K J DE BRUIN: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you may be seated.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on. The speaker cannot be heard, his microphone is not on.
MR NORTIER: He's from Somerset West in Cape Town and I understand from him that it is financially difficult for him to attend these proceedings. And as you have noted he is quite elderly. At this point I would like to clarify with you whether or not it is possible for him to be excused entirely at this point and whether he has the permission of this forum to do so.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there any person who is interested in this hearing who would object to my excusing him completely?
MS VAN DER WALT: There is no objection from my client.
MR PRINSLOO: No objection, thank you Chair.
MS CAMBANIS: No objection.
MR RICHARD: No objection.
ADV STEENKAMP: No objection, than you Honourable Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(unidentified speaker)
MR NORTIER: Thank you very much, Chairperson.
MR COETZEE: Thank you, Chairperson.
EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chair. I will then lead the evidence of Mr de Bruin.
Mr de Bruin, your application is embodied in the bundle, the formal section is from page 21 to 27 and then the description of the incident is from page 28 to 32 and your political motivation from page 33 to 40 of the bundle, do you confirm this?
MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp, has Mr Viktor been informed of the fact that he has been named in this incident?
ADV STEENKAMP: Indeed, I think there is another person - Gen Viktor is the client of Mr Wagener, who attended the pre-trial conference and there is a document, Annexure A, which was provided by him. I took the matter up with him personally and he told me that it would be his instructions that they would not be attending the hearing. Thank you, Chair.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr de Bruin, you've heard the evidence which was given by the first applicant, Mr H J Prinsloo, as well as that of the former Divisional Commander, Coetzee.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And do you confirm that evidence?
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Briefly, you were the handler of the person who is referred to as Mr Ramatolo, the former informer.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And you handled him for a period of time and before that period he was handled by another person.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And the person who handled him before you, is he still alive?
MR DE BRUIN: No, he is deceased.
MR PRINSLOO: Mr de Bruin, in as far as it concerned the action itself, was this an arrangement which was made by your colleague, Mr Prinsloo?
MR DE BRUIN: Correct.
MR PRINSLOO: With your knowledge?
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And did you associate yourself with the action?
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Because you were aware of the fact that Mr Hani would be eliminated by means of an explosive device.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: And under the circumstances you foresaw that he could be killed, as well as anybody else who was travelling in the vehicle with him, who could also be killed or seriously injured, as well as the fact that the vehicle could be seriously damaged during the incident.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And did you allow this action to take place for personal gain at any stage?
MR DE BRUIN: No.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you act on behalf of the South African Police Services at that stage?
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And due to your actions you realised that you were guilty of conspiracy to murder at that stage?
MR DE BRUIN: Correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Damage to property?
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And then subsequently defeating the ends of justice because you did not disclose the facts of the matter.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: Under the circumstances then, do you apply for amnesty for the deeds as I have set them out: Conspiracy to murder; Attempted murder of Mr Hani as well as the unknown person in the vehicle with him; Damage to property and the offence pertaining to explosives, because you knew that explosives would be handled illegally.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And then there is also any further delictual liability which may emanate from the facts of this case.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And after Mr Ramatolo was injured, as you have already heard - I just want to take this up with you very briefly, you made arrangements for a meeting with him, by means of his sister. Is that correct?
MR DE BRUIN: Chairperson, his sister came to me and said that her brother, Mr Ramatolo was in hospital, that he had been injured after the explosion and that he was being guarded at that stage.
MR PRINSLOO: Very well. And was a meeting them arranged?
MR DE BRUIN: Please repeat.
MR PRINSLOO: And ultimately a meeting took place between you and Mr Ramatolo, is that correct?
MR DE BRUIN: Yes.
MR PRINSLOO: Was that at the Caledon River?
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And did Mr Ramatolo come out and was he taken to Pretoria?
MR DE BRUIN: Yes, and he was taken to Pretoria. That is correct.
MR PRINSLOO: And with regard to the payment of informers' fees, did you pay his fee to him or what was the position?
MR DE BRUIN: Chairperson, he was remunerated according to the services that he rendered on a monthly basis.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you promise him a taxi at any point?
MR DE BRUIN: No, Chairperson.
MR PRINSLOO: Did you promise him any money which would be related to this incident involving the attempted elimination of Mr Hani?
MR DE BRUIN: No.
MR PRINSLOO: And do you know whether or not any monies were paid out by Head Office or any other person?
MR DE BRUIN: No, I cannot say whether or not he was rewarded by Head Office or any other agent.
MR PRINSLOO: Thank you, Chair, nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
MR NORTIER: No questions on behalf of applicant Coetzee, thank you Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR NORTIER
MS VAN DER WALT: No questions thank you, Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson. Only a few questions.
On the question of money, if Mr Ramatolo gives evidence to the effect that he was never paid more than a number of amounts of R40/R50, would there be any serious dispute?
MR PRINSLOO: Just a moment Chairperson, it would appear as if there is a problem with the headset. Could the question be repeated please.
MR RICHARD: Certainly. If Mr Ramatolo gives evidence to the effect that he was never paid more than a few ad hoc amounts of R40/R50, would you dispute his evidence?
