CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. Ms Lockhat, who is to give evidence after Mr Kendall?
MS LOCKHAT: We call on the applicant, Mr D Gouws.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw, you seem to be a little unhappy with an indication by Ms Lockhat that Mr Gouws is next to give evidence. Would you like Mr Oosthuizen to go first?
MR ROSSOUW: Madam Chair, if I can ask the Committee to indulge us. We have prepared on that basis, to lead the evidence of Mr Oosthuizen first. I don't want to prescribe, I'm merely asking for an indulgence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think it is alright to give an indication to this Committee as whom you'd like to call first. We will therefore grant you the right, it's not an indulgence.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Madam Chair. May applicant Oosthuizen be called first?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Oosthuizen, your full names?
STEFANUS ADRIAAN OOSTHUIZEN: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairperson, you will find the application of Mr Oosthuizen in bundle 5, on page 29(a) and further.
Mr Oosthuizen, do you have a copy your application before you?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ROSSOUW: Just an amendment ...
...(end of tape 1 side A)
MR ROSSOUW: ... Committee that there is an entry on the first page, page 29(a).1, your identity number. You have already requested an amendment in previous applications. You ask for an amendment that the last number has to be a 5 and not a 9?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, you apply for amnesty in this incident for the murder and the incident that is known as the KwaNdebele 9, is that correct?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ROSSOUW: As background a list has been prepared and I would like to refer to this list. You have referred to the content of this application that has served before other Committees and this Committee, do you want the contents of this document to be incorporated into your application, is that correct?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR ROSSOUW: Madam Chair, I beg to hand up - for the convenience of the Committee I've made a typed list of the relevant portions of the evidence that we've referred to. Madam Chair, this is similar to the evidence that was led in the Ntuli matter. I've just for your convenience typed it and will let the witness confirm it.
Mr Oosthuizen, can we return back to before this incident took place. Can you tell the Committee ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, Mr Oosthuizen, can we give this an exhibit number? What number, Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: G, Chairperson, Exhibit G.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
ADV DE JAGER: ... the first exhibit in this KwaNdebele case?
MS LOCKHAT: It is the first exhibit, but we've continued with all the exhibits for the entire hearing, we've just named it and continued and so forth.
ADV DE JAGER: Oh I see.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed, Mr Rossouw.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Oosthuizen, we know that before this incident you had worked in KwaNdebele in a Special Investigative Unit, can you for clarity and for the new Member of the Committee, can you please briefly explain to the Committee what this unit entailed, what your purposes were and where you were deployed.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I was attached to a Special Investigative Unit that had been operated from headquarters. We worked countrywide. Our investigations were directly involved with the investigation into unrest as well as murders countrywide at that stage.
During this incident we were in KwaNdebele. We stayed at the Waterworks camp at Siyabuswa where we were investigating approximately 300 murders that were political in nature. And not only in KwaNdebele, but countrywide as well we liaised with the relevant security branches. ...(intervention)
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, on that point, can you please explain to the Committee why it was necessary for your investigative unit to have contact with the Security Branch. Did you operate in unrest related areas?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson. Our task overlapped with the work that the Security Branch had done in those areas. We did not investigate criminal related incidents, but unrest related incidents.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, on that point, may I refer you to Exhibit E, do you have a copy of that before you?
CHAIRPERSON: When was this exhibit accepted, can someone refresh my memory? Because Mr Rossouw, I do not remember this exhibit having been handed up to the Committee.
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, if I can just come in on that. Mr Rossouw had given me the exhibits during the course of yesterday and I asked the secretaries to make it available to you yesterday. I was not aware that you did not have a copy. I have extra copies here, I shall present it to you.
CHAIRPERSON: I do have an extra copy, but I just saw an exhibit and it has never been accepted by the Committee as an exhibit.
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, I just took the liberty of, just for the sake of convenience, just by making extra copies previously and then just marking them accordingly.
CHAIRPERSON: May I appeal that we do not saddle this Committee with unnecessary documents, we already have bundles and bundles of documents to go through.
I had an occasion to go through the exhibit, though I didn't know how it came to be assigned Exhibit E, I had an occasion to go the exhibit nevertheless and what I found was that it was completely unnecessary for this document to be presented to us because we already have the bundles, which I must assume have already been accepted by agreement at a rehearing conference by all parties. Now this exhibit forms part of bundle 2(f) and bundle 2(g). Is that not so, Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: That is indeed correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: So why should we have an exhibit which already is part of the documents that we have in our possession?
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, I think Mr Rossouw can answer you regarding that because he was in possession of these bundles and he couldn't for some reason find it and therefore he took this from the Internet. But I think he can just answer you on that.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw, didn't you have bundle 2(f) and bundle 2(g)?
MR ROSSOUW: Madam Chair, unfortunately those bundles were not forwarded to me. I have endeavoured in discussions to obtain copies thereof and due to the fact that the weekend was coming up last week and I still didn't have a bundle to read the evidence, I took the liberty of tracing this evidence on the Internet and I then made a printout of the relevant portions thereof. My apologies for duplicating the reading work for the Committee, Madam Chair. This was the only place where I could find it in order to prepare my clients for their testimony.
I will however offer to, if the Committee will allow me to lead the evidence on the exhibit, or on the documents, I will endeavour to reconcile the page numbering with those in the bundles that you've got, and then can I come back to you at a later stage and give you the relevant page numbers?
CHAIRPERSON: That's right. We will not accept this as an exhibit, it is not necessary to do so. I will allow you to refer to this document because you've already arranged your questioning in accordance with this document. However it will be necessary for you to refer us to the page numbers as appearing in the bundles before us.
