Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. We want to start the proceedings, it is Tuesday, the 31st of August 1999. We are continuing with the amnesty applications of E A de Kock and nine others in respect of Nelspruit 4 and Tiso. We have remaining the applications of the clients of Mr Cornelius. Mr Cornelius, who is the first applicant?

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I call J J Swart.

CHAIRPERSON: J J Swart? Mr Swart, your full names for the record please.

JOHANNES JAKOBUS SWART: (sworn states)

CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated. Mr Cornelius?

EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Swart, you are an applicant in this case and you have prepared an application regarding Section 18. You have filed it and you have given your full co-operation with the Investigative Officers, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You were employed by the South African Police Force as in Section 21(f) of Act 34 of 1995?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: You were part of Section C, Vlakplaas and the activities of this unit as described in the two additional Bundles serving before this Committee regarding the activities of Vlakplaas? You were part of Section C1?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: During this specific incident, what was your rank?

MR SWART: I was a Constable.

MR CORNELIUS: Do you confirm in general the contents of your amnesty application?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: At all times you executed the instructions of Col de Kock and functioned on a need to know basis?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: During the commitment of these offences at Penge Mine and Nelspruit, you acted as a police officer?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: I am going to take you through this very quickly. You received instructions to go to Nelspruit, you went to the Drum Rock Hotel and there you received a briefing and various instructions, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct yes.

MR CORNELIUS: What were those instructions?

MR SWART: It was that we would take action where suspect robbers, ANC members, would participate and we had to eliminate them.

MR CORNELIUS: These suspect robbers, what did you think was their objective?

MR SWART: As I understood it, they were going to rob a place to steal the money for the ANC.

MR CORNELIUS: Who provided this information to you?

MR SWART: Capt Geldenhuys and Holtzhausen, he was a Sergeant.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. We have already heard evidence that although Eugene de Kock was the Commanding Officer, Holtzhausen was in charge of this operation together with Geldenhuys?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: It is common cause that you and the whole team went to a specific bridge outside Nelspruit, this is near the Khanyamazaan Road?

MR SWART: That is correct yes.

MR CORNELIUS: Where did you take up your position?

MR SWART: I cannot remember the name of the road.

MR CORNELIUS: It was Bosch Road?

MR SWART: I stopped behind Capt Klopper.

MR CORNELIUS: The sign that this operation was to commence would be given by whom?

MR SWART: By Holtzhausen and Gouws.

MR CORNELIUS: It is common cause in this evidence that a BMW vehicle passed underneath the bridge followed by a kombi, by a van?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?

MR SWART: As soon as the BMW had passed through, we were not to shoot at that, that was the informer, then the little van followed and Gouws and Holtzhausen was going to give the sign that we needed to start shooting and then we started shooting.

MR CORNELIUS: What kind of weapon did you use ... (no interpretation)

MR SWART: I used an R5 rifle.

MR CORNELIUS: How many magazines did you finish?

MR SWART: I used two magazines.

MR CORNELIUS: After this bus came to a standstill, what did you do then?

MR SWART: At that stage, I was at the back of the bus, at the right hand side. I moved to the left hand side and somebody said that I had to move to the left hand side of the bus, to the sliding door. I tried to open that. For some or other reason, this door jammed. Capt Klopper used a torch to see what was happening in the bus. With my R5 I pointed into the bus. I couldn't see properly because the light didn't shine on this person, but this person tried to sit up right, and he pointed with his hand in my direction. I didn't know whether he was handing a weapon and I shot him five times in his chest.

MR CORNELIUS: What weapon did you use then ... (no interpretation)

MR SWART: I used the R5 to shoot him five times in the chest.

MR CORNELIUS: Did he die?

MR SWART: Yes, he did.

MR CORNELIUS: And the other people in the kombi, where were they, in the little bus?

MR SWART: The driver had already died, he was sitting behind the steering wheel. The other person on the left hand side, was hanging halfway from the bus and the person I shot, was also dead.

MR CORNELIUS: After you had shot this person, what did you do then?

MR SWART: I moved in the direction of the bridge.

MR CORNELIUS: In other words you moved away from the bus?

MR SWART: From the back side of the bus, I moved away in the direction of the bridge to regulate the traffic.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?

MR SWART: I noticed that the bus had caught fire. I heard shots after we had shot, I heard some more shots after I had moved away from the bus. The bus caught fire and there were two explosions.

MR CORNELIUS: You were already at the bridge when the bus caught fire?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct ... (no interpretation)

MR CORNELIUS: After these explosions, did you see somebody falling from this vehicle or did they remain in the bus?

MR SWART: I don't know whether it was during the first or the second explosion, the passenger sitting at the front, on the left side, was flung from the bus.

MR CORNELIUS: At some stage you received instructions to follow Willie Nortje with a vehicle?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Where did you go to then?

MR SWART: I followed him to a cafe a few kilometres from Nelspruit, where we met Simon Radebe and another member.

ADV DE JAGER: Who gave this instruction that you had to follow him?

MR SWART: Capt Geldenhuys and Capt Gevers told me that we had to move along.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you empty the boot of the vehicle at some or other stage?

MR SWART: Yes, that was before we followed Nortje, then I emptied the boot.

MR CORNELIUS: Was there a reason for that?

MR SWART: No, no reason was given for that.

MR CORNELIUS: It is common cause that you then arrived at Hall's Gateway, that is the cafe you mentioned?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you find there?

MR SWART: Two members of the unit, Simon Radebe and I think it was Eric Sefadi and Willie Nortje were there, and a person I know now as Tiso, I also saw him there and we put him in the boot of my car.

MR CORNELIUS: Was he handcuffed at that stage or were his hands bound?

MR SWART: I cannot remember Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: What was his condition?

MR SWART: He hadn't lost his consciousness and I cannot remember whether his hands were bound.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you see a firearm?

MR SWART: I saw no weapons there.

MR CORNELIUS: You received an instruction to go to Shell Ultra City near Middelburg?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: For whom did you have to wait there?

MR SWART: We waited for Warrant Officer Vermeulen and Warrant Officer Britz.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you think would happen to Tiso then?

MR SWART: I assumed that he would be killed.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you get an instruction to go to Penge Mine?

MR SWART: That is correct, yes.

MR CORNELIUS: It is common cause that Vermeulen and Britz arrived there then?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And there is no dispute that they went back to Pretoria to get more explosives and you went in the direction of Burgersfort to Penge Mine?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you use alcohol?

MR SWART: Yes, I did.

MR CORNELIUS: I am taking you now to the most important part of your evidence, then you went to Penge Mine to a certain ...

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Who was there?

MR SWART: It was myself, Gevers, Charlie Chait, Warrant Officer Britz and Warrant Officer Vermeulen and Tiso.

MR CORNELIUS: Was Tiso questioned there?

MR SWART: Yes, he was questioned.

MR CORNELIUS: Who questioned him?

MR SWART: He was questioned by myself, Warrant Officer Britz and Gevers.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Did you consume alcohol there?

MR SWART: Yes, we did.

MR CORNELIUS: Did somebody take notes of these conversations?

MR SWART: I personally took notes.

MR CORNELIUS: Very well. Did you learn anything from Tiso?

MR SWART: Yes. Tiso told me that he was a trained MK member, he told me that he was involved in various robberies for the ANC, that he was Winnie Mandela's driver and he gave us certain names of people smuggling guns and also names of caches.

MR CORNELIUS: Gevers, was he present all the time or not?

MR SWART: No, he went in and out.

MR CORNELIUS: Was Tiso at that stage assaulted?

MR SWART: Capt Gevers hit him once or twice, but not seriously because Tiso co-operated, and he had three beers with us.

MR CORNELIUS: As I understand it, he was shocked?

MR SWART: Yes, he was.

MR CORNELIUS: Was he bleeding?

MR SWART: No, it was not a serious assault.

MR CORNELIUS: After this interrogation, he was taken to the Mine?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Can you tell us what happened there?

MR SWART: We all left the kombi, we went down to the open mine where Warrant Officer Britz held Tiso. Gevers fired one shot with the .38 revolver, he shot him in the chest. The first shot sounded like it wasn't fired properly and he fired two more shots and Tiso fell down.

MR CORNELIUS: What happened then?

MR SWART: Warrant Officer Vermeulen and Britz prepared the explosives, they undressed him and I don't know what happened then, because I moved back to the kombi.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you hear an explosion after you left that area?

MR SWART: Yes, I heard an explosion.

MR CORNELIUS: You did not return to the scene that same evening?

MR SWART: I cannot remember whether we returned to the scene the same evening, but the next morning.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you do the next morning?

MR SWART: Mr Chairman, the remaining parts of the body were picked up and the explosives people destroyed all of that.

MR CORNELIUS: So it was repeatedly blown up until there were no remains?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And Tiso's clothes?

MR SWART: I cannot remember, I think we burnt those.

MR CORNELIUS: And the shoes?

MR SWART: The shoes were given to me by Britz after this incident, I had to destroy that.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you then destroy that ... (no interpretation)

MR SWART: Yes, I destroyed it ... (no interpretation)

MR CORNELIUS: Then you went back to Pretoria at some or other stage?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What did you do with the notes? What did you find in the boot of the car?

MR SWART: It seemed to be a lock to a safe, and I assumed that Tiso had put it there under the carpet. The notes I took, I handed it to Willie Nortje when we arrived at the farm.

MR CORNELIUS: And the key?

MR SWART: And also the key to the safe.

MR CORNELIUS: Afterwards, did you hear what happened to the notes and the key to the safe?

MR SWART: No.

MR CORNELIUS: Let me take you back to the unbanning of the ANC, the ANC was unbanned in 1990?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: And Vlakplaas assumed a new role, what was the new role of Vlakplaas?

MR SWART: It was more the prevention of gun-running networks.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you co-operate with the police units?

MR SWART: Yes, and we supported all the other police units.

MR CORNELIUS: And was any attempt made to stop the activities of Vlakplaas?

MR SWART: No, not at all.

MR CORNELIUS: Were your weapons taken back?

MR SWART: Not at all.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you understand that there was no war with the ANC or did you feel there was still a war?

MR SWART: I felt there was still a war raging with the ANC.

MR CORNELIUS: You had no reason to doubt the information from Dougie Holtzhausen?

MR SWART: No, I had no reason at all.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you receive compensation for the services you rendered?

MR SWART: Yes Mr Chairperson, after this incident, a long time afterwards, they said that we would receive compensation. I cannot remember the amount, but it was less than R2 000 and Gevers told me that it was stopped because no money was available any more.

MR CORNELIUS: How many instalments did you receive?

MR SWART: I received it in two instalments.

MR CORNELIUS: These actions of yours, was this done with a financial gain?

MR SWART: No, never.

MR CORNELIUS: You just received your normal salary as a Constable?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Before you fired this shots, did you think the people in the bus were armed?

MR SWART: I was under the impression that the people in the bus, were armed.

MR CORNELIUS: You agree with the other evidence that it was an ambush and the purpose was to shoot these people, the idea was not to arrest?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you believe that you acted in the interest of the country?

MR SWART: Yes, that is what I believed.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you have a personal vengeance or a hate, did you feel hate towards the victims?

MR SWART: No, Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: You only did your job?

MR SWART: I only did my job.

MR CORNELIUS: Did you give a full disclosure of all the facts as confirmed in your application and as far as you can remember?

MR SWART: Yes, Mr Chairperson.

MR CORNELIUS: You request that this Committee gives you amnesty for the five counts of murder?

MR SWART: That is what I request.

MR CORNELIUS: And also for perjury?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Or obstruction of justice?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: Regarding the obstruction of justice, did you give a statement or were you assisted by Krappies Engelbrecht while making these statements?

MR SWART: Yes, it was there where we worked on the premises, Grasdak.

MR CORNELIUS: That is in Waterkloof?

MR SWART: That is in Waterkloof, they told me what to say in my statement. It was prepared by Brig Engelbrecht.

MR CORNELIUS: And what you said in this statement was no true?

MR SWART: No, it was not true.

MR CORNELIUS: This statement indicates that it was a police roadblock with lights, etc and that they shot first?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: That was the obstruction of justice that you had committed ... (no interpretation)

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: What you are saying today is the full truth?

MR SWART: Yes, it is.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Hattingh, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Swart, in Nelspruit when you were at the hotel, did you see Mr de Kock there?

MR SWART: I saw him roundabout one o'clock that morning.

MR HATTINGH: If you say one o'clock in the morning, what do you mean ... (no interpretation)

MR SWART: That morning of the incident. The incident happened at three o'clock that morning.

MR HATTINGH: Just before you left?

MR SWART: I saw him then.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the only time you saw him apart from at the scene?

MR SWART: Yes, that was the only time I saw him.

MR HATTINGH: You also testified against him in his criminal trial?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you received Article 204 amnesty for this?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The question of the activities of Vlakplaas after the unbanning, you were also involved in the killing of Goodwill Sikhakane, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And this happened after the ANC was unbanned?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Goodwill Sikhakane was an askari who worked with Col Taylor in Durban?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And he threatened to expose the killing of Mr Shabalala because he was unhappy with something about his conditions of service?

MR SWART: As I understood, he was a threat. He would implicate a few senior policemen.

MR HATTINGH: And that was related to a political matter as far as I understood.

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Apart from that incident, you were also involved in other actions in line with your functions before the unbanning of the ANC?

MR SWART: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you still go out with askaris and people who had left the country for training and returned back, you tried to identify and arrest those people?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Regarding the compensation that you received after the Tiso incident, how was this compensation paid out to you, what did you have to do to get it?

MR SWART: We had to write out false claims and hand it in at Head Office after which the money was given to us by Col de Kock.

MR HATTINGH: So Mr de Kock did not approach you and said here is cash for your services?

MR SWART: No, he never gave us cash.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman, we have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh. Mr Lamey?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Swart, regarding these claims you are saying on page 48 of the statement, that for six months every member of the persons involved in the Nelspruit incident, were given money, but after the second month, this was stopped?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR LAMEY: Are you referring to every member involved in this Nelspruit incident or are you only referring to the people involved at Penge Mine?

MR SWART: I am referring to all people involved in the Nelspruit incident. They all received money.

MR LAMEY: Are you sure of that or could you be wrong about that?

MR SWART: No, I could be wrong.

MR LAMEY: Because according to Mr Gevers, it was only the members at Penge Mine who were compensated and all the other members, de Kock also confirmed that, Mr Klopper, Mr Nortje and all the other applicants who testified before you who were involved in the Nelspruit ambush, and they did not receive compensation. Mr de Kock also confirmed that?

MR SWART: That is possible.

MR LAMEY: You could perhaps be wrong in your assumption?

MR SWART: Yes, I could be wrong.

MR LAMEY: Then the other aspect on page 56, you refer to an incident at Witbank where a white woman was shot dead. You also say that you know about this incident because you and 15 askaris were sent to Witbank to assist with searching for the robbers. How long before the Nelspruit incident, did this Witbank incident happen?

MR SWART: I cannot remember Mr Chairman.

MR LAMEY: Did you think at a certain stage that Nelspruit was related to the Witbank incident?

MR SWART: One of the members who had been involved at the Witbank incident, would also be involved in the Nelspruit incident.

MR LAMEY: The note you gave to Mr Nortje, can you clearly remember that you handed it to Mr Nortje?

MR SWART: Yes Mr Chairman, the reason why I gave that to him was he was Mr de Kock's left hand. I definitely gave the notes and the key to him, because I knew they would process that and come back to us.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You testified regarding the interrogation that there was information about gun-smuggling networks. Gevers says that he referred to Mrs Mandela was operating a courier service, DHL, she used DHL courier service, do you recall that?

MR SWART: I cannot remember that specifically.

MR LAMEY: But was gun-smuggling across the borders mentioned?

MR SWART: Yes.

MR LAMEY: And was Mrs Mandela associated with this gun-smuggling?

MR SWART: Mr Chairman, as I can remember, he said specifically that he was trained and he was Mrs Mandela's driver.

MR LAMEY: Mr Gevers went in and out of the room, could he have presented you with information, other information when Mr Gevers was not there?

MR SWART: That is possible Mr Chairman, yes.

MR LAMEY: And then I just want to find out something from you, you say - I am not sure what you testified here, you said that Tiso was shot in his chest?

MR SWART: As far as I can remember, the first shot hit him in his chest, two more shots were fired.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey. Mr van den Berg?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson. Mr Swart, I would restrict my questions to the incident of Mr Leballo, this is the person who was murdered at Penge Mine. Mr Francis will probably still have more questions concerning the Nelspruit incident itself. You say on page 58 of your application, at the bottom of the page you say

"... for logistical reasons I then knew that Tiso would be killed and that his body would be destroyed."

How did you come to this conclusion?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, at that stage Capt Gevers and Warrant Officer Britz and Warrant Officer Vermeulen were having a conversation and they were sent to Pretoria to go and get explosives.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What do you mean by the use of the word "logistical reasons"?

MR SWART: I said logical reasons, and what I meant by this is that ...

MR VAN DEN BERG: Sorry, I misread that, so that is an inference you made from the conversation between Gevers, Vermeulen and Britz, is that correct?

MR SWART: Yes, the fact that they were sent to Pretoria to go and fetch explosives.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The interrogation, what I can conclude from what you said to Mr Lamey is that two things came from this, in the first place that Leballo was a trained ANC member, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And secondly that he was Mrs Mandela's driver?

MR SWART: This is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: These aspects are common cause between the parties here present. He did receive training, but he was in arrest in Quatro, do you have knowledge of this?

MR SWART: I cannot specifically remember this Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did he tell you this?

MR SWART: I cannot remember.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The aspect of gun-smuggling, did you receive any instructions flowing from the information that you had received from Leballo?

MR SWART: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Were you ever told we have this information from Leballo and now please go and follow up here and there?

MR SWART: No, not myself specifically and not someone that I specifically know about.

MR VAN DEN BERG: The interrogation as you put it, I understand from your fellow applicants, worked on the basis that certain questions were put to Leballo, is this correct?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And if his questions were not satisfactory, he was assaulted, is that correct?

MR SWART: No, this is not correct Mr Chairperson, he was assaulted once by Capt Gevers. It wasn't a serious assault, it was only to make him afraid and he gave his co-operation, so it stopped with this.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And during questioning by my learned friend, Ms Pillay, Mr Gevers said that the assaults lasted for about 15 minutes?

MR SWART: I do not agree with him in this case Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Where he was smacked and he was also kicked?

MR SWART: It was so that he was smacked and kicked, but it wasn't serious as I said, and it stopped there, he gave his co-operation and we gave him three beers and then he started talking.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Was he assaulted first or did you ask him questions first?

MR SWART: We first started asking questions Mr Chairperson and during questioning Capt Gevers came and assaulted him.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You departed from Nelspruit at about half past three, four o'clock, is that correct?

MR SWART: I would assume that it is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you went through to Middelburg where Vermeulen and Britz were met by you at the Ultra City?

MR SWART: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Can you remember what time this was?

MR SWART: According to my estimation, it was between ten and eleven o'clock in the morning.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And from there, you went through to Burgersfort?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: When was the first time on this route that you stopped to buy alcohol and other things?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, as I can remember, it was at Burgersfort that we waited. We waited for quite a while and it was late in the afternoon, this is when we bought alcohol.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Gevers spoke of originally 12 beers?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I do not know.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then after this, when Britz and Vermeulen joined, another 48 beers?

MR SWART: It is possible, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You say yourself in your statement, at the bottom of page 59

"... at that stage, I had already drunk quite a few beers and I was also quite tired due to the fact that I didn't sleep a lot."

Is this correct?

MR SWART: This is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And then you confirm that Warrant Officer Britz took Mr Leballo's shoes?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you Mr Chairperson, no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van den Berg. Mr Francis, questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FRANCIS: I do have. I got the impression from Mr Gevers when he testified, that he was present during the entire interview stage, and he was a Captain at that time, your senior? Is that correct?

MR SWART: No, he was not always present. As I said he went in and out sometimes and he was a Captain and also my senior.

MR FRANCIS: Mr Gevers also gave the impression that, or didn't mention anything about Tiso admitting that he was smuggling or robbing banks on behalf of the ANC?

MR SWART: Chairperson, that is possible that when he was out, he didn't hear this, I took the notes and I can specifically remember this seeing as this was reasonably serious according to me.

MR FRANCIS: Who told you to take notes?

MR SWART: Chairperson, no one told me to do this.

MR FRANCIS: I got the impression too that Mr Gevers himself, took part in the questioning?

MR SWART: Yes, he did take part in the questioning.

MR FRANCIS: I also got the impression from Mr Gevers that at one stage you were supposed to have killed Tiso, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So why didn't you kill Tiso?

MR SWART: Chairperson, Gevers walked in front of me when we went down to the open mine and at that stage, I was walking behind him and he put the revolver in my hand, and I put the revolver back into his hand. I did not want to shoot the man.

MR FRANCIS: Any reason for that?

MR SWART: Well, I didn't want to kill the man seeing as I had spoken to him all the time and he gave us his co-operation.

MR FRANCIS: So are you saying to this Commission that because he gave his co-operation, there was no need to kill him?

MR SWART: What I am saying Mr Chairperson is that I knew that he would die and I did not want to do it.

MR FRANCIS: Why?

MR SWART: I do not know what to say on that, I just didn't want to do it.

MR FRANCIS: Is it because you were a junior officer and you felt that Gevers who was much more senior, should have killed Tiso?

MR SWART: That is possible, but I didn't want to do it.

MR FRANCIS: Did you tell Gevers that you didn't want to kill him?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I think he got the message very clearly when I put the weapon back into his hand. I don't know if I told him something, I can just remember that I gave the weapon back.

MR FRANCIS: That was not Gevers' testimony that you gave him back the firearm, I think he said that he realised that you were still a junior, you are a Constable and I think it would have had some emotional I think effects, that is why he decided to kill Tiso. Who is not telling the truth about that?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, if this is what he gave evidence to, then this is what he gave evidence to. I know for a fact that he gave me the firearm, and I gave the firearm back to him. If he feels that I was the junior or emotional or whatever the case may be, and we have just killed four other people at Nelspruit, so I do not know what he means with this.

CHAIRPERSON: He said that you complained and said that you are the junior, so it would probably have been expected from you to kill the man?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I don't know, I cannot remember this clearly. All I can remember is that we walked and I knew what would happen, he gave me the firearm, and I gave the firearm back to him.

CHAIRPERSON: So did you never at any stage say "yes, but I am the junior, so I would probably have to kill the man?"

MR SWART: No Mr Chairperson, not that I can remember.

MR FRANCIS: Why didn't you mention this fact in your application, that at one stage Gevers put the firearm in your hand and you gave it back to him? It is not mentioned here?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, while I was making my statement, the police already had the facts at their disposal. I did not know if it would be important to say that he gave me the firearm and I gave the firearm back to him, but the fact is that he shot the man.

MR FRANCIS: I am referring now to your application for amnesty, I think you gave two statements. I am talking about this one here, why didn't you mention either in your application that this is basically what happened, or even mentioned this when you testified after you were led by Mr Cornelius?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I don't really understand. In my application for amnesty, or in my statement to the General, I mentioned everything that I knew. Apart from, as I said the fact that I received the firearm and that I gave it back, I did not see that as important, because he had it and he gave it to me and I gave it back to him. I did not think that that was an important point.

MR FRANCIS: Well you see, because Gevers himself does not mention that, so somebody must be lying about this?

MR SWART: Yes, I can see your point, but this is my version.

MR FRANCIS: You don't know why Gevers didn't mention that Tiso admitted that they were robbing on behalf of the ANC?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, no, I do not know why not. It is possible that he was not there. As I had said, he left the building.

MR FRANCIS: He must have seen the notes?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I don't know if his memory, I don't know, I cannot answer this question. What I am saying is that I took down the notes and I know what the conversation was. If Capt Gevers missed that point or not or was not there, I do not know.

MR FRANCIS: You are quite certain that he was just shot in his chest, is that correct?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, no. As I have said and as I gave evidence just now, the shot had gone off in his chest, it did not go off properly and I think after this, a further two shots were fired, after which he fell down.

MR FRANCIS: One of your colleagues I think I am not so sure who it is I think said that he is quite definite that Tiso was also struck in his head? I think one of the applicants I think I am not so sure who it was, it can be Vermeulen or one of the guys who testified, but I have read that somewhere. I think he said that he is quite definite that Tiso was struck in his head?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, yes, it is possible.

ADV DE JAGER: He himself says so on page 59?

MR SWART: Yes.

ADV DE JAGER: "... according to me, we shot him in the head."

MR FRANCIS: Yes, could I then ask you, you only referred to him being struck in the chest, but I have been now pointed out that you also mentioned that he was struck in his head? You have just now said you did not know about the head shot?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, this incident took place about seven years ago and I did mention in my statement that there was a shot in the chest and a shot in the head. After I had heard other evidence, I can remember that there were three shots.

MR FRANCIS: Are you saying that you basically are adapting your evidence because you heard from other people that there were three shots, now you are saying that one was in the head, one was in the chest and the one just didn't go off?

MR SWART: No Mr Chairperson, this is not on purpose. If it was two or three shots, I am not completely sure about, but the fact that Capt Gevers shot him, I was there, I saw it happen. And the man fell on the ground.

MR FRANCIS: Let's come back to the Nelspruit incident, you said that after firing at the kombi, you went to the left side of the kombi, is that correct?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And you tried to open the side door, it was jammed?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: You then saw somebody who wanted to stand up?

MR SWART: It appeared to be like that, yes Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Can you just describe how this person I think tried to get up?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, the man was laying on his side, he reached out with his hand to my face's side, I was not sure whether he had a weapon with him, there was no light there and I shot five shots into his chest.

MR FRANCIS: Had he already been wounded when he tried to lift up his arm towards you?

MR SWART: I would assume so, yes Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Why shoot him, why not wait and see if maybe this person was saying "look, I am giving up, I am already struck, I have already been shot", why then proceed with the killing?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I was a few centimetres away from this man. If he did have a firearm in his hand and he did shoot, then I would have been killed.

MR FRANCIS: Did you know what the political affiliations of Mr Mama was at the time of the incident?

MR SWART: No,

MR FRANCIS: He was one of the persons that you killed?

MR SWART: I am not sure Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that he was not a member of the ANC, you can't dispute that?

MR SWART: No, I cannot.

MR FRANCIS: But you still say that the information that you got was that the occupants of the bus were members of the ANC?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: On what was that based? On what was your belief based?

MR SWART: That it was ANC people that would go and rob a place.

MR FRANCIS: All of them ANC members, or just Tiso Leballo an ANC member?

MR SWART: As far as I can remember, all of them.

MR FRANCIS: You also I think mentioned in your application that the role of Vlakplaas did in fact change, is that correct? The role of Vlakplaas changed?

MR SWART: Yes, this is correct.

MR FRANCIS: This was after 1990?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: So I assume that you attended meetings that were addressed by Gen Engelbrecht about the new role of Vlakplaas?

MR SWART: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Because I think Mr Engelbrecht himself I think deposed to an affidavit that the role of Vlakplaas I think was to be of assistance to the other units of the police?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR FRANCIS: And I think nowhere does he mention the fact that your role was still to, was still of a political nature?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I think it is general knowledge that nothing had changed there, if one looks at the things that happened after this.

MR FRANCIS: I know that you arguing by saying that because your weapons were not taken, that was indicative of the fact that your role still had to be political, is that what you are saying?

MR SWART: No, what I am saying is that nothing really changed, apart that we started to assist the other units and that we didn't use the word terrorist any more, but gun-smugglers. It was just technical aspects.

MR FRANCIS: Who told you that one of the Nelspruit 5 was involved in the Witbank incident?

MR SWART: I think it was Capt Geldenhuys and Dougie Holtzhausen because they had this information.

MR FRANCIS: What was the intention, was this to encourage you to be ready for the action?

MR SWART: That is possible Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Did they mention which person was involved in the killing of the woman in Witbank?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember if they specifically mentioned a name, I did not know one of them, and I assumed and I understood that he was with them and that they were one of the group.

MR FRANCIS: I think if my memory serves me correctly, Mr Klopper testified and said that he was told by Mr de Kock that they were also involved in the Witbank incident and now you are saying it is Holtzhausen and Geldenhuys?

MR SWART: No, as I said, it was Holtzhausen and Geldenhuys. We were given information about this incident shortly before the incident and this is what I am referring to.

MR FRANCIS: So you are not agreeing with the testimony that was given by Klopper when he said that he was told by de Kock about this?

MR SWART: I cannot say if he was told by him, I was not present.

MR FRANCIS: So somebody must be lying?

MR SWART: That is so.

MR FRANCIS: Not you?

MR SWART: No.

MR FRANCIS: How did you feel after you were told that a white woman was killed by black people in Witbank?

MR SWART: It did not have a specific effect on me Mr Chairperson, it is a general thing that happens that people rob banks and other people get shot.

MR FRANCIS: How did you feel when you were told that a white woman was killed by a black person?

MR SWART: It did not specifically go about colour with me, I had been a policeman for a long time, and I had basically seen everything.

MR FRANCIS: The police I think didn't assume a political role, it was supposed to be neutral?

MR SWART: Yes, we were but we were misused by the politicians.

MR FRANCIS: And also after the unbanning of the ANC I think some members I think, some black members of the police were also members of the ANC?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct.

MR FRANCIS: So the South African Police Force I mean, then became, had members of all political parties?

MR SWART: That is so Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: It would be ANC, PAC, IFP, whatever?

MR SWART: Yes Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Were these robbers involved in a - that is now the five, were they involved in a political onslaught against the country at that time?

MR SWART: That was the impression that I had Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: But in what way sir if they were just interested in robbing for themselves?

MR SWART: That they would rob banks to be able to financially advance the ANC for the struggle.

MR FRANCIS: Why would somebody who is not a member of the ANC, want to rob on behalf of the ANC?

MR SWART: I do not know Mr Chairperson, he could possibly be doing it for his own gain.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you I think that these robbers were in fact going to do it for their own benefit?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, according to Tiso, with the questioning, it was not the case. He said that they wanted to steal money for the ANC.

MR FRANCIS: I have already put it to you that Mr Gevers has got a different recollection of that?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, it is possible, I can clearly remember it.

MR FRANCIS: I put it to you that it is now easy for you to say that this was information that Tiso gave because he is dead, and he cannot talk about it?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I assumed that it would come out in the TRC that Warrant Officer Nortje would give evidence to the effect, about the information that he had and the papers that I gave him.

MR FRANCIS: I think Mr Nortje himself, I think if I recall I think was quite evasive about that.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I think this is really argument about Mr Nortje being evasive. He said that he couldn't recall, it is possible. He remembered the key. I don't know really why my learned friend thinks he is evasive and putting it to this witness, it doesn't take the matter further, with all respect.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it is fair that he is putting it to him, telling him what Nortje's response was. What is wrong with that? Mr Francis, carry on.

MR LAMEY: If my learned friend tells ...

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, are you going back to the same point?

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I just want to ...

CHAIRPERSON: Are you going back to the same point?

MR LAMEY: I will leave the point, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, Mr Francis, carry on.

MR FRANCIS: He was quite evasive about this notes that were kept?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, it is possible that he had forgotten it, but I definitely gave it to him along with the keys.

MR FRANCIS: And I think he was also asked by Mr I think De Jager about why, if this, I am not so sure if it was Nortje or Mr Gevers, but he was asked why if you had obtained this information, why this whole you know, wasn't kept and they couldn't really give a specific answer about that?

MR SWART: Yes, I don't understand that myself Chairperson, I gave it to him and I thought that they would work with this and from there, there would come instructions, but it was not my job to question the Commander.

MR FRANCIS: Did you know why Tiso had to be killed?

MR SWART: I just knew that he would be killed.

MR FRANCIS: For what reason?

MR SWART: I do not know, I was not part of the planning or the information.

MR FRANCIS: Are you saying to us that if you get an order from your superiors to kill, you would just kill without asking what, why you've got to kill the person?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And even if it is unreasonable, you would still kill?

MR SWART: Chairperson, in our situation it was different to the Uniform Branch for instance. I think if I did not execute my instructions, then I would have been the next person.

MR FRANCIS: Could you explain that?

MR SWART: There was a big possibility that if I had information and I could be a danger to the unit, that I would possibly be eliminated myself.

MR FRANCIS: So is that why you, is that the reason why you killed, or you knew that Tiso had to be killed, because if he wasn't killed, you could be next?

MR SWART: No, this is not the reason. It was a case that we had to do it, it was an instruction and we executed it.

MR FRANCIS: Are you telling this Commission that you, up to this date, don't know why Tiso had to be killed and why Tiso was killed?

MR SWART: I don't know what the political motivation was behind this, but I executed my duties as it was expected of me.

MR FRANCIS: Did you during the criminal trial, mention that the robbers were, let me rather put it to you this way, in your application before this Commission, the written one, and also in the affidavit that you gave during the criminal trial, you did not mention that the robbers were members of the ANC, can you tell us why that was not mentioned? Please look at me, don't look at Mr, your counsel.

MR SWART: I am just trying to look at my statement. I don't know what the reason was that I did not specifically mention the ANC. As I said, the time that this statement had been made, all the facts had already been mentioned to me, it was basically a procedure just to make the statement. The police already had all the facts at their disposal when they took down my statement.

MR FRANCIS: But I take it that the statement was given back to you for you to read?

MR SWART: When Mr Chairperson?

MR FRANCIS: Before you signed the affidavit?

MR SWART: Yes, then I forgot to mention that.

MR FRANCIS: Why forget such an important factor, because you are trying to say that this was political, but you don't mention that the information that you had, was that they were members of the ANC and were going to rob on behalf of the ANC?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I do not know why I neglected to say specifically the ANC in my statement, but at that stage it was known to me, so it must have been a mistake from my side that I forgot to specifically in that paragraph mention the ANC.

MR FRANCIS: Did you know what the political affiliations of the other four were?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, afterwards we had a lot more information about them.

MR FRANCIS: No, no before, before or at the time of the incident, did you know what the affiliations were?

MR SWART: Only that it would be ANC robbers and that they would execute a robbery.

MR FRANCIS: In your affidavit I think you also mentioned that you knew that the robbers were wanted by the police for other incidents, do you recall that?

MR SWART: Yes, what I meant by this ...

MR FRANCIS: No, I will ask you just now. You admit that?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Francis, give the witness an opportunity. Please tell us what you want to say sir.

MR FRANCIS: Sorry.

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, what I mean is that they told me that four robbers would be coming. Can you please repeat your question?

MR FRANCIS: I think in your affidavit you say that before the incident you knew that four robbers were wanted by the police, I wanted to know from you who told you that the robbers were wanted by the police?

MR SWART: The only people who gave us information about this is Dougie Holtzhausen and Capt Geldenhuys of Murder and Robbery.

MR FRANCIS: Did he mention that all five robbers were wanted by the police?

MR SWART: I cannot remember if they said four or five, I assumed it was four in the bus and that they were robbers. If they were specifically wanted at that stage, I am not sure, I cannot say with surety, but I assumed that that was the case.

MR FRANCIS: Did you know how many robbers were going to be in the kombi?

MR SWART: I heard that there would be four robbers in the bus.

MR FRANCIS: Is that before they got killed?

MR SWART: Yes.

MR FRANCIS: On page 323 at paragraph 4 of your affidavit, the last sentence of paragraph 4 you say

"... I personally did not know much about the robbers because I did not play a prominent role in the actions."

Is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So you were just told that - go to Nelspruit, there is going to be action and you went?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I was told to go, that is so.

MR FRANCIS: You knew nothing about the robbers?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, just before the incident, I was informed that it would be four armed robbers of the ANC that would be robbing a specific place. I did - what I meant by this is that I did not know everyone's individual background and it wasn't necessary for me to know this.

MR FRANCIS: I think I have made the point you know, nowhere do you mention the ANC connection, but let's turn to page 324 and there is a paragraph 6, I think it is the fifth line from the bottom of paragraph 6 where you've got the following

"... at some stage before the incident I heard that the robbers were wanted. At some stage I heard that one of them were involved in an incident where a white woman was killed in a bank or shot dead in a bank in Witbank. I had knowledge of this incident, because I sent 15 askaris to Witbank to give help with this robbery."

MR SWART: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: So at that stage, you basically were told that one of them were involved in the Witbank incident?

MR SWART: This is how I understood it.

MR FRANCIS: But you can't tell us which one of the four?

MR SWART: No, I did not know one of them.

MR FRANCIS: You were asked I think about the claims and you said that you understood that to mean that all the members who were involved in the Nelspruit incident, were asked to lodge claims, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is the impression that I had Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Who told you that you could lodge a claim?

MR SWART: Capt Gevers told us to lodge claims and he also stopped it.

MR FRANCIS: I take it that the claims would have been approved by Lt-Col de Kock at that time?

MR SWART: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Can you recall what information you gave when you lodged the false claims?

MR SWART: No.

MR FRANCIS: Klopper testified and said that it was a practice at Vlakplaas for members of the Vlakplaas, to lodge false claims?

MR SWART: That is so Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: And also I think what would happen is that even if an informer had given information, that was genuine, the informer would still be paid a percentage thereof and the rest would go to, the bulk thereof would go to Mr de Kock and the others would go to Vlakplaas members? Is that correct?

MR SWART: No, not as far as I know Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: But you cannot dispute Klopper's testimony about that?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, when I wrote out claims, it was not as I said just now, it was not my duty to question the Commander.

MR FRANCIS: You say that you were assisted by Engelbrecht to make the statement, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: Did Mr Engelbrecht sit down with you and say "look, this is basically what you have to put in your affidavit"?

MR SWART: That is correct Chairperson.

MR FRANCIS: That is not what Mr Holtzhausen testified. Mr Holtzhausen testified and said that he basically, that Holtzhausen himself had drawn up the affidavits and they were later I think given to Mr Engelbrecht who then you know told him to make certain changes?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, it was at the Grasdak that we were, I think it was still Brig Engelbrecht at that time, and he was personally present, Holtzhausen was present and involved with the statements, but Brig Engelbrecht personally adapted our statements.

MR FRANCIS: The other applicants I think said that they were just given statements and they just put their signatures on it and it was later attested somewhere else, but that is basically what they did?

MR SWART: Can I just put it this way, Brig Engelbrecht adapted my statement.

MR FRANCIS: Why yours alone?

MR SWART: I will not be able to speak on behalf of the other people, but what I do know is that he adapted mine, if he did for the other people, I would not know.

MR FRANCIS: Did you mention to him that Tiso was killed at the Mine?

MR SWART: Chairperson, I assume that he knew this. He was the Commander.

MR FRANCIS: Did you mention that to him?

MR SWART: I cannot remember if I mentioned it to him specifically, no.

MR FRANCIS: Because I think there was always this denial on the part of the police that they knew nothing about Tiso and I think at some stage there was an allegation that he must have crossed the borders, he must have gone to Botswana, different places, is that correct?

MR SWART: That is possible.

MR FRANCIS: But that information you did not give to Engelbrecht?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson no, I assumed that he already knew this.

MR FRANCIS: You said that you thought that the robbers were armed, who told you that they were armed?

MR SWART: Dougie Holtzhausen and Capt Geldenhuys.

MR FRANCIS: Did he mention, did they mention where they got the information from?

MR SWART: No, I did not know.

MR FRANCIS: I've got no further questions I think.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR FRANCIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Francis. Ms Patel?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. Mr Swart, tell me, that afternoon, you had quite a bit to drink, not so?

MR SWART: Can you just say which afternoon?

MS PATEL: The afternoon just prior to the murder of Tiso, the same day?

MR SWART: That is correct yes.

MS PATEL: Is that why you couldn't drive your own vehicle to Penge Mine?

MR SWART: No Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: Why didn't you drive your own vehicle then?

MR SWART: Mr Chairman, when Britz and Vermeulen joined us, I got into their vehicle, they knew the road and they would say at the security gate that I was there for training, so I had to be visible, I had to be with them.

MS PATEL: Okay. Was Tiso kept in the boot all the time that you were there?

MR SWART: Yes Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: You didn't take him out at any stage to be fed or to relieve himself, nothing?

MR SWART: No Mr Chairperson, we opened the boot now and then and he never requested that, that he wanted fresh air.

MS PATEL: Okay, and yet after having been kept in the boot for most of the day, he gave you his co-operation during the interrogation, bar a few slaps?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairperson.

MS PATEL: The beers that you gave him, that was the first thing he had to drink while he was with you, not so? He hadn't been given anything to eat before then?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MS PATEL: How long did the interrogation last?

MR SWART: Mr Chairman, I am speaking under correction, we arrived at four o'clock and it lasted till dark, it was about two hours more or less.

MS PATEL: Gevers said to us that the interrogation lasted about an hour, it was short, what is your comment?

MR SWART: It is possible, as I have said, we arrived there late that afternoon and when it became dark, we left again, so I don't know exactly when we did arrive there.

MS PATEL: Okay. He wasn't murdered at the place where he was interrogated, not so? You moved him?

MR SWART: That is correct.

MS PATEL: How did this come about, what did you tell him, where were you taking him to or what was the position, what was he told?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, I can't remember exactly what we said. I can't remember.

MS PATEL: Did he go willingly?

MR SWART: Yes, he went with us willingly.

MS PATEL: Okay. Did he not suspect that anything was wrong at that stage?

MR SWART: I don't think so Mr Chairman.

MS PATEL: All right, can I just take you back to the scene of the incident where the four others were killed? On page 57 of your application, the last paragraph you say

"... a vehicle arrived there with a white man and a black policeman in there. I explained to them that this incident was a police action."

Do you recall that?

MR SWART: Yes, I remember that.

MS PATEL: Can you tell us exactly what you told the police who had arrived on the scene about what was happening?

MR SWART: Mr Chairperson, if I can remember correctly, it was a black policeman and the white person driving the vehicle, was somebody who arrived at the police station and when they heard about the shooting, the policeman asked this white person to accompany him to the scene to investigate what was going on. On their arrival I told them that it was a police activity, I identified myself as a policeman and then the policeman according to me, went back to the police station. He did not remain on the scene.

MS PATEL: You were one of the junior officers there, as I understand it, Mr de Kock's testimony at some stage was that he didn't really want to speak to the policemen who had arrived on the scene because he wasn't sure what the version was going to be that was going to be put to them, yet, you as a junior person took it upon yourself to speak to the policeman who had arrived on the scene?

MR SWART: Mr Chairman, what I assume that you mean is Mr de Kock is referring to the Security Policemen, the police from the local Security Police. This was a uniform policeman and when I identified myself as a policeman saying this was a police action, he accepted that.

MS PATEL: Did you report this to anybody else on the scene, that you had spoken to a policeman who had arrived there and the policeman had left after you had spoken to him?

MR SWART: I cannot remember.

MS PATEL: All right, thank you Honourable Chairperson. I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Patel. Does the Panel have any questions?

MR SIBANYONI: No questions from my side, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, re-examination?

RE-EXAMINATION BY MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairman, shortly. I just want to refer to page 47 of your amnesty application, you say in 10(b) your motivation for these deeds are

"... information indicated that ANC MKs committed armed robberies to gather money for the ANC. I acted on behalf of the country and in the interest of the country."

MR SWART: That is correct.

MR CORNELIUS: After you had interrogated Tiso at Penge Mine, were you convinced or not convinced that he was a trained ANC MK?

MR SWART: I was convinced that he was an MK.

MR CORNELIUS: And then lastly, in your evidence-in-chief, you acted on a need to know basis and you followed instructions?

MR SWART: That is correct Mr Chairman.

MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Cornelius. Mr Swart, thank you, you are excused.

MR SWART: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED