ON RESUMPTION
MR MALAN: Mr Van de Wall, your full names please?
MR VAN DE Wall: Gilles van der Wall.
GILLES VAN DE WALL: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR NIEMAN: May I proceed Mr Chairman. Mr Van de Wall, you are a retired Brigadier from the South African Police Service?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct.
MR NIEMAN: Is it correct that during 1989 you retired from the South African Police Force because of an illness known as multiple sclerosis?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct.
MR NIEMAN: Is it also correct that since 1985 you were involved in the South African Police as District Commander in Pretoria?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct yes.
MR MALAN: You said 1985?
MR VAN DE WALL: 1985.
MR NIEMAN: Mr Van de Wall, in your amnesty application, the initial date was mentioned as round about October, November 1987, but during this incident regarding when this incident regarding Scheepers Morudi took place, is it correct that afterwards and since you have consulted with your Attorney, you could recall this incident and specifically this incident which you used to refresh your memory and that it now seems that it was not November 1987 you referred to, but it was February 1987?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR NIEMAN: The statement you have made, you have read that, do you confirm the correctness thereof?
MR VAN DE WALL: I confirm that.
MR NIEMAN: Is it correct that since then, it was conveyed to you that a young girl died during that incident at Scheepers Morudi's house?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct.
MR NIEMAN: You gave the instruction to Captain Hechter, sitting next to you?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct.
MR NIEMAN: When you gave that instruction to him, to as you call it in your statement, to give Scheepers Morudi a fright, did you foresee that during a bomb attack on this house, people in this house could be injured or killed?
MR VAN DE WALL: I foresaw that yes.
MR NIEMAN: Did you reconcile yourself with those consequences?
MR VAN DE WALL: I did.
MR NIEMAN: You also say in your statement in paragraph 42 that you attended the funeral of that girl?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct yes.
MR NIEMAN: You say that was in an official capacity?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct.
MR NIEMAN: Can you just explain to the committee what you mean by that?
MR VAN DE WALL: Mr Chairman, at that stage, I was the Commander of the Unrest Unit and we experienced many problems during funerals. Those were exploited by radical people and later on, it led to unrest. That was the main purpose why I attended the funeral.
MR NIEMAN: While you were attending that funeral of the child for whose death you were actually accountable, how did you feel about that?
MR VAN DE WALL: I felt very bad about that.
MR NIEMAN: And today, years after that, how do you feel about that today?
MR VAN DE WALL: I feel very sorry about that and I am very sorry that something like that had happened.
MR NIEMAN: How do you feel about the family and the next of kin?
MR VAN DE WALL: I feel very sorry about this, it was a very wrong thing which we did, and I hope that this situation, that I can put this whole thing behind me now and I am very sorry about everything.
MR NIEMAN: Did you make any gain from this instruction you gave to Hechter, financially or otherwise?
MR VAN DE WALL: Nothing whatsoever.
MR NIEMAN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NIEMAN
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ALBERTS: Merely one question Mr Chairman. There is an interesting name in your affidavit which I see often and that is Captain Jaap van Jaarsveld from the Security Branch, Northern Transvaal. Your affidavit creates the impression that there was a regular contact between you and amongst others Captain Van Jaarsveld, and it creates the impression that he, to fulfil his role, that he had to be reasonably involved in for example the handling of information?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct Mr Chairman. He was the representative of the Joint Information Committee and he served on the Vykom, I was the Chairman of that body and he had to convey the information and that is why there was close liaison between the two of us.
MR MALAN: But Mr Van de Wall, you say in your statement that Jack Cronje was the Chairman of the Joint Information Committee?
MR VAN DE WALL: Brigadier Cronje was the Chairman but Captain Van Jaarsveld was the spokesman. He conveyed the information to us.
MR ALBERTS: Were you satisfied that he was up to date with the information regarding the Intelligence, that he knew what was going on in the Security Police, so he was doing his job properly?
MR VAN DE WALL: Yes.
MR ALBERTS: I have no further questions Brigadier. Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR NIEMAN: Mr Chairman, may I just ask one more question? Mr Van de Wall, you also mention in your statement you told Captain Hechter that he had to give Scheepers Morudi a fright.
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct.
MR NIEMAN: Was that your instruction to him?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct Mr Chairman.
MR NIEMAN: At that stage, during the VYKOM Committee meetings you already had information available regarding Morudi's involvement?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct yes.
MR NIEMAN: Did you know which steps Mr Hechter would take?
MR VAN DE WALL: I did not know. I really did not know, I just accepted that they would throw or use a petrol bomb to frighten this man.
MR NIEMAN: And the purpose was to intimidate him?
MR VAN DE WALL: That is correct.
MR NIEMAN: Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NIEMAN
MR MALAN: Why did you accept that a petrol bomb would be used? I understand that you just told Hechter to give him a fright, is that your evidence?
MR VAN DE WALL: Yes.
MR MALAN: Why did you accept that they would use a petrol bomb?
MR VAN DE WALL: I accepted that they would use the same method of intimidation that he was making use of, that is why I accepted that they would also use a petrol bomb.
MR MALAN: It seems that the order of this statement had changed dramatically since you have made your statement? Let me put my question plainly, the date, can you give us an indication of the date when this incident took place according to you?
MR VAN DE WALL: I really can't remember. I was under the impression that it was after I underwent the course, the course was from June until October. I was under the impression that it was after the course, but since then, it has changed and it now appears that the date could have been in February. I can say it is possible sir.
MR MALAN: I refer specifically to paragraph 31 because you say after the conference you were called in and told give Scheepers Morudi a fright.
MR VAN DE WALL: Yes. I just want to put it clearly, we had a crime conference early every morning, seven o'clock, eight o'clock and the Security Branch also sat in on that to give us feedback and to give information. It wasn't the same as the VYKOM. The VYKOM was completely something else.
MR MALAN: Yes, that I understand. The reason I am asking the order of the dates as you put it, the instruction was to give Scheepers Morudi a fright, did it come as a result of and this is the causing, is this conference you are talking about, because that is where the name arose each time.
MR VAN DE WALL: Yes.
MR MALAN: But it appears if the other applicants' choice of date is correct, that this incident took place before the conference?
MR VAN DE WALL: No.
MR MALAN: Is that not your recollection? Do I have it wrong?
MR VAN DE WALL: No, I don't understand you.
MR NIEMAN: Can I assist. The crime conferences of which Brigadier Van de Wall is speaking, is a conference that took place on a daily basis. At that conference the Security Police were present and it was either Captain Van Jaarsveld and I think sometimes Colonel Ras. The Vykom committee which Van de Wall is giving evidence about, is a different committee.
MR MALAN: Mr Nieman, let me refer Mr Van de Wall to paragraph 30, he refers to a Divisional Conference which took place in November 1987.
MR VAN DE WALL: I understand now, that date must be incorrect then, it was a Divisional Commissioner Conference, but then it should be a different date, February 1987.
MR MALAN: The incident took place in February 1987 or don't you know?
MR VAN DE WALL: I can't remember, but after what I heard today, it is probably February.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR MALAN: Excuse me Chairperson, can I ask another question, if you will allow me. Paragraph 32, you didn't give this in your oral evidence and I asked you specifically about the fright and why you accepted that they would throw a petrol bomb, but in paragraph 32 you say that the impression was that that was the instruction to throw a petrol bomb?
MR VAN DE WALL: Yes.
MR MALAN: Didn't you tell Hechter that he should throw a petrol bomb or did you just tell him to give him a fright?
MR VAN DE WALL: Yes, that is - yes, I just said that is the guy you have to give a fright.
MR MALAN: You didn't say anything about throwing a petrol bomb?
MR VAN DE WALL: No, not as far as I remember.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MR ALBERTS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR ALBERTS
MR DU PLESSIS: I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
MR NIEMAN: I have no further questions Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NIEMAN
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: As I understand it, arrangements have been made that if Mr Wagener wants to recall this witness to question him, this applicant, to question him, he would be entitled to do so? I at the moment do not know in what circumstances that would happen or whether he wants to do so. The proposal was that we would now adjourn until two o'clock tomorrow morning, no, we might as well adjourn to ten o'clock tomorrow morning to complete this matter, but Mr Wagener won't be available until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Find out from Wagener in the light of this, whether he wants to question him, in which case we have to adjourn to two o'clock in the afternoon, (microphone not on), or do we tell them all to come back at two o'clock in the afternoon? Would it be more convenient for you gentlemen to come here at two o'clock in the afternoon, so there is no chance of you coming twice?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes Mr Chairman, that would be convenient, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well, we will adjourn this matter until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