MR ROSSOUW: Madam Chair, I will do that. Unfortunately, when one traces this evidence on the Internet, the page numbering does not correspond with the bundles, that's the problem that I have. I will reconcile them.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the other added problem was that I was unable to go through the document because it's a small, small print, it presented me with serious difficulties. I don't have a very good eyesight and I haven't had an opportunity of going to an optometrist. You may proceed, Mr Rossouw.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Oosthuizen, if I can refer you to the document that was titled Exhibit E - we know it's not an exhibit in these matters, can I refer you to page 6 thereof. You will see that there Captain Hechter gave evidence that he received instructions from Brigadier Cronje to closely co-operate with the Murder and Robbery Unit with regard to terrorist weapons.
Later in the evidence it is mentioned that you and Mr Gouws as well as Captain Mentz from the Murder and Robbery Unit ... You have already mentioned that you were part of the Special Investigative Unit. This evidence of Captain Hechter is therefore not correct, but can you possibly explain to the Committee why that confusion exists?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Indeed Chairperson, I assume it's a confusion that - and there are several reasons, and this is my own assumption, it is the only logical one that I can come to, is the fact that we investigated murders, that we had close co-operation with Wouter Mentz, who was attached to murder and Robbery and we would have been transferred to Murder and Robbery, which happened later.
I would accept that such a confusion would have existed before this Committee and I would like to say that I was not a member of Murder and Robbery at that stage, but indeed of the Special Investigative Unit that investigated the murders.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, can you briefly elaborate to the Committee what the extent of the co-operation between yourself and the Security Branches was in these investigations?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, there was close co-operation between the special investigating team and the Security Branches, not only, in this case the Security Branch Northern Transvaal, but this was applicable countrywide wherever we worked. And we worked with the Security Branch we were under the command of their officers.
We received instructions from them to perform certain tasks because we were in these areas and it was accepted that we worked there and everybody knew that we were investigating these murders. We gave feedback to the Security Branch Northern Transvaal.
Our liaising persons were Brigadier Jack Cronje and Captain Jacques Hechter. This was on a continuous basis.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, we shall return to this point, but can you please tell the Committee how it happened that you had knowledge of this incident and how did you become involved in this incident.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, if my memory serves me correct, I cannot help the Committee as to what the date or how long before this Captain Jacques Hechter contacted us, but if I remember correctly it was at his office and he said that there were activists who would leave the country for training, terrorist training. A decision was taken that these persons had to be eliminated or be killed before they could leave the country.
I cannot remember whether he mentioned Deon Gouws' name, but I would assume that we had to assist the actions during this operations.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you part of the decision to eliminate the activists before leaving the country?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, Madam Chair, I was not at the initial planning and the identification of these persons.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, was it mentioned to you that Joe Mamasela had identified the persons?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I cannot recall the exact detail, but it concerned the fact that the activists were identified and they would come from Mamelodi and that files existed on these people, which would confirm these allegations. I did not check the files myself. I knew that Joe Mamasela would be involved in some manner in this incident. I assumed or accepted, and I had no reason to doubt that these people had been identified on the grounds of acts that had happened in Mamelodi.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: You haven't answered Mr Rossouw's question, Mr Oosthuizen. The question was, was it mentioned to you that Mamasela had identified the activists?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, it is possible that Jacques Hechter might have mentioned it. I cannot recall the detail, but I know that Mamasela played a part in this incident.
CHAIRPERSON: When you say you knew that Mamasela played a part in this incident, what are you saying? Did you know that he had played a part in the identification of the targets? Because we also know that you will soon give evidence that he actually participated in the actual elimination of the activists.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: It is so that he indeed played a part in the identification and the run-up to this incident. I know thereof, but I do not know the details thereof. I have heard evidence of that before the Committee, but I did not deal with Mamasela directly or heard of this myself from him.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Rossouw?
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Oosthuizen, did you at any stage have knowledge before this incident, that attempts were made by the Security Branch to convince activists who wanted to leave the country, not to go?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson. Jacques Hechter informed me that attempts were made and that these attempts were not successful. In which manner it was done and when this was done, this I cannot tell you.
CHAIRPERSON: When was that, when were you informed by Captain Hechter of these attempts to dissuade the activists from leaving the country?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, this was during our discussion. It is possible that it could be the day when he approached me and gave me the instruction to become involved, or it could be from that day up to the incident.
I cannot tell the Committee what the time period was there, but there was a discussion between Hechter and myself and during this discussion it was told to me.
CHAIRPERSON: So you were advised of all this information in the process of your instructions to be involved in the elimination of these activists who intended to leave the country?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I did not hear you correctly.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you advised of this information in the process of Captain Hechter's instruction to you to be part of the operation to eliminate the activists who intended to leave the country?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR LAX: Mr Oosthuizen, at that stage did you have any knowledge of any unrest related incidents in Mamelodi, where young activists were involved?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ROSSOUW: Can you briefly tell the Committee about these incidents?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: This involved buildings being burnt down, innocent people being necklaced, boycotts and intimidation, Chairperson.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, can you please tell the Committee what this implied to you, that activists would leave the country and receive training, military training, what did this imply to you?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: It was clear to me, Chairperson, that if these persons should leave the country they would return or they could return as trained terrorists, who would then turn on innocent persons, which would include their own people in the townships as well as police officials who were targets at that stage and that the tracing of such persons would be much more difficult, whilst he could be identified before he went for training.
MR ROSSOUW: Can I refer you to page 31 in the document entitled Exhibit E, the evidence of Captain Hechter. You will see that there Captain Hechter gives evidence about the implication of what it would mean if these persons would leave the country and receive training. He refers to it as the pre-emptive strike, would you agree with this?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Undoubtedly this was my viewpoint with regards to this action.
MR ROSSOUW: Did you have any reason to doubt the instruction or the information about these persons were identified?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I had no reason to doubt this because at that stage I was aware that they had a thorough network of informants in Mamelodi, and that their information was very accurate.
