.

ADV LAMEY: Their testimony will be that the interrogation was continued the next day, once again with Hashe, the next morning.

MR LOTZ: That is possible.

ADV LAMEY: The next morning Hashe said that he was beaten and kicked.

MR LOTZ: Not in my presence.

ADV LAMEY: At one stage he lost consciousness?

MR LOTZ: No, I have no knowledge of this. This did not happen while I was there.

ADV LAMEY: And then he was brought around by throwing water on his face?

MR LOTZ: I have no knowledge of this.

ADV LAMEY: It is said that Hashe was assaulted in such a manner that his face was swollen and that his mouth and nose were covered in blood.

MR LOTZ: I did not see this, not while I was there.

ADV LAMEY: Godolozi was also interrogated that morning.

MR LOTZ: That is possible.

ADV LAMEY: And at one stage a wet bag was tied over his head, do you have any knowledge of that?

MR LOTZ: No. This did not happen while I was there.

CHAIRPERSON: When you were asked that Hashe was interrogated that morning, you said that it was possible. And again when you were asked, when it was put to you that Godolozi was also interrogated in the morning, you said that is possible, but what is your personal recollection?

MR LOTZ: The previous evening and the next day Captain Nieuwoudt did speak to the people. Whether they were together or separate, that is what I am trying to say, he did speak to them.

CHAIRPERSON: What do you mean speak to them?

MR LOTZ: He questioned them, interrogated them in that light.

CHAIRPERSON: But isn't that precisely what Mr Lamey is asking? He is asking you whether it is so that in the morning both Hashe and Godolozi were interrogated?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So they were interrogated by Mr Nieuwoudt?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Then you shouldn't say it is possible, you should say yes, that is what happened.

MR LOTZ: Yes, Your Honour.

ADV LAMEY: Their testimony will also be that these people were very defiant during the interrogation. I am using my own term now, but the effect was that they were actually defiant and did not give any cooperation? Their testimony will be that one of them said that he would rather die than to cooperate in the interrogation?

MR LOTZ: Those people sat there, and were talking to one another, they were quite at ease. I cannot see that they were defiant. Lieutenant Nieuwoudt spoke to them, and they seemed one hundred percent normal.

ADV LAMEY: You said that you heard about an AK47?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV LAMEY: You did not know how that information was gained?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV LAMEY: They will go further to say that at one stage Godolozi, Mr Mogoai says that Godolozi was then after the bag was placed over his head, he was taken back to the garage.

MR LOTZ: No, that is not true.

ADV LAMEY: Where Captain Venter requested the bag to be removed?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV LAMEY: You have no knowledge of that?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV LAMEY: At one stage the garage door was closed, that is while Captain Venter and Beeslaar and the askaris were outside and they just heard the men screaming inside?

MR LOTZ: I heard nothing to that effect.

ADV LAMEY: Mr Mogoai will say that Galela was screaming continually from one of the cells while he was handcuffed?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV LAMEY: And then they will also say that late that afternoon, early evening, this barbecue took place?

MR LOTZ: No, that is not true.

ADV LAMEY: Regarding the matter of the barbecue, are you saying this no with certainty?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: Even in view of Mr Beeslaar's evidence or testimony that a braai was held that evening?

MR LOTZ: The braai or barbecue took place that morning.

ADV DE JAGER: You have put it to him that they were locked up in the garage and that screaming could be heard from the garage. Were they all three locked up in the garage or what was the position?

ADV LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I am referring to the version as on page 36 of Mr Mogoai. Just let me find the place and I will tell you exactly what the version is.

It seems as though it was only one person, Mr Godolozi. Only one man who was screaming loudly from inside the garage.

Mr Mogoai also says and - I can just put this to you that Warrant Officer Beeslaar stood next to him and Mr Mogoai at one stage and said that the people of Port Elizabeth could not deal with the situation very well, but that was their problem.

MR LOTZ: I have no knowledge of this.

ADV LAMEY: Their version will also be that they spent a second night in their minibus and that the next morning, they were told by Captain Venter to return to Glenconnor railway station.

MR LOTZ: They only spent one night there.

ADV LAMEY: In this regard I just would like to say to you that Captain Venter's testimony ...

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lamey, according to your clients, when did Venter and Beeslaar arrive there?

ADV LAMEY: According to my clients Captain Venter and Warrant Officer Beeslaar were there the whole time. With the arrival there and the whole time after that, and after their departure from the old police station the next day, the askaris left first. They were told to leave by Captain Venter and Captain Venter only reached Glenconnor much later.

If you will just allow me a moment to find the passage.

ADV DE JAGER: Can you just assist us. You say that Venter and Beeslaar were there the whole time. If you refer to the whole time, are you saying that they went together from the airport to Post Chalmers on the first evening? Did they drive down in the same vehicle as your people or did they use another vehicle but did they arrive at Post Chalmers at the same time as your clients did?

ADV LAMEY: From the moment of arrival at Post Chalmers Captain Venter and Beeslaar were there, but they did not drive down to Post Chalmers with them in the minibus.

Captain Venter's version regarding the departure of themselves and the askaris is not exactly the same version as my two applicants, but he says the following. I am referring to page 191, that is on page 5 on the paginated bundle where Captain Venter said - I am reading between lines 20 and 30 in the middle - do you have it in front of you?

MR LOTZ: Page 191?

ADV LAMEY: Yes, 191 of the original number of the transcription. Do you have it?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

ADV LAMEY: It is between lines 20 and 30 and it is put in the context of the stage when Venter and Beeslaar were at the old police station. Later that evening I went along with Beeslaar back to Glenconnor and the Vlakplaas askaris joined us that evening or the next morning at Glenconnor. I want to put it to you that as I can understand the context of Captain Venter's testimony, they are talking about the second evening, not the first evening, but the second and that he is saying that that was when they left for Glenconnor but the askaris went to Glenconnor either that evening or the next morning.

MR LOTZ: I see this, but this is not how it happened.

ADV LAMEY: The nett effect of both versions is that they and the askaris were still present there the second evening?

MR LOTZ: No, Captain Van Zyl, Nieuwoudt and I were there the second evening on our own.

ADV LAMEY: I just want to refer you, you said that they left at about twelve o'clock after the braai that morning, is that correct, the askaris?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct, together with Captain Venter.

ADV LAMEY: Lieutenant Nieuwoudt says at page 130, paragraph 20, on the 9th of May 1985, at approximately ten o'clock Captain Venter and the askaris left the police station. Only Captain Van Zyl, Sergeant Lotz and I remained behind and continued with the interrogation.

At approximately twelve o'clock all the persons were present in the lounge together with Captain Van Zyl, Sergeant Lotz and I. You see between the period of ten o'clock that morning and twelve o'clock, you are being involved in the interrogation according to Lieutenant Nieuwoudt, while you say that you went to buy food.

MR LOTZ: I said that I started with the barbecue at ten o'clock that morning, making the fire etc. I went to Cradock prior to this.

ADV LAMEY: What I want to put to you further is that Lieutenant Niewoud says that at ten o'clock the next morning, Captain Venter and the askaris had already left.

MR LOTZ: As far as I know, after we had had the barbecue, they departed.

ADV LAMEY: But the barbecue could surely not have taken place as early as ten o'clock that morning?

MR LOTZ: No, it was afterwards, after we braaied the meat, that is why I said they left between eleven and twelve.

ADV LAMEY: Unless of course as the askaris says that they left the next morning, that they actually slept there for two evenings and they left the second morning?

MR LOTZ: No, they left on the 9th and not on the 10th.

ADV DE JAGER: Mr Lotz, the first evening when you arrived, did you have anything to eat?

MR LOTZ: No, it was very late.

ADV DE JAGER: The next morning, did you have an early breakfast or not?

MR LOTZ: No, I then left for Cradock where I went to buy food and thereafter we had a barbecue.

ADV DE JAGER: So you ate the morning - Mr Lamey it is not clear to me, if the testimony is that the braaivleis was held that evening, was there any food eaten before that time?

