ON RESUMPTION
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. May I first call applicant Andre Oosthuizen. Mr Chairman, you will find the applicant's application on page 882, in Bundle 4 and the specific incident, Mr Chairman, you will note there are two sets of annexures to the application form, the second one is the one that was supplemented and the specific incident, you will find from page 921(a) and onwards.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here? Mr Chairman, may I perhaps just come in here. May I request a short adjournment at this stage? The matter that Mr Alberts referred to this morning relates to one of my other clients who is here now, in respect of the security guard. I would like to have an opportunity to be able to tell you exactly what the position is, and if we have to call him as a witness or not.
CHAIRPERSON: How long do you think you would be?
MR DU PLESSIS: About five minutes Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well.
COMMISSION ADJOURNS
MR DU PLESSIS: ... a little bit longer than five minutes, and I apologise for that. Mr Chairman, I have had a discussion with my client, Warrant Officer Paul van Vuuren and Mr Alberts was present during the discussion, during which Mr Van Vuuren indicated to us that he can shed some light on the security guard incident. I don't want to go into the evidence, but it relates to a discussion that he had with Captain Van Jaarsveld shortly after the incident. It arose only now, because Captain Hechter spoke to Van Vuuren yesterday about Brigadier Cronje's condition and during their discussion, this incident was mentioned, and Van Vuuren then recalled the discussion that he had. That is why it only arises now and so that - it may be of assistance to the Committee, I am not sure of how much value that will be. However, we tried to contact Captain Van Jaarsveld to be here when such evidence is presented to you, and we couldn't get hold of him at this moment. It seems that in all probability we will not be able to deal with that today and we will have to deal with it either tomorrow or Friday. Could we perhaps try and sort it out amongst ourselves and indicate to you when exactly that would happen?
CHAIRPERSON: I can see no difficulty in that. It seems to me, I am maybe being optimistic, that we should finish the present application quite soon. We would then expect argument to be delivered immediately after the end of the evidence in that, and we would have time tomorrow or Friday would otherwise be a clear day, so I think ...
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, we have actually had a discussion, Mr Alberts and I, about that possibility and we have decided to request you, if that possibility should arise tomorrow, if we could be afforded some opportunity to try and put together some form of very short written argument. I won't present you with my big bundle again, and then to deal with it perhaps on Friday, if that would be all right.
CHAIRPERSON: If you deal with it very briefly on Friday, we are going to adjourn at midday or thereabouts.
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, then we will be able to deal with only ...
JUDGE PILLAY: But what is the difficulty arguing tomorrow? ... we have gone through a long enquiry.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, yes, there shouldn't be too much of a difficulty. I for myself, would have wanted to present you with some form of written argument and not just oral argument and although I have started with that, I haven't finalised that and I am not sure if I will be able to finalise it tonight, but if you say, if you give me a deadline, obviously that is part of the job, we are all used to that.
JUDGE PILLAY: Well, I am glad you know.
CHAIRPERSON: But the written argument would I hope, give us page references and things, which should be of assistance? Let's see how we go. Right, so we will convert to where we were and if you can discuss the question of the calling of other evidence, the availability tomorrow or Friday and keep contact on that?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, as soon as we know what Mr Van Jaarsveld's situation is, we will let you know what time would be convenient time, Mr Chairman, thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: I regret that my memory has failed me completely, have we sworn in the next applicant? No?
ANDRE OOSTHUIZEN: (sworn states)
MR MALAN: Thank you, you may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Oosthuizen, do you have a copy of your amnesty application in front of you?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: The first page of that, 822, there is an amendment to your identity number?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, that is correct, the 009 should be 005.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, if I could just move for that amendment to the applicant's identity number. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Oosthuizen, do you then confirm the amended page 1 of your application?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: And do you also confirm the rest of your application, on page 886, where you signed?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, that is correct.
MR ROSSOUW: Page 887, there you give a background sketch, do you confirm the correctness of that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: Before we get to the incident which starts on 921(a) and follows, that is the Pienaarsriver incident, could you briefly tell the Committee, at that stage, when you were involved in this incident, where were you working and what was your rank?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was a Warrant Officer, I had been allocated to the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal under the direct command of Captain Hechter and Brigadier Jack Cronje.
MR ROSSOUW: Before you went on secondment to Northern Transvaal, where had you been working?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was attached to a Special Investigations Unit put together by Police Headquarters in Pretoria and which operated country wide and our mandate was to deal with riots and politically related matters.
MR ROSSOUW: And after this secondment to the Security Branch, where were you transferred to then?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: To the Murder and Robbery in Pretoria.
MR ROSSOUW: Is it correct that at the stage when you were working under Hechter and Cronje, that you shared an office at Compol building with Captain Hechter?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Correct, myself and Sergeant Gouws shared an office with Hechter.
MR ROSSOUW: You then are applying for amnesty for the murder of this person at the Pienaarsriver and for any other offence which might arise out of your involvement there?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR ROSSOUW: Could you tell the Committee - Mr Chairman, I will during argument present you with a list of the various offences that we are specifically going to ask amnesty for.
CHAIRPERSON: I have requested you all to do that, but we are not going to decide which we think it should be, you must tell us what you want.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: (Indistinct)
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, can you tell the Committee how it happened that you became involved in this specific operation, where did you get the order from?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: In my original application, I referred to Captain Hechter but upon further consultation, a long time after that, it became clear in my own mind that it couldn't be Hechter. During the filling in of my amnesty application, I think I made that assumption because I shared an office with Hechter. Later however, I was able to work out for myself, that the order either came from Captain Prinsloo or Brigadier Jack Cronje, which I received during the day, in the afternoon if I remember correctly, at the offices of the Security Branch Northern Transvaal.
MR ROSSOUW: What was this order, did you receive a briefing?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Briefly yes, what it was about was the fact that an activist had to be interrogated, he was an MK member and that houses would be pointed out where his cohorts or people belonging to his cell, were hiding in Mamelodi.
MR ROSSOUW: And you were then requested to meet at a certain time at the Compol building that evening, is that correct?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, the order was given to me that myself and Sergeant Gouws should report at the Compol building at a certain time, whereupon we would then join the other members who would go out on the operation.
MR ROSSOUW: During these hearings you have heard the evidence that this activist or the MK member had earlier been interrogated at the Security Head Office, were you part of that, did you know about that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I formed no part of his arrest or his interrogation.
MR ROSSOUW: Could you then please turn to the particular evening when you met, what happened, who was present?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can recall that Brigadier Jack Cronje, Captain Prinsloo - I don't know at what stage Captain Prinsloo joined us - Wimpie Momberg, myself and Deon Gouws were present. Later I refreshed my memory and realised that Eric Goosen was also present.
MR ROSSOUW: And in your application you also mentioned that you couldn't say who else was present, but you mentioned that it was possible that there was one other person present, is that correct?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR ROSSOUW: You have heard the evidence that from the Compol building, you drove to Brigadier Cronje's house, to go and pick him up, can you recall that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I can't recall that I ever went to Brigadier Cronje's house.
MR ROSSOUW: According to you, where did you drive to?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: We went to Mamelodi, the eastern side of Pretoria where we would let the activist point out these houses where his cohorts, co-terrorists, activists, were hiding.
MR ROSSOUW: You also heard that he was supposedly involved in a cell, involved with attacks on black Policemen, etc. Did that become clear to you from the interrogation during the drive to Mamelodi and whilst you were driving around in Mamelodi?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct. There was a lot of talking and from this discussions, I came to the conclusion that this was a trained person, and that he would take out his cohorts in the process.
MR ROSSOUW: Who did this interrogation?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Captain Prinsloo ...
CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, was this discussion amongst the rest of you, in the bus or was it the interrogation of the activist where you learnt that he was involved in a lot of things?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, this related to the discussion in the bus and the trend of the interrogation, the questions put to this person, it is from this that it appeared to me to be the case.
MR ROSSOUW: Was an effort made in Mamelodi to try and get this man to point out houses, was it successful?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, attempts were made, we drove around in Mamelodi, but no pointings out were made.
MR ROSSOUW: You then say that near an open piece of ground, he was further interrogated. Could you please tell the Committee what happened there? Do you remember it?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: We stopped in this open space which adjoined Mamelodi. He was questioned once again by Captain Prinsloo and according to me, he was also assaulted. He was also assaulted in the minibus, I didn't mention this earlier.