MR ROSSOUW: This information, did you share this with the Security Branch? You have seen how accurate their information was.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, I would like to refer you to the finding of the Amnesty Committee in the Nietverdiendt incident. You were not involved there, but the finding of the Committee on page 13 of the judgment of the Committee on Brigadier Cronje, it is mentioned that their actions against the Nietverdiendt 10 were a pre-emptive operation to eliminate them and to make sure that they did not leave the country to receive training. You've referred to that section of the judgment, would you say that the same purpose was in mind with the KwaNdebele 9?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, can you tell the Committee on which basis preparations were made for this operation? From whom did you receive instructions and what preparations were made?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, as I have explained already I cannot with certainty say when and how long before the incident it was when I was informed by Jacques Hechter. I want to be certain that it was at his office during one of my visits there, that we would be involved with this action. He explained to me what the planning should be and shortly thereafter Deon Gouws and myself as well as Jacques Hechter went to a holiday resort in Bronkhorstspruit and had a meeting there, where the ammunition that would be used in the incident was cleaned.
MR ROSSOUW: Could you please tell the Committee what you mean with cleaning the ammunition.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, firstly we had to ensure that the weapons were in a working condition, in other words, the AK47s that we would use which was given to us by Jacques Hechter, the ammunition and weapons had to be cleaned of any fingerprints because we knew that the shells would remain at the scene. I have to mention that it was just myself, Jacques and Deon Gouws that were present there. Thereafter I'm uncertain where we me for this operation, but on the evening, but no the evening of the incident, I cannot recall if it was the evening before the incident or the same evening, I'm not sure, but ...(intervention)
MR ROSSOUW: Before we proceed to that point, you know that you liaised with Captain Hechter, do you know where Brigadier Cronje was?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I cannot say where Brigadier Cronje was. I was never present, or Brigadier was never present where this incident was discussed.
MR ROSSOUW: Is it correct that before this operation you had some concern as to whether you were caught or not? Did you discuss this with someone?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: I didn't get you, Mr Rossouw, what was his concern before the operation?
MR ROSSOUW: Madam Chair, there was a concern that they might be found out and that he discussed it with somebody. He's going to tell you now what transpired there.
CHAIRPERSON: Found out by whom?
MR ROSSOUW: By either the police, I'm placing words - he should tell you.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed to respond, Mr Oosthuizen.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I'm almost certain that at the first mention or instruction that I received from Jacques Hechter, I asked him what would happen if we were caught in that area, because I knew that the army were relatively active in that area. And that would seem so from their evidence, that the army was indeed there.
Hechter explained to me that this was not my concern, it has been taken care of. I accepted that that was the system that would ensure that we were safeguarded and that a system was in place. And I mentioned it in my application, that this is the only advantage that I had from these actions and that is that the system protected me in these instances.
MR ROSSOUW: Very well. Mr Oosthuizen, can you please tell the Committee what the further preparations were?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, we met that evening. The planning was that Joe Mamasela and Deon Gouws would handle the weapons and Wouter Mentz would drive the vehicle, and Jacques Hechter was in possession of a container with petrol. This was to be used at the scene after the shooting incident to set fire.
We drove to Vlaklaagte and in the area where we had to do the operation we spotted some army vehicles patrolling the area. It was a problem for us. We then decided to go to the one, to set fire to a bush on the one side of this area. I cannot recall who set fire to the bush, but we did set fire to the bush indeed. The idea was to divert the attention of the army and to remove them physically to that area to clean up the area in which we had to drive into.
The plan was effective, it did happen. We drove in and we stopped at the particular house which was pointed out to us by Joe Mamasela. There was a high gate which was locked. Joe Mamasela climbed over while we waited outside. He returned with a key and opened the gate. Deon Gouws and myself were standing behind a wall of a house on the same premises and waited for Joe Mamasela to call us. Wouter Mentz pushed the vehicle backwards into the property.
Mamasela indicated to us that we could come in. The plan was that these people would receive a crash course in the handling of weapons ...(intervention)
MR ROSSOUW: Is that the reason why you had AK47s with you?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct. The reason why we had these AK47s was to shoot them, but they would accept that we came to give them some training.
We went into the room. Joe Mamasela led the way and Deon Gouws was behind him and I was third in line.
MR ROSSOUW: Where did Mamasela stand in relation to the door?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: The door was to the side of the room. Joe Mamasela went in and stood on the left-hand side of the door. Deon Gouws went in before me and stood on my left and I stood on the right-hand side of the door and we started shooting
MR ROSSOUW: Can you tell the Committee where these persons were at this stage in the room?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: The persons stood in a row before us. During this process I saw that I shot Deon Gouws' weapon. At that stage I decided to leave the room which was also the same for Joe Mamasela and Deon Gouws. We ran out to the vehicle.
If I recall correctly, and I'm not sure about this point, but either Jacques Hechter or Deon Gouws poured petrol onto the bodies and somebody set them alight. I don't - I assume it was one of the two of them. We climbed into the vehicle and we drove away. I assume that we drove back to Pretoria.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, with regard to this matter we know that the evidence of Captain Hechter was that he gave the order and that you as his subordinates executed his orders. I refer you to page 34 in the document, Exhibit E.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR ROSSOUW: You confirm this?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, I confirm this.
MR ROSSOUW: What was your rank at that stage?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Warrant Officer.
MR ROSSOUW: Would you as a subordinate officer have been in a position or in any way considered it to question an order given by a Captain or an officer like Captain Hechter?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.
MR ROSSOUW: Why not?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: In the police hierarchy it never worked that way, that a subordinate officer would disregard, or disobey the order of a senior office. Furthermore, we were under his command during certain operations in which we were involved with the Security Branch.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, I would like to refer you to the evidence of Mr Mentz with regard to this matter, the document entitled Exhibit F, page 7 of that document. There during cross-examination of Mr Mentz, it was debated - let me ask you this first, Mr Mentz was at that stage not a member of the Security Branch, he was with Murder and Robbery.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, that's correct.
MR ROSSOUW: When did you become aware that Mr Mentz would also be part of this operation, can you tell us this?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: If my memory does not fail me, Chairperson, on that evening when Wouter Mentz arrived there with the motor vehicle, for the first time I heard that he would driving the car.