ADV LAMEY: I can just put it to you that the version of the two applicants is that after their arrival at the predetermined point, on the evening that the Pebco 3 were taken from the airport and before their departure to the airport, Captain Venter told them that they had to go and buy themselves something to eat.

Therefore before the episode at the airport, the two applicants had already had something to eat. I did take instructions regarding the next morning. What they can recall is not exactly precise, but the impression is that something was eaten that following morning in the line of bread, but the braaivleis only took place later that afternoon and there they had something more substantive to eat.

They had tea and bread that morning, that is what they themselves had to eat. Do you have any further comments?

MR LOTZ: No, that is not true.

ADV LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nyoka?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV NYOKA: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Lotz, I will not be long with you because basically you don't recall many things or those that you recall are very, very few or if things happened, they happened in your absence.

Is it correct that you were one of the juniors in this operation?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: At 24 years old?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: Is it correct that at all material times before, during and after this operation, you regarded Mr Van Zyl, Mr Du Plessis and Mr Snyman as your seniors?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

ADV NYOKA: And that you had to obey their commands at all times?

MR LOTZ: Correct, yes.

ADV NYOKA: When there was this gathering of former Securocrats, that is former Security Policemen to discuss this common stance and strategy about the TRC process, were you part of that gathering?

MR LOTZ: May I ask to which meeting are you referring specifically?

ADV NYOKA: We heard evidence from Mr Van Zyl that the people affected met to discuss whether they should accept the process or not before they applied, I am talking about that?

MR LOTZ: Is that the occasion in Pretoria?

ADV NYOKA: Yes.

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: I mean informal gatherings, not formal just informal gatherings?

MR LOTZ: I was present on one occasion in Pretoria.

ADV NYOKA: And you were still a junior in those gatherings not so?

MR LOTZ: Yes, you could put it that way.

ADV NYOKA: Can I conclude that your input, you did not put much - you didn't have much input in that gathering?

MR LOTZ: No, we basically said nothing, I think the former Commissioner and the Advocates and so on, they did most of the talking at that meeting.

ADV NYOKA: Did you apply for amnesty before others did so or jointly with them?

MR LOTZ: We had started discussing it with my legal representatives, Mr Francois van der Merwe after the Motherwell case. That is when we started discussing the matter.

ADV NYOKA: You applied because of the joint decision that people must apply for amnesty, not so?

MR LOTZ: I wouldn't say that. There were rumours that quite a lot of people would apply for amnesty and that some had already applied. And at that stage I hadn't been implicated by anybody and I discussed the matter with my legal representative and he then suggested that I should apply.

ADV NYOKA: Last month you applied for amnesty regarding the Motherwell bombing, here in (indistinct)

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: And you did so despite the fact that you were acquitted of murder here?

MR LOTZ: Yes, correct.

ADV NYOKA: You will agree with me that you were not under any obligation to apply because you had nothing to lose because you were acquitted, but you applied because of the joint decision to apply made by your seniors, not so?

MR LOTZ: I discussed the matter with my legal representative. He said that it would be a good idea to place a full picture before this Commission and therefore I should apply and that I should also testify as to my silence after the incident, and that could have made me part of the group of accused or implicated persons.

ADV NYOKA: I put it to you that you applied because your seniors applied. I put it to you that you had nothing to lose, you were acquitted?

MR LOTZ: That may be so, but my legal representative said I should apply so that a full picture could be placed before the Commission.

ADV NYOKA: And I further put it to you that your presence yesterday and today was determined by your seniors and what you said here yesterday and today, was predetermined by your seniors?

MR LOTZ: No. My name had not been mentioned by anybody during this incident. I discussed this matter with my Advocate and he told me to apply and that is what I did.

ADV NYOKA: Okay. Let's leave that for now. You said in your evidence in chief, you did not know the three Pebco persons when you were told by Mr Van Zyl to be part of this team, not so, you did not know them. All that you knew was that they were Pebco executive members, is that so?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: And that you were not shown any photographs?

MR LOTZ: I saw their photographs in the files that we had in the offices, but that was long before this episode.

ADV NYOKA: But you did not remember them at the time you were told to be part of this team, not so?

MR LOTZ: I am not sure, no, I am not hundred percent sure.

ADV NYOKA: At the airport, on the way and at Cradock, you did not hear their names being called like Mr Godolozi, Mr Hashe, Mr Galela, you did not hear the names being called, not so?

MR LOTZ: Please repeat the question.

ADV NYOKA: From the time that you saw them appearing at the airport, on the way to Cradock and at Cradock, you never heard these people being called by their names like Mr Godolozi, Mr Hashe, Mr Galela, in other words there were no need for them to have been called? Let me put it this way, did you hear their names being called?

MR LOTZ: Yes, whilst I was sitting with Mr Nieuwoudt, he would have spoken to the people and he would have called them by their names. I don't think he would not have used their names.

ADV NYOKA: No.

MR LOTZ: So I would have heard their names whilst Lieutenant Nieuwoudt was speaking to them.

ADV NYOKA: No, I am not talking about your assumption, I am talking about a certainty. Did you as a fact hear their names being called? Don't say he did not do so, but did you hear their names being called?

MR LOTZ: If Lieutenant Nieuwoudt spoke to them, then I would have heard their names being mentioned.

ADV NYOKA: You are not answering my question.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, it comes down to what I told you earlier on. Tell us about your recollection. What do you remember, do you remember hearing their names being called or not?

MR LOTZ: I heard their names, yes.

ADV DE JAGER: Now your answer is you would have heard their names. Now either you heard their names or you didn't or you can't remember whether you heard their names. But if you say that you would have heard their names, then we still don't know whether you actually heard it or not. Or whether you heard it and forgot it.

MR LOTZ: I can't remember whether I heard their names.

ADV NYOKA: Because in your written statement there is no mention of the names of the three Pebco leaders, there is no mention whatsoever. I am not trying to be unfair to you, but you must agree with me that you did not hear the names even if they may have been called?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, we referred to them as the Pebco 3.

ADV NYOKA: And is it further correct that you may have seen them for a very brief periods during the entire episode because you were busy doing this and that, going for errands etc, not so?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: And after the incident, it was only that first time that you saw them, you may have remembered them shortly after the incident and during this 12 year period?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: And if one of my clients, Mrs Monica Godolozi the wife of Mr Godolozi said to me that she went about 1986 to the Alexandra police station and met policemen (indistinct), who said that they were removed by December 1995 to Louis Le Grange Square, you will never dispute that because (a) you never saw those people for a long time, (b) their names were never called, (c) you never saw them as such during the incident, so you will not know who Mr Godolozi, Mr Hashe and Mr Galela are, not so?

MR LOTZ: Those three, known as the Pebco 3, had been taken by us from the airport to that place where they were eliminated. They were not taken away from Post Chalmers.

ADV NYOKA: No, they have got their names, not the Pebco 3, they have got their names.

MR LOTZ: Mr Galela, Mr Hashe and Mr Godolozi.

ADV NYOKA: Now you know them, but you did not know them then.

MR LOTZ: I had knowledge of them, yes.

ADV NYOKA: I wish to put it so ridiculous to the following fact that it could have been other people who were there and as Mr Nieuwoudt was speaking Xhosa you could not understand, he could not even have been speaking about the end plan or politics because you didn't understand what was being said. So it could have been any Tom, Dick and Harry not so?

MR LOTZ: No, he would have known that it was those three people. I am sure he wouldn't have misled me as to the identify of these people.

ADV NYOKA: I am not talking about trust, I am talking about certainty.

In reply to Mr Lamey's question yesterday as to why you only recalled certain things, when giving oral evidence than when you made the written statement, you said it was because you only recalled certain things yesterday. Is it not correct that you applied for amnesty in December 1996?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: And I noted that your written statement was made and signed under oath on the 5th of May 1996, not so?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: Is it not correct that before you applied in 1996, during the time the TRC process started in 1995 to December 1996, you had time now to think about the events from the beginning to the end, you had time to think about this event, not so?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: And that between December 1996 when you applied, to May 1997, when you wrote your statement, you must also have very, very, very much applied your mind to what you had to say, not so?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: And now involving in extensive consultation with your legal representatives, between May and November before you testified, you must also have applied your mind about this?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

ADV NYOKA: What I find strange I calculate roughly a period of 11 months, what I find strange is why it will take one hour for you to remember certain things when you had more than 11 months to think about that?

