Amnesty Hearings

MR RAS: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Ras, if you page to page 100 of the bundle, or maybe you can page firstly to page 78 of the bundle. On page 78 up until page 116, your amnesty application appears with regard to this incident, do you confirm the contents thereof as correct?

MR RAS: I confirm it.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your evidence in the previous amnesty application of Hechter, van Vuuren and Cronje appears on page 251 and it goes over to page 266, did you read that?

MR RAS: I did read that.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm it is correct?

MR RAS: That is so.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also read the evidence of Capt Hechter, is that correct?

MR RAS: That's correct.

MR DU PLESSIS: In that hearing, do you confirm that it is correct as far as it's got to do with you?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you also heard the evidence of Mr Loots today, with regards to this incident, do you confirm his evidence as far as it has got to do with you?

MR RAS: I do confirm it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DEN BERG: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Mr Ras, if we can begin on page 101, there you describe the information that you received from Stemmet, and it is basically that there is an agent that was conveying information with regards to informants in Zimbabwe. Can you remember that and do you confirm that?

MR RAS

"I can remember yes, and I would like to confirm it but there are two parts to this. In the meeting or conference, Koos Klopper mentioned it to me that there's an agent working at the Hammanskraal police, that he was an ANC agent and that he was active. There that stopped, because there were various other people from other branches who had no part of it, it did not have any relevance to them, but after the conference or the meeting, Brig Stemmet, Koos Klopper, myself, we left and we went to the lifts. At the lift, or on the way to the lift, Gen Stemmet told me: "You know you are very soft with the enemy, you have to be more harsh or harder with them. With regards to this agent, I want you to get Hekter and van Vuuren to get involved in this job." Then Klopper said: "Not Hekter, but Hechter" and at the same time Brig Stemmet also said: "Send Flippie", meaning Col Loots, then Capt Loots, "to me."

The name of that policeman was not mentioned to me at that stage. I do not know who he was, I did not know where he lived, I did not know who his Commander was. Brig Stemmet mentioned to me that this man had to be eliminated. He then told me: "Send Flippie to me" - this I have mentioned already, "and then get van Vuuren and Hechter to do the job."

When I got to the office I called Capt Loots, who was on the third floor, and told him to come and see me and to bring Hechter and van Vuuren him. All three of them arrived in my office. I told them that Brig Stemmet had information concerning an ANC agent that had to be taken out or eliminated. He wanted Hechter and van Vuuren to do the job, and he also requested me, and I told Loots that he requested Loots to go and see Brig Stemmet. I accepted that this "go and see him" was about the name and the address of this person that had to be eliminated.

After Loots left I told Hechter and van Vuuren that it bothers me that their covert activities are so well-known, such an open secret that through other branches they can be tasked to do such a job and that I foresaw some problems in the future."

MR VAN DEN BERG: And the information that was sent to Zimbabwe and the informer's who were deployed in Zimbabwe?

MR RAS: That was part of - Koos Klopper said there was sensitive information that was conveyed to people in Zimbabwe. I cannot remember whether the Johannesburg incident that Loots remembered, it is possible, but I really cannot recall that, but the Zimbabwean story came from Koos Klopper.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And that was in the conference or meeting?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did he mention any names?

MR RAS: No.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Did you discuss it further?

MR RAS: No, not at all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: If I can remember correctly that was approximately at the time when Kit Ngai Borden(?) was arrested in Zimbabwe. Phillip Kunjwayo(?).

MR RAS: I don't know.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Leslie Lesai(?). Those people.

MR RAS: No, I cannot recall.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And you cannot deny that they were military people.

MR RAS: No, I do not know them at all.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You were present when I asked Mr Loots about Stemmet's affidavit, in which he denies the instruction.

MR RAS: If he denies, he is lying.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Very well. On page 105 of the bundle you mentioned a discussion that you had with Klopper.

MR RAS: That is correct, yes. That was on the 12th of November 1996. I contacted Klopper, I mentioned that his name was mentioned in the death of this policeman and it mentioned that he, Klopper, conveyed at a crime conference to the Security Branch, that this policeman was an agent for the ANC. Klopper then said that he's going to get legal representation, that he's not willing to take responsibility for somebody else's problems.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I get the impression that what he conveyed to you was that it conveyed it to you, you took it further and what you did with it had nothing to do with him.

MR RAS: Yes, according to Koos Klopper, that is how it happened and that is how he wanted it.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Very well. Was it normal practice for a senior officer to call a junior officer by his name?

MR RAS: Not always, but we did to it sometimes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: Under which circumstances would this happen?

MR RAS: It was surprising that Gen Stemmet said: "Send Flippie to me", but I know that he knew Capt Loots quite well and that they worked very closely, as far as the unrest concern and the boycotts, as well as the establishment of preplanned prevention measures, and Loots assisted him a lot in that.

MR VAN DEN BERG: You also then say in your own affidavit that was submitted during Hechter and van Vuuren's applications, and you say on page 343, on paragraph 4 thereof - 343, Mr Chairperson.

"I also understood at all relevant times and was under the impression that the final instruction was given by Brig Stemmet to Col Loots. I did not give any direct instruction to eliminate Mr Motasi, to Mr Loots or to Hechter and van Vuuren. Before the operation I was not even aware of the name of the person who had to be eliminated."

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR VAN DEN BERG: And that's how you understood it?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR VAN DEN BERG: What you then tell this Committee is that you did carry knowledge of the death of Richard and his wife.

MR RAS: Yes, morally I am responsible for it because it was people who worked in the personnel.

MR VAN DEN BERG: It was the only murder of which you knew, is that correct?

MR RAS: Look in this open secret environment, where Hechter and van Vuuren and Cronje also were always together, we saw things happen, but I never had any evidence because I was not part of the discussions, I was not part of the planning. They never involved me in their secrets.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I do not know what the Afrikaans is, but here you were a "conduit" for the instruction that was given. ...(transcriber's instruction)

MR RAS: Yes, maybe too good a conduit, maybe I was too good at this.

MR VAN DEN BERG: I have no further questions, Mr Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van den Berg.

ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you, Mr Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP

MR MALAN: I would just like to know, if I can recall you nowhere said that you reported back to Stemmet.

MR RAS: No, I never did. Koos Klopper was in my office the next morning, him and Brig Stemmet were together in this whole thing and I accepted that because he was responsible for murder cases in his unit, he would take it further.

MR MALAN: Did you call Loots to your office or did he come to your office himself?

MR RAS: I called him that morning while Koos Klopper was in the office with me.

MR MALAN: Why was Koos Klopper in your office? Did he do any enquiries, or was it for normal business?

MR RAS: No, this was - or I accepted that he came to enquire, but he didn't say much and when he came in I said to him: "You probably want to talk to Loots", and I then called him and he then asked Loots how far this thing was and Loots answered: "The task is completed, but unfortunately a woman died in the incident."

MR MALAN: So you just told Loots to come to your office, you did not say that Klopper was there to see him?

MR RAS: No, I didn't say that, I just said: "Come down and come and see me."

MR MALAN: Very well. I asked Mr Loots a question and you heard it, it was concerning the command structure or line of responsibility of Hammanskraal police college. Did it go to Northern Transvaal or where?

MR RAS: The police college fell directly underneath the head office, but Hammanskraal police station was part of the Northern Transvaal area. The police station and the training college are two completely different aspects.

MR MALAN: Maybe I understood it wrong. Was Motasi at the training college?

MR RAS: Yes, they wanted to send him to the police station and then he didn't want to go, or he went, I do not know.

MR MALAN: This Col van Zyl that they are talking about?

MR RAS: I do not know him. We never had contact with each other.

MR MALAN: You never had contact with the training college?

MR RAS: No, never.

MR MALAN: Oh, so you do not know who he was?

MR RAS: No, I would meet him in the street and I wouldn't know who he was.

MR MALAN: But in the structure, if they did not liaise with you they wouldn't have liaised with Stemmet or with Klopper.

MR RAS: No, the college itself could have liaised with Stemmet if Stemmet wanted students, because Stemmet's recruitment attempts went to that college.

MR MALAN: Maybe the choice of words was wrong, I'm not talking about liaison, but I'm talking about the line of command and in reporting. The police college or his Commanders would never have reported back to Stemmet or his Commanders.

MR RAS: No, not as far as I know.

MR MALAN: So in other words, if they knew van Zyl, it would have been a coincidence and not because of their rank?

MR RAS: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: I'm talking about the crime conference now. You said Koos Klopper, in the conference or meeting, told you about the policeman who was an agent, he just left it there.

MR RAS: Just left it there. And then that part we continued with after the people left.

MR MALAN: On the way to the lift?

MR RAS: It was myself, the Brigadier and Klopper and we were on our way to the lift.

MR MALAN: Why did - when Klopper said that in the conference, was it not followed up?

MR RAS: It wasn't followed up immediately. I do not know how we stopped talking about it, I think because nobody else had anything to do with it. There were students or people from the Defence Force, training people, the National Intelligence people were there, so we just stopped talking about it.

MR MALAN: You discussed disciplinary measures or the assault or the alleged assault of van Zyl on Motasi, was that in your investigative area in the Northern Transvaal? Would that not have been discussed at such a conference?

MR RAS: Yes, it could have been.

MR MALAN: Because that is part of the crime.

MR RAS: It could have, but it was more about the serious crimes, the threat, it was not about single or isolated incidents where a person was a threat to a police commander.

MR MALAN: Did you see what the relevance was of this dispute and why it wasn't mentioned there? That what was mentioned there was that: "There is a policeman who is giving us a lot of problems" - I'm trying to say it in the way in which it would have been said there, and then they would have said: "Well, I'm sure this person is an ANC agent."

MR RAS: Well it could have been, but it was not how I heard it that morning, no.

MR MALAN: And you said that all that you can recall, and you are quite sure about it, is that it was mentioned in the conference that there's a policeman in Hammanskraal who was a police agent and who had liaised with people in Zimbabwe, and it was not followed up?

MR RAS: No, at that stage not at all.

MR MALAN: Is that not very clear then that a decision would have been taken there about who will take it further?

MR RAS: I said it at a previous opportunity, that at these conferences or meetings there were a lot of snippets of information that was meant only for the Security Branch, it would be written on a piece of paper, I would then take it to Unit A, B or C, for further investigation, or the Security Branch would get something that would be relevant for another unit and I would then give it, for example, to Koos Klopper and say that people are busy with smuggling dagga or they are stealing vehicles, and he would then deal with that, and I would not ask him about anything else.

MR MALAN: That is the purpose of my question. Why did Klopper mention it there if he would have dealt with it himself?

MR RAS: I do not know.

MR MALAN: And you do not know if Klopper reported back to Stemmet?

MR RAS: No, I do not know, but with the next crime conference we never mentioned it again. I didn't talk about it, Stemmet didn't mention it and Koos Klopper never mentioned it either.

MR MALAN: In other words you never talked about it again until the amnesty application?

MR RAS: In 1996, in November, I heard who the person was who died. Before that I did not know the deceased.

MR MALAN: You very quickly gave evidence about how it happened, and I do not want to keep you to it, the order of it. On the way to the lift Stemmet then told you that you are too soft with the enemy.

MR RAS: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: He said: "This person is an agent, I want Hekter and van Vuuren to do the job", and Klopper then said: "It's not Hektor, it's Hechter." And then he said: "Send Flippie to me."

MR RAS: That's correct.

MR MALAN: Very well. Then you said Stemmet mentioned that this person had to be eliminated.

MR RAS: That is correct, in that same process.

MR MALAN: Can you remember when?

MR RAS: That was before he said: "Send Flippie to me." "You are too soft with the people, this person has to be eliminated."

MR MALAN: Did he use the term "elimination"?

MR RAS: Yes, he did.

MR MALAN: When you talked about it you said: "Take out", didn't he use the same term?

MR RAS: In our terminology it was more-or-less the same thing. If you wanted to take somebody out, you will terminate him or eliminate him.

MR MALAN: Yes, but you were not part of that terminology because you were not involved in the activities.

MR RAS: I wasn't there, but one does talk about it in that way. It is an open secret that some of our people are doing it. You see today and then you see an explosion, then you see that there are people missing. You see an attack, you see today a threat and the next day the people are gone and you could see that there is something going on.

MR MALAN: The evidence of Mr Loots was that you were the Staff Officer, what was your responsibilities? Broadly speaking.

MR RAS: It was personnel matters, postal matters as it came in, the opening, the filing.

MR MALAN: Operationally, nothing?

MR RAS: No, not operationally, no.

MR MALAN: And Cronje's function was mostly coordinating.

MR RAS: When he left I did not have anybody else to do my job and I had to do what he did. The more serious files, the informant files I had to deal with and I had to get the unit heads to find out if this person is busy with what this file is saying he is, and I could then support, or rely on his support to do it.

MR MALAN: Part of your task was dealing with the post that comes in, so all intelligence documents or files that came in would come from the post right directly to you?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR MALAN: Loots' files would also go to you?

MR RAS: Yes. Yes, he reported back to me. And the same with Unit A, B, C, etcetera. All their reports came to me. I worked from when the sun came up in the mornings till 12 o'clock in the evenings.

MR MALAN: But you never made any decision, you only canalised it.

MR RAS: Yes, and where you can make decisions, for example, when an informant asked for R10, that his work is worth R40.

MR MALAN: But it was more administrative?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR MALAN: So concerning the operational and security aspects thereof, you did not have any control over that?

MR RAS: No, it wasn't.

MR MALAN: So for all practical reasons we can say you were a non-security officer in the Security Branch?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: Well that is how I understand a Staff Officer. I want to make sure.

MR RAS: Although with a lot of years working in the intelligence, or Security Branch, I knew about a lot of things.

MR MALAN: But before that you did work in other positions.

MR RAS: Yes, I did a lot of security work.

MR MALAN: And you then confirm Mr Loots' - I would like to ask you specifically, that Unit B did not have anything to do with terrorism.

MR RAS: It was not part of his tasks, no, or his job description.

MR MALAN: His job description was the black power areas where the risks were etcetera.

MR RAS: The terrorist activities, or the black power involvements, the crash courses that had to be taken. That was also part of Loots' work.

MR MALAN: Yes, I can understand that a lot of field work was done, but not interrogations and arrests etcetera, not even informally.

MR RAS: No, that was something that we did not immediately see, but the eliminations did occur and it became bigger.

MR MALAN: Just for the purpose of the record, because in your documents you talk about the general command of Viktor, when did you hear about this for the first time?

MR RAS: When somebody told me this.

MR MALAN: When did somebody tell you this?

MR RAS: When I applied for amnesty.

MR MALAN: So you didn't know about it before?

MR RAS: No.

MR MALAN: So according to yourself, you just saw how things developed and you saw that Cronje was part of the Hechter and van Vuuren group and you could not question him.

MR RAS: No, you could never question, you'd be cutting your own throat.

MR MALAN: But you did not bear any knowledge of ...

MR RAS: No, I did not carry any knowledge about it, no.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

MR RAS: There's just another aspect that you asked about, how did Loots become involved in this. It was practice in the police force that members were not called by other branches, it had to be done by Commanders liaising between the units. So it came from Brig Stemmet to myself that I had to send Loots to him.

MR MALAN: I think it is accepted. The question was, how did he know of Loots, and if he knew about the unit of Cronje, Hechter and van Vuuren, why did he suddenly involve Loots? You also said it's an open secret, you did not question it, the same as Mr Loots didn't question it, on his evidence, but now for the first time he's suddenly involved by Stemmet operationally in something. ...(transcriber's interpretation)

MR RAS: I understand.

MR MALAN: And you said it was on the request of Stemmet to you?

MR RAS: Yes.

MR MALAN: And you stand by it. And if Stemmet denies it, then he denies it for other reasons ... (transcriber's interpretation)

MR RAS: That is correct.

MR MALAN: Very well, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lax.

MR LAX: Thanks, Chair.

General, the activities of this man, this deceased on the version we have before us, the most damage appears to have been done in Zimbabwe, and that's what you say in your application on page 101:

"The people who were eliminated were eliminated in Zimbabwe."

on your version. Is that right?

MR RAS: That is how I received it and accepted it, that it was in Zimbabwe, but it is also true that some of the movements in opposition to us, used Zimbabwe as their point of departure. So the information could have been used by South Africans who were trained in Zimbabwe and had settled in Zimbabwe, for their purposes.

MR LAX: Except that's not what you say in your application, you say they were eliminated by Zimbabweans, not by South Africans in Zimbabwe. And in fact, somewhere else in the papers they refer to Z10, or something to that effect, some unit in Zimbabwe.

MR RAS: I don't know about that. If it was by Zimbabweans, then it would have been how I got it.

MR LAX: Yes. Now who in your unit, that is the Security Branch, dealt with issues in Zimbabwe?

MR RAS: I don't know if Unit B dealt with it, I believe so. I believe they dealt with Zimbabwe matters, but also Unit C, which dealt with terrorist activities, they could also have dealt with Zimbabwe. Thank you.

MR LAX: What I'm trying to understand is, these things happen in Zimbabwe, they filter back to South Africa, which would have been the most likely channel for that information to come back to South Africa?

MR RAS: The channel that you refer to? I don't understand.

MR LAX: Well you see, South African sources, informers, sources of information, get eliminated in Zimbabwe by Zimbabweans, in 1987, that information filters back to South Africa through some channel or other.

MR RAS: I would believe it would have been by the Intelligence Units, but it could also be the Detective Branch. It wouldn't have been with us personally, but Intelligence Units and Military Intelligence Units, yes, it could have come through those channels.

MR LAX: You see what I'm trying to work out is how on earth Klopper, who was a Detective Branch person, who was dealing primarily with ordinary crime - you guys dealt with the political crime, the Detective Branch by and large dealt with ordinary crime, how could they as a matter or course have all this information? And Stemmet had it all because he was the man - not Stemmet, Kloppers had it all because he was the one who told you it all.

MR RAS: Yes. I would have to speculate on that. Both Klopper and Brig Stemmet had information with the internal wing of the Police's Intelligence Unit, they also had connections with Military Intelligence. All of these were units which also operated abroad ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, but was their liaison with those units not on divisional level?

MR RAS: Yes, it was.

MR MALAN: There was no reason for them to liaise with any head office of any of those units?

MR RAS: No.

MR MALAN: So it would have happened on a local level.

MR RAS: Yes, because there were some of their members who also attended the meetings.

MR LAX: You see that's precisely my point, something that happens in Zimbabwe, which is quite some distance from Hammanskraal and these local areas around Pretoria, you wouldn't expect that the Divisional Detective Commander of the Northern Transvaal Region, would get to know about what was going on somewhere in Zimbabwe. It's not the usual source of that kind of information, is it?

MR RAS: I comprehend the issue, but I would not be able to answer. I myself also have the same concern, I don't know how this took place.

MR LAX: I just want to clarify something. I may be mistaken, or I may have heard correctly, it's just to do with the questions that my colleague, Mr Malan was asking you and that is, did I understand correctly that at an earlier stage of the meeting when everybody was present, this is when Klopper was talking about this agent.

MR RAS: That's correct. While the meeting was under way, Klopper mentioned this and immediately it was suffocated. I don't know who suffocated the issue, but on the way to the lift the two of them joined me and the discussion ensued.

MR LAX: Now you've told us that there were people there from Military Intelligence, people there from National Intelligence and so on, surely some of those people would have pricked up their ears at this matter, that here is a person in our division in contact with people in Zimbabwe, in contact with others, causing elimination of agents, it would have been a matter of general concern.

MR RAS: Yes, I agree with you.

MR LAX: And yet not one soul says anything about it and in fact you drop the subject till after the meeting.

MR RAS: Yes.

MR LAX: It's just totally inexplicable.

MR RAS: I cannot assist you because that is precisely how it occurred.

MR LAX: Now a couple of days later you would have continued to have these crime conferences, isn't that so?

MR RAS: Yes, on every week day.

MR LAX: And even two days later a topic would have arisen in your crime conference, that a policeman was murdered in Hammanskraal, by unknown elements.

MR RAS: It was never mentioned at any time, and I must also tell that I understood that it was in Temba, not in Hammanskraal. At that stage Temba was part of Boputhatswana, which was not part of the South African policing area. In other words, Boputhatswana police would have dealt with that matter.

MR LAX: So it wouldn't have formed part of your division then?

MR RAS: It would not have formed part of the crime report for Division Northern Transvaal.

CHAIRPERSON: But if I may interpose here, Mr Lax.

We have this person staying in Temba, which is part of Boputhatswana, but working in South Africa and under your training college, you mean even then it couldn't be picked up because he was murdered in Temba, it did not matter?

MR RAS: The death report would have been compiled by his Commander and sent to head office, but the investigation would not have been conducted by the Northern Transvaal Division. But all the other documentation pertaining to the death report would have been sent through to head office via the Commander.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Lax.

MR LAX: The fact remains though, that he was a South African policeman.

MR RAS: Correct.

MR LAX: And whether he was killed in Boputhatswana or not, it would have been a matter or concern that here is another policeman murdered, AK47 are used, all that information was known.

MR RAS: That is correct, however the matter was either suffocated because everyone wanted to conceal his own share - I would believe that that is the actual reason why there was silence regarding it, because we didn't want to expose our share in the matter.

MR LAX: Now as Commander of the Security Branch, and you were Acting Commander, I accept that your normal duties were that of a Staff Officer, but at the time this happened you were actually the Acting Commander.

MR RAS: Yes.

MR LAX: And so you would have been getting reports from all the different desks and units and so on. Now did you at any stage make any enquiry as to whether the information that was leaking, that people were killed in Zimbabwe and so on, was in any way connected to any of your files?

MR RAS: No.

MR LAX: Why? Here you are as a Commander, here is a source of information based in your division, even though the man is taken out, you must want to know whether there's any other threat of compromise to other sources of information in your area.

MR RAS: At that time we lived in a situation of warfare, if something was over it was over, we didn't deal with it any further because there was so much work that the few policemen that were available, couldn't deal with everything and if water had flowed under the bridge, we let it be as such. We didn't return to any matters which would eventually end up being to our detriment.

MR LAX: You see you didn't know whether the threat was over or not, you didn't even bother to find out who this man worked with, what his sources were. One would have thought that that would have been the stuff you would have wanted to follow up, because you want to make sure that nobody else got killed in the process.

MR RAS: I agree with you, but it wasn't done.

MR LAX: You see one understands that you were busy and that you had a whole lot of things to do and we've heard how busy the then Capt Loots was at the time, but the fact is that there were risks, huge risks.

MR RAS: I agree.

MR LAX: The man isn't captured, he isn't abducted, he isn't interrogated to find out all his sources, that's what you would have expected to happen, and then he was eliminated afterwards, isn't that so?

MR RAS: One would have expected it to be that way because that is how many of these things took place ...(intervention)

MR LAX: Sorry, if I could interrupt you, that's how the vast majority of these things happened. People were abducted, they were interrogated, every ounce of information possible was extracted from them and then they were eliminated.

MR RAS: I agree, that is precisely how it happened, but in this case I sent Loots to the Brigadier and told the others that we would have problems with this. I didn't see them again until the following morning and then the job was done, it was over, and I hadn't said a word about it.

MR LAX: Now I want to just take you to your affidavit briefly. You didn't consider the necessity to question the order from Brig Stemmet, and in fact you say in your affidavit that you wouldn't even - no ways you would have questioned that decision.

MR RAS: To this day I have never seen Brig Stemmet laugh. Although I view him as the second-best policeman on the planet, I can also say that he was a very serious man, that he was always the sort of role model that one expected from a policeman. If he issued an order it was a firm order and you executed it. I was by far his junior, I would never query him and if I wanted to investigate his story first, it would have either have placed the operation at risk or I would not have been able to ...(end of tape 2B)

MR LAX: ... the possibility of investigating and making enquiries.

MR RAS: I was not even aware that the operation would take place on that very same evening. Loots and Hechter would not have been able to question it and they would have had to accept it as such.

MR LAX: It's just the first sentence that I'm interested in, which is, you say: "I wasn't aware that it was happening, but in any event there wasn't time for me to do it."

MR RAS: No, there wasn't.

MR LAX: But you wouldn't even have done it.

MR RAS: I would never have done it ...(intervention)

MR LAX: That's why I'm asking why have you introduced that as a possibility as something you might have contemplated when you wouldn't have contemplated it at all. Do you see my concern?

MR RAS: I can understand your concern.

MR LAX: You can't really answer that.

MR RAS: No, I cannot.

MR LAX: Just one final question Chairperson, from my side.

You don't consider yourself as having given this instruction.

MR RAS: No, I had two orders and I executed two orders. I received the order to send Loots and to put Hechter and van Vuuren on the task, those are the two orders that I received and I executed them, but the order to go out and eliminate the man, I did not issue that order. From the very beginning I maintained that Brig Stemmet requested for this man to be eliminated, that he was an agent who was assisting informers in Zimbabwe.

MR LAX: So that if Mr Loots now thinks that you gave him the instruction and not Brig Stemmet, he's mistaken as far as you are concerned?

MR RAS: I believe Loots would know that I gave him the order from Stemmet, but I don't believe would say that I told him to kill the man.

MR LAX: Ja, I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm somewhat, Mr Ras, confused by this, that my understanding, and I'll paraphrase it from your evidence, is that you were given orders to call Flippie ...(intervention)

MR RAS: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: ... to go and see Stemmet, and whatever order was given there, you don't know what kind of order was given.

MR RAS: No, that is correct, Chairperson, I don't know what the order was that was to be issued there, but I understood that it had to do with the reason why I had to task Hechter, van Vuuren and Loots.

CHAIRPERSON: You see the problem that I have is the blameworthiness which you are accepting, that if my colleague here, I say to him I want to see Mr Malan and I speak to Malan and because I have sent him he says: "I've got blameworthiness because I was sent to call so-and-so, so-and-so was given orders which I was not privy to." You see my dilemma? How then would that person attract blameworthiness?

MR RAS: It's difficult for me ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Let's take it what happened in the past, that there were so many people within the Police Force, and let's take the onslaught, that various people were given instructions to do various things and some would be given instructions within the same unit, but other people wouldn't be involved in that, now once that has been executed or the orders have been carried out, how could other people attract blameworthiness, moral blameworthiness for that? Because - assist me, I'm merely wanting to understand, that you might have been senior to other people, some of the people who carried out the orders of Stemmet.

MR RAS: They were members of my staff and that is why I feel a moral responsibility, partially, for that which they did. I feel guilty about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Not that you had a hand in any way ...(intervention)

MR RAS: But because they were members of my staff, they were like my children. They were my children at that stage and I should have kept them on the right path and I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no, now here's somebody who is a role model, and you had the greatest respect for Stemmet, and a few minutes back you said he was a man who would not even laugh and he said you are soft on people, did I understand you correctly?

MR RAS: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And he takes it upon himself, he says "Call Flippie" - with the greatest apologies, I just want to follow what Mr Ras was saying, not that I'm imputing anything on you, he says "Call those people, I'll give them orders direct." Mention was made of a policeman and it was suffocated before it could be fully discussed, we just know he's an agent, then he calls in people, he takes direct responsibility for personnel on your staff and gives them orders, is that how I understand it?

MR RAS: That is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I want to see how you come in, you see. That a person was mentioned and orders were given, you did not know the name of that policeman, you merely knew it was a policeman, it was never taken up again, nor mentioned again and suddenly you say "I am to blame." I cannot follow that kind of reasoning.

MR RAS: You know, some of your people know my son - if you could just pardon me for a while.

CHAIRPERSON: Certainly. Do you perhaps want to take ...(indistinct)

MR RAS: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay.

MR RAS: I brought up this son of mind in a certain way ...

CHAIRPERSON: Do you need some few more minutes?

MR RAS: No, no, I will be alright now.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay.

MR RAS: This way of bringing up or educating my son now resulted in that this child is in far more trouble than what I am at this stage.

CHAIRPERSON: Shouldn't I really give you five minutes?

MR RAS: I wish I could stand in his place, so I wish I could have stood in Loots' place.

MR MALAN: Mr Ras, is it not true that in this instance you do not just feel responsible because Loots was a member of your staff, but you knew because Stemmet told you "We are going to take somebody out"?

MR RAS: Yes, that is correct.

MR MALAN: You actively worked with him.

MR RAS: Yes.

MR MALAN: You did what he told you to do, you explained to the other members what their instructions would be.

MR RAS: That is correct, yes.

MR MALAN: So you were completely integrated in this murder, it is not just a moral acceptance of responsibility.

MR RAS: I accept that as such, it is so.

MR MALAN: Thank you.

MR LAX: Just one last thing, General, sorry to ask this. At the time, from what I've read in your evidence and from what I've read in your application, you were actually unaware of the identity of this man or his wife.

MR RAS: Yes.

MR LAX: Because from what you say, all that was reported back to you was the job was done and during the course of it the wife had to be killed because Mamasela's identity was at stake.

MR RAS: Mr Chairperson, that is correct, it came back to me in that way, that the job has been done and the woman was killed in the process.

MR LAX: Now when did you become aware of the identity of the two deceased?

MR RAS: December/November 1996.

MR LAX: 1996. Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr du Plessis, anything arising from the questions asked by the Panel?

MR DU PLESSIS: Nothing, Mr Chairman, thank you.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Nothing, Mr Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DEN BERG

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Nothing, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr Ras, you are excused.

MR RAS: Thank you.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, I'm going to be very short and brief. The submission which I want to make ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Before you arrive at that, I thought probably you still have a witness.

MR DU PLESSIS: No, I don't have any further witnesses, I'm sorry.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van den Berg, are you calling any witnesses?

MR VAN DEN BERG: No, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: The answer is the same from you, Mr Steenkamp?

ADV STEENKAMP: Correct, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.

MR DU PLESSIS IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, the evidence of both Mr Ras and Mr Loots today does not in any material way conflict with the evidence that they have given previously. It does not in any material way conflict with the evidence which was given by Mr Hechter and Mr van Vuuren. It is clear from the evidence, and I submit that it has to be accepted, that both Mr Ras and Mr Loots laboured under the impression and thought at all relevant times, that they were acting against a person who was part of the ANC, who was a danger to the Security Police, who provided information which was damaging to the fight against the ANC, and more broadly, seeing the fight against the liberation movements and communism, and from that point of view, subjectively, the motive with which they acted was at all relevant times political.

One could argue that all sorts of factors indicate that the reason for this murder may have been motivated by other parties, not the applicants that I represent, but other parties, that the motive may have been different. It may be that certain probabilities on the facts before you and the documents before you, although it's not evidence, indicate that there may perhaps have been some other reason. We do not have evidence about that and we only have the documents before us. But if we have to apply the test in Section 20(3) of the Act, and I have argued this on numerous occasions and I think the argument has been accepted up to now, the question arises, even if one accepts that from an objective point of view, the motive may not have been political. For argument purposes, how do we treat a person who subjectively acted with a political motive? And the question arises, with reference to Section 20(3), if certain factors indicate the one way if you apply the subjective test and other factors indicate the other way if you apply the objective test. Which one is the overriding one?

And in my submission, the whole gist of the Act, the application thereof up to now, the interpretation of Section 20(3), by the Courts, the interpretation placed upon these principles of Prof Norgaard in South West Africa/Namibia, all indicate that the subjective elements override the objective elements in Section 20(3). Which leads me to the submission that the evidence of Mr Ras and Mr Loots about what they knew or were told, let me put it that way, about Mr Motasi and his alleged involvement with the ANC, was enough for them to have acted the way they did and to have acted with a political motive. My submission therefore is that they have complied with the most important element of Section 20(3).

Furthermore, if one considers the other contentious element in my submission perhaps in (3), is the question if they acted in accordance with an order given to them, one has to say firstly that there may be certain questions that one could rightly ask about this incident. I think a lot has been pointed out in respect of the way the orders were given, the difference between this incident and certain others, and various other different factors. At the end of the day one has to ask oneself the question, "Can I accept that the evidence of Mr Ras and the evidence of Mr Loots, that they received an order from Brig Stemmet? Can I accept that evidence? Is there any fact that I can take ...", if we leave probabilities out for a moment, "... which contradicts their evidence?"

The only aspect that you have before you is an affidavit of Mr Stemmet, who did not see his way open to be here, as most other Generals and Ministers have done in the past and are still doing, who does not even have the - can I use the old-fashioned English word "guts", to come and sit here and say to you that he had never given the order. And the question arises "Why doesn't he do that?" Let's forget about all the probabilities on the one side about how the order happened and took place, in my submission the question and the most important question to be asked is "Why isn't he here? Why doesn't he come and tell you that he never gave the order?" That these people are lying. He is not here, Mr Chairman, for one reason and one reason only, he knows that he gave that order, he knows that he cannot afford to testify here, he knows that if he's subjected to cross-examination and he attempts to lie, that he will be caught out. And that is the reason ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry for interrupting you, isn't another possible deduction to say that he does not see any risk unless he is prosecuted and then can deal with it at that stage? And at this stage he takes, again in his view, an honourable position where he doesn't want to jeopardise the applications of your clients?

MR DU PLESSIS: That may be a possibility, I must conceded that. That may be a possibility.

MR MALAN: I don't think you have to pursue this, but we have taken note of that argument.

MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Just before you leave it, what are you saying to us, what weight should be give to this affidavit which is a bare denial?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, my submission is that you have to give no weight whatsoever. You can, with respect Mr Chairman, give no weight thereto because it hasn't, the evidence contained therein hasn't been tested in cross-examination.

There is however, and I realise that you indicated to me that I shouldn't pursue this, but there is however just one other point that I would perhaps want to make. And that is that the other possibility would have been for Gen Stemmet to have been here with the applicants under these circumstances.

CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?

MR DU PLESSIS: To have been here with the applicants, to ask for amnesty with the applicants. But I won't pursue that point.

On the probabilities ...(intervention)

MR MALAN: Sorry, which of course he had ample time to do, because his statement is also dated prior to the cut-off date. So one could in the same way argue, if one has to look at probabilities, that if he indeed was guilty he would probably have been granted amnesty here on the basis of the version of the political ... and therefore, why then not apply?

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, except that if one looks at that one would obviously firstly have to ask yourself the question, if all four applicants are lying to you about his involvement and if we were in a criminal case and the evidence had to be weighed up and General Stemmet was on the one hand and we had the four witnesses on the other hand, and in respect of this evidence which has been thoroughly tested, I submit in both hearings, one would have probably come to the conclusion that where four witnesses say exactly the same, or more-or-less the same as against one person, you would have to come to the conclusion that you'll probably have to accept the version of the four witnesses. But let me leave that for a moment.

The question about the probabilities, in my submission on the question why Ras and Loots became involved in this matter, can only be answered by or through the fact that Brig Cronje was not at the unit at the time. We do not know what knowledge Brigadier or General Stemmet had about Hechter and van Vuuren's operations. It seems that he must have known something about it, but we do not know if he had known about Loots and Ras' involvement therewith. And it is possible that he may have thought that Ras and Loots knew more about it and were more involved with it than was the case. And therefore it is a possibility, and I submit a real possibility, that that is the reason why Mr Ras and Mr Loots were drawn into this by Brigadier or General Stemmet, which would not have happened if Brig Cronje was at the unit at the time and present at the time. And in my submission that is a probable explanation. There's no reason to think that Mr Ras and Mr Loots would have applied for amnesty for other incidents, and if they were involved in other incidents, that they would not have applied for amnesty for those incidents, especially where you have knowledge of the whole scenario of the Northern Transvaal Security Branch and really had, in my submission, a total openness and frankness about what happened there and what they were involved in.

In respect of the question about - and it wasn't a question of that lots of questions were asked during this hearing, but the question or the facts upon which His Lordship, Mr Justice Ngoepe and Mrs Khampepe, came to the conclusion that Hechter and van Vuuren should not receive amnesty, namely the question about the searching of the house, in my submission there are no facts that really contradict or can contradict their evidence. They were sent to do a specific job, a search of the house may have prejudiced the operation, and in my submission that wasn't good enough ground to refuse amnesty. In fact, that was actually a decision that they were not credible witnesses on the weighing of one improbability in the whole factual scenario that was placed before that Committee. And in my submission, with respect to both of them, and I respect both of them immensely, in my submission their conclusion was wrong in that regard and that in any event insofar as you would want to take that into account, my submission is that you shouldn't.

If we have regard to the murder of Mr Motasi first, in my submission it is quite clear that both Gen Ras and Mr Loots clearly knew that he was going to be murdered, that he would die. They accepted that. And there is no doubt whatsoever that they can be visited with a finding of murder in a criminal case in respect of that. And I include Gen Ras' position there.

Amnesty is therefore sought in respect of Mr Motasi on behalf of both applicants, for murder and also for being accessories after the fact in respect of the murder of Mr Motasi. May I just add that you would have seen in the application that we also seek general amnesty for all delicts which may arise from the facts and all other offences. And here I include the possession of an AK47 at that stage, which was a criminal offence.

CHAIRPERSON: Just not to disturb your flow at this moment, if Mr Ras were to be charged and he appears in the criminal court, what possible charge would be framed against him, in respect of Mr Motasi?

MR DU PLESSIS: In my submission murder, Mr Chairman, and I will submit to you that at the very least, dolus eventualis on his part would be proven. He must have foreseen that there was a possibility that Mr Motasi would die, as a result of his involvement in the matter, his knowledge of the matter and he acted, and he accepted that. In Afrikaans, if I can have reference to the Afrikaans test and the words used there, one would say he reconciled himself with it. He went along with it. He didn't do anything about it, he simply went along with it. So in my submission, at the very least, he would visited with dolus eventualis and he would be found guilty.

MR MALAN: Sorry, I don't want to get out of the decision which in law doesn't good to me, but I fail to see how he'll get dolus eventualis, because there was no other objective than the elimination of Motasi. To come back to the Afrikaans, let us just discuss this. It is not a question of intent with the awareness of possibilities, it is about cooperation on this plan.

MR DU PLESSIS: I made the submission at the very lease, but in my submission it is very clear, directly, without any problem, there was intent, he was part of the plan, he was part of the action, and in my submission there is no doubt whatsoever.

MR MALAN: And he knew what it was about all the time.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, he knew about it all the time, he had the intent. He knew that the order that he would be sending through to Mr Loots, would lead to Motasi's death, he knew that that would be the direct consequence, and in my submission there can be no doubt about that. That is why I made the submission, at the very least, but that would not be the correct finding, in my submission a finding dolus directus would be the correct finding.

The killing of Irene Motasi, in respect of the evidence of Mr Loots and obviously of Mr Ras, although he didn't elaborate on that every much and neither did Mr Loots, but on that evidence, on the evidence of both of them, they never had any idea or intention that she should die. One could perhaps argue that they could have foreseen that a situation may have arisen, that she could be killed or may be killed in the cross-fire, not necessarily in the way she was killed, but perhaps in a different way, and that they accepted that possibility. And in that regard my submission is ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: No, would you say that would be applicable to Mr Loots as well - I mean Mr Ras rather, I beg your pardon.

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, obviously it's a bit more difficult in respect of Mr Ras. And my submission, perhaps I should withdraw the submission in respect of Mr Ras, but at least in respect of Mr Loots one could say that that is the position.

MR MALAN: Does Mr Ras not also become an accessory after the fact?

MR DU PLESSIS: I was on my way to say that. Mr Ras at least, was an accessory after the fact in respect of the murder of Irene Motasi, and at the very least, Mr Loots is also an accessory after the fact. In this regard you would have noted that a finding by the previous Committee was made that amnesty was refused in respect of Irene Motasi. In my submission that is not correct, and in respect of Mr Loots, at least a finding of dolus eventualis on his part, would be the proper finding if he was prosecuted in a criminal matter. My submission therefore, is that in respect of Irene Motasi, Mr Loots should be granted amnesty in respect of murder and being an accessory after the fact, as well as for amnesty for any other ciminal offences that may flow from the facts as well as any delicts that may flow from there, and that amnesty could also be awarded to Mr Ras in respect of being an accessory after the fact, with reference to Irene Motasi's murder. And those are my submissions, Mr Chairman, I have no further submissions, unless you want me to address you on something specific.

CHAIRPERSON: No thank you, don't think that because I had my hand I didn't want to see your face, I wanted to but the sun is overwhelming. I would just butt in at any given moment whenever somebody is making submissions and I suppose that's the position my learned friends have taken here. So it would appear there's nothing to ask you at this stage.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr van der Berg, ...(indistinct)

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairperson. Would it be in order if we stood down for two minutes?

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone)

MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I have a personal difficulty which I need to attend to.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh certainly, we'll give you the indulgence. We adjourn for two minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I know it's out of order, but perhaps it would - before Mr van der Berg argues, and it may cause him not to say anything, request you leave to allow Mr Loots and Mr Ras both to say something in public to the family sitting here at the back. They have, during this adjournment, spoken to them and they have indicated to me that they would like to say something in public, if you would allow it.

CHAIRPERSON: What's your attitude, Mr van der Berg, that we allow something out of turn, that Mr Ras and Mr Loots say something to the family?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Mr Chairperson, I've always taken the attitude that these are best dealt with privately, but insofar as they want to do so publicly, I'm certainly not going to stand in their way. I don't have specific instructions.

CHAIRPERSON: But if I may say, let them say it and you argue after, I wouldn't be taking the wind out of your sail?

MR VAN DEN BERG: Not at all, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: They may. With whom are we starting first?

MR DU PLESSIS: May I ask General Ras to speak first, Mr Chairman, thank you.

MR RAS ADDRESSES FAMILY OF VICTIMS: Thank you, Chairperson.

During the break we spoke to the family of the deceased. They were very kind to us and we thank them. We are sorry for everything that happened. I wish that I was in a position to assist them financially. At the moment I am not. If there were to be a break, it would come from my side to theirs and I would attempt to provide for them as much as I could. Once again I would like to thank them and also I would like to thank them for accepting my apology. Thank you.

MR LOOTS ADDRESSES FAMILY OF VICTIMS: Chairperson, I'm also very grateful for this opportunity. With specific reference to the grandmother with whom I spoke, it is clear that at her age she has quite a responsibility to the son who remains, who is still busy with his studies and that it certainly isn't very easy for her to keep a person of the age of 17 years, in the position to which he is accustomed and that through our actions 13 years ago, regarding which I said to her and I have told you, that we are sorry for having placed her in this particularly dis-favourable position. We are sorry for our sins of the past and that if they could forgive us, they should do so. She has indicated that it was a remarkable gesture on our behalf and that she has received our apology with pleasure. We thank her and we wish her and her remaining family strength with their road ahead, as we would also like to turn over a new leaf and start anew. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you both gentlemen, for those encouraging words towards the family. I hope ...(indistinct) as you do, that they have taken note of that. Thank you very much.

I would back to Mr van der Berg.

MR VAN DER BERG IN ARGUMENT: Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

Insofar as the amnesty applications of Mr Ras and Mr Loots are concerned, I think that in your deliberations you need to take into account a host of difficulties and unanswered aspects. Some of those obviously are created ex post facto, but the things that strike me immediately are the question of the Zimbabwe link. How this came to the attention of a Divisional Commander rather than through military or National Intelligence links. The unusual nature of this instruction and the person from whom it allegedly came. Given its unusual nature, the lack of recollection on the part of the applicants in respect thereof. The fact that both of these were a policeman with a history of - I think at one stage Mr Lax put it "Were you not curious?", and the lack of curiosity as to background and detail. What's not been canvassed fully in this hearing is the actual occurrence on the day, the fact that they were present in the house but that no interrogation, no search, no follow-up investigation was done.

The thrust of my argument, Mr Chairperson, deals with the question of the instruction. The two applicants allege that the instruction came from Gen Stemmet, in his capacity as the Divisional Commander, Northern Transvaal. The difficulty I have with that is the affidavit which is before you. It is on record, and I know that the Committee has dealt with it, was the request that Stemmet be subpoenaed so that we could deal with this factual dispute. In requesting that subpoena, my attitude at the time was that we need to gainsay, "we" on behalf of the victims, need to gainsay the evidence in respect of the instruction. I'm not sure that that onus rests on the family and on the victims. We can only speculate as to why Stemmet isn't here. And that speculation, as was debated with my learned friend, Mr du Plessis, goes both ways.

And one can, as you debated with Mr du Plessis, you can thrash out both aspects of it, as to why he isn't here and what you draw from that, why he should have been here and what you draw from that, why he didn't apply for amnesty, what you can draw from that. I don't think that it takes it much further to rehash those arguments. But essentially I say that there is a factual conflict here, that you can attach weight to the affidavit of Stemmet, and that in the absence of taking it one way or the other, one needs to have a look at what other evidence was before you. I was not alive to it because I wasn't present when Mr Loots testified in respect of Father Mkatchwa, but the whole question of the general instruction and their understanding thereof, it seemed to me, without having being present, and I leave in the Committee's hands, but it seemed to me that he gave one answer on Monday and a different answer today. And that the way in which it was dealt with, well that's another matter altogether. I don't want to take it any further simply because I don't have firsthand knowledge thereof.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone). I'm saying, are the two of us not in the same position because I just heard their evidence today, I don't know what happened either on Monday or Tuesday. I don' know.

MR VAN DER BERG: Mr Chairperson, I think that we are. My sense of it simply was that at the time that the question was asked and the answer was elicited, that then with Mr Malan's intervention, that that - to use a colloquialism, a patch-up job was done on it. And the manner in which that was dealt with was from my view, with the limited knowledge I have, I accept, unsatisfactory. And there are other aspects of it if you take into consideration the various things that I've raised already, but I don't want to push that too hard simply because of the position that I'm in.

Insofar as this Committee may grant amnesty to these applicants, I'm to place on record that the only direct victim here is Sediso Charles Motasi, presently a minor, aged 17. He has been since the date of the death of his parents, in the case of his grandmother, Gloria Hlabangane. She has taken care of him. That she is presently 68 years old and that she has grave concerns as to what will happen to the child, particularly financially. He's doing a course at the Roodepoort Tek, which will put him in a position to take care of himself, but he's not quite there yet, and she has grave concerns as to what were to happen if she were to disappear from the picture now. Mr Chairperson, I don't have anything else I wish to address you on, unless you want to hear me on anything specific.

CHAIRPERSON: It would appear there's nothing from my colleagues. Adv Steenkamp, do you have any word to put in?

ADV STEENKAMP ADDRESSES: Mr Chairman, the only thing I can maybe add, I've not discussed it yet with my colleagues, but I think this is clearly a matter that needs to be dealt with on an urgent basis and I've undertaken that the information regarding the victims of this specific incident, will be referred to the R&R Committee specifically for intermediate relief at the moment. I've already taken it up with certain of the Members of the R&R Committee and I will refer back to my learned colleague, Mr van der Berg, as soon as I have any indication as to what can be done in the meantime to assist the family. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: What view, should we grant amnesty, should we have in respect of Gloria Hlabangane, because Mr van der Berg has spoken that the only direct victim is Sediso Motasi, but my impression is that he took care of this child at a tender age?

ADV STEENKAMP: That's correct, Mr Chairman. I think at the previous hearing where I was unfortunately not present, I've had a look at the testimony there and I've spoken to my previous colleague there, I think the view was that that person would also be acknowledged as a victim at least. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, any reply?

MR DU PLESSIS IN REPLY: Mr Chairman, may I just make one point? And that is that if you do not have any facts indicating, on a specific point, that the applicants are lying, one can only decide on the probabilities against the applicants, in my submission, if you find that the probabilities are so overwhelming ridiculous that you can come to the conclusion that they've been lying. And in my submission that is not the case here, they have made a full disclosure of the facts. And even though there may be certain instances which Mr van den Berg has pointed out, which may create some questions or which may point to the probabilities being otherwise, if you cannot find that the probabilities are such that they've been lying, they have to be given the benefit of the doubt, in my submission. As it pleases you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. This brings us to the conclusion of the application of the two applicants, Messrs Loots and Ras. I must at the outset thank you the legal representatives profusely for the manner in which they gave assistance. When I was given this bundle this morning I was envisaging three days and thinking of my Friday which I love very much, which is the only day I have, I had those reservations. In applications of this nature I think everybody would agree with me that they have been acrimonious and that was lacking in this one. That I should attribute to the professionalism of the counsel who represented the victims and the applicants. I must thank you very much. And the assistance you have given in your submissions, those are pointed submissions, I think they are going to be of great assistance to the Panel.

That would conclude this hearing as I said initially, and as it is customary, we reserve our decision and the same would be given at the earliest opportunity, because it's got to be in writing and the parties would be advised as soon as possible about that. That includes Mr van den Berg, and the victims would get them through you.

I would turn the Motasi family in its entirely. The pain you had has been rehashed for the second time. I hope this brings the final chapter.

Messrs Ras and Loots thank the family for their understanding. If I were to talk about that again I would spoil the succinct manner in which they said that, but I would say on behalf of the Committee and more specifically my Panel here, that we still say to you, now you can go on with your lives, but I do not think it's as easy as I'm saying from this chair, because I may be an armchair person expressing that, but I say it with all sincerity on behalf of my Panel.

To our interpreters, we always forget them, held up in a box, doing a difficult job, sometimes having to race with the applicants or other witness, we thank you very much, your duties are highly appreciated. And to the Methodist Church, we thank you for having made this venue available to us. And the food we had, I suppose everybody did, but I had wonderful food and I don't think I will have dinner tonight, but that is a fight between me and my wife. I thank you for that.

This hearing is adjourned.

MR RAS: Mr Chairperson, just one small word from my side.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, certainly.

MR RAS: We would like to thank you and your staff and the Panel, who has sat with you, we would like to thank you for the manner in which you have treated us. It is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

HEARING ADJOURNS