MR ROSSOUW: Did you take part in any assault?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.
MR ROSSOUW: What was the mood when you arrived and stopped at this open piece of ground, was there an escalation of the assault on him and the urgency with which you wanted to get the information from him?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, and there was also a concern about the fact that this person had not yet pointed out anybody, taken out any of his comrades. I think what exacerbated the whole thing was that the information indicated that his cohorts were to become involved in the killing of Policemen.
MR ROSSOUW: Were any threats uttered towards this person when you were at this open piece of land?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, I can recall that Brigadier Jack Cronje remarked that he thought we should shoot this person's foot off so that this person could understand that we were really serious with the interrogation. I believe that he simply said it to try and frighten the man.
MR ROSSOUW: Now, we have heard that you once again then drove around in Mamelodi after that, and then left for Pienaarsriver. Who took the decision to go to this more remote, safer place?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't recall that after the interrogation in the open field, we went back to Mamelodi, but that we drove in the direction of Pienaarsriver.
MR ROSSOUW: There apparently was confusion about the road where you were to turn off. After yesterday's evidence, you were able to refresh your memory in this regard. Could you please tell the Committee or help the Committee on this particular point as to where you turned off?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, I know the area quite well, and at that stage it was also quite familiar to me. We drove across the bridge, after you get the Pienaarsriver Police station, immediately after the bridge, you turn left on the Saagkuilsdrif Road, that road, after 30 kilometres, leads to a black township with the name of Lebomogomo. We must not confuse this with Leboagomo, this is Lebomogomo. On that road, there is also a trust area known as Gongwane.
MR MALAN: Just repeat the name.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Gongwane.
MR ROSSOUW: Right, we have heard the evidence that somewhere on this dirt road, you stopped. Could you give the Committee an indication how far away from the turn off, you stopped?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: It was about in the middle of the turn off on the old Warmbaths Road and this Lebomogomo residential area.
MR ROSSOUW: Please describe to the Committee what happened then?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: We stopped in the same direction as the direction from we had just come. It is a very quiet road. There are two reasons for that, that is how I saw it, and how I also saw it when somebody mentioned the fact that we would drive in that direction. It is a quiet road, there is very little traffic at night, because the residents of Lebomogomo make use of a tarred road from there to Pretoria, which is much shorter than the road which goes via Pienaarsriver. The farms are fairly scattered, far apart and the place where we stopped allows you to be able to see both ways for quite some distance. We stopped and I can remember that Deon Gouws and I remained seated in the kombi, we didn't get out. We could not take part in the interrogation, because we didn't know what it was about and we also didn't have the background information which Captain Prinsloo had. He got out and I think as far as I remember, the person who was to be interrogated and who had been interrogated, had sat right at the back of the vehicle. Captain Prinsloo then walked around, I think other members also got out, but I can't identify them now. I can't remember it. The hatch was opened and the interrogation started again. He throttled this man, I can't say for how long. I saw the man sinking down to the ground and I assumed, and this is merely my own opinion, I assumed that he might simply be unconscious. I saw that Wimpie Momberg and one other person, I have heard in evidence here that the person who went with him to set up the explosive device, was Eric Goosen, during the time that I compiled my application, I couldn't remember him.
MR ROSSOUW: Could you just stop there please. Did you know that there was an explosive device in the kombi?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.
MR ROSSOUW: In your application you mention that one or two limpet mines or landmines were placed in the road. Were you uncertain about that point when you made your application?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was uncertain as to what kind of explosive device it was and whether there was more than one. I thought about the matter later, that is after we started consulting with yourself, my legal representative, and I seem to recall that they were limpet mines, and I could also recall that somebody at the Security Branch remarked, and I can't say who it was, somebody remarked that a device - it is where the delaying element is located, as they describe it, there is a certain kind of a plug which you can screw into this device, that that had been picked up and that that came from the limpet mine. That is how I formed the idea that it was a limpet mine.
MR ROSSOUW: You are not trained as an explosive's expert?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.