MR LOTZ: Whilst I am sitting here, lots of things cropped up which refreshed my memory which did not arise during consultations.

ADV NYOKA: So you were more stimulated here than when you were with your legal representative?

MR LOTZ: I won't say that, but a lot of things came out here which did in fact refresh my memory.

ADV NYOKA: Are you not anxious at the fact that here are the victims' families and the other people watching, surely you must be anxious and not remember certain things, than to remember that in the coolness of the office of your legal representative?

MR LOTZ: I wouldn't say that.

ADV NYOKA: I will expect you to remember things within the four walls of a cool atmosphere of your lawyer, than in a hall like this. Not so?

MR LOTZ: No, I wouldn't say that.

ADV NYOKA: Is there anything that you recall today, than yesterday, that you can share with us, maybe the latest that you can share with us that you have since recalled, I don't want to leave any stone unturned?

MR LOTZ: No, there is nothing further.

ADV NYOKA: Is there anything that you were sure of yesterday, that you are not sure of today perhaps?

MR LOTZ: No, not as far as I am aware.

ADV NYOKA: Mr Lamey's lines were not there, they were there, they said there was a braai and there were some drinks. You said that could not have happened.

Some people were braaiing and having drinks, but you did not see those events, the braaiing and drinking, you only mentioned the morning session. They said there were some drinks passed around and a braai being held.

MR LOTZ: Not in my presence.

ADV NYOKA: Is it possible that the braai could have happened while you were doing your errands?

MR LOTZ: No, a braai usually takes quite a length of time.

ADV NYOKA: I seem to think that perhaps some people wanted to braai meat and exclude you as soon as you appeared, they stopped the braai or they had drinks and exclude you as soon as you appeared, because I don't understand why you were excluded? You did not even smell the nice air of braaied meat? Can you comment?

MR LOTZ: No comment.

ADV NYOKA: And when you left, and when the Pebco leaders left the airport to Cradock, you were not in the same car, not so, you had gone with Mr Nieuwoudt to burn the car?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: So you are not able to dispute the fact that they were blindfolded when they left the airport, because you were not in that car?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: So it is possible that they were blindfolded and handcuffed?

MR LOTZ: That is possible.

ADV NYOKA: Thank you for that concession. And you said you did not hear anything being mentioned about the AK47?

MR LOTZ: I think Nieuwoudt or Captain Van Zyl heard it, but I didn't hear it directly from them.

ADV NYOKA: You do not recall many incidents of that day. I understand it was 12 years ago, not so?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

ADV NYOKA: But what I find strange you were positive in your written statement and in your oral statement that the day was the 8th of May 1985. How could you have remembered the day, it is one of the things that you could have forgotten?

I know it is common cause now, but it is one of the things that you could have forgotten, the day? Can you tell us how did you remember that well?

MR LOTZ: That will be as a result of the consultations which we had.

ADV NYOKA: Why then did you not say in your statement I do not recall, but it might have been on the 8th of May as you have done before?

MR LOTZ: Perhaps I could have put it like that.

ADV NYOKA: All right. And you said that the three leaders were given coffee in which a sleeping mixture was put, but you cannot remember if you also gave them coffee. How exactly gave them coffee?

MR LOTZ: I am not sure.

ADV NYOKA: Did you see the sleeping mixture being put into this coffee?

MR LOTZ: As I said, I seem to recall that it was Nieuwoudt or Van Zyl who put it in the coffee.

ADV NYOKA: No, did you see it being put, I am not saying who put it, did you see it being put into the coffee?

MR LOTZ: I can't recall.

ADV NYOKA: So it is possible that you never saw the sleeping mixture?

MR LOTZ: That is possible.

ADV NYOKA: Did you participate in this coffee drinking?

MR LOTZ: I didn't drink any of the coffee myself.

ADV NYOKA: So you did not drink the coffee yourself and you did not supply them with coffee, how do you know that it was coffee, not tea or water?

MR LOTZ: I was present there.

ADV NYOKA: No, did you smell coffee in other words? Because you did not partake of coffee and you did not give them coffee, did you smell that was coffee?

MR LOTZ: One can see when somebody is busy making coffee, you can actually see that it is coffee.

ADV NYOKA: But coffee and tea, there is no difference, as soon as you put milk?

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, there is a difference.

ADV NYOKA: Maybe Your Worship, I don't drink coffee, I just see coffee. My wife drinks coffee, I drink tea.

CHAIRPERSON: No, there is a big difference.

ADV NYOKA: I put it to you that you are mentioning the coffee part because it is one of the things that were agreed upon that you must make this simple, abduction, airport, Cradock, coffee, sleeping mixture, shooting and burning, that is why you mention the coffee, that is why you are mentioning the issue of the coffee. Any comment?

MR LOTZ: No comment.

ADV NYOKA: Do you agree or don't you agree or do you prefer not to comment?

MR LOTZ: Not to comment.

ADV NYOKA: All right, who produced the tablets that were put into the coffee?

MR LOTZ: As I said it was either Captain Van Zyl or Lieutenant Nieuwoudt, it must have been one of those two, it wasn't me.

ADV NYOKA: Because according to my notes, it may not be accurate. Yesterday you said it was Nieuwoudt.

MR LOTZ: It was Captain Van Zyl or Lieutenant Nieuwoudt.

ADV NYOKA: I am not sure whether I have asked you who put the tablet into the coffee. Assuming that is the question I have asked you, I should now ask you who produced the tablets?

MR LOTZ: Captain Van Zyl or Lieutenant Nieuwoudt had this sleeping powder.

ADV NYOKA: So is it an assumption that a sleeping tablet was used, because you are not sure of it, is it an assumption or did it arise out of consultations?

MR LOTZ: I am not hundred percent certain, it could have cropped up during the consultations. But it was also said that that would be the way in which that would be done at Cradock.

ADV NYOKA: So after they fell asleep, were you not curious to find out hey Mr Nieuwoudt, Mr Van Zyl, how did you manage to make this three asleep, because you were still asleep?

MR LOTZ: That is what I am saying, that was the plan to actually put them so sleep beforehand.

ADV NYOKA: But you did not ask how they were caused to be asleep? You did not ask that?

MR LOTZ: No, because we discussed that beforehand. The plan would have been to put a sleeping draft in their coffee, to put them to sleep.

ADV NYOKA: When was that made now, because what I know is that you were asked to be involved in the abduction and elimination, you are going to go to Cradock. You never said details were discussed with you.

MR LOTZ: Mr Van Zyl would have discussed it with me.

ADV NYOKA: He would have, but you are not sure?

MR LOTZ: No, I am not a hundred percent certain.

ADV SANDI: I am sorry, Mr Nyoka, if I can interpose there for a moment. Are you saying Mr Van Zyl discussed the question of putting this substance in the coffee to make them sleep?

MR LOTZ: It could be yes, I stand to be corrected, I can't remember exactly.

ADV SANDI: I have not verified it in my notes, but as far as I can remember I think Mr Van Zyl said there was no specific discussion pertaining to that issue, this is something he just came up with on his own.

MR LOTZ: Well, then I can't remember, I am not sure.

ADV SANDI: You are not sure that there was a discussion about this tablet?

MR LOTZ: I am not sure, I can't remember.

ADV SANDI: I find it quite interesting Mr Lotz, that generally you are never sure about anything. I thought you just said here there was a plan to put this tablet into the coffee, to make the gentlemen sleep?

MR LOTZ: What I am trying to explain was that when Captain Van Zyl approached me originally, he told me what the plan was to have been. Not the finer detail, but basic framework of the abduction and the elimination.

