ON RESUMPTION
WILLEM ALBERTUS NORTJE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.
MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson. Just before I start, on behalf of the applicant we just want to apologise that he's not dressed in a suit and tie, we anticipated that the examination of further applicants would happen today, and I just wish to be the Chairperson's pardon in this regard.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I think that all of us were somewhat confused.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. Chairperson, before I lead further evidence, there was a request for further particulars from the Amnesty Committee, addressed to the applicant, which was answered. I don't know whether you have a copy of that. I would just also ask the applicant to confirm that. It's not in the bundle ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: On what page would that be?
MR LAMEY: It's not in the paginated bundle, but I do recall that copies, I think, were distributed. I'm not sure whether the Evidence Leader has given copies to everybody.
CHAIRPERSON: Well you can hand it in for what it's worth.
EXAMINATION BY MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson. I'll just hand it in at the end of his evidence then - or at the start then. As it pleases you, Chairperson.
Mr Nortje, is it correct that initially you prepared an amnesty application in your own handwriting, which can be found on page 19 to page 21 of the bundle which has been placed before this Committee?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And attached to that was an annexure which was typed, in which you incorporated with your amnesty application, a typed affidavit which you had made before the Goldstone Commission in Denmark, previously.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: On page 27 and 28 of the bundle there is also the typed version of the particulars which you provided pertaining to this attack on the transit facility at Ramatlabana, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR LAMEY: And then, after you submitted your initial application you obtained legal representation and a supplementary application was prepared, which we can find from page 29 to page 34, incorporating an annexure which commences from page 35 of the bundle, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: From page 35, up to and including page 43, there is a survey of your background, your training and how you ultimately became a member of the Security Police, and more particular Vlakplaas, under the command of Col Eugene de Kock, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: At the stage of this incident - before I get to that, on page 44, up to and including 46, we then find also supplementary particulars pertaining to your participation in this operation, is that correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: And at the time of this incident you were a member of Vlakplaas, under the command of Col de Kock.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Can you recall your rank at that stage? That was towards the end of 1988.
MR NORTJE: I was a Sergeant.
MR LAMEY: Very well. From your application it appears that there was reasonable confusion in your mind with regard to the correctness of the date, you initially referred to 1989 and then in a supplementary affidavit, it was 1990, and you also referred to Mr Nick van Rensburg who was the overall Commander at that stage. You have heard the evidence of the other applicants, indicating that this incident took place in December 1988. What I want to ask you is whether or not you are prepared to accept this date as correct?
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: In your further particulars you stated in paragraph 1.2, that you were not specifically certain of the date, but if this was during 1988, which you are prepared to concede to, you would accept that Brig Schoon would have been the overall Commander of C1 or Vlakplaas, and that the reference to Brig van Rensburg would then be incorrect.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Brig van Rensburg however did assume command of Vlakplaas in 1989, if I am correct with regard to previous amnesty applications.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, how long before the application did you receive the order to become involved in this operation?
MR NORTJE: I was involved with the logistical arrangements and I assume that it was approximately a week before we departed. That is when I made the necessary arrangements with Logistics.
MR LAMEY: Were you aware at that stage that prior reconnaissance work had been conducted, as it has been testified to here by Martiens Ras, who was a Warrant Officer at that stage under the command of Mr de Kock?
MR NORTJE: I had information, but I didn't have details regarding what precisely was going to happen.
MR LAMEY: However, when you became involved in this operation you were aware that this would involve a bomb attack on a transit facility.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: Then I would like to ask you, subject to the evidence that you have given verbally, whether or not you confirm the particulars which have been provided in the supplementary application and also in your initial application on pages 27 and 28, as well as 44 to 46.
MR NORTJE: Yes, that is correct.
MR LAMEY: There is just one aspect that I wish to clarify with you - you have brought this aspect to my attention - on page 28 you say that you had observed the house for a full week by means of an observer or a source, who stated that there were MK operatives living in the house. Is the use of the word "source" correct?
MR NORTJE: No, I've realised that it isn't entirely correct, but at the time of the complication of my application I wasn't entirely certain of all the facts and their relevant order, but as I have explained here, I would accept that this is what took place. That was just my attempt to explain it.
MR LAMEY: Mr Ras testified that at one stage he attempted to recruit a person as a source, but the information pertained to the situation at - or the location of the place. The movements of the persons residing at this place were obtained by means of your monitoring, what exactly did you do with this operation, Mr Nortje?
MR NORTJE: I crossed the border that night. I was a member of the support team. We came to a point near the house and placed the bomb. I recall that I saw when the person emerged from the structure, and this is when the crisis ensued.
MR LAMEY: Where were you?
MR NORTJE: I was some distance away.
MR LAMEY: And what was your participation in this operation?
MR NORTJE: Basically I did nothing. After the explosion I went in and I turned the head of the one person who lay there dead, and we took a photo. I think Mr Ras took the photo, but I held the man's head and then the photograph was taken, and subsequently I went out with the group.
MR LAMEY: So the only thing that you did during this operation was to turn the head of a person you assumed to be dead, for the purposes of a photograph?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Why did you accompany the group on this operation?
MR NORTJE: As a support member, in the event of something going wrong.
MR LAMEY: May I just ask you whether or not a weapon was issued to you as a contingency measure in the event of problems arising?
MR NORTJE: Yes, I was armed.
MR LAMEY: What would you have done if the operation had not gone entirely according to plan?
MR NORTJE: In the heat of the moment I would have decided what to do.
MR LAMEY: But provision was made.
MR NORTJE: Yes, provision was made in the event of a shooting.
CHAIRPERSON: When you went to the house, did you know that persons would possibly be murdered?
MR NORTJE: The plan was for the bomb to explode, but as I have explained, things went wrong and then this had certain consequences.
CHAIRPERSON: Listen to my question. Under way to the house, what did you think was going to happen once the bomb had been placed? People would definitely have died?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And did you agree with this?
MR NORTJE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And you were also prepared to shoot people dead in the event of something going wrong, in the event of them shooting at you.
MR NORTJE: Yes, certainly.
CHAIRPERSON: And your task there was to provide support in the event of defence being required.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But you also understood or knew that there was a definite possibility that the result of the journey would be the eventual death of people, because that was the purpose behind your journey.
MR NORTJE: That would have been the purpose for the four persons residing in the house.
CHAIRPERSON: And you say that later, after the incident, you held someone's head up so that photographs could be taken, did you do anything else?
MR NORTJE: No.
CHAIRPERSON: But you agreed with everything that was done there.
MR NORTJE: Correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Any further questions, Mr Lamey?
MR LAMEY: Just one final question.
The person with regard to the photograph, could you just indicate on Exhibit A1, do you recall in which room of the facility this took place? The facility which was damaged by the bomb.
MR NORTJE: I think it was towards the left side of A. The middle room collapsed and the person lay there. That is how I recall it. That is when we took the photograph.
MR LAMEY: You also state in your application, and I think that Mr de Kock also referred to this, according to the observation and your knowledge thereof, the expectation of your group and the operation was that on the evening of your attack four MK members would in that specific building which you would be attacking.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then, did you observe something else after the explosion, with regard to structure A? Any other persons, did you find any other persons there?
MR NORTJE: I recall that I saw another person laying below the rubble and dust and I assumed that there had to be another person, because we knew of the one who had gotten away, but I didn't see the third one specifically, I just saw the one of whom we took the photograph and then there was another who lay below the rubble and we assumed this person to be dead.
MR LAMEY: Just for clarity, you saw the one person of whom you took a photograph, who was clearly dead, and then you saw someone else under the rubble.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And then you also assumed that there had to be a third person somewhere in the demolished building and then a fourth person who had managed to escape.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: In conclusion, with regard to the political objective and the command and approval, before the operation was launched, did it come to your knowledge that this entire operation enjoyed the approval of the Security Police Command?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: And do you then also confirm the political objective, command and approval as set out on page 46?
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may we then deal with the specific offences in argument? The applicant has stated in his application: Conspiracy to murder; attempted murder and any other offence which may not be specified.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you not in a position to list this for us right away?
MR LAMEY: I can do so.
CHAIRPERSON: Please go ahead.
MR LAMEY: Mr Nortje, I will do so by means of a leading question.
CHAIRPERSON: No, you may go ahead.
MR LAMEY: Very well. On behalf of the applicant we then request amnesty for conspiracy to murder; murder ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: How many murders?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, the applicant was under the impression that the person who he saw below the rubble was also dead.
CHAIRPERSON: How many people died there?
MR LAMEY: It would appear to be common cause, according to the evidence, that two persons were dead. On the basis that it is common cause, we then request amnesty for the murder of two persons. With regard to the other persons it would boil down to attempted murder, for which amnesty is also requested, and then conspiracy to murder with regard to any other persons who were the target of the attack. And then also, intentional damage to property.
CHAIRPERSON: For what?
MR LAMEY: Regarding the structure Y, I would ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: It was a fixed structure?
MR LAMEY: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Then that should include arson.
MR LAMEY: Yes, Chairperson, I ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: You cannot have damage to property when it comes to a house, unless you smash in the windows, but if there was a fire to a fixed structure, then it is arson. As far as I know.
MR LAMEY: I do not wish to argue with you, but I recall that with regard to a fixed structure, one can be found guilty of damage to property and arson would pertain to the causing of a fire to a structure.
CHAIRPERSON: But this things was blown up.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, then I would incorporate arson with that, but just to be on the safe side, damage to property and then ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Of what?
MR LAMEY: Property damage of the building as a structure with regard to Y, which is indicated on the sketch plan.
CHAIRPERSON: But how would that be damage to property?
MR LAMEY: By means of the explosion.
CHAIRPERSON: But that's the point. It wasn't chopped down or sawed down.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson. I will then leave it to your discretion.
Then with regard to the firearm, I understand that some of the members have requested amnesty for the unlawful possession and use of a firearm, but according to the applicant he was legally issued with the weapon.
CHAIRPERSON: But it cannot be legal if it was used for illegal purposes.
MR LAMEY: But the weapon in his possession was a legal weapon, but the application thereof was illegal. However, it was not a weapon which was smuggled in or unlicensed or illegal, it was legally issued to him by the police.
CHAIRPERSON: But the use of the weapon was illegal.
MR LAMEY: Yes, I would say unlawful use of a firearm.
CHAIRPERSON: But then that would mean unlawful possession, because he had it in his possession for the wrong reasons. It was issued for those purposes, as I understand it.
MR LAMEY: Yes, as it pleases you. For those purposes I will then also list unlawful possession of a firearm in transgression of the Weapons and Ammunition Act. Then with regard to his complicity regarding the mutual objective with the bomb explosion, it would then also include any offence of the Explosive's Act ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I want to ask you with regard to the bomb, could there be a mutual objective with regard to the possession of a bomb or the explosion of a bomb? I know the facts with regard to firearms, isn't there something similar?
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I could refer you to the Cosatu House and Khotso House findings of the Amnesty Committee, and the applicant here was also an applicant in those matters, particularly with the Cosatu House explosion. He has received amnesty. And similarly he was a member of the support group, he did not place the bomb as such.
CHAIRPERSON: What concerns me is that according to his evidence he never had that bomb in his hands.
MR LAMEY: No, Chairperson, but I think if one examines the situation prior to the incident, the applicant went with the group to place the bomb and whoever carried the bomb is immaterial.
CHAIRPERSON: But the possession of the bomb is something extreme, such as the possession of a firearm. Mr A cannot be found guilty of the unlawful possession of a firearm if he never carried the item in his hands. It is an element of that offence. I am not really certain of a bomb, that is why I'm asking whether or not the same is of application to a bomb. To me it would appear to be so, but I could be incorrect.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, I would say that the applicant knew as a member of Vlakplaas, that this was an illegally manufactured bomb and that this was in transgression of the Explosives Act, that this was going to be applied for an unlawful objective, and although he did not carry the bomb physically, his task was to give execution to the usage of that explosive device, and also, to act in a supporting capacity in order to ensure that the bomb would be used.
CHAIRPERSON: I understand you, I will follow that line.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. Chairperson, I think that covers everything. Then there is: any further offence which may be incorporated on the list of offences according to the amnesty decision, or any other delict or omission which may emanate from the facts. And then I've almost omitted to state this, in addition to the items on this list there would: any delict or omission or offence which may emanate from the illegal crossing of a border. That is all.
MR NEL: Thank you, Mr Chairman, Nel on record. I've got no questions for the applicant.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, van der Merwe on record. I have not questions for the applicant.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE
MR JANSEN: Thank you, Chair, Jansen on record. No questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR JANSEN
MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius on record, Mr Chair. Thank you, no questions.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just one aspect.
Mr Nortje, the plan was simply to plant this bomb, to damage this building or to destroy this building and then to withdraw.
MR NORTJE: That is correct.
MR HUGO: And then something went wrong.
MR NORTJE: Yes.
MR HUGO: Did you know, or were you aware of the fact that the plan to use explosives was according to the Defence Force, that asked for it?
MR NORTJE: That is correct, yes.
MR HUGO: No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO
MR MARIBANA: Thank you, Mr Chair, I've got no questions for Mr Nortje.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR MARIBANA
MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, I have no questions. I however simply wish to place on record at this stage that Mr Nortje's reply to our request for further particulars, does in fact form part of bundle 2, pages 6 to 9. That is all, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: You haven't got any questions?
MS PATEL: No, I don't, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, as far as the further particulars are concerned, I think it must then be part of the second bundle. Is that correct?
MS PATEL: That's what I said, Honourable Chairperson.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you, Chairperson. Then that doesn't make it necessary to hand up as an additional exhibit what I have in front of me. Thank you.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR NEL: Mr Chairperson, I call Mr L J Hanton. Nel on record. He will be testifying in English.