MR ROSSOUW: What happened further after the person was taken away along with this explosive device?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: My recall is that the vehicle had stopped and that the interrogation took place at the back of the vehicle, that the body had lain there, whether the person was dead or unconscious, I can't say. Wimpie Momberg took the device along with his co-applicant and they then walked back down the road and placed this device in the road and then came back to fetch the body and placed it on the explosive device. At no stage can I recall that this happened in the headlights of the vehicle. What I can recall is that Wimpie Momberg came running towards the vehicle and climbed into the vehicle, and we took off very slowly until we heard the explosion. Then we turned around and drove passed this hole in the road, back to Pretoria, along the same road as we had come.
MR ROSSOUW: All right, in your application you say that after Mr Momberg had got back into the vehicle, I am sorry, you say that after the interrogation at Mamelodi, you realised that the person was about to be blown up or would be blown up after interrogation. Could you clarify that part of your amnesty application for the Committee?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I have to admit that that word blow up, came from the fact that I had to cast my mind back and the fact that the person was indeed blown up. I have to admit that that was never discussed from the moment when I got into that vehicle that night, it was never discussed that the person would be killed, irrespective of whether he gave the information or not. I was surprised that we were driving in that direction that night. I also didn't take part in the planning and the discussion around these matters, because I wasn't really aware what it was about. My main purpose was to act if something was about to happen.
MR ROSSOUW: Yes, but you say that you realised, is it correct then that you subjectively perhaps foresaw that the person might be killed?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, that is so.
MR ROSSOUW: The threat which Brigadier Cronje made at the open piece of field in Mamelodi, along with the fact that you drove away to a quieter, more remote place, could that perhaps have strengthened that conclusion?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct, but that is my own conclusion.
MR ROSSOUW: That was not discussed, you say I can't remember who remarked this, this is in your application, there was too much other discussion going on, but you have now said it was never discussed?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: When I refer to the remark, I must say that it was about who had made the suggestion that we should drive to Pienaarsriver because that, along with the fact that I know it is a quiet area, and the influence of Brigadier Cronje's remark had perhaps created a perception in my mind that something could possibly happen.
MR ROSSOUW: Now to get back to the area to which you had driven, according to your recollection, you listened to the evidence, Mr Coetzer, was he involved that night at all?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, not at all.
MR ROSSOUW: Do you know whether he knew the area to which you were driving?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I don't know. Just for completeness' sake I could say that Tiny Coetzer is quite a big man, is a very big man and I think if he had been present in the bus, we would all have been suffering. I really can't recall that he was there, in fact I am certain that he wasn't there.
MR ROSSOUW: All right, you also heard that there is a possible confusion or a dispute as to whether Captain Van Jaarsveld was involved. Could you, from your recollection, throw any light on this matter?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, Van Jaarsveld was not on the scene.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, I also refer you to evidence given in previous amnesty applications and also certain submissions made to the Amnesty Committee. I have compiled a list of that and I am placing a copy of that list now in front of you. Please look at this list and do you request that your amnesty application be seen in the context of all those submissions and also the political context and objectives sought to be achieved?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, I beg leave to hand up the document to you. Could you tell us very briefly, the interrogation of such a person and the assault of such a person, did you see that as something which was accompanied by a political motive?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: What would that political motive have been relating to the gathering of information?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: It was essential that the information be obtained from this man, because I had already seen how Policemen ...
MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, I think that will be Exhibit C.
CHAIRPERSON: C, I think, yes.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Chairman, may I just for the sake of avoiding any confusion, indicate to you that on this document you will see that I have referred to certain Bundles where this evidence is contained. Mr Chairman, these were the Bundles that were made available in the Cronje 1 cluster. I don't know if this Amnesty Committee has insight into those Bundles, but the relevant pages and the extracts from the submissions to the TRC, are in my possession. I can make them available if the Committee so wishes.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR ROSSOUW: Did you also personally in your career, had experience of people, Policemen, being killed by MK members and by members of the Liberation Forces?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, several occasions.
MR ROSSOUW: And the methods used to obtain information, did you regard these methods as essential in order to prevent this onslaught against members of the Security Police being continued?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, it was essential.