ADV BOOYENS: Mr Chairman, the testimony was about a substance, a sleeping substance in a wile. That was the testimony we heard yesterday and the day before, I don't think there was ever a testimony about tablets.

CHAIRPERSON: Does it affect the substance of the question?

ADV BOOYENS: It might be misleading to him.

CHAIRPERSON: We appreciate your correction, but I don't think it affects the substance of the question sir.

ADV SANDI: Carry on, Mr Nyoka.

ADV NYOKA: Do you know the time when you started setting the wood alight for the fire?

MR LOTZ: Which fire are you talking about now?

ADV NYOKA: For the burning of the people?

MR LOTZ: It was dusk, I can't recall the exact time.

ADV NYOKA: And the time when the bodies actually burnt to ashes, do you know?

MR LOTZ: It took approximately six hours. It could have been longer or maybe shorter.

ADV NYOKA: You see, I've got a problem. In all the applications of a similar nature, six hours is the magical hour. Yet, you do not know when this thing happened, but you can remember it was about six hours?

MR LOTZ: Approximately, I may be wrong. But I told my legal representative it was six to eight hours.

ADV NYOKA: What I am saying is that not one of you mentions like seven or eight hours, always six hours, six hours. I put it to you that was discussed that it was six hours. Any comment?

MR LOTZ: I discussed it with my legal representative.

ADV NYOKA: On your own or with others?

MR LOTZ: On my own.

ADV NYOKA: It is coincidental that everyone says six hours, even in other applications, it is a strange coincidence, would you agree with me?

MR LOTZ: Then that must be the way it actually happened.

ADV NYOKA: I put it to you that is not the way it happened. Any comment?

MR LOTZ: That is how it indeed happened.

CHAIRPERSON: How did it happen Mr Nyoka?

ADV NYOKA: Your Worship the Pebco leaders, Mr Godolozi, Hashe and Galela were abducted from the airport and they were taken ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, I was taken about the six hours. I thought the six hours was relative to the burning of the bodies?

ADV NYOKA: Well, we wish to say Your Worship, that that didn't happen like that that day or night.

CHAIRPERSON: The burning of the bodies?

ADV NYOKA: Yes, yes, because they were still alive, according to my instructions ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, never mind when it happened, at some point they were burnt, but you see I am trying to say that you give us the impression that you have a different version as to how the actual burning took place?

ADV NYOKA: No, it is a totally (indistinct) Your Worship.

CHAIRPERSON: I see, but it was put in a way that could have confused.

ADV NYOKA: Oh, sorry, for misleading you. I put it to you that the only things that you claim to remember are the things said by the other applicants, and the key things like the airport, abduction at the airport, going to Cradock, braaiing, sleeping, putting of a sleeping mixture, elimination or shooting and the burning to keep the story very simple and straight forward.

MR LOTZ: It is actually not, it wasn't simple and straight forward from my point of view.

ADV NYOKA: I refer to it as the KISS principle, keep it straight and simple?

MR LOTZ: That was not my view.

ADV NYOKA: You had your whole future, a wonderful future in front of you at 24, why did you not say please Mr Van Zyl, excuse me, I wouldn't like to be involved in this, or asked to be transferred to another police department? Because you didn't even know the man, you were not involved in the facts of what was happening in the township, why did you not do so Mr Lotz.

MR LOTZ: I did it because I associated myself with the fact and I believed that which we were about to do, would be the right thing in those circumstances. That is why I didn't try to make excuses or try to get out of it.

ADV NYOKA: How long did it take for you to reach the decision to be involved because I notice that you were approached on that day in the morning, on the 8th of May? Did you have time to reflect on this, and this impact on your future life?

MR LOTZ: I don't think I had all the time in the world to reflect on the consequences, I took the decision and I went through with it.

ADV NYOKA: And I take it you did not have the time to even ponder about any other alternative, lawful options that could have been taken but your emphasis was on obeying orders from your seniors, not so?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, and I also associated myself with the order.

ADV NYOKA: I like the way you are going ahead, Mr Lotz, you are very much in agreement, I like it.

When you burnt the vehicle, did you tell the Investigating Unit of the TRC, did you show them the spot where you burnt it?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV NYOKA: Why was that not done, because in other instances the applicants will go to Cradock and show them the Post Chalmers, why was it that it was not shown if at all, this incident happened as it did?

MR LOTZ: They did not ask me to do that.

ADV NYOKA: Did you not venture to do so?

MR LOTZ: If they had asked me, I would have done it.

ADV NYOKA: Okay, fair, fair. Did you ask Mr Nieuwoudt why were you going to this place as KwaZakhele?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV NYOKA: Were you not curious or were you not under the impression that he may have done something similar before?

MR LOTZ: No.

ADV NYOKA: So you were curious, no one saw you when you were burning the car?

MR LOTZ: No, not as far as I can recall.

ADV NYOKA: Not as far as you can recall? I am sure you were not see, otherwise you would have told us that you were seen? That will be something prominent in your mind?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I believe so. But as far as I can recall, nobody saw us.

ADV NYOKA: Mr Lotz, last night, I noticed when I read your introductory statement background, that you were born on the 25th of December, on Christmas day and I told myself, this must be a lucky man.

MR LOTZ: No, not quite so lucky.

ADV NYOKA: No, I am going to ask you to please now, and you know there are things that you don't recall, that are stated as facts by other people who were there like the assault, I am going to ask you now in the name of the person on whose date you are born, in the name of Christ, to admit that it is possible that the assaults could have happened whilst you were doing other errands? I am asking you in the name of Christ now, are you prepared to concede that?

MR LOTZ: It is not necessary to put it to me in those terms, nobody was assaulted in my presence. There were no marks, no sounds of an assault, no blood or foam or anything like that, not in my presence.

ADV NYOKA: It is possible that they were assaulted whilst you were away, maybe perhaps because as a junior they didn't want you to witness this, not so?

MR LOTZ: The only way I can put it is like this, if those people had been assaulted, or if I had participated in the assault as they allege, then I would have applied for amnesty for that as well. I applied for amnesty for murder and I don't think in that perspective assault is as important or as serious. I didn't apply for amnesty for that, because it did not happen.

ADV NYOKA: No, the reason why the assault is omitted, is obvious. The killing must be seen to be humane, we dealt nicely with them, we took them, slept with them, ate with them, supplied sleeping mixture and ensured they did not know what happened to them?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

ADV NYOKA: What is correct?

MR LOTZ: That we did it in that way?

ADV NYOKA: Humane? I am saying that the intention was to make the story, the concocted story humane. Don't agree with me if you don't understand.

MR LOTZ: No, it is not a fabrication.

ADV NYOKA: It is strange to me that people who were there will say that the three Pebco leaders were assaulted, yet you deny that and they had nothing to lose about that, except that they were involved in the abduction, because they were not involved in the major crime which is murder? Is that not strange to you?

MR LOTZ: I don't know what their motives are in saying that. That is not the way it happened.

ADV NYOKA: Do we have any reason to believe that they have got anything against the applicants that they are incriminating the assault, did they have anything against them?

MR LOTZ: I don't know what their motives are for saying so.

ADV NYOKA: Then it could be strange if there is not even a motive, that motive for them to just falsely accuse you of assaulting.

MR LOTZ: None of those people knew my name, so they didn't tell me that I assaulted those people.

ADV NYOKA: Finally, were you given the gun to shoot or did you venture and asked to shoot?

MR LOTZ: The weapon was given to me.

ADV NYOKA: So if it was not given, you would not have shot?

MR LOTZ: No, I am sure then I would have taken the weapon and shot.

ADV NYOKA: No, all right, you see again, it is in agreement, as a junior you were told to do something and you obeyed, by doing it. Not so?

MR LOTZ: Right from the outset I agreed and associated myself with the entire operation and I was part and took part in the elimination. I don't think it was an order, now it is your turn to shoot, I don't think that is the way one could put it.

ADV NYOKA: What did you hope to achieve by each of you firing a shot with the same weapon instead of one person firing, shooting all three?

MR LOTZ: I don't think there was a specific reason for that.

ADV NYOKA: Was it not perhaps because it was like a game, a shooting game, shoot your own person?

MR LOTZ: It was most definitely not a game.

ADV NYOKA: No further questions, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV NYOKA: .

CHAIRPERSON: Another possibility could have been that because it was the three of you, only the three of you, each one had to shoot to make sure that you would all cooperate in a cover up?

MR LOTZ: It is a possibility, I did not think about it in those terms.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Hartle?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS HARTLE: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Lotz, if I can refer you to page 10 of your submissions.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, if I could inconvenience you, maybe we should just take the adjournment now until eleven o'clock.

MR LOTZ: I thought so.

CHAIRPERSON: We will adjourn until eleven o'clock.

COMMISSION ADJOURNS

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Hartle?

GERHARDUS JOHANNES LOTZ: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS HARTLE: (cont)

Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Lotz, I refer to page 10 of your submissions and in particular your response to the question posed at 11(b). Now I may be mistaken, but you did not apply to amend your submissions in respect of who you took your instruction from, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: Sorry, am I to believe that you did not or you did apply to amend?

MR LOTZ: No, I did not, no.

ADV VAN DER MERWE: No, it was always the case of Mr Snyman that the initial order emanated from Colonel Snyman.

MS HARTLE: You took your instruction from Van Zyl, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: Did you question Van Zyl as to who gave him the instruction?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: Is it correct to say then that you took your instruction and this forms the basis for your motivation in this application, that you took your instruction from Colonel Snyman?

MR LOTZ: The way I could say it is that I drafted this document with the assistance of my legal representative, they had a broader background of the whole incident and that is how Colonel Snyman's name cropped up there.

MS HARTLE: But you heard the evidence of Messrs Du Plessis and Mr Van Zyl, there was a lot of surmising going on about the authority to eliminate the Pebco 3?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: And do you agree that they may have been mistaken in the authority that they had to carry out the operation?

MR LOTZ: I can't speculate about that.

MS HARTLE: Is it so then that you merely placed your alliance on what was informed to you by Van Zyl?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

MS HARTLE: You didn't question at all?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: In your application I note that you say that you were married in 1984 and that both your wife and your father-in-law were members of the South African Police Force?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: Are they still members?

MR LOTZ: My wife still is, yes.

MS HARTLE: Were either of them connected or involved in the Security Branch?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: At the time?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: Who is your father-in-law?

MR LOTZ: General Nick van Rensburg.

MS HARTLE: How many amnesty applications are before this Commission in your own name?

MR LOTZ: Three.

MS HARTLE: Which are those incidents, the other incidents?

MR LOTZ: The Motherwell incident, and the Goniwe incident.

MS HARTLE: Now at the time, you were selected for this operation, you were a very tender age, you were a mere babe in the woods? I put it to you that you were perhaps not selected for your experience as such, can you tell us why you were chosen?

MR LOTZ: I don't know, Captain Van Zyl obviously must have had some faith in me that I would comply with the instructions.

MS HARTLE: What was the extent of your experience at that time?

MR LOTZ: Perhaps I can turn to my application, to have regard to the dates.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, I just want to know from you what experience you felt justified the election of you to perform that operation?

MR LOTZ: That is what I am trying to answer. In 1979 I joined the Police Force at the end of that year, I did border duty in Ovamboland for the first time and thereafter in 1981 and 1982 I once again did a stint of border duty with Koevoet and in 1984 I once again performed border duty and the experience which I gained there, could possibly have been the reason why I was selected.

I also did the VIP protection course and other courses.

MS HARTLE: Could it have been your involvement by virtue of your family connections?

MR LOTZ: No. I can't say that.

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Ms Hartle, is your question to the witness not what sort of expertise or skill was required for such a person to be involved in this?

MS HARTLE: I was getting there Mr Chairman in order to clarity that.

You understand the basis for my question Mr Lotz, why would they take you a babe in the woods, one who had six years in the service to perform such a vital operation?

MR LOTZ: I think Captain Van Zyl had faith in me that I would carry out the operation.

MS HARTLE: And on what would he have based that confidence?

MR LOTZ: He knew me.

MS HARTLE: How did he know you?

MR LOTZ: I have known him since the Koevoet days in 1981.

MS HARTLE: Prior to this operation, had you ever killed a human being?

MR LOTZ: It is difficult to say, in Ovamboland I was involved in contact in which people were killed.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, will you please just answer the question.

MR LOTZ: Yes, I have.

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, Ms Hartle, I am going to ask you to let the witness complete his answer and before you get in, just pause for a second to enable the interpreters to manipulate some machines there, the switch on.

MS HARTLE: I will try Mr Chairman. Mr Lotz, had you ever prior to this operation, killed any South African activists or been involved in the killings?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: In your submissions at page 2, in the second paragraph under SHORT PERSONAL BACKGROUND, you state as follows: the largest part of my career in the South African Police was spent in the Security Branch where I was exposed to the activities such as the detection and tracing and elimination of ANC and PAC terrorists.

MR LOTZ: That was my work.

MS HARTLE: You were exposed to the elimination inter alia?

MR LOTZ: Yes, the detection and when shooting incidents took place when they were killed.

MS HARTLE: When you say elimination, do you mean elimination in the same manner that the Pebco 3 were eliminated?

MR LOTZ: No, it would have been more in the line of trying to arrest them and how could I put it, to try and get them to refrain from their activities.

MS HARTLE: So prior to the Pebco 3 operation, you had not had any experience in the elimination of any South African activists?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: I notice that you too have been boarded on the basis of ill-health?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: Where there any physical injuries which justified that retirement?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: Would that be as a result of stress and anxiety Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: Now would you agree that that is an extremely young age to be retired on the basis of ill-health?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: And you must have in order to have been successful in your application to be medically boarded, you must have been able to make out a case I suppose for psychiatric illness based on perhaps a post-traumatic stress disorder?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: And in that process, you must have undergone psychotherapy and you must have had lengthy sessions in order to justify the basis for your post-traumatic stress disorder?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: And I would imagine that that stress disorder follows as a result of your involvement in apartheid atrocities?

MR LOTZ: It could be.

MS HARTLE: I am asking you if it is so Mr Lotz?

MR LOTZ: Amongst other things, yes.

MS HARTLE: So would you agree then that you have had extensive counselling, you've had extensive psychotherapy and perhaps even psychiatric treatment?

MR LOTZ: That is correct yes.

MS HARTLE: Arising from these incidents?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: So one would imagine then that you have been forced to call to mind these atrocities, you have been forced to ponder over them, to consider the minute detail of your involvement?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: How else would you have justified your dismissal then on the basis of ill-health?

ADV VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, with all due respect I know my learned friend has got a lot of leeway, but are we not really moving into a field of psychiatric expertise that I venture to suggest that neither the two parties addressing you at the moment, seem to possess?

CHAIRPERSON: You heard the objection or the observation Ms Hartle, what is your response to that?

MS HARTLE: Mr Chairman, perhaps I should rephrase my question, but the point that I would like to carry across is that the witness must have obviously have had an opportunity to recollect the various incidents in which he was involved.

CHAIRPERSON: During the sessions?

MS HARTLE: During psychotherapy and other psychiatric sessions.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, you can ask him that yes, I suppose?

MS HARTLE: Is it so that you have?

MR LOTZ: No, I didn't.

MS HARTLE: I want to put it to you Mr Lotz, that your memory ought not to be so vague as to the events of the Pebco 3 operation as they are?

MR LOTZ: What I have stated here, is what happened.

MS HARTLE: Now, when you gave your evidence, you often used the expression particularly in your evidence in chief, I speak under correction?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

MS HARTLE: Who do you stand to be corrected by?

MR LOTZ: It wasn't a reference to anybody in particular, it was just my way of speaking when I wasn't entirely sure of what I was saying.

MS HARTLE: Isn't it so Mr Lotz, that you stand to be corrected by your senior colleagues if you did not tow the line with their submissions to this Committee?

MR LOTZ: I don't understand the question.