MR ROSSOUW: Did you find it strange that there would a member of the Murder and Robbery Unit that would be a member of this operation?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, simply because I also knew that there was an overlap of work between the Murder and Robbery Units and the Security Branch at that stage in the country.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, then on page 7 Mr Mentz states that despite the fact that he was with Murder and Robbery, he says
"It was still part of my duties to combat terrorism, but I had to specifically concentrate on murders and robberies and other offences."
As a policeman, did you also regard this as part of your duties to combat terrorism and also to take preventative action in combating terrorism? Did you regard this as part of your duties?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, that's correct, it was like that from the very first day that I joined the police, until the conditions in this country changed, that terrorism had to be fought with everything.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, do you also know about the Amnesty Committee's decision with regard to the political objective in this matter and the amnesty decision of Mr Mentz and Captain Hechter?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That's correct.
MR ROSSOUW: Do you also confirm the finding regarding the political objective?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, I confirm that.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, did you draw any benefit from this action, or was it in any way aimed as a result of malice which you felt against these persons or this person?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, and there was no gain.
MR ROSSOUW: Financial gain?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: There was not financial gain.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, is there anything that you wish to add regarding this incident?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, Chairperson, that which I wanted to say about the gravity of the deed has already been submitted in my amnesty application.
MR ROSSOUW: Do you confirm this?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, I confirm this as well.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Madam Chair, that is the evidence-in-chief.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW
CHAIRPERSON: I think this might be the appropriate time to take the tea adjournment until twenty five past eleven.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: ... on the table because the Committee was two minutes late. It was because of Mr du Plessis having to see us about something in chambers. Who wants to go first? Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no questions, Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
MR VISSER: Neither do I.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Polsen?
MR POLSEN: I have one question, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR POLSEN: Mr Oosthuizen, you have stated that you liaised with every Security Branch before you would undertake any activities within any given region, can you recall whether in this case you liaised at all with the Security Branch in Bronkhorstspruit and with Mr Kendall himself?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, we never liaised with Kendall, but directly with Security Branch, Northern Transvaal.
MR POLSEN: Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR POLSEN
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Oosthuizen, do you know about Johannes Skosana?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What information was given to you in relation to the persons who you later murdered? For example, were the names ever provided, were any particulars provided with regard to what they were allegedly busy with?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, the information which was conveyed to me came from Jacques Hechter. No names were given, neither were ages given, it was about activists who had been identified and about whom there were files in connection with their activities and deeds and that they were about to leave the country in order to receive terrorist training.
MR VAN DEN BERG: One of the persons who was murdered is Mabuso Malabolo, do you say that you have no knowledge of names or that sort of particular?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, that is my evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you spell the name of the person for us?
MR VAN DEN BERG: His first name is Mabuso; M-A-B-U-S-O and surname; M-A-L-A-B-O-L-O.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR VAN DEN BERG: He wasn't from Mamelodi, he was indeed from KwaTema and he was visiting his parents, or at least his grandparents, his grandmother and grandfather. You have no knowledge of that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I have no knowledge of that, Chairperson.
MR VAN DEN BERG: In fact he had only been in Mamelodi for three days with that visit, when he disappeared and his grandmother was later informed, a week after the incident, that he had died.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I'm very sorry, Chairperson, but I cannot be of assistance to you on that point. I cannot dispute it, neither can I confirm it.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The evidence of Hechter as I understand it, is that a group of persons in Mamelodi had been infiltrated by Mamasela and that they had told him that they wanted to go for training, do you know about that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I did not discuss those details with Jacques Hechter. How the information came to his knowledge I accept was partially through Joe Mamasela as well as possibly, and I have no substantiation for that, by means of feedback from informers in the relevant area. And on the grounds of that files were kept.
MR VAN DEN BERG: When were you transferred - you were a member of a task force for specific investigations as I understand it, when were transferred to that particular unit?
Unfortunately I was not here when you gave evidence regarding Ntuli, so if you have already answered this question before, I apologise.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I don't think that I have previously answered that question, it could possibly have been a year or two before the KwaNdebele incident, that I was deployed to the Special Investigative Unit Head Office, Pretoria.
MR VAN DEN BERG: If one studies Captain Hechter's evidence which is on page 762, Madam Chair, in bundle 2(f) ...(intervention)
MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Rossouw, do you have the bundle?
MR ROSSOUW: I do not have it. Madam Chair, can my learned colleague perhaps just read what is said there to the witness?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: I will put it to the witness, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: You may do so, Mr van den Berg.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Hechter was questioned about how he involved you in this matter and he was examined by Mr du Plessis
"Could you just tell the Committee how this operation came to be?"
Hechter answers:
"That is correct, Chairperson, these three members were affiliated to Brooklyn. The one was a uniform branch member and the other two were investigating officers and we worked together very closely for several years in Brooklyn. At that stage I was fairly new to the branch and I did not know the people very well.
That afternoon when I received the information that the people were on the point of leaving the country if they did not receive our assistance. I decided we should act immediately.
At that time, Sergeant Mentz, I got his home number and contacted him at home. I contacted Gouws and Oosthuizen and said that they should be prepared for an operation that evening against the future terrorists, persons who wanted to leave the country for training. they agreed to assist me that evening."
Would you agree with that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, Jacques Hechter's evidence is by and large correct, with the exception of the point - and for the same reason I indicate that there could have been some confusion about this, Deon Gouws and I and Hechter and Wouter Mentz were at a certain stage stationed at Brooklyn.
However, this was a long time before the incident and I think that his memory is failing him to a certain extent. I think in one of his other applications he stated correctly that we were in Siyabuswa, busy with an investigation and that from there he contacted us. At that stage ...(end of tape)
... evidence. I would not say it's a lie, I think he may be confused regarding that point.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, can one not also read one sentence to have meant that at some stage they had worked together, they had worked together very closely for several years in Brooklyn?
MR VAN DEN BERG: Yes, I agree with that. I just wanted his interpretation as to the facts.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
ADV DE JAGER: There is another aspect of the question. He states that he contacted you that afternoon, before the evening on that very same day.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, that he would have telephoned me and informed that the action would take place on that particular day, but if my memory serves me correctly, the initial involvement and order to execute this project took place before this particular day.
CHAIRPERSON: Over period would you say?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I would like to assist the Committee in that regard, but my memory is not as fresh regarding that. It may have been three to four days or even longer. I apologise, but my memory fails me in that regard.
CHAIRPERSON: From what has been read to you by Mr van den Berg suggests one thing and one thing only, that the information came to light to Captain Hechter, he then contacted you and requested you to execute the operation the very evening.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I do not dispute that, that he phoned me on that particular day and told me that the operation would be undertaken on that specific evening. But as far as I know, with regard to the contact between me and Hechter that there would be such an operation, this took place before that day. I accept that he would have telephoned me and told me that the operation would take place today. I cannot dispute that, but my memory serves me insofar as to say that the initial discussion between me and Hechter took place before then.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Lockhat, did you want to say something?
MR VAN DEN BERG: I still have a few questions, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm aware, I thought she was pressing her button to draw my attention to something that she wanted to say. I know you still have lots of questions to put to Mr Oosthuizen. I'll try not to take too much time, Madam Chair.
Mr Oosthuizen, may I refer you further in the record of the previous applications, on page 842. How did the decision come about as to who would be undertaking the shooting, how did you arrive at that decision?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Could you repeat your question please.
MR VAN DEN BERG: How did you decide, or how was the decision taken regarding who would do the shooting?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I accept, Madam Chair, that the planning was undertaken to such an extent that Wouter Mentz, who was approached singularly by Jacques Hechter, would drive the vehicle. By nature of the situation, Joe Mamasela negotiated with these people and he said as a cover-up that these people would receive training in order to get us into the venue. And there was a joint decision that Deon Gouws and I would participate in the shooting and Jacques Hechter would be in control of the action or the situation that was jointly decided. It also stood under the command of Jacques Hechter in that way.
MR VAN DEN BERG: The extract that I want to put to you is part of Captain Mentz' evidence. If I can take you from where he begins his evidence on 842. He states as follows
"Chairperson, I would like to respond in this way; I did not testify further about what more took place that evening, so I would like to answer you. We spoke about my political motive, I'd like to proceed.
Hechter, Mamasela and I as well as Deon Geese and Andre Oosthuizen went there this night. I was driving. And in the vehicle on the way there, Mamasela, Gouws and Oosthuizen said that, volunteered that they are going to do the shooting."
Would you agree with that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, it is improbable to me that we would have volunteered at that stage to do the shooting, seeing as we were already in possession of the AK47s, Joe Mamasela as well as myself and Deon Gouws. I can accept that Wouter Mentz would have drawn the inference, seeing as we were already in possession of these weapons.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Your evidence was that when you ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, may I interrupt. Don't you want to take that issue further, because there is a reference, I'm just trying to go through my notes, wherein Captain Hechter himself states quite unequivocally that Mr Oosthuizen, Mr Mamasela and Mr Gouws volunteered to do the shooting. They didn't do it at anyone's instructions.
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, I can assist in terms of the page reference.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS LOCKHAT: It's in bundle 2(f), page 770, in relation to Hechter's evidence. That is exactly what he also confirms. He said that they said they would like to do the actual shooting and he mentions their names.
And then for the purposes of Mr Rossouw, it's page 12 of his bundle, annexure.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Shall I put that to the witness, Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: My page has been badly copied, so a portion of it I may not be able to read. That's Hechter's evidence and he states as follows
"Mentz, Gouws, Oosthuizen and I, who were all attached to the Murder and Robbery Unit at Pretoria, accompanied me at my request (I think it is), to assist me with the elimination. I cannot recall exactly when I requested them to accompany me and provided them with the detail, but I know that Gouws and Oosthuizen and also Mamasela said that they would like to conduct the shooting since we only had three firearms available. They said that they would like to do the actual shooting."
Do you care to comment on that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, as I have already stated, I think that at the point when we were cleaning these weapons, it had already been accepted that Deon Gouws and Mamasela and I would undertake the shooting. If any witness then states that we volunteered, I cannot dispute it before the Commission.
My memory fails me when I would say don't do it, I'll do it or I want to do it. I never said that I wasn't going to do it or that I didn't want to do it. If the witnesses then state that Deon Gouws and Mamasela and I volunteered to do it, I would not be able to dispute this before the Commission. I just think that - I don't think that it was brought about by the volunteer attitude, I think it was just accepted that we would undertake the shooting.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Well you had three guns, so that would indicate that three people would be shooting.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That's correct. And already with the cleaning of the weapons it had been accepted that we would be doing the shooting. Whether we would have confirmed it in the car where Wouter Mentz was involved and Mamasela and Gouws as well, it will not be disputed that we said yes, we'll undertake the shooting. It would not be fair to dispute that point because we were already in possession of the weapons.
CHAIRPERSON: The point of the matter is that it wasn't a joint decision, you volunteered to have a particular role in the operation.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That's correct.
CHAIRPERSON: With five of you there it could have been Mr Mentz, it could have been Captain Hechter himself who could have done the shooting, but you of your own accord volunteered to do the shooting, which is different to what you have evidenced just now viva voce, that the shooting was as a result of a joint decision taken amongst yourselves as participants in the operation, is that not so?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I would agree with you on that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was said to you in regard to the use of fuel and the fact that the bodies would be burnt or set alight after the incident, what was said to you in that regard?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Madam Chair, nothing else was said to me regarding the scene of the incident, other than the fact that the bodies would be set alight in order to eliminate any kind of evidence.
MR VAN DEN BERG: But it is that particular aspect which has brought much pain upon the family members of the victims, the aspect that after they murdered their bodies were handled in such a way. You have noticed the reaction of the family members when you gave that evidence, do you have any comment regarding that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I accept the impact which it would have on the family. I can only mention to the Committee that part of the reason why these people were set alight is to create confusion, because it was the general thing that if the activists were to kill one another, the bodies would be set alight and that is the reason why this scene was also set alight, and in order to eliminate any other evidence which may be left behind on the scene of the incident.
CHAIRPERSON: You see Mr Oosthuizen, the other reason that you are advancing and that is the reason that the bodies were set alight in order to destroy evidence was not the reason advanced by the person who instructed you, and that is Captain Hechter, he only advanced that reason that it was to stage the accident as if the operation had been carried out by other activists. He only advanced that reason. Now where do you get the reason, the other reason that you are now advancing before us? Was it by his instruction, did he inform you that you had to set the bodies alight in order to destroy evidence?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I agree wholeheartedly with what Jacques Hechter's statement was. The second aspect is my own assumption that it would be beneficial to set the scene alight. This was not from Jacques Hechter, but from me.
CHAIRPERSON: I think you must try and answer your questions, questions put to you, pointedly. If they are on the basis of your assumption you must say that because otherwise ultimately we would think there is something wrong with your evidence if you put your evidence as if its a fact, it's something that was within your knowledge. If it is an assumption you must state that it is an assumption, it is your opinion and it is not a fact.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I beg your pardon, Madam Chair. The part surrounding Hechter's statement was also an order from him and the fact that I say that evidence which could be used against us could be destroyed by setting the scene alight, it is from my own assumption, this does not come from Jacques Hechter, if I understand you correctly. That this would be the primary reason why Jacques Hechter suggested that the scene be set alight in order to create confusion and to make it appear as if this was an action undertaken by activists against activists, if I understand you correctly.
MR VAN DEN BERG: You are not the person who poured the fuel over the bodies or set the bodies alight?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Do you have any knowledge of who it was? As I recall your evidence you said you cannot recall whether or not it was Hechter or Gouws.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That's correct, I can't recall.
MR VAN DEN BERG: What was Captain van Jaarsveld's role in this matter?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: As far as I know, Captain van Jaarsveld performed no role in this incident.
MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Lockhat?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Mr Oosthuizen, you said there was a file on the activists, is that correct?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MS LOCKHAT: Did you see the file, did you deal with the file?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I simply went with the information which Jacques Hechter gave me.
MS LOCKHAT: Do you know who compiled the file?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I accept that it was compiled by the Security Branch in the Northern Transvaal at their offices.
MS LOCKHAT: You said that Hechter informed you that there were attempts to dissuade the activists to, not these activists but just generally, to prevent them from going across the border for training, is that true?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, he did mention this to me.
MS LOCKHAT: Were these attempts also carried out on these activists?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Not as far as I know.
MS LOCKHAT: Did you ask him why not?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I did not ask Jacques Hechter whether this was of application to these activists, for the reason that it was determined that an action would be undertaken against these people.
MS LOCKHAT: Tell me, is it right for me to assume that your Commandant van Wyk also did not have any knowledge regarding this incident?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I did not inform him before the incident, nor did I inform him afterwards.
CHAIRPERSON: Your evidence is that when you acted on operations of the Security Branch you were under the orders of the commanding officer of that particular branch within the Security Police.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That's correct.
MS LOCKHAT: On page 39 of the bundle I just want to refer to a statement that you made and I just want you to comment on it. You said
"The families of the deceased may never know what exactly happened."
Can you comment on that statement?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, may I just read this paragraph please?
MS LOCKHAT: It is on page 39 of bundle 5.
CHAIRPERSON: What paragraph on page 39, Ms Lockhat?
MS LOCKHAT: The paragraph, the third line from the top. It says
"The families of the deceased ..."
Can you just comment on that for us please.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Very well, Madam Chair. I wrote here that my sentiment after the deed was that the possible impact of this incident on the families was that they possibly would never know what exactly happened to their family members. At that stage after the incident we didn't know that we would be sitting here today. And that was a statement of my sentiment after the incident.
MS LOCKHAT: Do you feel today that they are completely in the full picture of what occurred on that day?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That's correct.
MS LOCKHAT: Thank you, Chairperson, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT
CHAIRPERSON: Mr de Jager, do you have any questions to put to Mr Oosthuizen?
ADV DE JAGER: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax?
MR LAX: Just one question, Chairperson. I just want to make absolutely sure. Will you just bear with me one moment?
I want to refer you to page 38 of the bundle, it is the fourth paragraph on that page and this is an annexure to your application, in which you expand on the facts. You said we - and I'll read the whole thing so that the whole context is clear:
"Deon Gouws and I went in. Joe Mamasela stood on the left-hand of the door. Deon Gouws was on my left and I remained in the doorway. I could see people in the twilight, that were standing before me. We immediately began to shoot at these persons. Some of them fell, others climbed on the others and when everything was over, Captain Hechter ran in or came running in and poured the fuel in the room."
My question is this, in your viva voce evidence you seem very unclear about who actually threw the petrol, yet in this statement and in your subsequent statement there is absolutely no doubt in your mind who did it. Could you just explain that for us please?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can explain it. During the submission or the compilation of this application this was my first recollection regarding what happened there. After that many consultations took place and it became uncertain to me later whether I had given a clear representation of the facts and that is why I say to the Committee today that I am uncertain regarding who poured the fuel. There is no other reason for that.
MR LAX: I just want to take you back to one aspect very early on in your evidence. You were asked about the extent of the co-operation between your unit and the Security Branch - before I go on with that I just want to be clear about your unit. You refer to it as a Special Investigation Unit, how was it established, why was it so special? What was special about it?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: The wording of Special Investigative Unit was because it was the only group which was compiled from head office in order to investigate all unrest related incidents on a nation-wide basis, murders as well as actions against people who sat behind the incitement of these incidents. There is no other reason why it was a Special Investigative team.
It could be in order to distinguish this team from a regular investigative team which was in place at that stage. And the persons who were involved in this were very competent investigators. I cannot think of any other reason why else it was called a special team. There were no other qualities attached to these persons.
ADV DE JAGER: But they dealt only with politically related or allegedly politically related matters, they didn't deal with criminal investigations?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That's correct, it was only about politics and unrest within the country.
MR LAX: You see my, just from my own experience there were unrest investigation units, whose specific task was to investigate unrest matters. They were distinct from Murder and Robbery, they were distinct from all the other crime investigation services and they were often the very best detectives that could be got together. And I'm aware, for example I come from Pietermaritzburg, there was a unit in Pietermaritzburg that operated extensively investigating unrest matter. Are we talking about the same thing or the same kind of thing?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I think we may be talking about the same kind of thing. We fell directly under the command of head office, or resided under the command of head office. The units such that which you have described in Pietermaritzburg fell under the command of the division, they were regionally bound to investigations within their regions. We worked on a national basis and that is where the distinction comes in. We were also operating in a supportive capacity from head office in Pretoria.
MR LAX: Now just to take you back to your evidence, having established that context. You said you worked together with the Security Branch and that you said that your liaisons with the Security Branch were Brigadier Cronje and Captain Hechter. Did I hear that correctly?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR LAX: Well if that was the case and if they were in fact your liaison points, how could Captain Hechter have made the sort of mistake you have referred to? If he was this liaison at Murder and Robbery when in fact you weren't at Murder and Robbery, and he was the liaison with you, how would that mistake have come about?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, as I've already explained or attempted to explain, I think that Jacques Hechter has referred to a time period which was confusing for him because we used to work together at Brooklyn and after that we became involved with the investigative team which dealt with political murders or politically related matters.
During this special investigation which operated in KwaNdebele, there was talk that I would be transferred to the Murder and Robbery Unit or the Security Branch and indeed thereafter for a number or years, I was with the Murder and Robbery squad. And I think for this reason it has confused him somewhat. However, that there was indeed liaison is the truth.
MR LAX: Now one last question from me. You were part of a special investigative unit, it was your job to investigate unrest related matters.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR LAX: And you indicated earlier in answer to a question from Ms Lockhat, that your commanding officer in that unit didn't know anything about these activities of yours, these other activities of yours.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That's correct, I never reported it to him, I didn't report back to him and I didn't inform him about the actions or the incidents or the murders or the planning thereof, it was confidentially conveyed to me and accepted by me that it was to be kept confidential within the circle in which it was discussed and planned and that is why he was never informed by me, because he had never been a member of the discussion, the planning or the execution thereof.
MR LAX: The point I want to make and ask you to comment on is, is it not arguable, at the very least, that what you did you didn't do in your official capacity as a member of the Police Force, you did it in some other capacity. You did it as a volunteer or out of a misconceived sense of duty or whatever else, but you didn't do it in your position that you were appointed to as a member of the Police Force.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I cannot see it in that light because at that stage we were in a state of war, it was war which was being fought with methods beyond the fixed rules of the police or the forces. We didn't act as vigilante groups, we acted upon instructions of respected people who undertook calculated planning and made calculated decisions. It was not a case of us being on our own mission, these were high-profile matters and they were handled accordingly.
And the fact that I was involved in the Special Investigative Unit as well as actions undertaken by the Security Branch, was not outside bounds because there was specific liaison and support with regard to specific operations and not everybody was involved in these operations, and that was the order of the day.
MR LAX: The simple point I'm making is it wasn't your official job, you were a detective to investigate unrest matters, that was your job, what you did was way beyond the call of your normal job.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: In the light of the circumstances and the conditions within the country, it was not beyond the ambit of my duties although they were not officially part of my duties, such actions which stood under the instruction of senior officers were indeed part of my duties.
MR LAX: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Oosthuizen, I had not intended to ask you any questions, but I want your comment emanating from the questions put to you by my colleague, Mr Lax, with regard to whether you conducted this operation within the course and scope of your duties as you understood them and particularly with reference to the evidence that has already been given to this Committee of this close co-operation that existed between the various units of the South African Police as well as the South African Defence Force, in particular Special Forces.
Captain Hechter gave evidence before this Committee and his evidence would suggest, and I must stress suggest, he doesn't say so, but his evidence would suggest that you were requested together with Mr Mentz and Mr Gouws to participate in this operation because you were his friends. And that appears on page 803 of bundle 2(f). What would be your comment to that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Madam Chair, I think the reason why he has referred to that is because there was a situation of confidence among us ...(intervention)
MR ROSSOUW: Madam Chair, may I interrupt at this point?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: May I be corrected if I'm mistaken, but as I recall it this was not the evidence of Captain Hechter, this was a question or a statement made by Judge Wilson.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, to which he conceded. He says that is correct. That appears on 803. And that is why I'm stressing that it would suggest that he requested them because they were his friends. The question from Judge Wilson is
"And then having decided to eliminate them you go and look for a couple of your friends in the Murder and Robbery Squad to come and do it."
Now he had already mistakenly put Mr Gouws and Mr Oosthuizen as being attached to the Murder and Robbery Squad unit. And his simple answer to that question is:
"That is correct."
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Madam Chair, I cannot agree wholeheartedly with that because the action was not undertaken by a group of friends who had simply decided to go and do that, it followed from instructions and was regarded in that light. I cannot accept that I was simply there because I was a friend of Jacques Hechter. I can recognise that there was indeed a situation of confidence however.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Pardon?
CHAIRPERSON: No, I just wanted to get your comment on that because it's part of the evidence that is before us.
Further, I would like your comment to what Mr Mentz went on to say when he gave evidence. He conceded that in participating in this operation he was on a frolic of his own. And that appears on page 840.
MR ROSSOUW: Sorry.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes?
MR ROSSOUW: Madam Chair, may I again interrupt. I have read that portion of the evidence very, very in-depth and from the re-examination afterwards by Mr du Plessis it would appear that there was some sort of confusion in the translation because he said
"Yes, I was on a frolic of my own."
And then in re-examination it was stated:
"I was unfortunately not there."
But apparently it was stated that there might have been a problem with the translation or with his understanding of it and he then was specifically asked:
"Did this mean that you went outside your scope of duties on your own frolic?"
And he said:
"No, this was definitely not so."
So this was addressed later on.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I perhaps just come in there? That's on page 847, where this was specifically dealt with by me in re-examination and I mentioned it specifically there and I can recall that I did so for record purposes, referring to the possible misinterpretation and the possible problem of the interpretation into Afrikaans.
You will recall that I did that on a few occasions during that hearing because there were problems with the interpretation into Afrikaans sometimes and every time that happened, I placed it purposely on record so that it is on record. That is how I recall the situation, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you for drawing that to my attention. But would you consider your participation to have been that of a person who is acting on a frolic of his own? - in your case Mr Oosthuizen.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Definitely not, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Mentz if I also recall, went on to say that he personally felt that his participation in that operation did not fall within the scope and course of his duty. What would be your response, would you say your participation was within the course and scope of your duties?
MR ROSSOUW: Madam Chair, may I again interrupt? I'm sorry, I'm just worried that this might be slightly misleading. If the portion of that evidence can perhaps be put to the witness because something flows from the answer which is very important, you will note from that portion of the evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: That appears on page 838. I think the thrust of his evidence was that he did not think this was within the course and scope of his duties because the instructions had not been received from his commanding officer at Murder and Robbery Squad. I just want Mr Oosthuizen to comment, because he stands obviously in a different category from that of Mr Mentz.
MR ROSSOUW: Madam Chair, I was perhaps labouring under a, thinking about a different portion of his evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, no, I know.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, I'm sorry. I just read a little bit further. Mr Mentz testified, on the bottom of page 839, top of page 840, that he concluded that he, or that he believed that the approval or bore the approval of the then Commissioner, who was under the General, right up the ranks up to the government. He did testify that so ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I'm aware of that.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm just interested with this particular aspect of the evidence.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Did you consider yourself to have acted outside the course and scope of your duties?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Were you a friend of Captain Hechter?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, we were friends.
CHAIRPERSON: And your friendship stretched for what period, prior to this incident?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Three/four years.
CHAIRPERSON: Before this incident occurred?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes. Although at the beginning of this period of time we were not that close, we became better friends later.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Oosthuizen. Mr Rossouw, do you have any re-examination emanating from the questions from the Committee?
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Madam Chair. May I ask that I be a granted a little bit of leeway to lead some evidence specifically for the benefit of the new Member of this Committee, which I've used in argument in the Piet Ntuli matter, which I feel is important for this Committee as it sits now.
CHAIRPERSON: Can I confer with the Members of the Committee if that will strictly necessary? We can always bring him up to speed if need be.
MR ROSSOUW: Madam Chair, maybe I need not lead the evidence, I can just now point you to which portions I'm going to single out.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay.
MR ROSSOUW: This is included in Exhibit G, that you've received, the documents and testimony and specifically what I'm going to refer to with regard to the question of whether murder, to commit a murder, was not part of the duty sheet of any policeman, but it must be seen in this light of the evidence of Minister Vlok in the Khotso House matter and more specifically page 76 thereof, and I'll ...(intervention)
ADV DE JAGER: Mr Rossouw, I think it's clear that on the duty sheet you couldn't commit any crime, that was not a task of the Police Force. But I think, you've referred to this, you've given us a reference to a certain case. I think there's a case in around 1937, Rex v Smith, if I'm correct, which deals fully with what is meant by "in the scope" of your employment and doing a criminal act "within the scope of your employment.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Madam Chair, then I will not take it any further. May I just clear up one further point with the witness?
CHAIRPERSON: And hopefully we are still going to get your written Heads, because I think you weren't quite at length with regard to this particular point when you were addressing us in argument.
MR ROSSOUW: I will endeavour to do that, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: So the Member of my Committee who was not present will then be able to be brought up to speed with the evidence that has already been tendered before us.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Oosthuizen, from the questions posed by the Chairperson regarding whether or not you indicated that you would do it out of a voluntary sense, the distinction between that and a joint decision, I'm very not certain about it.
Firstly, I would like to refer you to the evidence of Captain Hechter - and Madam Chair, you'll find this on page 13 of the document titled Exhibit E. I'd like to read this to the witness, where Captain Hechter testifies and says:
"I had instructed them to go and eliminate them. They then went and shot them dead, came out ..."
... and proceeded there with his evidence.
As you sit here today, can you tell us whether or not this was a case of, when you were informed about a possible operation, you said; I want go and eliminate these guys or did you understand it as an instruction and did you say; well I will undertake the obligation and carry it out? In other words, did the initiative emanate from you or was it in response to an instruction, as per Captain Hechter's evidence?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: It was in response to an instruction and as I have explained during my evidence to the Committee, it was a joint venture. When the weapons were cleaned, everyone accepted that the weapons should be clean and in a working condition. It wasn't a question of one person raising his hand and saying; I want to do it.
The operation was planned, the instructions were given for this operation to be executed and if by occasion I may have said, when Wouter Mentz asked; who was doing the shooting and I said; I will, and Deon will be doing it and Joe Mamasela would be doing it, I could accept that, but I didn't say that I would accompany them on one condition and that would be for me to undertake the shooting, it was an instruction along with mutual planning.
CHAIRPERSON: I think that's quite clear, Mr Rossouw.
MR ROSSOUW: I was just worried for some confusion.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, it's quite clear that they were instructed to eliminate. All that they did was; well my role would be to do the shooting.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: There can't be any problem with regard to that.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you, Madam Chair. Then I've got no further re-examination.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Lockhat, this should bring us to the end of this matter.
MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, we still have two other applicants, D Gouws and van Jaarsveld.
CHAIRPERSON: I think I am being too presumptuous, looking at my watch. Who are we going to have next?
WITNESS EXCUSED