MR ROSSOUW: Did you also regard it as essential as a member of the Security Police, to keep the existing government in power and to avert the revolutionary onslaught?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: In your amnesty application, you referred to an activist, the interrogation of an activist. You have now heard that it was an MK member and you also testified that during the briefing at the Compol building, reference was made to the interrogation of this MK member. Could you perhaps explain to the Committee how that arose because there is a distinction between an activist and an MK member, how is it that you only referred to an activist in your application? What was your conclusion about this person?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was originally told that it was an MK member. In my application I referred to him as an activist and in all my previous applications before the Committee, I also referred to an activist, because there were activists. The reference, the word, was used throughout my applications, and I concede that I made a mistake in that regard. I may just mention that I drafted my application entirely by myself, I had no legal help. As my application is before you today, it is entirely my own work. It was done throughout the night, and handed in the next morning.
MR ROSSOUW: Mr Oosthuizen, do you confirm the rest of your application?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes, I confirm it.
MR ROSSOUW: And you also request the Committee to grant you amnesty for this incident. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No Chairperson.
MR ROSSOUW: Thank you Mr Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ROSSOUW
CHAIRPERSON: How long do you think you will be?
MR ALBERTS: I will be five to ten minutes.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's see if we can complete you this afternoon.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Very well, thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Oosthuizen, did I understand you correctly that you received your order during a briefing?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR ALBERTS: Where did that take place?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: At the offices of the Security Branch Northern Transvaal.
MR ALBERTS: Were Goosen or Momberg or both of them, present there, can you recall that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.
MR ALBERTS: So if Goosen testified that he received a direct order from Brigadier Cronje and it is my instruction that it didn't take place in the form of a joint briefing, you would not deny that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I can't deny that.
MR ALBERTS: And you could also then not dispute Momberg's evidence that he later that afternoon, or early evening, received instruction for the first time when Brigadier Cronje phoned him at home and told him to report to the Brigadier's house at about seven o'clock that night?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't deny that, no.
MR ALBERTS: You don't recall at all that Brigadier Cronje's house was visited?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I can't remember it at all, and it also seems very unlikely that with a trained terrorist in your company, you would go to a Brigadier's house. It would seem very strange.
MR ALBERTS: Yes, but if the terrorist is in the boot and to all practical intents and purposes, he is hidden, what would the problem be? How would he then be connected with the occupants of the car?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Could you please repeat your question.
MR ALBERTS: Let me rephrase the question. Where was this black person who had to be interrogated, after you left the Compol building?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: He was at the back, on the floor, right at the back of the bus, not on a seat.
MR ALBERTS: Would he have been visible to people on the street for instance, as the bus passed them by?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, it would be very unlikely.
MR ALBERTS: But then I don't understand why it would have been a problem to in those circumstances, drive to Brigadier Cronje's house with a minibus?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson, I am not disputing the fact that the minibus went to Brigadier Cronje's house. It just seems odd to me that you would take a trained terrorist to a senior Security Policeman's house. I can't recall that the man was cuffed or covered with a blanket and he was certainly not unconscious at that stage, so nothing would have prevented him at that stage, to jump up to see where we were. That is how I see it.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Alberts, is there evidence that they actually went into Brigadier Cronje's house, they went to pick him up at his house. Well one, certainly speaking for myself, quite often says that and you go and wait in the street, so it doesn't mean that they would have taken the trained terrorist into the grounds of Brigadier Cronje's house when the evidence is that they picked up Brigadier Cronje and Momberg at his house, does it?
MR ALBERTS: Indeed Mr Chairman, that is how I understand the evidence. There isn't evidence that they actually went into the property itself.
CHAIRPERSON: I can understand the difficulty raised by the applicant, but if they didn't go into the house, if they merely stopped in the road, that falls away, doesn't it?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I will accept that, yes.
MR MALAN: I am sorry, just on this point, was the evidence not that Brigadier Cronje lived on a smallholding at Erasmia, or was it simply that he lived in Erasmia?
MR ALBERTS: Chairperson, as I recall the evidence, it was simply that his home was in Erasmia, I don't think there was evidence that it was a smallholding. As it pleases you. To get to the point Mr Oosthuizen, you then don't deny or dispute Momberg and Goosen's versions that the party went via Brigadier Cronje's house?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can only say as far as my presence is concerned, I was not there.
MR ALBERTS: Are you saying that the minibus didn't go there?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I am saying, I wasn't there.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Chairperson,
MR ALBERTS: Isn't this simply a matter which you don't recall, because there is no specific significance to this, it is just simply part of the journey?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, I wasn't there. I became involved and came into the vehicle at the Northern Transvaal Branch.
MR ALBERTS: No, I understand that, there is no dispute about that. Are you telling the Committee that the minibus didn't go via Brigadier Cronje's house at all?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No, you are not listening to me. I am saying that I got into the bus at the Northern Transvaal Branch and I was not in the bus when it went to his house.
MR ALBERTS: Were you close to his house?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I was not in the minibus on its way to Brigadier Cronje's house in Erasmia?
CHAIRPERSON: Was Cronje in the bus when you got in?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: My recollection Mr Chairman, is that when I became involved, when I climbed into the vehicle at Northern Transvaal, all the other members were present, because from there, we went directly to Mamelodi.
MR ALBERTS: Well, in that case, I want to ask you to reconsider that evidence. It is interesting that when Goosen and Momberg testified, they were not cross-examined on this point, otherwise they might have perhaps given other evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it of any relevance, they all agree, they were in the bus and they went? As to how precisely or how they got into this bus, does it matter?
MR ALBERTS: My submission, no, Mr Chairman. I merely pursue this line because I cannot afford to run the risk of adverse credibility findings being made against my clients.
CHAIRPERSON: Can I assure you there won't be?
MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I appreciate that. I also note the qualification, Mr Chairman. Then I am afraid Mr Chairman, I have a few more questions, but I will be as brief as I possibly can. Just as far as the particular persons are concerned, your evidence was very positive in that regard that Captain Van Jaarsveld was definitely not involved, is that correct?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR ALBERTS: Now, there seems to be some uncertainty on the evidence about this point, but as far as Goosen and Momberg is concerned, it is their recollection on probabilities at the end of the day, that he was involved. Goosen especially, is not dogmatic about it, however the question is the following - what are you basing your positive statement on that he was not there?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Because he was not present, simply on that fact.
MR ALBERTS: Once again, it was your observation on that particular day and as far as you can recall it now, and when you compiled your application?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can say with certainty that Jaap van Jaarsveld wasn't present there.
MR ALBERTS: You however say that somebody else could have been present?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I said so in my application, yes.
MR ALBERTS: Yes, and you confirm that today?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR ROSSOUW: Sorry Mr Chairman, if my recollection serves me right, he said it came to his knowledge that Mr Goosen was also there and this might be the person that he referred to as the other person in his application. You will see Mr Chairman, in the application he does not mention Mr Goosen and he says there might have been another person.
MR ALBERTS: All right, maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention. So that is what you are saying that the unknown person who was unknown during the compilation of your application, later became known as Goosen or that Goosen later became involved, whatever, you know that Goosen was there. Can we still then perhaps assume that there might have been somebody else whom you can't remember?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I accept that the other person was Eric Goosen, the person to whom I had earlier referred. At that stage I didn't know him all that well.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you, then I have clarity.
CHAIRPERSON: When you gave your evidence today, you said as I recollect and I noted
"... I later refreshed my memory and realised that Goosen was present. It is possible there was one other present as well, I can't recall."
One other present, that is after Goosen?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes Chairperson, at the time that I was compiling my application, and perhaps because I didn't know Goosen well, I couldn't place him on the scene. When I compiled my application, I wasn't certain whether there could have been another person and that is why I mentioned that in my application, but after I became aware of the fact that Eric Goosen was definitely involved, I can accept that that was possibly the person whom I couldn't place on the scene, by name.
MR ALBERTS: You confirm that the communications made before the operation and before it took an active commencement, was to the effect that it was indeed an MK member who accompanied you to Mamelodi?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: It was conveyed to me that it was a trained terrorist, also known to us as an MK.
MR ALBERTS: Yes, but that is very certain, that was the information which was generally or more or less, generally known to all the participants in this operation?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Correct.
MR ALBERTS: And you actually made a mistake by describing the person in your application, as an activist, is that correct?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes. Well, I think it was simply a slip of the tongue.
MR ALBERTS: As far as the explosive device used here is concerned, I am not quite sure how we should understand your evidence in that regard. Is your evidence that it was a limpet mine or is your evidence that it was a different kind of explosive device, such as for instance, a landmine?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I am still speculating on that point. I originally suspected that it was a limpet mine, and I mentioned that it could have been a landmine as well, because I was uncertain. The only additional piece of information which gave substance to my original supposition, is the fact that I had heard that it was the mechanism of a limpet mine that had been picked up on the scene, so I still speculate on this point, I must admit that.
MR ALBERTS: But it would seem as if the uncertainty in this regard, was simply and purely born out of hearsay? Is that correct? What part are you referring to as hearsay?
JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Alberts, does it matter, the body was blown up? We all agree that the applicant was present. What is this line of questioning all about?
MR ALBERTS: Chairperson, the cross-examination is simply aimed at establishing the credibility of my clients, and as far as there are discrepancies, I am testing it on that basis.
MR MALAN: I am sorry Mr Alberts, that is a judgement and the witness said right from the outset that he wasn't an expert in explosives. He conceded that and he referred to his further speculation in this regard. I don't think he is attacking the statement that it was a landmine.
CHAIRPERSON: And the other point is some gossip he heard later in the Security Branch about something, somebody had picked up somewhere, which really doesn't take the matter anywhere.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I will leave it just there.
CHAIRPERSON: Doesn't his evidence that when they drove passed, all they found was a hole in the road and nothing else, point very much more to a landmine than a limpet mine?
MR ALBERTS: On probabilities, yes, Mr Chairman. I won't pursue that any further. You say that during the interrogation at Pienaarsriver, you and if I remember correctly, you said Gouws remained seated in the vehicle?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: That is correct.
MR ALBERTS: Were you sitting there all the time until the vehicle left from that place?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: At Pienaarsriver, from when we stopped, until we came back to Pretoria, I never left the vehicle.
MR ALBERTS: Was it only the two of you who remained in the vehicle?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't say that with certainty, but I know that we remained in the vehicle.
MR ALBERTS: Because the evidence says that most people got out of this vehicle, where in the vehicle were you sitting?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: On the first seat behind the passenger.
MR ALBERTS: It wasn't the back seat in the bus, the one you are referring to?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: No.
MR ALBERTS: The people who were sitting there were Momberg, the MK member and Prinsloo, do you agree with that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: As I have already said, I don't know who else got out of the bus.
MR ALBERTS: I am not talking of getting out of the bus, I am asking you who were sitting on the back bench, the back seat of the bus? I am putting it to you that those three people were sitting there, and I am asking you am I correct?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't help you in that respect, to tell you who were sitting on the back seat.
MR ALBERTS: And for what it is worth, I am going to touch on it, are you absolutely sure that Momberg and as far as he was assisted by Goosen, did not prepare this explosive device in the lights of the vehicle?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can't remember that any part of this operation which took place at Pienaarsriver, took place in the lights of the vehicle. I can't remember that.
MR ALBERTS: And that while you were sitting in the vehicle?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Yes.
MR ALBERTS: Their evidence was clearly that they used the lights of the vehicle to see what they were doing. It is certainly important when you work with an explosive device, to see what you are doing, do you agree with that?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: If you are an expert, you are more capable of doing that than somebody like me, regarding explosives. But regarding your clients' version, I am not disputing that, but I am just saying what I am recalling. I can't remember that they did anything in the lights of the vehicle.
MR ALBERTS: Can we accept then that your recollection does not negate the correctness of the recollections of Momberg and Goosen?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I can accept that.
CHAIRPERSON: Because the evidence was as I recollect it, that they went obviously being cautious people, some 20 paces in front of the vehicle, so it would be very easy not to notice what they were doing there. Do you agree with that, that you wouldn't have been looking right away in the front?
MR OOSTHUIZEN: Mr Chairman, yes. I have a problem with these lights. I had to look back to see from where Mr Momberg was coming. I am sorry, I can't assist the Committee any further in this regard, but as I can remember, they were working at the back of the vehicle.
MR ALBERTS: Perhaps I can put your mind at ease in this regard, according to Mr Momberg he said that after he had positioned the body on this explosive device, and after he activated this device by means of the capped fuse, he also approached the bus from the back and got into the bus, before this explosion took place, and now listening to your problem, these two facts are reconcilable.
MR OOSTHUIZEN: I accept that Mr Chairman.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
CHAIRPERSON: I think we will now adjourn until tomorrow morning. Gentlemen, how much time do you think we will take tomorrow, including your addresses?
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, my cross-examination of this witness and of the next witness, will be very brief. In total I don't think my cross-examination will exceed 10 to 15 minutes, and I will only argue on the security guard matter, which will depend on the questions you ask, but I can't see that it will be longer than half an hour.
CHAIRPERSON: We will finish easily tomorrow.
MR ALBERTS: Excuse me Mr Chairman, may I interpose. When my learned friend refers to arguing on the security guard matter, that I assume presupposes that we finish it? Our present dilemma is that that is an uncertainty.
CHAIRPERSON: No, what I have in mind and I think Mr Du Plessis must be reading my mind, is if we are going to have a short day tomorrow, we might agree with what he suggested the other day and start at half past nine, rather than at nine o'clock, he's got quite a long way to come. Do you think that is safe gentlemen?
MR ALBERTS: Starting later?
CHAIRPERSON: Half past nine.
MR ALBERTS: That would be in order Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: You all agree?
JUDGE PILLAY: What is your problem Mr Alberts?
MR ALBERTS: Mr Chairman, the only problem that I have at this stage is that I can't give you an assurance when we are going to finish the first matter we commenced this week.
CHAIRPERSON: No.
MR ALBERTS: For the simple reason Mr Chairman, that we will in all probabilities call another witness and the calling of that witness will I would think, necessitate further cross-examination in all fairness to Mr Van Jaarsveld, so his cross-examination will be continued, because at least that evidence would have to be put to him and he must have a fair chance to comment to that and after that, the further witness would have to testify, and obviously be subjected to further cross-examination again. The practical problem is that that all implies Mr Van Jaarsveld's presence here, but we haven't been able to contact him this afternoon to ascertain when he is going to be available, when this is going to be convenient to him. Obviously I think it is in everyone's interest, including his own, to get him here as soon as possible, and to dispose of all this, and if that is possible tomorrow, Mr Chairman, then I can't see us, even with argument outstanding, etc, going beyond lunch time on Friday at the outside. Finishing tomorrow Mr Chairman, I don't see possible at this stage, not if it concerns both incidents and argument, and further evidence, quite frankly.
CHAIRPERSON: Did I see indications that you wanted to talk?
MR MEINTJIES: Thank you Mr Chairman. I have only had a chance during the short adjournment to try and contact Mr Van Jaarsveld, my cellphone has been off since then, but I will liaise with both Mr Du Plessis and Counsel and see whether we can arrange for him to be here tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the nature of this evidence? I don't ask you to commit yourself to the witness yet, but ...
MR ALBERTS: No, I shall not, but I am at liberty to give the outlines to you Mr Chairman. The witness will be Mr Paul van Vuuren who has testified before, and who is also involved in the whole amnesty process.
CHAIRPERSON: A discussion we have already had?
MR ALBERTS: Yes, what Mr Du Plessis advised you.
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we should start earlier Mr Du Plessis.
MR DU PLESSIS: I am in your hands Mr Chairman, I have no problem with that.
JUDGE PILLAY: ... about the availability of Van Jaarsveld? It depends on when he is available.
CHAIRPERSON: We don't know yet, he says his cellphone broke down, he didn't come and borrow any of ours.
MR MEINTJIES: Excuse me Mr Chairman, no, it didn't break down, I switched it off and I will immediately contact, try and contact Mr Van Jaarsveld.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought you said you had not been able to attempt to make contact with him since the short adjournment, so I took it that your cellphone was not working during the long adjournment.
JUDGE PILLAY: Mr Meintjies, I thought Mr Van Jaarsveld said that he would be readily available, we just needed to contact him?
MR MEINTJIES: The situation, Mr Van Jaarsveld specifically asked to be excused this afternoon. I fully expect him to be willing and able to be here tomorrow morning first thing.
CHAIRPERSON: I tried Mr Du Plessis, but I don't think I can, nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