MS HARTLE: Isn't it so that you may be corrected by your colleagues if you are not making the same submission as they are, in other words if you are not keeping your version consistent with theirs.

MR LOTZ: If they want to make any amendments or changes to mine, that is their right, but this is my version.

MS HARTLE: And you are satisfied that everything you have told the Commission, both in your submissions and in evidence yesterday and today, is the truth?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: And my learned friend has given you a wonderful opportunity in the name of Christ, to tell the truth here today.

MR LOTZ: That is what I did.

MS HARTLE: Now despite your very vague recollection of events, I want to refer you on page 7 of your submissions, to the fourth paragraph.

I want to ask you why it is that you remember negatives as it were, if you read the first sentence, I can remember that these people as far as I knew, had never been locked up in the cells. Then you skip a sentence, I am not sure where this sleeping draft came from and I can't recall whether I also gave a cup of coffee to any of the deceased. Why are you expressing yourself in that manner?

MR LOTZ: That is the way I can remember it, perhaps I was not quite certain in respect of the facts.

MS HARTLE: Why, if you are already struggling to recall the events of 12 years ago, why are you in pains to tell us what you don't remember?

MR LOTZ: That is what I can remember.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand the question, the question is why should you remember something which did not happen and the impression created here is that somebody must have said to you that somebody says these people were put into a cell and then you said, that did not happen?

MR LOTZ: It could have happened during the consultations that they asked whether the people were locked up in the cells and that I then answered in the negative.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, you testified that what happened the abduction and the elimination of the Pebco 3, is something if I can use the word you said, something happened which should not have happened and at that stage it seemed right to me, or words to that effect. Do you recall saying that?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: Why did you make the comment that it should not have happened?

MR LOTZ: Now, in retrospect, 12 years later and the situation being different in the country, it has changed completely to what it was at the time, there was violence and unrest which reigned at the time 12 years ago. So, now one has a different perspective on what happened to one's perspective at the time of the violence and unrest.

MS HARTLE: Could you at the time you took part in the Pebco 3 operation, justify for yourself your involvement in the elimination of them?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I could.

MS HARTLE: Even though you only had six years experience in the Force?

MR LOTZ: Yes. I think I had been exposed to sufficient activities to be able to do this operation.

MS HARTLE: Now if you will please go to page 4 of your submissions, in the middle of the page. You say that on the 8th of May 1985, Captain Van Zyl approached you and gave you an instruction to form part of a group who were to assist you in operation.

Was that the first time you had been approached by Van Zyl in relation to the Pebco 3 operation?

MR LOTZ: Yes.

MS HARTLE: So if he says that there were discussions two weeks prior to that, in the two weeks leading up to the final instruction given in the morning of the 8th of May, would that be correct?

MR LOTZ: It could be.

MS HARTLE: Did you have discussions prior to the 8th of May?

MR LOTZ: Not with them.

MS HARTLE: Sorry, let me just understand your response correctly. Were there discussions in the two weeks leading up to the 8th of May concerning the Pebco 3 operation?

MR LOTZ: With myself?

MS HARTLE: With you?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: So the first you were informed of it was the 8th of May?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: Was it early in the morning?

MR LOTZ: I can't say with certainty, I am not sure.

MS HARTLE: What was the extent of your briefing prior to the operation? What were you informed?

MR LOTZ: It is as I put it here in my statement.

MS HARTLE: Was there any discussion regarding how a vehicle was to be disposed of?

MR LOTZ: No.

CHAIRPERSON: That morning being the very first occasion that you heard of the intended elimination and being approached for the first time, did you there and then find yourself ready to carry out that kind of operation?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I think I was ready to carry out such an operation.

CHAIRPERSON: And yet you had not carried out that kind of operation before?

MR LOTZ: No, I hadn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you not a little bit troubled by the gravity of the operation?

MR LOTZ: No, in the light of what was happening in Port Elizabeth at the time, there was unrest and rioting and violence, people were being burnt to death, schools were also being burnt so viewed in the light of all these circumstances, and also taking into account that the people from these organisations were primarily responsible for that situation and therefore I didn't have a problem with that.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't even consult with anybody, by anybody I literally mean anybody?

MR LOTZ: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you say to him I am going to think about it, I will give you an answer after five minutes or an hour or two hours, you there and then said fine, I am ready to do as you request?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct. I said I would take part in the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know the deceased before then?

MR LOTZ: Not personally, I just knew who they were, I knew of their existence and I knew about their activities, but I didn't know them personally.

CHAIRPERSON: Where did you get the information about their activities?

MR LOTZ: It was in the course of my activities, in my job, which at that stage was the detection of terrorists or exiles, people who had left the country and ... (tape ends) of these community leaders and group leaders, so they were primarily responsible for getting people to leave the country and for the recruitment of people to undergo military training abroad.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you have substantial information about each of the three deceased? The extent of their role and the nature of their role?

MR LOTZ: Yes, some of the information which we obtained was to the effect that they had addressed certain meetings and exhorted people to leave the country to go and undergo military training and then to come back to the country after having completed their training.

CHAIRPERSON: But sorry, I thought you heard their names for the first time after they had already been abducted?

MR LOTZ: No, I was aware of their activities. The three people who were to be abducted at that stage, I heard their names the first time on that day.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, I will leave it there.

ADV SANDI: I am sorry Ms Hartle, if I can just come in here. Just on this issue, I see that you mention at page 3 a number of incidents of terrorism. It is actually bomb attacks that you refer to which occurred at Constantia Centre, Municipal offices and the law courts. Was anyone of these three gentlemen involved in this?

MR LOTZ: Not directly as far as I know.

ADV SANDI: How were they involved, if in any way? You said not directly?

MR LOTZ: The people who were responsible for those attacks, could perhaps originally have been recruited by these people to leave the country and that was their involvement, if one can take it that far back and which ultimately led to the attack on those premises.

That is the way one could describe or link their involvement.

ADV SANDI: You were speculating in other words?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, but from the questioning of other arrestees, it became clear that they had been recruited by these people to leave the country for training purposes.

ADV SANDI: You did not really have, if I understand you, you did not really have any direct evidence pointing out they had something to do with this?

MR LOTZ: These three cases just mentioned, no.

ADV SANDI: Do you know if they were ever questioned for this?

MR LOTZ: I don't know, I have no knowledge of that.

ADV SANDI: I thought you said your job primarily entailed tracing terrorists?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

ADV SANDI: If any investigation was being made regarding such an incident or an incident similar to this, wouldn't you know about that?

MR LOTZ: Yes, their names would have emerged but to have gone to those people in those circumstances, would have been fruitless.

ADV SANDI: When you say fruitless, are you referring to the fact that it was difficult to use informers?

MR LOTZ: No, it is not difficult to use informers, but to get them and to get witnesses to actually testify to that, that would have been fatal.

ADV SANDI: Thank you Ms Hartle, carry on.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, on the morning on the 8th of May, or on the 8th of May when you received the instruction from Van Zyl, were the three Pebco leaders named, did you understand them to be Godolozi, Hashe and Galela?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: And was it very clearly an instruction to you that the three had to be killed?

MR LOTZ: That is how I understood it, yes.

MS HARTLE: So even at that stage you understood that the word eliminate didn't take on or no longer had the meaning that you were accustomed to in the sense of what you said you were exposed to?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: That it actually meant that you had to do something different?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: And you said that you haven't ever personally been involved in such an operation, in the sense that you had to kill someone before, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: And you didn't resist the instruction, you didn't question it, you accepted it just like that?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: And I take it you didn't think of the consequences of your actions?

MR LOTZ: I did consider it, but I reconciled myself with the consequences in the carrying out of the operation.

CHAIRPERSON: But you didn't reconcile yourself with the legal consequences? You reconciled yourself maybe with the fact that it might trouble your conscience and maybe cause you some sleepless nights and the like, but surely you didn't reconcile yourself with the possible legal consequences? You did not accept possible legal consequences?

MR LOTZ: At that stage I probably didn't even think about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Because you knew that there would be a cover up?

MR LOTZ: That could possibly be the case, yes. I can't give a direct answer.

CHAIRPERSON: No, you may have to. Then I can say that the operation probably would have been of such a nature that nobody would have known about it. And that is why the bodies had to be burnt at the end of the day.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, you knew already at that stage that there was going to be a massive cover up of that thing?

MR LOTZ: That is possible. Yes, the whole operation would probably have been concealed totally.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, you knew that it was going to be concealed?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: Did you personally have knowledge at the time when the instruction was given to you that the three you were to eliminate were activists and that they posed a risk to the government of the day as it were?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: On page 4 of your submissions in the second last paragraph, you say I was informed briefly by Captain Van Zyl, that this operation entailed the elimination of the three management members of Pebco. You don't mention there names and then the next sentence you say according to the explanation, it was clear that these people had been identified by means of the Security Branch's information network, as being people who were directly involved.

I am not going to read the rest of the sentence, it is implicit from that that it had to be explained to you or it had to be justified to you why they were to be eliminated?

MR LOTZ: We had held regular meetings, every morning we would have a meeting to discuss the previous day's events if I can call it that and that is how we knew what the people were actually busy with.

There was input from different quarters and from different people.

MS HARTLE: You see there is a sense in which you needed to be assured prior to your involvement in the operation.

MR LOTZ: Well, I knew what they were busy doing.

MS HARTLE: So was it necessary then to explain it to you?

MR LOTZ: I wouldn't actually say that it was an explanation that was given, because I was aware of what was going on.

MS HARTLE: My greatest wonderment is why they would have selected you for the operation to kill a man if you had had no prior experience of this nature?

MR LOTZ: I don't know. Captain Van Zyl chose me and we carried out the operation.

MS HARTLE: Were you present when the bakkie was destroyed?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

ADV SANDI: Mr Lotz, whilst Ms Hartle is going through her documents, can I ask were these gentlemen given reasons why they were going to be killed? What I mean is before they were killed, were they given an opportunity to know why they were going to be killed?

MR LOTZ: If I understand you correctly, are you asking whether we explained it to the deceased?

ADV SANDI: In your application, I see that you give a whole background and the reasons why it became necessary in that situation, to eliminate these three gentlemen. Were they given an opportunity to know anything about this and why you are taking the decision to kill them?

MR LOTZ: No, I don't think we discussed that with them. I don't think we told them why we had to eliminate them.

ADV SANDI: For example you did not say there is a number of bomb attacks that are taking place in Port Elizabeth and they have got something to do with that, that is one of the reasons, or this is part of the background for your decision to kill them?

MR LOTZ: If I understand you correctly, you are asking me whether I conveyed to them what the reasons were for their elimination. Otherwise I don't understand your question.

ADV SANDI: That is exactly the question I am asking.

MR LOTZ: No. We told them nothing. I didn't tell them anything.

ADV SANDI: Thank you, carry on Ms Hartle.

MS HARTLE: Thank you. You accompanied Lieutenant Nieuwoudt to the place where the bakkie was destroyed?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: But you followed in a separate vehicle?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: Now, when was that instruction given to destroy the bakkie?

MR LOTZ: It was at the forest path near the airport.

MS HARTLE: Sorry not where, I am asking you where were you when you were given the instruction, when was the instruction given?

MR LOTZ: After the people had been taken from the airport to the forest path, I can't recall the exact time.

MS HARTLE: Were you not a party to the plans in respect of that operation that the vehicle was supposed to have been left on the South African/Lesotho border?

MR LOTZ: I had no knowledge of that.

MS HARTLE: Is there a reason why you haven't included malicious injury to property in the list of offences in respect of which you are seeking amnesty?

MR LOTZ: I am not sure about that. No, we will rectify that.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, it seems that everything will be corrected as we go along, to the extent that you are implicated and your colleagues are implicated. This is the difficulty that the family has with your applications.

ADV SANDI: Mr Lotz, just one question from me. In your experience of tracing and detecting people who are involved in terrorist activities, are you able to recall any incident of terrorism in which in the course of the investigation, it became necessary to question one of these three gentlemen? I am not referring to the incidents you have mentioned in your application, can you recall any incident where in the course of the investigation, you said to yourself, let's go and question Galela or Godolozi or Hashe about this incident? Can you recall any?

MR LOTZ: No. I cannot recall any incident at the moment.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, when were you informed as to the modus operandi which would apply in respect of the elimination of the three, at what stage were you informed as to how they would be killed?

MR LOTZ: It would have been when Captain Van Zyl spoke to me.

MS HARTLE: The first time you heard of it?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: Were the finer details ever discussed with you?

MR LOTZ: I can't remember how fine and specific the details were, but it was that the persons were to be eliminated and thereafter to be burnt.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, you were there, I want to know from you what the nature of your instruction was in respect of how they were to be eliminated? What were the finer details?

MR LOTZ: To shoot the people and thereafter to place them on the pile of wood and to burn them.

MS HARTLE: Was everything else arranged and did you understand that there had been prior discussions between Van Zyl and Lieutenant Nieuwoudt?

MR LOTZ: I believe that this would have taken place, but I was not present when they spoke to one another or when this was discussed.

MS HARTLE: Did you discuss details of how and when they would be shot, in other words was it discussed whether or not it would have to be a humane killing?

MR LOTZ: No, that was not discussed.

MS HARTLE: Was it just a mere coincidence that it happened to be a humane killing, in the sense that they were drugged before they were shot?

MR LOTZ: I don't know whether these were instructions, but that was the way we did it.

MS HARTLE: I am most curious as to the manner in which the final shootings happened. You say in your submission that the persons fell asleep and each of you, I assumed carried one of the Pebco 3 outdoors, is that correct?

MR LOTZ: We did not carry them one by one, we assisted one another.

MS HARTLE: So then each of you carried each person, in other words all three of you carried one of the activists or ...

MR LOTZ: One or two, that is correct.

MS HARTLE: And why did you carry them away from the house?

MR LOTZ: Most probably not to shoot them in the house or in the garage.

MS HARTLE: Why is that?

MR LOTZ: With a shooting there is a great deal of blood involved. It was done near the place where the fire was made.

MS HARTLE: What time of the day was it when they were shot?

MR LOTZ: It was about dusk.

MS HARTLE: Were you not concerned that your actions might be detected outdoors?

MR LOTZ: No, under those circumstances, no.

MS HARTLE: Why is it Mr Lotz, that none of you were sure which one you shot? Who shot who?

MR LOTZ: I am not sure who it was or who I shot. I did speak to Lieutenant Nieuwoudt about this and he said that he shot Mr Godolozi, Captain van Zyl said that he shot Mr Hashe, then I must have shot Mr Galela.

MS HARTLE: Why is it that none of you know Mr Lotz who you shot?

MR LOTZ: Because I did not know, I only heard it here.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, you were there.

MR LOTZ: I know.

MS HARTLE: Why is it that none of you know who shot who?

MR LOTZ: Because I am not going to say that I shot this person, and I didn't shoot him.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, you knew the three persons, you must have known them by name by the time they were shot.

MR LOTZ: This happened 12 years ago. This is how I felt about this, I wanted forget something like this as soon as possible. And that is why I cannot remember with certainty that I shot this person or that person.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, is it no longer on your mind?

MR LOTZ: Unfortunately now I do think about it again, but I would like to eradicate it as soon as possible again.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, it is going to stay on your mind until you tell the truth, because it is only then that you are going to get pardon and release from this.

MR LOTZ: I will have peace after this, because I am telling the truth.

MS HARTLE: After you have told this Commission half truths, you are going to get on with your life?

MR LOTZ: No, it is not half a truth, it is the full truth.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, the question as to why you don't remember the person you shot, is being asked against the context that there is a dispute as to whether these people were shot or not. Some people say these people were not killed by way of being shot, so there is some dispute about that. So it is relatively important, it is a relatively important aspect of the matter.

Now, each of you did not have to remember as to who shot the other two, but I would have thought that if you shot only one person, as it turns out to be the case, surely you remember that one. There aren't many people to remember, it is only one.

MR LOTZ: I know.

CHAIRPERSON: Just one person, you shot one person.

MR LOTZ: That is correct. As I have said, I wanted to - I didn't want to think about it any more, I cut myself, or tried to cut myself off from what happened there, off the events that occurred.

The stories that the other people told that they were not shot there, I was there, I did it, that is why I am applying for amnesty, otherwise I would not have been sitting here.

CHAIRPERSON: One would have thought that at that critical moment of actually shooting one of them, would haunt you for a very long time, not just for 12 years, but for the rest of your life?

MR LOTZ: I am sure that it will.

CHAIRPERSON: And so far of the two of you who were involved in the shooting, you cannot remember which one of the three you shot?

MR LOTZ: I really cannot remember, I cannot.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

ADV SANDI: Mr Lotz, on the same issue, are you actually suggesting here that at some stage after the shooting occurred, you did in fact have this information in your mind, but you decided to wipe it out?

MR LOTZ: I tried, but I was not successful.

ADV SANDI: What did you try to do?

MR LOTZ: The knowledge of what happened there, to get it out of my system if I can call it like that.

ADV SANDI: Is your knowledge of what happened there, does it include - did it include before you wiped it out of your mind, did it include the name of the person you killed?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I tried to eradicate everything, I would not have kept one thing back.

ADV SANDI: Carry on Ms Hartle.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, if you were shown photographs of the Pebco 3, would it help to refresh your memory?

MR LOTZ: No, I don't think at this stage it will.

MS HARTLE: If you carry on, it appears from your submissions that after you had shot the Pebco 3, you then moved them again to the wood, the piles of wood?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

MS HARTLE: And you then set about pouring diesel over them and the wood?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: And lighting the fire?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: Who did that?

MR LOTZ: I am speaking under correction, I don't think I can remember.

MS HARTLE: Do you want to answer that?

MR LOTZ: I don't have a problem with it, but I cannot recall.

MS HARTLE: It doesn't really matter in the scheme of things who did it, I am just asking you who did it?

MR LOTZ: That is why if I knew who did it, I would have said so, I don't have a problem with this. I can say that I did it, but I am not sure. I cannot remember.

MS HARTLE: Have you ever before, had you ever before that time set alight a human body?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: Had you ever had experience before of this kind of incineration of activists?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: Had you ever before heard of the Security Branch employing such a method in eliminating bodies?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: Didn't it occur to you that it was perhaps a difficult way of eliminating the bodies?

MR LOTZ: That is how I understood it had to be done, and that is how it was done.

MS HARTLE: But you went down to the town of Cradock to go and buy the diesel, if I understand you correctly?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: How did you know what you would need?

MR LOTZ: Captain Van Zyl told me to go and buy it.

MS HARTLE: How much diesel did you buy?

MR LOTZ: I think it was a jerry can full, I can exactly remember how much it was, whether it was ten or fifteen or twenty litres.

MS HARTLE: Where did you get the wood?

MR LOTZ: In the area behind the house there was a dry river bed, where there was a lot of wood, that we carried towards the place where we made the fire.

MS HARTLE: Did you buy any wood in Cradock?

MR LOTZ: No.

MS HARTLE: Surely, it would have taken a huge amount of wood to burn a fire for six hours?

MR LOTZ: We added wood the whole time constantly, more wood was added throughout the evening.

MS HARTLE: I am not going to deal with the several discrepancies between your evidence and that of the askaris, neither am I going to deal with those discrepancies between your evidence and that of the applicants who testified before you, but suffice it to say or rather I should put it to you that my clients' instructions are that you have not told the truth to this Commission.

MR LOTZ: I have told the truth.

MS HARTLE: And you are further aware of the families' submission, or the families' contention that the three could not have been killed on that day, because they were cited elsewhere, at Algoa Park, Louis Le Grange and Alexandra at various stages?

MR LOTZ: Those people could not have been spotted there.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, you know because this has lived with you for so long, you said to the Committee that it is probably never going to be removed from your mind, the memory of these events?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: Now you understand the objective of this Commission, do you understand why you are here, why you have applied for amnesty?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

MS HARTLE: What are the reasons that you would advance, why you have made this application?

MR LOTZ: In the first place to come and tell the truth.

MS HARTLE: To most probably come and tell the truth?

MR LOTZ: No, to tell the truth. Secondly to be granted amnesty for that which I have done.

MS HARTLE: And what else? What about the families?

MR LOTZ: Yes, I don't know how to put it, to ask them for forgiveness for what I have done.

MS HARTLE: That is an afterthought?

MR LOTZ: No, it is not.

MS HARTLE: Now, Mr Lotz, you are in the early afternoon of your life, you've got several years ahead of you. You have retired from the Police Force.

CHAIRPERSON: Just put the question.

MS HARTLE: As the Chairman pleases.

CHAIRPERSON: And not make (indistinct) statements, like you are considering. He has told us he has retired for medical health, he may die next week. Just put the question without bringing in fact which may just you know, contribute towards the evidence.

MS HARTLE: As the Committee pleases. I put it to you Mr Lotz, that you are going to remember these events for the rest of your life, unless you tell the Committee the truth and that you are not doing so today.

MR LOTZ: I will remember it for the rest of my life in any event. I spoke the truth and I don't think that because I have now spoken the truth, these memories will be erased.

MS HARTLE: Mr Lotz, this is the greatest opportunity you are ever going to have to remove the shackles from your feet, now to tell the truth.

MR LOTZ: I have already done so.

MS HARTLE: I have nothing further, thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS HARTLE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Brink?

NO CFROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BRINK

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lotz, to sum up your evidence on certain aspects of the matter, is it correct that your evidence is that you did not see this people at any time with their head covered, be it in the vicinity of the airport or at the place where they were killed?

MR LOTZ: Their heads were not covered.

CHAIRPERSON: You therefore disagree with the people who say that their heads were covered?

MR LOTZ: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you also saying that they were never assaulted? You never saw them being assaulted at any stage?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And they were just interrogated in a very peaceful way?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And the information about the AK47 was elicited in a very peaceful way as well?

MR LOTZ: Correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, I think I must go back to a question which was put to you by Ms Hartle about the diesel and the lighting of the match to start the fire.

Who went to go and buy the diesel?

MR LOTZ: I went to buy the diesel.

CHAIRPERSON: And obviously you came back with it?

MR LOTZ: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you saw when this diesel was poured onto the firewood?

MR LOTZ: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, who did that?

MR LOTZ: I can't remember, I honestly cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: But we are talking about the diesel which you yourself bought, which you yourself brought to the scene for a particular purpose and we are talking about a situation where you were personally present where this diesel which you had bought, were being poured over the firewood. You have forgotten as to who did that?

MR LOTZ: I have, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now, who brought the matches?

MR LOTZ: I can't say, I don't know, I can't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you see when the fire was being lit? I notice that you are keeping quiet for some time. Are you trying to think hard as to who brought the matches?

MR LOTZ: I am trying to recall the whole episode and I really can't remember. If I knew I would have said so. I really cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Who lit the matches?

MR LOTZ: I can't recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Who brought the firewood?

MR LOTZ: I did.

CHAIRPERSON: And assembled it?

MR LOTZ: Captain Van Zyl and myself we gathered the wood into a pile.

CHAIRPERSON: That you remember?

MR LOTZ: Yes, because that kept us busy for quite some time.

CHAIRPERSON: I would have thought really the lighting of the matches was a very critical moment and something which was very drastic. Was it you Mr Lotz, who lit the matches?

MR LOTZ: Maybe I did, I am not sure. If it was me, I would have said so. All I can imagine is that the shock of having shot somebody was actually so overwhelming, that I can't remember what happened afterwards.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you have even forgotten as to whether it could have been yourself?

MR LOTZ: That is possible, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Booyens, any re-examination?

ADV BOOYENS: No thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY ADV BOOYENS: .

CHAIRPERSON: You are excused.

MR LOTZ: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED