Amnesty Hearings

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Labuschagne, will you rise to take the oath please. Your full names please?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Frans Hendrik Smalberger Labuschagne.

FRANS HENDRIK SMALBERGER LABUSCHAGNE: (sworn states)

MR SIBANYONI: ; Thank you, you may be seated. He has been sworn in Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, may I just place on record that we did not expect Mr Labuschagne to testify today and that is why he is not dressed for the occasion, so we apologise for that.

CHAIRPERSON: He is probably more sensibly dressed for the occasion, than the rest of us.

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: That is so Mr Chairman. The reason why we have agreed for Mr Labuschagne to testify now is because Mrs van der Walt requested me to do so, because Mr Lubbe is only available today, and that is why I agreed to do that. Mr Labuschagne, your application commences on page 179 of the first bundle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you are applying for amnesty for murder, conspiracy?

CHAIRPERSON: It commences at 132, dealing with this ...

MR DU PLESSIS: I am sorry, I am sorry, the information pertaining to the incident starts at 179.

CHAIRPERSON: That is 179, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and you are applying for murder, conspiracy and everything else which is set out there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what would be added to that would be accessory?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Labuschagne, as the honourable Judge Wilson has indicated, your application or the complete section of your application, commences on page 132 and the background facts and information we can find from page 132 to 178?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And then will you turn to page 184 please. The information on page 184 to 195, do you confirm this as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: That is where you set out the political objectives. Now Mr Labuschagne, let us return to page 179 over to 180. Mr Chairman, I am going to present the evidence on the basis that I am going to deal with the problems in the statement and then I will come back to the background evidence pertaining to how that came about.

Mr Labuschagne, I will just take you paragraph for paragraph. The first paragraph on page 180, do you confirm this as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The second paragraph on page 180, in the final sentence it appears it was agreed with the informer that he would stop at a determined point on the Amsterdam/Nersden Road with trained MK members and that an arrest would ensue? Now, according to you, during the planning phase, was there ever any mention of an arrest or what was the order that you received?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The order which was received from Col de Kock was for every person to be shot dead.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, and then the rest of that paragraph, do you confirm it as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I confirm this as correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then on page 181, the second sentence it states

"... one group would wait at the T-junction in an attempt to apprehend the persons who would accompany the infiltrators across the border before they return to Swaziland",

is that entirely correct? Would they have been arrested or was the order any different?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: As far as I know, the order was also for these persons to be killed.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were not a part of that group which had to eliminate the persons accompanying the MK members across the border?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I was not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the further information as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And up to the bottom of that page, 181, do you confirm all of this as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, it is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: There was evidence given by Mr de Kock that at the place where the shooting took place, the shooting of the passengers of the bakkie, persons had taken up position at both sides of the road and the other applicants testified that position was only taken up on the one side of the road, what is your recollection?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I recall that we took up position only on the one side of the road.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is your evidence in concurrence with the evidence of Messrs Deetlefts and Pienaar?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And who was with you there on that side of the road, who took up position with you there, who can you recall?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was Col de Kock himself, Chris Deetlefts, Freek Pienaar, Gene Fourie and later as I tried to orient myself further, I recalled Greyling and Botha also being present. With regard to Mr Bosch, I cannot recall whether he was also present.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, and if we could just pause there for a moment, who was the senior officer that was present there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was the then Capt de Kock and Capt Deetlefts.

MR DU PLESSIS: What was your rank?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I was a Sergeant at that stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Who was the most junior member there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: As far as I can recall, it was me and Fourie and Bosch and Botha.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, now Mr Labuschagne, in some of the other applications mention is made of, or at least allegations are made that you received an order to shoot the informer or the driver of the bakkie, can you recall anything like that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct. My order was issued by Mr de Kock and Chris Deetlefts that I had to shoot the relevant informer.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. You have heard the evidence given by Mr de Kock and by Mr Deetlefts as well as Mr Pienaar pertaining to the informer and the reasons why he had to be shot, do you associate yourself with this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I would agree with it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, what were you armed with?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I was armed with a hand carbine.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, can we go over to page 182, the first paragraph. Do you confirm this as correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I confirm this as correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: With the exception that you have said who the other persons were?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Then the second paragraph on page 182, I do not want you to look at the paragraph as such, I would just like you to tell the Committee in your own words precisely what you can recall what took place during the incident when the bakkie stopped and I would like for you to tell it as you recall it.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: What happened precisely on that evening is that we formed a line on the shoulder of the Amsterdam/Nersden Road, I cannot recall the precise time because it was already dark.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do not go too quickly, take it easy.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was already dark. A Datsun bakkie with a canopy stopped at the point where we were positioned. In the prior planning we had already been informed what sort of vehicle it would be. My position in the line that we had formed was on the extreme right, in other words on the side of the Nersden border post if I might put it as such.

MR DU PLESSIS: Let me ask you, as the bakkie stopped, would you have been closer to the front or the rear?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: To the rear. Furthermore the bakkie came to a standstill, it stopped a distance passed me, in other words I could see passed the rear end of the bakkie. The driver of the vehicle jumped out immediately and moved to the rear of the bakkie, and at that stage fire was opened from our line. When he came around the rear of the bakkie, perhaps not around, but when he moved passed the rear of the bakkie, I shot him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Please pause there. The driver disembarked on the side of the bakkie which was away from you, the furthest away from you?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And where precisely did you shoot him, not on his body but was he on the ground? Can you explain to the Committee precisely where he was situated in relation to the bakkie and the road?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: At that stage, I shot him once he had emerged from behind the bakkie, that is when I shot him. I did not fire through the bakkie or anything like that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, and where did he collapse?

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, did he keep going or did he turn to try to open the back of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No Mr Chairperson, when he came within my field of vision, I shot him. He fell there where I shot him.

MR LAX: The point was though, did he try to open the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, never.

MR LAX: Just in relation to Exhibit B, more or less where was he in relation to the bakkie when you shot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: He moved passed the back of the bakkie.

MR LAX: Yes, if you look at where for example, I don't know if it is indicated on your ...

MR LABUSCHAGNE: He did not lay where the initial sketch is, he was not behind the bakkie. He was at the back, passed ...

MR DU PLESSIS: There are eight circles that indicate where the people were laying and then you can see the bakkie and on the opposite side of where the people were laying, if you could see, there is a cross. As I understand your evidence, you say that he was not laying there.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you give us an indication then, if you look at the right hand side of the sketch to the eight circles, more or less next to which circle on the right hand side?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It would be the third last circle then.

MR LAX: So just for the record, that is approximately in line with the back right hand corner of the vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is so.

CHAIRPERSON: I have what I think is the original of this, perhaps he could mark on this Exhibit B with ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, he has marked it on mine, maybe ...

CHAIRPERSON: If you will let me have both of them then.

MR DU PLESSIS: It is Mr Rossouw's, Mr Chairman, it wasn't my client who marked it, but it is the same position.

MR LAX: Perhaps Mr Rossouw's could just be circulated around that way, so that the other parties could just check on that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, may I proceed?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, may I just clarify from my learned friend, Mr du Plessis, my photocopy has got six round circles.

CHAIRPERSON: So has mine.

MR LAMEY: So there must have been two drawn in.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Rossouw put it another two here, Mr Chairman, or somebody else then.

MR LAX: Somebody was doodling were they, a bit board with the questioning.

MR DU PLESSIS: But I think it is clear from the position, where it was, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: And while we are looking at this, you've got it in front of you, you were somewhere, you were, where were you in the line on the extreme right?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: So you would be the first person to see him coming from the back?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And you would be shooting at an angle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Towards the rear of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, can you explain to the Committee that after you shot the informer, what did you do then?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I moved to the back of the bakkie. At the back door of the bakkie, I then shot at those sitting inside, it was approximately hip height. I then shot until the weapon was empty.

MR LAX: When you say the back door, you are talking about the sort of opening of the canopy?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The canopy door, that is right.

MR DU PLESSIS: Will you look at Exhibit E please, the photograph of the bakkie. Can you see that there are bullet wounds at the back of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The back window is also out? Very well Mr Labuschagne, on page 182, the second paragraph, the second sentence the statement says

"... the driver jumped out immediately, then ran behind the bakkie when a passenger jumped out with a pistol in his hand."

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, that is not correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Can you remember if you saw anybody jumping out on the left hand side of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, there was evidence and you heard it from Mr Deetlefts, he was not quite sure about this aspect and then at one stage said that as far as he could recall the door was open slightly and that the door was not open wide, but only slightly ajar. What is your comment concerning this? Is it possible?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It could be possible, but the fact is that when that bakkie stopped and the driver jumped out, we immediately started to fire. And as I have said, nobody could get out of that vehicle from the left hand side.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, is that how you remember it?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is how I remember it.

MR DU PLESSIS: In the third paragraph it says

"... Eugene de Kock immediately started to fire and the other members followed him."

Can you remember who started to fire first or can you not remember?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I remember correctly, it was also during the planning that we decided that Col de Kock would start to fire at that stage and that is why I also put that in my statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: Well the next two sentences, or the next sentence, the members were armed with R1s and Uzzis?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct. As I have already said, we had R1s and hand carbines, and there was also R1 rifles.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. It says also that three of the occupants of the car died, it was the two who were inside the vehicle and the driver who was outside? Was there anybody in the canopy of the vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, except for weaponry and explosives.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and the weapons that were submitted as evidence, Exhibit C, you saw the photographs, was that the weapons that you saw or found at the back of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I cannot specifically say if it was all that was found in the back of the bakkie, but I remember the rucksacks, there was an AK47, yes I would say that would be the weapons that we found.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And you also heard evidence that Mr de Kock allegedly placed an AK47 on top of a person, is that true?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Okay, and the last paragraph on page 182, what is your comment concerning that, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Labuschagne, did you know Bernard and Tollman before?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: We did know about them as trained MK soldiers. At that stage they were in Swaziland.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where were you stationed when this incident occurred?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I was at Ermelo at the Security Branch.

MR DU PLESSIS: And where did you operate?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: My operational area was Swaziland.

MR DU PLESSIS: And the information concerning Bernard and Tollman, can you just give us more information concerning that, what information did you have?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can recall, the information was that not long before this specific incident, they would have arrived in Swaziland and the information was very vague at that stage, we could not really identify them positively on the information that we had, but just the fact that Bernard and Tollman were in Swaziland.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, did you know anything about Sandani?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No. No, I had no information concerning him.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Zandile?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, no information. I also did not know of him.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, broadly speaking, the MK members who operated in Swaziland and people who supported the freedom fighters in Swaziland, did you have any knowledge during that time of MK members who operated from Swaziland into the Republic?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And generally speaking, the people who operated from Swaziland, were they South African citizens or were they Swazi citizens?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Mainly they were South African citizens. To use the English word, they were in exile and they were trained or received military training and in certain cases, there were Swazi's who helped them, which was a big problem because not only helping them across the border, they also provided housing. They provided them with vehicles, that is the trained MK members, they also hid weapons for them.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, this statement of yours is more or less word for word the same as the statements of Mr Greyling, Pienaar and Deetlefts. Your application was submitted for amnesty internally and that is for this incident, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Various other applications were submitted for external operations, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And for the purpose of today's evidence, we do not have to go into the background of the submitting of the applications for the external operations or the operations abroad. Mr Chairman, I would prefer to refrain from any evidence pertaining to that, as I will have to present that in an application to the Committee, and I would rather not deal with it here.

Mr Labuschagne, before Mr Strydom Britz became your Attorney in June 1989, who was your Attorney?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was Mr Prinsloo who is here today and Mrs van der Walt.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and did they represent you when this statement was used in support of your application for amnesty?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you remember more or less when you saw them for the first time, or when you went to go and see them for the first time?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The original statement was signed in December, this was December 1996, it was approximately in that time.

MR DU PLESSIS: And that was just before the first cut-off date?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, you will see that this statement of yours on page 197 is dated 9 June 1998, was that when you signed this statement on 197, you have already met them?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And was anything changed in the contents of your statement, and that is the previous statement that you made in 1996?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No Mr Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, maybe I must just place this on record, Ms Lockhat has the original application that was signed in 1996 and this one was then signed in 1998 and what happened was, the applications for the operations in Swaziland were included in a more detailed amnesty application we have lodged in July 1998.

Mr Labuschagne, when you met Mr Britz, did you consult him concerning the external operations, abroad?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your application for amnesty was then extended to include these operations abroad?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you in any way consult with Mr Britz concerning this incident?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I did not consult him concerning this, it was mainly about the incidents abroad.

MR DU PLESSIS: And this statement was dictated word for word?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, let us just go back to December 1996, can you remember or can you explain to the Committee how it happened that you applied for amnesty and who you consulted with?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The consultation occurred with Mrs van der Walt and the amnesty applications were as a result of the fact that it was, we were told ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Let me stop you there. Who was present when you consulted with Mrs van der Walt?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The other members who were there that specific day and maybe not during our consultation, it was Chris Deetlefts, Paul van Dyk, Freek Pienaar, Johan Botha and Dan Greyling I already mentioned, Mr Verwey who was not specifically part of this group. I cannot remember who else was there. I think there were also applicants for other specific applications.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where did this take place?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That was Argent, on the farm of Mrs van der Walt. She has an office there.

MR DU PLESSIS: What did you do that day, except for the consultation?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: After the consultation, there was also a function there on that specific day.

MR DU PLESSIS: If you talk about a function, did you have a braai?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, Mr Labuschagne, did you prepare a document with information also concerning this incident and other incidents that you were involved in?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And what did you do with that document on that day?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That specific document I handed over to Mrs van der Walt.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, that document contains information concerning, or with regard to the incidents that you are applying now for amnesty?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Including the incidents abroad?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: The document contains certain information inter alia pertaining to informants, the names of informants and information such as that. It also contains information pertaining to the other amnesty applications which I don't, my client does not want to waive his privilege pertaining to that. I am going to only ask him a question about what was contained in the document pertaining to this incident.

You saw the document a while ago, Mrs van der Walt made it available to you. Can you just then tell the Committee concerning this document, in the first instance, it was numbered, item 5, what did you write there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Chris Deetlefts describes in full.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is that what you wrote?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is.

MR DU PLESSIS: Chris Deetlefts describes in full, you didn't write anything else?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Labuschagne, can you remember if this specific incident and that is with the other applicants and also Mr Deetlefts among others, was discussed before you had the consultation with Mrs van der Walt?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I am not quite sure, but I think we did talk about the incident and afterwards I also wrote Chris Deetlefts discussed it in full.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Can you remember if this incident as you have just testified about it, was discussed in detail with Mrs van der Walt?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you not remember or didn't you?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I cannot remember. I do not believe that I discussed it in such detail with her.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Now, Mr Labuschagne, this evidence that you have provided us with now, concerning or with regards to the instructions that you got concerning the elimination, as well as the evidence concerning the person who allegedly jumped out on the left hand side of the vehicle with a pistol in his hand, can you recall why it was included in your first amnesty application, that was a written statement?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can remember correctly, there was talk that we had to all give the same story or that we have to give the same statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: If you are now talking about this talk, as it amongst the applicants?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is true.

MR DU PLESSIS: You do not include Mrs van der Walt in that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I do not.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well, and what is your attitude then today concerning the truth and what happened at that incident?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: My attitude is that there are two parts, that is not hundred percent correct in the statement and I feel that the truth must be revealed concerning these two specific sections in the statement.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And the mistakes, in the consultation to mentioned them to me?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Mr Chairman, if you will just bear with me for a moment. Mr Labuschagne, can you recall if in the original statement, I think Ms Lockhat has it, Mr Chairman, 12 or 13 December 1996, I am not hundred percent sure, that statement that you then signed, can you remember if it was on the same day that you consulted with Mrs van der Walt, or can you not remember?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I cannot remember.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions. I am very sorry Mr Labuschagne, but at the end of your application, page 196 of this Bundle, there is a section that you added on, could you just read to that us please. Can you read it especially to the families of the victims?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I will begin to say, I believed that what I did was in the interest of the Republic of South Africa, the people, my religion and my christian beliefs. I am not sure today where I am standing now, and I do not know how I find myself in this position. I feel unhappy and I feel sorry for the victims of those and also those who lost their lives.

I hope that this will also be, this will also lead in me finding reconciliation and understanding with all the people of South Africa, it is however not me to decide who is right or wrong, but as a full member of the Republic of South Africa, it must also be the same for all the other former fighters for freedom.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Mr Labuschagne, did you know what information Mr Sithole provided or gave, that led to this operation?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I just heard this from Mr Pienaar, I did not know specifically from Sithole.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know of Mr Sithole independent of what you heard from Mr Pienaar?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR HATTINGH: Your instruction was to kill Mr Sithole, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: If I may ask you a hypothetical question, or maybe I should just ask this question first, after the shooting, did you go closer to see if he was dead, this is now Mr Sithole?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I did not go to him specifically.

MR HATTINGH: Let us presume that you did go to him and he was still alive, what would you have done?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I would have shot him again.

MR HATTINGH: Because that was your instruction?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that was your decision before that you would kill all the occupants of the vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The weaponry that was in the back of the bakkie, did you look at it while it was still in the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I did look at it.

MR HATTINGH: This launch tube that is on the second photograph, Exhibit A, that is a relatively large object?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR HATTINGH: If I look at it, it does not seem as if it will fit in one of those carrier bags, was it laying open as it is in the photograph?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, if I can recall correctly.

MR HATTINGH: Can you recall if any of the other weapons that we can see in the bottom photograph, was also open in comparison with those that were closed in the bags?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I do not know but I do remember the launching tube.

MR HATTINGH: You say that you used a hand carbine, what was the fabrication of it?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was an HMK.

MR HATTINGH: What calibre did it use?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was a 9mm.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. And how many rounds did you have in the magazine?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot remember, I remember that it was full, I do not know if it was 20 or 30 rounds.

MR HATTINGH: Did you use any light tracing rounds?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, there were tracers in it.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know the principle of the tracer round?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I understand you correctly ...

MR HATTINGH: The result is then that this bullet will glow in the dark?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: As far as I know it is phosphor or some element.

MR HATTINGH: That makes it glow in the dark?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is it correct that the projectile itself, the round, the back part of it has a hollow bit in?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot remember specifically. It is marked, but you can see that it is a tracer, I think it is red or green.

MR HATTINGH: But I am now talking about the shell, I am talking about the bullet head, did you see that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR HATTINGH: This element or substance that burns, do you know where that is located in this round? The bullet itself is partly hollow at the back and that the phosphor would be in that section of the bullet, the projectile would then be like a fire works display in that it glows?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I do not know the specific knowledge of it.

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

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

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

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR ROSSOUW

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Labuschagne, I have singular questions that I have for you, just points for clarification. On page 180 the final sentence where you stated that it was agreed with the informer that he would have to drop off the trained MK members at a determined point along the Nersden/Amsterdam Road, upon which an arrest would follow. You say that this is not correct and true?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct. As I can recall, all of them had to be shot dead pertaining to this particular incident.

MR LAMEY: Yes, but as I read the sentence, it indicates that there were some form of an agreement with the informer, I understand what you have said.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I also read it as such.

MR LAMEY: You were not present during the discussion where the informer had to identify the place alongside the Amsterdam/Nersden Road and so forth?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR LAMEY: We can accept then that the informer would not have known that he would be shot during the ambush?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I accept that.

MR LAMEY: It is logical?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, it is a logical conclusion.

MR LAMEY: Very well, can you recall precisely and independently at precisely what moment the first shots were fired at the scene where the bakkie stopped, can you recall the precise moment and the position of the driver or the informer when the first shots were fired?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can recall correctly, he had not reached a point where I could shoot him yet, when the first shots were fired.

MR LAMEY: At which stage did you receive the specific order that you had to shoot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was on the afternoon, before we moved out to our relevant points, I was instructed to shoot the informer.

MR LAMEY: Who told you this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was Col de Kock.

MR LAMEY: In a personal discussion?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, it was not a personal discussion, there were also others who were present.

MR LAMEY: When you say that there were others, can you recall whether Mr Fourie was present or not?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: At that stage when it was said to me, all participants in the operation were together on a smallholding.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall specifically and independently whether Mr Fourie was present at that stage?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It is possible, I wouldn't be able to say, but as far as I know, everyone who was involved with the operation, was present at that stage, and all of these persons are the persons who are present here today.

MR LAMEY: Is it your assumption that everyone was present there, because ultimately everyone was at the scene, everyone who is here today at least?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I would say that everybody had to have been there, because at that stage, everybody had been instructed what they had to do, who they had to move with, that sort of thing.

MR LAMEY: But it remains an assumption of yours, you don't have an independent recollection of seeing Mr Fourie there at that particular point where you were informed that the driver would be shot?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Very well, I would concede that he may have been absent, but as far as I can recall, when an operation was being planned, people wouldn't walk around, everybody would be there if they were part of an operation.

MR LAX: Mr Labuschagne, he might have gone to the toilet, he might have gone outside, anything is possible?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is why I have stated I will concede that he may not have been present.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You say the shots were fired when, just after the driver had disembarked, he had not yet reached the point where you could shoot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, as I have stated, it was not possible yet for me to shoot him, otherwise I would have had to fire through the bakkie as the other shots were being fired.

MR LAMEY: Can you recall whether during planning, after you had received the order to shoot him, whether any modus operandi was calculated in terms of time calculations as to when you were supposed to shoot him, because if you took up position behind the bakkie and you were the person who had to shoot him, how would that have operated?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot recall whether there was any calculation of time as such, whether such a modus operandi was actually calculated.

MR LAMEY: Well let us assume whether it was in the planning, or let me put it like this, was it part of the plan for the shooting to commence immediately after the bakkie had come to a standstill, in other words ...

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot recall such fine detail.

MR LAMEY: In other words before the driver had disembarked or just after he had disembarked or was the plan for you to wait a few moments until he had come into the position that you could shoot him and ...

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can reconstruct my recollection, if I can recall correctly, I was told that the informer would run away from the bakkie, to the rear of the bakkie. I cannot recall whether there were any precise calculations of time as such.

CHAIRPERSON: As I understand your evidence, what had been decided was that de Kock would fire first and then the rest of you would fire?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So it was a matter of de Kock's discretion?

MR LAMEY: You see the reason why I have asked you this is because the driver did not know that he was a target, and if the shooting were to commence too quickly, my inference tells me that he could have decided to change direction completely in order to escape the line of fire, which could then have defeated the objective that you had of shooting him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It is possible, but as I recall, I have told you now, I couldn't shoot the man when the shots were fired next to me.

MR LAMEY: But what I want to ask you is whether or not it is possible that fire was opened once he had reached the rear of the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR LAMEY: Are you certain of that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I am certain of that.

MR LAMEY: Wouldn't you allow any room for this possibility, perhaps a number of seconds? If you consider something that took place 13 years ago, this could have taken place?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I recall that I could not shoot him when the fire was opened next to me.

MR LAMEY: Very well. You see ... (tape ends) ... other than what it may be necessary, I would just like to tell you that Mr Fourie's recollection is and I just want to find the appropriate point or extract from the documents ...

CHAIRPERSON: Does it really matter when they opened fire, this man was killed at the rear of the bakkie we have heard?

MR LAMEY: It is just the recollection of Mr Fourie which is just slightly different in this regard, Chairperson, I don't want to split hairs, really, and this is the basis on which I approach it. As it pleases you Chairperson.

Very well. Mr Fourie's recollection is that the driver was at the rear of the bakkie when the shots were fired, that is what I put to you, you recall it differently. He could not see it precisely, but he moved to that side when the shots were fired.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: To the rear of the bakkie?

MR LAMEY: Yes.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Could you rephrase that question please?

MR LAX: Sorry Mr Lamey, did I hear you say that Fourie couldn't see this clearly?

MR LAMEY: Let me just make sure about this, just a moment Chairperson.

MR LAX: Yes.

MR LAMEY: Sorry, I've got it, thank you Chairperson, what Mr Fourie says in his affidavit is that he disembarked and walked to the back of the bakkie, the driver, we are now referring to the driver. Then Mr Fourie states that when he wanted to open the canopy, the shots were fired, and he states further, this is quite important, he couldn't see that he was opening the canopy, he wasn't in a position according to my instructions, to view this, due to his position. Mr Fourie was at the front, near the front of the bakkie, but it is based upon inference here because somebody related subsequently that somebody had tried to open the canopy?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, there is no way that he could have been close to the canopy.

MR LAMEY: Very well, the position where he was shot, how far away from the canopy was this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Are you referring to the door of the canopy at the rear, or the canopy itself?

MR LAMEY: No, I am assuming that he wasn't in front of the canopy where one could open the canopy.

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I would say about two paces then.

MR LAMEY: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Fourie also said there was someone else in the back of the bakkie?

MR LAMEY: Yes, which in retrospect we will testify and concede.

CHAIRPERSON: It shows how inaccurate his recollection is.

MR LAMEY: Sure Chairperson.

MR LAX: Should we be dwelling on this at all, in the light of that?

MR LAMEY: As it pleases you Chairperson. May I just ask you, I just want to mention this, this is merely something which Mr Fourie can recall, is that somebody said that he tried to open the canopy. You don't know anything of such a statement, is that what you are trying to say?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR LAMEY: And then can you recall whether you told Fourie at the scene that you were going to shoot Sithole?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, as far as I know, when we arrived at the scene, every person knew what he was supposed to do, the planning had already been completed at the smallholding.

MR LAMEY: Is it possible that you may have told him and that you cannot recall this, because he has a very clear recollection of this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I wouldn't deny that I told him this.

MR LAMEY: Very well, you would not deny it? I've got no further questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

MR RAMAWELE: I've got no questions, thank you.

NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RAMAWELE

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Labuschagne, these events took place 13 years ago and I assume that these events also took place rather quickly?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Labuschagne, this particular order that you received, I just want some clarity about that, the order that you received from Col de Kock to shoot the informer?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you did not receive it from Col Deetlefts, but Col de Kock, he was the person issuing the commands?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Labuschagne, your attention was focused on the order to shoot the informer?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you kept him in view at all times, and I am not trying to trick you, but with these events which took place so quickly, isn't it possible that it was necessary for you to check what was happening with the passenger doors? You merely assume what took place there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I am not assuming, the bakkie drove passed me and my point of perspective of the bakkie was from a corner or an angle as such.

MR PRINSLOO: Mr Labuschagne, when the bakkie came to a standstill was your attention fixed on the side of the driver, because you knew that the driver was the informer, isn't that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you were watching his movements to the rear of the vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So you had no reason to observe the passenger door as such?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I might just explain properly, this was a very small bakkie and from my position, from where I had to shoot, I couldn't really lay flat in order to shoot, because the magazine would be pressing against the ground. I was almost on my knees so that I could observe the driver and from my point of view, I could observe just about the whole bakkie.

MR PRINSLOO: But Mr Labuschagne what I am asking you is, you were looking at the bakkie and you were looking at the driver who disembarked and after he disembark, fire was opened on the bakkie?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And then you had to observe the driver in order to shoot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: So in the dark, you had to aim specifically to shoot dead a man in front of you, how then could you observe the passenger door while your attention was supposed to be fixed on the driver?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I recall correctly, it wasn't really that dark on that evening. One could observe the bakkie very clearly along with the passengers, one could clearly observe the passenger or at least the driver jumping out on the left hand side.

MR PRINSLOO: You have heard Pienaar and Mr Deetlefts' evidence regarding this aspect of the door?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And Mr Labuschagne, you state in your evidence that in your written instructions to Mrs van der Walt, you stated that Mr Deetlefts gave a thorough description of what took place there, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR PRINSLOO: Well, this is what you have read, this is what I understand from the document, Deetlefts gives a thorough description?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR PRINSLOO: And I assume that at that stage, when the document was compiled as such, you didn't really have a problem with what Deetlefts stated there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR PRINSLOO: Very well. Mr Labuschagne, just another point, because it appears that there may be some interpretation on your behalf, my colleague Mr Lamey has already examined you about this, and I just want to be certain of this, on page 180 you state that it was agreed with the informer that he would stop at a determined point along the Amsterdam/Nersden Road with these MK persons after which an arrest would ensue? This is what Deetlefts and Pienaar state, there was an agreement with the informer, not that they would conduct the arrest? Do you agree with that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I agree with that.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it an agreement in that strict sense of the word or was that what the informer was told?

MR PRINSLOO: It would be better put Mr Chairman, with respect, as what the informer was told, in respect of using the choice of words in stead of saying there was an agreement. Thank you Mr Chairman.

I've got no further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO

MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Chairman, Mr Lubbe will do the cross-examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LUBBE: Mr Labuschagne, I am representing Mr Deetlefts in connection with the cross-examination. There are just certain aspects, Mr Prinsloo has already referred to most of the aspects that I wished to refer to. The first of mine is in response to a question which was put by Adv du Plessis pertaining to the version of Mr Deetlefts surrounding the events regarding the passenger on the left side. Would you concede that Mr Deetlefts' evidence could possibly be correct in this regard, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: In regard that the door may have been opened somewhat, but not that the person jumped out, wielding a pistol.

MR LUBBE: Yes, you will recall that during the cross-examination of Mr Deetlefts by Mr du Plessis, much was made of this aspect to the extent that Mr Deetlefts conceded that his perception of the events, was as he ultimately testified, that being that he was under the impression that someone opened the door, of that the person was in the process of disembarking, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes.

MR LUBBE: Therefore you do not dispute Mr du Plessis' version in this regard, if I understand your evidence correctly? Therefore what you mean is that you are not disputing Mr Deetlefts' version?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Well, if that was his perception, then that was his perception, but what I am disputing is the fact that I say that no one jumped out, wielding a pistol. That the door may have been somewhat ajar, is a possibility.

MR LUBBE: Yes, and he conceded that Mr de Kock's version in this regard is much more probable and should rather be accepted over his own version, you will recall this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I think I recall this.

MR LUBBE: And I think that it is justified, this statement that Mr Prinsloo put to you, that you were more focused on the driver because it was your ultimate order to take out the driver of the vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I would agree that that was my focal point, but as I have stated, it wasn't a very large vehicle and from my point of view, I could observe the entire vehicle.

MR LUBBE: Very well.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but what you would have been interested in observing surely, is and I presume you were looking through the glass doors, the driver moving down towards the rear of the vehicle where you expected to be able to shoot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct Chairperson.

MR LUBBE: Mr Labuschagne, there are just certain statements that I wish to put to you and I think that with respect to the Committee, it might not be of such relevance, but I would just like clarity with regard to the taking of the statements.

I understand from Adv van der Walt, that the first discussion with you took place as far back as the 25th of November 1996, in Middelburg, at the home of Dan King, can you recall this discussion?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I cannot recall this.

MR LUBBE: Can you recall a subsequent discussion on the 28th of November at a restaurant by the name of Burger Hut, Middelburg, that afternoon at 16H00?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I recall correctly, at a certain stage we were there, yes.

MR LUBBE: Can you recall subsequently that you were in the office of Brig Visser on the 5th of December, I beg your pardon in the office of Mr Deetlefts on the 5th of December, and that is where you consulted with Adv van der Walt?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: no.

MR LUBBE: Upon this occasion the following persons were present, Brig Visser, Mr Deetlefts, Mr Loggerenberg, yourself and one other person?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I can recall the Burger Hut event.

MR LUBBE: Can you recall further that the cut-off date for these amnesty applications was the 14th of December 1996 and that for two preceding days, the 12th and the 13th of December, you were at the home of Adv van der Walt, where you were consulting in order to finalise these applications?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, I was there on one Friday afternoon, if I recall correctly, it was a Friday afternoon, but not two days.

MR LUBBE: But nonetheless, this statement which is not part of the evidence which is in the possession of the Evidence Leader, was signed by you as an affidavit?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR LUBBE: If you would grant me a moment's indulgence. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Labuschagne, with regard to Mr Botha, my instructions are that he recalls that both you and he moved around the rear of the bakkie, and that it was from behind that Botha fired into the bakkie, can you recall this?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I cannot recall this. I recall specifically myself, that I fired into the bakkie.

MR LUBBE: Thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR LUBBE

MR LAX: Mr Lubbe, can you just clarify because it may be relevant later, does Botha say, when he says they moved around the back of the bakkie, what does he mean, does he mean they moved from the left hand side of the bakkie, somewhere not at the back of it, around to the back of it, is that what he is saying?

MR LUBBE: Mr Chairman, as I've got it, they were positioned as described by the witness and they got up and moved to the back of the vehicle, in other words, they didn't move passed the vehicle, but they were then positioned at the back of the vehicle and then Mr Botha started firing into the vehicle, in other words ...

CHAIRPERSON: This was after the shooting?

MR LAX: Where is that different from ...

CHAIRPERSON: Of the driver?

MR LUBBE: After the shooting initially ensued, yes.

MR LAX: How is that different from what he has testified already?

CHAIRPERSON: He says he shot, Botha says he shot.

MR LUBBE: Yes.

MR LAX: He said he was laying at a point in line with the third of those circles, no, he was laying as the last of those circles and he started shooting at the driver and then while he was shooting, once he hit the driver, he then carried on moving towards the back of the vehicle.

MR LUBBE: And he would then be accompanied by Mr Botha.

MR LAX: So the only thing in issue is that he was accompanied by Mr Botha at that point?

MR LUBBE: That is so. I did not recall him testifying that he was accompanied by Botha when he proceeded.

MR LAX: Yes, no that is fine, it is not how they moved, etc, that was more the focus of my confusion.

MR LUBBE: As it pleases you.

MR LAX: Sorry, Mr Labuschagne, just to clarify it for myself, do you recall whether you may have been accompanied by Mr Botha or not?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot recall this.

CHAIRPERSON: Quarter to two?

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, just during the break, I furnished every, all the legal representatives with a copy of Mr Labuschagne's initial, just during the lunch break, I furnished all the legal representatives with a copy of Labuschagne's initial application and I have copies for the Committee, if you would like another set, if it is necessary. I don't know if you want another set?

MR LAX: So we will make this H, will we?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct, Exhibit H.

MR LAX: Does anyone know where Mr du Plessis and his witness is? Pardon?

MR LAMEY: Mr Chairman, I didn't see his car outside, I know that they left for lunch just a few minutes ago.

MR LAX: Maybe we should adjourn.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I profusely apologise, we, it is usually very quick with this place where we go to, and today of all days, they weren't as quick as they usually are, so I apologise.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if it is you or Mr Rossouw, who is perhaps kicking things around?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is mine, Mr Chairman, and Mr Rossouw asks me to specifically place on record, that we didn't watch the cricket and we don't know the score, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: 97/4.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: While we are talking, before we get back onto the thing, I don't want to anticipate things at this stage, but I may it seems, have been a little optimistic about our ability to complete the hearing, I think we will go on this afternoon until four o'clock and see what the position is like now. If it becomes clear that we will not, my proposal would then be gentlemen if we have to adjourn part-heard, that we adjourn fairly early tomorrow, for those who have reservations to go elsewhere or other such things. I gather that others may already have arrived at similar conclusions and that there may be tentative adjourned dates available?

MS LOCKHAT: That is correct Chairperson, the 7th of January 2000.

CHAIRPERSON: January?

MS LOCKHAT: February?

CHAIRPERSON: I was told February.

MS LOCKHAT: My apology, February, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: All right, shall we continue?

FRANS HENDRIK SMALBERGER LABUSCHAGNE: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NTHAI: Mr Labuschagne, you say you were armed with a hand carbine, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: And that is a 9mm is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MR NTHAI: If you look at the post-mortem of Mzwandile, sorry of Sithole ...

MS LOCKHAT: It is page 56 Chairperson, page 56.

MR LAX: Sorry once again, your 56, our 58 I think.

MR NTHAI: I cannot get it myself here.

MR LAX: This is post-mortem 105 of it say 1996, but it should be 1986.

MR NTHAI: If you look at that post-mortem, Mr Labuschagne, there are quite a number of gunshot wounds, they talk about the multiple gunshot wounds, one which is one centimetre about the right eye, exit wound and the others are actually mentioned, would you say that all these wounds were caused by your firearm?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR NTHAI: And it also indicates that there was a scull fracture which extends from the left ear over to the above right ear, would also that be caused by your type of firearm?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Chairperson, I cannot really say anything about this report or give an opinion about it, but I shot this person with a 9mm and he fell and he died.

MR NTHAI: And you are the only person who shot him?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, as far as I know, I was the only person.

MR NTHAI: That is what I am asking you, that is what I am asking you? The type of the firearm that was used, can it cause the scull fracture?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I do not know, I cannot say, it is possible, if the report says it, it is possible.

MR NTHAI: The other question I want to ask you is in respect of the post-mortem, I realise that you did not make an affidavit, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Why is it like that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I do not know, I was never approached for an affidavit concerning this.

MR NTHAI: Were you part of the meeting where it was discussed how the affidavit was going to be drafted?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I was not present.

MR NTHAI: You were not even aware of these affidavits?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: All that I know is that there was a post-mortem report, but I do not know anything about the statements surrounding this.

MR NTHAI: So you did not even know about the inquest that was held?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I do know that there was a post-mortem inquest.

MR NTHAI: Okay. I want to bring you to the scene, especially the point where you are saying you shot the driver. Now, you are saying that Mr de Kock was to fire first, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, we agreed upon that.

MR NTHAI: And Mr de Kock was using a high calibre weapon, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot specifically remember what weapon he had with him.

MR NTHAI: I think you talked about the R1 or R4, I don't remember, but it is R1 or R4, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I said R1 weapons and hand carbine weapons were available.

MR NTHAI: No, no, Mr de Kock himself, Mr de Kock himself talked about, I don't remember whether he talked about an R1 or an R4, I stand to be corrected there, but he was using either an R1 or an R4?

MR LAX: It was an R1, Mr Nthai.

MR NTHAI: Yes, R1, he was using an R1. Now, according to you, the driver was supposed to go out and come towards your direction, is that correct? That was the plan?

CHAIRPERSON: He didn't say towards his direction?

MR NTHAI: No, no, towards the direction where he was?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, that wasn't the evidence, I think the question is a little bit ambiguous. The evidence was not that the driver would have come towards Mr Labuschagne, the evidence was that the driver would have got out and walked to the back of the van.

CHAIRPERSON: To the right, to the back of the van.

MR NTHAI: But that is where Mr Labuschagne was?

CHAIRPERSON: He wasn't, he was on the other side of the van, laying on the side of the road, on the left of the van? There was no evidence whatsoever that when the driver got to the end of the van, he was to turn right and walk towards Mr Labuschagne.

MR NTHAI: I mean he would go out towards the direction where Mr Labuschagne was laying? Is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, he ...

CHAIRPERSON: Have you looked at the plan and seen where Mr Labuschagne was laying? There was no suggestion that he would walk towards that?

MR NTHAI: Well, Mr Chairman, I have a problem because I was not shown the plan. I was not shown the point where he says ...

CHAIRPERSON: What point weren't you shown? He told you he was on the extreme right hand of them laying on the side of the road?

MR NTHAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: There was no suggestion ever in the evidence that the driver was to turn and go towards him, was there?

MR NTHAI: No, there was not.

CHAIRPERSON: No, why put it to him?

MR NTHAI: Well, I will put it this way ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, perhaps just to make this clear, my Attorney is going to present Mr Nthai with Mr Rossouw's plan which has the eight little people there, but for the rest, it is the same.

CHAIRPERSON: It was to walk towards the rear of the bakkie, to get out of his door and walk towards the rear?

MR NTHAI: And that was within the vicinity where you were, is that correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Now, if Mr de Kock was the first to fire and he was using a high calibre weapon, where would he have expected the driver to jump out and run towards? Look at that map?

MR LAX: What is the point of your question Mr Nthai, because it is a bit confusing, you said where was the driver expected to run? At what point, had they started firing, had they not fired?

MR NTHAI: At the point when Mr de Kock started firing?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I think the evidence was that the driver had already been out of the car and had been moving to the back of the vehicle when the firing started?

MR LAX: Yes, that is what I was about to put to you Mr Nthai, because if you put that context in, then the question becomes clearer.

MR NTHAI: Let me put it this way, when Mr de Kock, when the first fire was fired, where was the driver, could you see him where you were?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, when I heard the first shot, or when they fired the first shot, the driver was not in a position where I could shoot him, he was still behind the back of the vehicle.

MR NTHAI: Yes, and when you saw him, where was he facing?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can recall correctly, he was running in the one direction and I could see him from the side. I saw him on the right, his right side.

MR NTHAI: No, no, what I just want to know is whether he was facing the opposite direction where you were or he was facing where you were, was he facing where the bakkie was coming from?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: He was facing where the bakkie was coming from.

MR NTHAI: Where the bakkie was coming from? So, it would then appear that he was supposed to run and pass the bakkie and proceed straight, is that correct, where the bakkie was coming from?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: There was no indication that he was going to come towards your direction or the other side of the road?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was said to me before that he would run passed the bakkie on the side, and that is why I was running on the right far end, so that he was running towards Nersden when I wanted to shoot him.

MR NTHAI: According to the plan, there was an agreement with the driver that he was going to stop and go out as if he was going to urinate, you knew about that plan?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I heard it here in the evidence.

MR NTHAI: So you were not told about that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR NTHAI: And were you told, I mean you were told just, he would just pass there, you were not told where he would end up ultimately?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR NTHAI: There is something that you explain here which I could not get well, you said after you shot him, you went to shoot at the people who were sitting inside, or shooting inside the bakkie, what, can you explain that again?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, what happened is that after the driver fell down, I moved to the back of the bakkie and then from about hip height I shot at the front of the bakkie, towards the front of the bakkie, towards the cabin of the bakkie.

MR NTHAI: And that happened immediately after the driver fell down?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR NTHAI: And that was before you checked whether the driver was dead or not?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I never said that I went to go and look to see if he was dead or not.

MR NTHAI: No, no, I am saying, I am saying you did that before you checked whether the driver was dead or not?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, but he never testified that he checked whether the driver was dead, in fact he said that he didn't, he cannot remember that he checked and he didn't check.

MR NTHAI: Well, that is correct, that is what I am saying.

CHAIRPERSON: You are not, you are putting to him that he did this before he went and checked. He has told us he did not go and check, so it is not a question of before he went and checked?

MR NTHAI: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: You can put to him that he did this without going to check?

MR NTHAI: Wouldn't be that, I mean your instruction was to kill Mr Sithole, the driver, why would you start shooting the other direction before you check whether he is dead or not?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I did not think at it at that stage, but if I can give a reasonable explanation, at this stage, the fact is that we knew that this person was an informer and I wouldn't have been worried about him further more, I fired a few shots at him and he fell.

MR NTHAI: No, but your order was to kill him, Mr Labuschagne, your order was to kill him, is that not correct?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: Were you not interested that he was killed?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, we had to ascertain if the person was dead or not, but not at that stage, no, I wasn't interested.

MR NTHAI: But that is very strange, you know, that you have an order to shoot someone, you shoot him, he falls down and then you proceed to do other things in stead of finalising your mission, is that not strange?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I do not believe so. I fired various shots at the person and he fell to the ground, and he was laying still.

MR NTHAI: At the time, there was no threat against you, because there were other people who were firing at the time, not so, with heavy calibre weapons?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I just fired shots through the back of the bakkie, I do not have a specific explanation for that.

MR NTHAI: And when you were given the order, were you told what were the reasons why Mr Sithole must be killed?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: What was the reason that was given to you?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was discussed there the fact that he could later become a threat for those who operated in Swaziland and if I can recall correctly it was also said and I speak under correction, that he could not be trusted at that stage.

MR NTHAI: I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NTHAI

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Labuschagne, just questions in relation to your amnesty application forms, you submitted one in 1996 and then in 1998, you applied for this incident in 1996 already?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Did you have sight of the particulars attached to your amnesty application form of 1996 that is?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: In 1998?

MS LOCKHAT: In 1996? There is a little annexure annexed to your amnesty application form, just giving a description of the incidents. Did you have sight of that prior, or when did you have sight of those details?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, with respect, I don't know, the question isn't clear to the extent that I don't know if the question relates to the signing of the 1998 incident with reference to the 1996 application?

MS LOCKHAT: I am referring to the 1996 application form. There is the annexure attached.

MR LAX: Let me make it clear for you, let me make it clear for you. If one looks at annexure H, you will see that there is the Form 1, and that it is signed at the bottom of the third page, and then there is an Annexure A to that Form 1, and I think that is what you are talking about?

MS LOCKHAT: That is what I am referring to.

MR LAX: So to put it plainly, did you see this form, this Annexure A to this Form 1, before you signed it or when you signed it?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: You did? And you read the contents of it I assume?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: Why didn't you amend your 1996 application as you did today in relation to the arrest and others?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can just give an explanation concerning this, it happened very quickly, it was about the McBride investigation and we had a limited period of time to do it in, and if I can recall correctly, I mentioned it to the legal representative that we could amend it at a later stage when there is an amnesty hearing and then give an explanation of what happened there.

MS LOCKHAT: Yes, it is just a very long time, and you had three years in which to amend the application? You do realise that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, if I may say that I signed it in 1996 and I never saw it again up until 1998. In 1998 I again saw it for the first time.

MS LOCKHAT: At what stage did you see that that was incorrect, the issues relating to the arrest and others, at what stage? Was it during this hearing or was it previously, was it in 1998?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: As far as I can remember, it was at that stage and also when I was in consultation with Mr du Plessis, we then said that we have to amend this. That was during the amnesty hearing.

MS LOCKHAT: So it was during this amnesty hearing that you realised that it needed to be amended? Just please be more clear relating to that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I saw the content of it when I went over or changed Attorneys, and it was then accepted as it stood. Then my legal representative said that we have to amend it during the hearing, and with my consultation with Mr du Plessis, I also said to him that the facts are not completely correct and that I would like to amend it.

CHAIRPERSON: So even when you changed Attorneys and you went to another Attorney, you accepted this and you left it as it was?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It was only when you spoke to Mr du Plessis that you thought you had to change it?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MS LOCKHAT: And then just one other question, you said you were from the Ermelo Branch?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct.

MS LOCKHAT: Who of the other members at the Ermelo Branch participated in this operation, can you remember, can you give us more names?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, there was no one from Ermelo except for Chris Deetlefts, who was the Commander at that stage.

MS LOCKHAT: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS LOCKHAT

MR SIBANYONI: Mr Labuschagne, the expectation was that when the driver disembark, would he run or would he walk away from the car?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That I cannot remember, but I can remember that as I gave evidence earlier on, he opened the door and jumped out and then started to run.

MR SIBANYONI: You say you don't know anything about these expectations that he was supposed to pretend as if he was going to urinate?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I heard it here for the first time.

MR SIBANYONI: When you shot at him, was he running?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that is correct.

MR SIBANYONI: Did he fall immediately or did he run for some distance before he fell?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: He fell immediately after I shot him.

MR SIBANYONI: If that happened, was it necessary to shoot him so many times, several times, because according to the post-mortem there are several wounds, gunshot wounds?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can explain, what you do is that the weapon is on automatic and then you pull the trigger ... (tape ends) ...

MR NTHAI: So would you say ...

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is per second, various bullets can be fired.

MR NTHAI: Would you say most of the bullets struck him while he was standing or when he was already down on the ground?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot say.

MR NTHAI: Thereafter you immediately moved to the back of the van and started shooting through the canopy to the front?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR NTHAI: At what stage did Mr de Kock place the AK47 next to the driver?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That was after the whole incident was over and we realised or found out what was inside the bakkie. Everybody was standing around the bakkie and we saw that there were weapons in the back. It was immediately afterwards, after the shooting ceased.

MR NTHAI: These AK47s, were they mantled or were they dismantled, because if I am not mistaken what we have heard is that when these weapons are infiltrated into the country, they will be dismantled and put in smaller bags, rather than to carry a long weapon like the rocket launcher, etc. Were they mantled or dismantled?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: The weapon was intact, it was assembled.

MR NTHAI: Thank you. No further questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NTHAI

MR LAX: Thank you Chair. Mr Labuschagne, just so that I can be clear about this, what was the object of telling the first version? In other words the version that you have now conceded isn't true?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I do not think there was something specific. Chris Deetlefts said that he would deal with the incident and that we have to adapt to what he says.

MR LAX: What was your purpose in doing that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: To be honest, is to say exactly what everybody else said.

MR LAX: So, if I could put it bluntly, your version was just to make sure that there were no contradictions in everyone's statement?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And to the extent that that version is different to what you are now saying, that would amount to a cover up?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And you did that at the time, knowing that you were obliged to tell the truth?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And what motivated you to change it?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I think the whole motivation was based on the fact that the truth must come out. If I want amnesty, you have to tell the truth.

MR LAX: Your moving to the back of the vehicle and then opening fire with what was left in your magazine, was that a planned thing or was that just a spur of the moment decision or ...

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was a spur of the moment decision.

MR LAX: You people weren't sure how many people would be in that vehicle?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, as far as I can remember.

MR LAX: Now, there could just as easily have been people sitting in the canopy, armed, ready to shoot you?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It would have been possible, yes.

MR LAX: Did you not consider that as a possibility in your own thinking?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: To be honest, at that stage, no, I did not think of it, when I moved behind the bakkie and started to shoot.

MR LAX: This was, this incident happened as far as we are led to understand, on the 14th of August 1986?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: And at approximately half past nine in the evening?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Yes, that could have been the time.

MR LAX: That is mid-winter, or thereabouts?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: Where did the light come from, for you to be able to see through the windows of the vehicle, in the dark?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: It was not a dark night, it wasn't pitch dark. I cannot remember if it was full moon, half moon, but we could see, or I could see quite clearly.

CHAIRPERSON: Were the lights of the vehicle turned off?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot remember Mr Chairperson.

MR LAX: No other artificial light was used by any of you people?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR LAX: Did anyone have nightsight?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No.

MR LAX: And you are quite sure that you had tracer bullets in your firearm?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct, yes.

MR LAX: And what about your other colleagues?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: They also had tracer rounds that was used, I cannot say if it was in all the weapons, but some of them.

MR LAX: Well, when you were at the farm, did you all load up your weapons together, did you sit down and - you see the obtaining of tracer bullets, requires, you don't just normally have them lurking around? They would have had to be obtained from somewhere?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can remember correctly, I received it just like that, I did not load the magazine.

MR LAX: So you didn't specifically load tracer bullets into the magazine?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: No, I did not. I received the weapon from Piet Retief's people for this specific operation, it was not my issued rifle or weapon.

MR LAX: Do you remember who gave you your weapon, did somebody arrive with a whole stash of weapons and start distributing them?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: I cannot remember specifically who gave me my weapon.

MR LAX: How did you even know there were tracer bullets in the magazine?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: When I fired it, I saw that it was tracer bullets.

MR LAX: So you weren't even expecting that?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot remember whether it was told to me that I had tracers, but there were definitely tracers in the weapon that I fired.

MR LAX: And besides your weapon, you saw other tracer bullets going off?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: Because they leave a very distinctive mark in the sky as they go off?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

MR LAX: If you will just bear with me a moment, Chairperson. Thank you Chair, I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: You have told us you were on the extreme right of the firing line?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: That is correct yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you choose this place or were you told to go there?

MR LABUSCHAGNE: If I can recall, after it was decided, it was because of that decision that I had to shoot the informer, I was placed at that specific point.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Re-examination?

MR DU PLESSIS: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS

WITNESS EXCUSED

MS LOCKHAT: Chairperson, the next amnesty applicant is Mr Eugene Fourie.