MR DE BRUIN: I only know of the monthly amount that he was paid, the monthly remuneration that he received for services rendered. That is what I do know of.
MR RICHARD: How much was that?
MR DE BRUIN: It varied, Chairperson, according to the information that he provided.
MR MALAN: Mr de Bruin, the statement was put that it was approximately R40 to R50.
MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that sounds correct.
MR RICHARD: And that wasn't paid every month either, if there was no information?
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: Now your counsel has asked the question, did you ever make any statements to the effect that the informer might expect a taxi in return for his information, did you ever lead him to believe that that might be a hope in the future?
MR DE BRUIN: No, Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: Was there ever any discussion about remuneration for the assassination of Mr Chris Hani?
MR DE BRUIN: No, Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: So you would deny that there was any indication that he might expect R5 000 or R6 000 in return for the job?
MR DE BRUIN: I don't know about that.
MR MALAN: Mr Richard, just before you leave that point.
Is it your evidence that Mr Ramatolo was prepared to murder Mr Hani for free, as a favour?
MR DE BRUIN: No remuneration or reward was discussed with him, none whatsoever.
MR MALAN: Perhaps an amount wasn't discussed, but you certainly must have accepted that he would be paid and paid handsomely.
MR DE BRUIN: No, that was never discussed.
MR MALAN: But it wasn't one of his services as an informer?
MR DE BRUIN: No, it wasn't one of his services as an informer, that is correct.
MR MALAN: Certainly you must have foreseen that he would have required payment.
MR DE BRUIN: I did not know anything about that, it was never discussed with him. It was never discussed that he would be rewarded more for performing such a task.
MR MALAN: Mr de Bruin, do you then maintain that it was definitely not discussed or that it was possibly discussed but that you cannot recall it?
MR DE BRUIN: ...(inaudible)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR DE BRUIN: It is possible that it may have been discussed, but it was never discussed in my presence.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the proposition, that it was ...(intervention)
MR RICHARD: Mr Ramatolo will testify that it was discussed and there was an indication that ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: With who?
MR RICHARD: With Mr de Bruin.
CHAIRPERSON: It is being put to you, Mr de Bruin, that it was actually discussed with you.
MR DE BRUIN: I have no knowledge of that.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you deny it?
MR DE BRUIN: Yes, I do.
MR MALAN: And did you hear Mr Prinsloo say that he thought that R5 000 to R6 000 for that period, with which one could purchase a taxi vehicle, sounded somewhat scant to him?
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps the prices were lower at that stage.
MR MALAN: I will put it to you again, because I do not understand how you could get someone to act as an assassin because he wouldn't be doing it because he believed so much in the cause, he did it because he had information about it and then he would be doing it for free. Could you explain that to us?
MR DE BRUIN: As I have explained, I don't know if anybody else promised it to him, but I myself did not promise it to him.
MR MALAN: Well if somebody else promised it to him and it wasn't Mr Prinsloo, according to his information, who else could have promised it to him? Someone else at Ladybrand perhaps?
MR DE BRUIN: I cannot answer that question.
CHAIRPERSON: You were his handler?
MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Nobody else?
MR DE BRUIN: Not at that stage.
CHAIRPERSON: He was registered.
MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Under your name?
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And you were the person who had to discuss money with him, isn't that so?
MR DE BRUIN: Yes, he was rewarded for the services that he rendered.
CHAIRPERSON: But you were his handler.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And anything that he could do or say, was done so with your approval, you had to be involved on that level.
MR DE BRUIN: Chairperson, as I have explained to you, according to the services rendered by him he would then be remunerated. I cannot tell you that I would have said that he would have received R10 000 or something like that.
CHAIRPERSON: No, listen to the question. Mr Prinsloo also testified, and it was not taken up with him and I will accept that what he has stated is the truth, he states that everything that he did with the informer was done in your presence.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Everything that he discussed with him was discussed with him in your presence.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: And I can understand that because you were the handler of that informer.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: And as I have learnt recently, policemen who dealt with informers were rather proud of it and nobody interfered with their relationships, isn't that so?
MR DE BRUIN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: It was like that at that point.
MR DE BRUIN: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now R50 or R60 or whatever the amount was on a monthly basis for information was the payment for an informer who provided information. He was asked in your presence to do somewhat more than the mere delivery of information, he was asked to kill a man. More than this, he was also asked to kill a person who was globally known. All of us know that if he had been killed at that point in time, the whole world would have had problems, isn't that so?
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Then under those circumstances, would the man then be convinced if asked to kill Chris Hani, would he be convinced that he should do so?
MR DE BRUIN: But that's what he said, he said that he would do it for us.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there any manner which was used to persuade him?
MR DE BRUIN: No, not that I was aware of.
CHAIRPERSON: Because I find it difficult to accept that somebody would kill anybody and especially Chris Hani, for nothing. Furthermore, he was not a South African citizen.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Certainly then he would have wanted payment.
MR DE BRUIN: As I have already stated, I do not know of any promises. I didn't make him any promises of any sort. I did not indicate to him that he would be paid more for doing the job.
CHAIRPERSON: But that's what he states.
MR DE BRUIN: I do not know anything about it.
MR MALAN: You say that he was paid based upon the information that he provided, it wasn't a fixed amount, it varied from month to month.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: I think that the amount was about R40 to R50 and this could have varied.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: And when you asked him to kill Hani, it would also have been a service that he rendered to you. I'm asking you a question, answer it. Would it have been a service?
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: And if he had delivered the service, at the end of that month you would have decided what you were going to pay him.
MR DE BRUIN: No, he didn't decide.
MR MALAN: What I've said is that you would decide.
MR DE BRUIN: That is correct.
MR MALAN: If he had done it, would you have paid him more or less?
MR DE BRUIN: He would have been paid more. He would be paid for the service that he rendered.
MR MALAN: And if you say that he would have received more, what do you think he would have received?
MR DE BRUIN: I cannot tell you, it may have been more.
CHAIRPERSON: More than R100?
MR DE BRUIN: It could have been more than R100.
CHAIRPERSON: A R100 is more than R50.
MR DE BRUIN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: But we are talking about a man's life.
MR DE BRUIN: It may have been more than that.
CHAIRPERSON: How much?
MR MALAN: If he was under the impression that he would received R6 000, do you think that it is too little? Do you think that it would have been an unreasonable expectation of his to take out this man in the ANC, who was really causing trouble for the government, do you think that the amount was too little?
MR DE BRUIN: Possibly.
MR MALAN: Well if that was his expectation, wouldn't he have formulated an opinion on this at some point?
MR DE BRUIN: He may have formulated an opinion, but I never promised him that that would be the amount. No specific amount was ever promised to him.
MR MALAN: Because he said R6 000 or a taxi and if I recall the motor vehicle prices of that time, in 1980 you could purchase a good taxi brand new, for R6 000 and that would balance more-or-less.
MR DE BRUIN: As I've stated, I don't know anything about it.
CHAIRPERSON: Without weapons.
MR MALAN: Yes, without a weapon. Very well, no further questions from my side. Thank you, Chair.
MR RICHARD: Thank you.
Just a point of clarification. For how long did Mr Ramatolo act as your informer?
MR DE BRUIN: I worked with him for approximately 18 months.
MR RICHARD: So that would be from approximately 1978, would it not?
MR DE BRUIN: More-or-less, yes.
MR RICHARD: Now Mr Ramatolo will say when he first started informing for you his expectation was that out of that activity he would make enough to buy a taxi and then he dropped off and stopped servicing you as you might have wanted, and then separately from the first discussion, the figure of R5 000 or R6 000 was debated for the murder of Mr Hani.
MR DE BRUIN: No, Chairperson, I'm not aware of that.
MR RICHARD: Now ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Richard, let me just get clarity in my mind, will Mr Ramatolo's evidence be - is this what I hear you to say, that when he started to work, giving information, his expectation was that as a result of this activity, through what he will be paid monthly, he will be able to buy a taxi? Isn't that different from what you put to the other witness? To Mr Prinsloo you said that he would get either a taxi or R6 000.
MR RICHARD: I did not put that to Mr Prinsloo, I made the point of separating the two and it's this witness that is now compressing the two events into one.
MR MALAN: I'm saying how I understood you as ...(indistinct), but that's indeed now not the case?
MR RICHARD: That is not the case.
Now ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, then I'm bothered. For the whole period now that you're cross-examining all three applicants, it was put to them that for killing Chris Hani he would receive R6 000 or a taxi.
MR RICHARD: I did not put that to him, I dispute that. I said a taxi for informing and an amount of R5 000 or R6 000 for the killing, or, if I recall my words, an amount equivalent to a taxi for the informing in the past. All the witnesses denied any knowledge of the discussion, so I never pursued it further if I recall correctly Chairperson. If I've created a misimpression, I apologise therefore, I do not want to misquote my instructions.
Now I've also put another point that Mr Ramatolo wishes to make in evidence, that the idea of putting a bomb under Mr Hani's car was not the only time that the killing of Mr Hani was discussed, that prior thereto he was taken for training with a Makarov pistol and taught how to shoot it. Do you recall any such incident?
MR DE BRUIN: No, Chairperson, I'm not aware of that.
MR RICHARD: And do you recall him reporting back to you that he hadn't carried out the plan?
MR DE BRUIN: No, Chairperson, I'm not aware of that.
MR RICHARD: And do you recall any discussions to the effect that when it came to the bombing, "either you do it today or you don't"? Do you recall ever saying any words to that effect to Mr Ramatolo at any stage?
MR DE BRUIN: No, Chairperson.
MR RICHARD: Now if Mr Ramatolo had chosen to stop working for the Security Forces or the Security Police, whatever, and became an unreliable person, what might have happened to him?
MR DE BRUIN: Nothing would have happened to him.
MR RICHARD: If you received information that he might divulge his activities to the ANC or the Lesotho authorities, what might have you done?
MR DE BRUIN: We would not have done anything to him.
CHAIRPERSON: What has that got to do with the price of eggs, Mr Richard?
MR RICHARD: The price of eggs in this relation is that there was intimidation of Mr Ramatolo to some extent, that he didn't have the option to simply drop off the informing operation. The witness has denied that there was any such ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: But that's not the question here, the question is how the attempted murder of Mr Hani occurred.
MR RICHARD: Mr Hani's evidence ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - no microphone) that your witness, your client, was forced to indulge in the attempted murder of Mr Hani.
MR RICHARD: I did not put that proposition. I'm not putting that proposition. The question that I put, which I've had answered, is a straightforward proposition. If Mr Ramatolo had become a threat, what would have happened to him? The answer has been "nothing." I leave the point.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on then, whatever else you want to raise.
MR RICHARD: I believe those are the only points on which my client's evidence might differ from what has been said.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD
MS CAMBANIS: No questions, thank you Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, Honourable Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.
MR DE BRUIN: Thank you, Chairperson.
WITNESS EXCUSED
CHAIRPERSON: Is that all evidence that the applicants want to...
MS VAN DER WALT: That is all the evidence.
MR PRINSLOO: That is the evidence for the applicant.
MR NORTIER: Yes, that's the evidence for the applicant, Coetzee.
CHAIRPERSON: Then we get to the implicated person.
MR RICHARD: Thank you. May he be sworn.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramatolo, what language would you prefer to use?
MR RAMATOLO: I prefer to use Sesotho.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you any objections to the taking of the oath?
ERNEST RAMATOLO: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD: Thank you, Mr Ramatolo.
You've been present today and you've heard the three applicants give evidence, have you not?
MR RAMATOLO: That is correct.
MR RICHARD: And you've heard the interpretation through the earphones?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now apart from some points which I am going to come to, do you in the main, confirm their evidence? I will come to the exceptions.
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, in general. There are points up to where I agree with their evidence and some points I do not agree.
MR RICHARD: Now the principle points, if I may list them and deal with them in seriatim, is firstly the money. Now for how long did you inform from Mr Prinsloo? Mr de Bruin, sorry.
MR RAMATOLO: In 1978 I was being approached by a person who was working with Mr de Bruin, and his name was Mogomo.
MR RICHARD: Carry on.
MR RAMATOLO: The information he informed me they would want from me - you see it's because I had a taxi, now they wanted to know - and there was no flight then from Lesotho to other countries, now these people made use of hired taxis. Now they wanted me to take them ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Sorry for the interruption. Mr Ramatolo, the Interpreters are telling us that you are switching from one language to another, will you stay with Sesotho, so they can follow the evidence and interpret to us please.
MR RAMATOLO: Okay.
MR MALAN: You may proceed, Mr Richard.
MR RICHARD: Thank you. Now my question was, during that period, from 1978 - to cut it short, you performed certain functions, one was to inform. Yes or no?
MR RAMATOLO: Exactly. Yes.
MR RICHARD: Now when it comes to the question of money, what was the understanding between yourself and Mr de Bruin?
MR RAMATOLO: Mr de Bruin was not yet involved, he was not yet dealing with me straight. He was not dealing directly with me, there was a person dealing with me. This person was working with Mr de Bruin.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramatolo, I don't think we need to know the whole history of your relationship with Mr de Bruin. By 1980, were you an informer to the Security Police of the South African Police?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And you were being handled by Mr de Bruin?
MR RAMATOLO: For a very short period in relation to this murder, but before this incident somebody else handled me.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I think if I may be permitted to ask a slightly leading question, it might circumvent it.
When you were an informer and before the assassination of the late Chris Hani was discussed, did you believe that you would make enough to buy a taxi out of your informing activities?
MR RAMATOLO: It was in 1978 when I was promised that as long as my information is good, I will receive a kombi. That was in 1978.
MR RICHARD: Did you ever receive a kombi?
MR RAMATOLO: No.
MR RICHARD: What did you receive?
MR RAMATOLO: It was a little amount, just for petrol, R30/R40.
MR RICHARD: How often?
MR MALAN: Just before you proceed. In other words, Mr de Bruin never talked to you about a kombi, it was the person before him that spoke to you about a taxi?
MR RAMATOLO: That is correct, Sir.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MR RICHARD: Now how often did you receive that? One a month, once a week, two months?
MR RAMATOLO: Once in two months. It only depended on the information I gave them, how strong the information was.
MR RICHARD: Now who discussed the assassination of Mr Hani with you first?
MR RAMATOLO: Mr de Bruin came to me and he asked whether I knew Martin. He put it rightly, he said Martin Hani.
MR RICHARD: Yes?
MR RAMATOLO: Between 19 ...(intervention)
MR RICHARD: My question was very simple. Who discussed the assassination of Mr Hani first with you? It was Mr de Bruin. That's your answer. Now did you discuss money?
MR RAMATOLO: It's Mr de Bruin and Mr Prinsloo.
MR RICHARD: And what was discussed?
MR RAMATOLO: We discussed the assassination of Chris.
MR RICHARD: Was money discussed?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, the money was also discussed. Mr Prinsloo said "What about R3 000?" And I said to him "No, it's too little. And he said "R6 000?" And I said "Okay."
MR RICHARD: And then at that stage how ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Did you tell your Advocate or your attorney that it was Mr Prinsloo that raised the possibility of R6 000 being paid to you?
MR RAMATOLO: I believe so, because Mr Prinsloo discussed this in the presence of Mr de Bruin.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not asking what you believe, I'm asking what happened. Did you tell your representative that in fact the person who raised the payment with you was in fact Mr Prinsloo and you negotiated with him?
MR RAMATOLO: I told him.
MR RICHARD: You told me that - so this price of R6 000, R5 000 to R6 000, like you and I discussed, was discussed between you and Mr Prinsloo, is that correct?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
MR RICHARD: And when you hear Mr Prinsloo and Mr de Bruin give evidence that this wasn't discussed, what do you say in reply to their evidence?
MR RAMATOLO: Shall I respond by asking a question? How could be offered money for providing information regarding pamphlets and not be given money for eliminating somebody's life?
MR RICHARD: Thank you. So you are certain that for the assassination of Mr Hani you were offered R5 000 to R6 000?
MR RAMATOLO: Very well so.
MR RICHARD: Now my next question was, how many ways of assassinating Mr Hani were discussed?
MR RAMATOLO: Two ways were discussed. The first was through the use of a firearm and if that method was not successful, then the bomb would be resorted to.
MR RICHARD: Now what attempts were made to use a firearm?
MR RAMATOLO: I think twice I went back to report that I do not find him.
MR RICHARD: Now before you went to go with the firearm, did anyone give you a firearm or did you get trained with a firearm?
MR RAMATOLO: I was taken to Bloemfontein by Mr de Bruin and we met with Mr Prinsloo. They took me to a place like a shooting range. Now this other person showed me how to shoot.
MR RICHARD: For how long were you trained with the firearm?
MR RAMATOLO: 45 minutes.
MR RICHARD: Now you've heard the evidence put before the Committee this afternoon, you've heard both witnesses deny that you were trained with a firearm, do you have anything to say to that?
MR RAMATOLO: Let them deny, but that is so.
MR RICHARD: Right. Now you said before I cut your short, that you went ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Just before you proceed, Mr Richard.
Your evidence was that another person gave you training in the handling of a firearm, who was that person?
MR RAMATOLO: That is correct, but I do not know him. It was myself and Mr Prinsloo and Mr de Bruin and that person was showing me how to shoot. We were in Bloemfontein.
MR MALAN: And for 45 minutes you were shown by this third person?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, Sir.
MR MALAN: And Mr Prinsloo and Mr de Bruin were standing by?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, Sir.
MR MALAN: For the full 45 minutes?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
MR MALAN: Thank you. You may proceed, Mr Richard.
MR RICHARD: Now after you were trained, did anyone give you a firearm?
MR RAMATOLO: Not immediately, I think it was after a day or so, Mr Prinsloo presented me with a firearm. We were now in Ladybrand.
MR RICHARD: And did you ever attempt to use that firearm to assassinate Mr Hani?
MR RAMATOLO: No.
MR RICHARD: Did you ever carry that firearm in your possession and go and look for Mr Hani?
MR RAMATOLO: Even when I was arrested the firearm was with me.
MR RICHARD: And before that?
MR RAMATOLO: I was told that he likes exercising and it was in Winter and I was told that was the time I could get hold of him. Mr Prinsloo had already prepared the gun, mine was just to press, but I could not. I did not have the bravery to do it.
MR RICHARD: Did you ever take the firearm, put it in your pocket and go and look for Mr Hani? Yes or no?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
MR RICHARD: Did you ever see Mr Hani?
MR RAMATOLO: Very well.
MR RICHARD: You did?
MR RAMATOLO: Very well.
MR RICHARD: Now when you saw Mr Hani and you had the firearm in your possession, did you take it out, or didn't you?
MR RAMATOLO: No.
MR RICHARD: Why not?
MR RAMATOLO: I did not have the courage to do it.
MR RICHARD: Now how often did you not have the courage to do it?
MR RAMATOLO: It was the first time when I met him and I had the firearm with me, but the second day I did not see him.
MR RICHARD: Did you report that to Mr de Bruin?
MR RAMATOLO: I went to Ladybrand to report to them.
MR RICHARD: And what did they say?
MR RAMATOLO: They said they should come up with the other plan.
MR RICHARD: Now you've heard their evidence regarding the other plan, you agree that their evidence is not in dispute, with the bomb, it happened like they said?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, but there is something that they left.
MR RICHARD: The thing that they differ with your version is the length of the training with the bomb. You say they trained you for 45 minutes, the evidence today was that they were training you for about three hours. Which is correct?
MR MALAN: Sorry Mr Richard, just before you proceed, there's no evidence yet that he's training on the planting and detonation of the bomb took 45 minutes, the 45 minutes relates to the training in the use of the firearm.
MR RICHARD: My question to him was, "You've heard the evidence relating to the alternative plan, that is the plan of the bomb, do you confirm that version with ..." And I was dealing with the exceptions. Where we had got to if I understood the witness correctly, was yes, he confirms it and now he was going to deal with the exceptions.
MR MALAN: I heard you stating it to him that his evidence was that the training on the bomb was for 45 minutes, whereas their evidence was that it was for three hours.
MR RICHARD: Correct.
MR MALAN: Now the point I'm putting to you is that his evidence about his training on the attaching and the detonation of the bomb, has not been covered in his evidence. Don't you want to cover that first?
MR RICHARD: Allow me, Chairperson.
For how long were you trained to use the bomb and to plant the bomb?
MR RAMATOLO: It will be difficult to specify time. He did show me but it was - yes, it's true, he used a dead bomb on a different car and I was taken again to be shown the real car, as to where I will place this thing. Now we did not have a bomb at that time. We were at the garage. Now I don't know when one puts together all the minutes, how much they will amount to.
MR RICHARD: Did you tell me it was about 45 minutes?
MR RAMATOLO: Possibly, yes.
MR RICHARD: Could it be longer or shorter?
MR RAMATOLO: Even shorter than that, because he only said "This is how it looks like, there's a wire here, you will put it somewhere and then this must be put to the tyre. Will you do it?" Then that was that.
MR RICHARD: Now you've their evidence this afternoon regarding the planting of the bomb ...(indistinct) on and what was done, do you confirm what they said, with the exception of the length of time of training?
MR RAMATOLO: I did not understand Mr Prinsloo's evidence, but well, I can exactly tell you what happened that the explosion went off.
MR RICHARD: What I'm saying is you've heard the version that has been given about how you took the bomb into Lesotho and planted the bomb, do you disagree with what Mr Prinsloo and Mr de Bruin had said?
MR RAMATOLO: No, I agree with them, yes. The bomb was placed in the car and I was given the car and I left. And it was their car, not my car.
MR RICHARD: Now what you're trying to say is that in the end the bomb didn't go off as planned. Would you please tell us what happened. What happened?
MR RAMATOLO: I was told to place the bomb under the seat of the Stanza. The Stanza had an open place underneath the seat where a person could place it and it was easy to place it there. And I had a wire that I had to connect to the shock absorbers and I had to put this on the wheel, but I was told not to tighten the wire, so that it could not move. Now this little thing that I was going to put on the wheel had something like a bubblegum, something like putty. But when I arrived there the dogs disturbed me, but I reported to them first about the dogs and they also gave me advices as to how I could go about without the dogs seeing me.
Now what I did not manage to do was to connect this up to the shock absorbers, but I did manage to plug it, but it refused to sit on the tyre because there was a little dew. Now the tyres were wet, now this could not stick and I just took a chance to place it right at the back. They said I should not walk on my feet, I should tiptoe. Now due to lack of enough training I leaned against the car when I stood up and then it exploded.
MR RICHARD: Now other than that, is there any other aspect of the evidence of the applicants that you disagree with?
MR RAMATOLO: Not unless you remind me. There are many.
MR RICHARD: The last point I'm going to deal with, and this is the last, is did you regard Mr Hani as an enemy?
MR RAMATOLO: After they convinced me that this man was a dangerous even to Lesotho, Mr Prinsloo put it very well when he said he got into the government offices. I saw him as an enemy, but not my enemy. I don't know how to put this really. Yes, he was an enemy, but he was not such a bad person.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramatolo, he was a source of income to you, is that not so? Not so? By killing him you were going to get money. By informing on him you were going to get money. So it wasn't a question of whether he was a friend or not, or a nice person or not, he was source of income for you. Isn't that your difficulty?
MR RAMATOLO: Allow me to tell the truth, allow me to tell the truth here.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought you were doing so all the time.
MR RAMATOLO: I'm saying it is difficult to kill someone who has done nothing to you. It was the first thing - it was quite difficult, but I'm saying to you because I had committed myself already to these people, now this was very dangerous to me. But he was not the source of my income.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Richard.
ADV SIGODI: Sorry.
Mr Ramatolo, did you know Mr Hani?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, by sight. I did not know him as a close person, I only knew him by sight.
ADV SIGODI: Had you ever given any information to Mr Prinsloo, to Mr de Bruin about Mr Hani? Is there any information that you ever gave to them?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, it was in relation to time. They wanted to confirm what they heard. They wanted to know where is he at what time. Yes, that's what I gave them.
ADV SIGODI: From - the information that you gave them was information that you had from observation, is that correct?
MR RAMATOLO: That is correct.
ADV SIGODI: Did you ever have close contact? Were you friends with him, spoke to him, went to his house, or got information from him directly?
MR RAMATOLO: Not at all, I had never set my foot at his home.
ADV SIGODI: Because the impression I seem to get was that why you were chosen to kill him is because you were a contact, you had contact with him.
MR RAMATOLO: They can confirm it, I did not have any contact with him, not at all.
ADV SIGODI: Did you belong to any political party? Were you active politically, in Lesotho?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
ADV SIGODI: Which political party did you belong to?
MR RAMATOLO: BCP. Basotholand Congress Party.
ADV SIGODI: Who told you that Mr Hani liked to exercise, because in your own words in your evidence you were saying
"I was told that he liked exercising and it was winter."
Where did you get that information from?
MR RAMATOLO: Mr de Bruin told me.
ADV SIGODI: So you were not an informer, he had the information. Mr de Bruin had the information, he gave the information to you?
MR RAMATOLO: According to my view there was another person who was supplying information as I did, they just wanted to confirm what was said by this person, because they told me exactly as it was. It's true I confirmed it. It was true, the information they gave me about his exercising ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Ramatolo, I get the impression that you're trying to distance yourself from this whole situation. You were after all the one who attempted to plant the bomb and had you been successful, Mr Hani would probably have been dead before he was murdered, not so?
MR RAMATOLO: I agree with you.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. Now you did try to murder him by planting the bomb.
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And in terms of your evidence you did so because you expected a payment of R6 000, correct?
MR RAMATOLO: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Now you say also that it was de Bruin that told you that Mr Hani exercised in the morning regularly, correct?
MR RAMATOLO: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there any evidence you gave to de Bruin or Prinsloo about Hani?
MR RAMATOLO: No.
CHAIRPERSON: Absolutely not?
MR RAMATOLO: I only gave them evidence as far as time is concerned, I told them "Yes, it's true he drops his wife at this time", but there are no other issues that I gave evidence on, or information on.
CHAIRPERSON: What was the information you gave? Now I want to know exactly what you told them and whom did you tell.
MR RAMATOLO: I wanted to relate this from 1978. I broke from these people. I don't know when was it, but in 1980 we met again. It was during the discussions of Mr Hani's issue. You actually stopped me when I wanted to elaborate on the discussions about Mr Hani, the assassination of Mr Hani.
CHAIRPERSON: Look I don't know if you misunderstanding me, all I'm asking and I think it's a very simple question, did you provide any information regarding Mr Hani, to either Mr de Bruin or to Mr Prinsloo? And you said yes, you told him about the time he dropped his wife. That's all?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Do I understand you correctly so far?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now what did that information entail? Where did you tell either Mr de Bruin or Mr Prinsloo, Mr Hani dropped his wife? Or when? Sorry, when.
MR RAMATOLO: He dropped her off at 8 o'clock at her workplace and I was also told that he likes buying a newspaper at 8 o'clock in the morning.
CHAIRPERSON: So you were the one that was receiving the information, not giving it? Do I understand you correctly? You were receiving this information from Mr de Bruin, is that correct? You were told about his buying a newspaper, correct?
MR RAMATOLO: Very well so, Sir.
ADV SIGODI: Who told you that?
MR RAMATOLO: It was Mr de Bruin.
ADV SIGODI: Where did you stay in relation to Mr Hani?
MR RAMATOLO: About 10 kilometres away from his home.
ADV SIGODI: Did you ever take time to sit, watch his routine yourself?
MR RAMATOLO: I was given a sketch indicating where he lived and I followed that sketch and I discovered where he lived.
ADV SIGODI: Did you know what car he drove? Did you personally know what car he drove?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, I ... I don't know - yes, he was driving a car but he changed it too and he moved on to a Stanza and they said "He's now driving in a Stanza." I don't know who told me, whether Mr Prinsloo or Mr de Bruin told me.
ADV SIGODI: Yes, but the information that he was driving a Stanza, where did you get that information from? Was it information that you yourself supplied to Mr de Bruin, or did Mr de Bruin give you that information, in order to target him?
MR RAMATOLO: I heard from them that he was driving a Stanza and I confirmed. Either Mr de Bruin or Mr Prinsloo, one of them told me. One of them informed me.
ADV SIGODI: You could go and target him to kill him?
MR RAMATOLO: Can you repeat your question?
ADV SIGODI: I'm saying they give him the information that he was driving, that Mr Hani was driving a Stanza, in order to enable Mr Ramatolo to be able to kill Mr Hani, to target him.
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, I would say so, because the kind of a car he was driving was also an important issue for them to know.
MR RICHARD: May I proceed?
Mr Ramatolo, did you not operate as a taxi driver in and around Maseru during 1980? Don't nod your head, you must answer the question. You must say yes or no.
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
MR RICHARD: Now did you ever go past where Mr Hani lived? In your car, on foot, during 1980?
MR RAMATOLO: On foot.
MR RICHARD: And why did you go there?
MR RAMATOLO: It was after I have been told to identify very well where he lived and how many cars were at his home.
MR RICHARD: And how often did you go there? Often?
MR RAMATOLO: It could be three times.
MR RICHARD: Now how long did you sit outside his house? How long were you outside his house?
MR RAMATOLO: I was just walking past.
MR RICHARD: Did you ever sit outside his house and watch what was happening there for half and hour, an hour?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, he said he walked past the house.
MR RAMATOLO: I walked past, but there's a certain day where I stayed a little bit far from the house, but it was very far from the house, but I could see from that distance. It was not very close to his home.
MR RICHARD: Now you just walked past, you didn't stay and watch for an hour or two?
MR RAMATOLO: No.
MR RICHARD: The Chairperson is correct. Now at this stage I want to ask you one question, how often did you go to the house to put the bomb there, did you go once or more times?
MR RAMATOLO: I went twice. The third time was for planting the bomb. Let me explain it this way so that you understand it ...(intervention)
MR RICHARD: My question is simple, how often did you go with the bomb to plant it? Did you go and plant it the first time you had the bomb with you, or did you take more than once?
MR RAMATOLO: Twice and the third time I placed it.
MR RICHARD: So now I understand you had the bomb with you three times and it was on the third time that you put the bomb?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, Sir.
MR RICHARD: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) did you place it the first time?
MR RAMATOLO: Chairperson, it looks like we don't understand each other. I said this was my first time and I was scared, I had this fear, but when I went back to report I reported differently, I told them the dogs disturbed me and there were people. That's the kind of report I gave them.
MR RICHARD: And after you had been there, did you think you could just go back to Mr de Bruin or Mr Prinsloo and say, "I'm too scared to carry on with this, I'm not doing it, I want to be left alone"?
MR RAMATOLO: The second time Mr Prinsloo said to me, "You are going today and if you fail, we're not going to carry on with this mission." And that taught me something.
MR RICHARD: What did it teach you?
MR MALAN: Sorry for interrupting you, Mr Richard.
You heard Mr Prinsloo say in his evidence that when he handed you the bomb, it was built into the car, it was hid in that special compartment, you drove away with the car, they waited at the border because the idea was that you would place the bomb that same night.
MR RAMATOLO: No, the border gate was closing at four. We chose that one because it was quiet, now around two/three I crossed, then I was expected to bring the report the following day.
MR MALAN: That's exactly how I understood the evidence ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's mike is not on.
MR MALAN: Sorry. The evidence was that you would travel in this car where the bomb was hid and that you would place that bomb in the Stanza that same night and report back the next morning.
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, report the following day.
MR MALAN: Yes, report the following day. Yes, and that they waited for you at the border, but you did not report back and they then later learnt that the bomb went off and you were injured. You heard all that evidence, it was given in your presence.
MR RAMATOLO: I heard the evidence. This happened at 3 o'clock in the morning and there is no border gate open at that time.
MR MALAN: Ja, no ...(indistinct)
INTERPRETER: ... they expected you to come back the next morning, not during the night, but to report back the next morning. You said the same. The following day, the morning of the following day you were supposed to report back.
MR RAMATOLO: Oh yes.
MR MALAN: I heard you say that, I heard that to be their evidence. The difference is this, that in the evidence of the applicants they say you were supposed to place that bomb the same night when you went through the border post with the car. Is that so or is that not so?
MR RAMATOLO: That is not so, because the border gates are closed, the border gates closed at ten.
MR RICHARD: Chairperson, I don't believe the witness is understanding the question.
MR MALAN: I'm not sure that we understand each other, I'll leave it there.
MR RAMATOLO: Can you please repeat it.
MR RICHARD: I'm going to try one last time. The arrangement the night that you took the Valiant from South Africa into Lesotho, was you would go from the border gate to the place where Mr Hani lived, put the bomb, leave it and the next morning come back to where Mr Prinsloo and Mr de Bruin were waiting for you. Is that correct?
MR RAMATOLO: That is, yes.
MR MALAN: Thank you, Mr Richard.
MR RICHARD: Now was that the only time you tried to place the bomb and had the bomb with you?
MR RAMATOLO: The day of the explosion?
MR RICHARD: Yes.
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
MR RICHARD: No further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR RICHARD
CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to be long, Ms Cambanis?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: No, Chair.
Mr Ramatolo, just explain, is it right that the only reason that you took the bomb to the car that you believed to be that of Mr Chris Hani, was to get the R6 000?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, but believe me, I was working with people who were no good at all.
CHAIRPERSON: All mercenaries say so.
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair.
How old were you at that time? 1980.
MR RAMATOLO: I'm sure I was 29 years.
MS CAMBANIS: And you were a Lesotho national at that time?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
MS CAMBANIS: Are you still a Lesotho ...
MR RAMATOLO: No.
MS CAMBANIS: You're now a South African citizen?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
MS CAMBANIS: When did you become a South African citizen?
MR RAMATOLO: In 1982.
MS CAMBANIS: We know that you've not applied for amnesty in this matter, is that correct?
MR RAMATOLO: I made an application in 1996. Yes, in 1996 in December. The SABC approached me and they said "If you can come up with the truth", because this was already in the newspapers ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Did you receive a result of that application, already? Today?
MR RAMATOLO: No.
CHAIRPERSON: What did you say in your application? That you tried to murder Mr Chris Hani by putting a bomb under the car, or trying to put a bomb under the car, that accidentally went off, and you did so because you were promised R6 000? Is that the basic version that you would have put in the application?
MR RAMATOLO: I cannot understand.
MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, as a matter of fact, no application was made. He did not make an application.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis?
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.
You said that you told the police persons what time he dropped Mrs Hani off, what time the late Mr Hani, Chris Hani dropped his wife off in the morning and that was about 8 o'clock.
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, Ma’am.
MS CAMBANIS: And when he went to drop his wife off he also had his two young daughters in the car with him, is that correct, that was his habit? He would drop the children, the youngest off at nursery school, the older one at school and then he would drop off Mrs Hani, at 8 o'clock at her place of work, is that correct?
MR RAMATOLO: Well I don't know about the children being taken tot he nursery, but what we discussed, we discussed an issue of occupants of a car. Yes, it was discussed, but I don't recall what was said about the children. But I do recall it was once discussed.
MS CAMBANIS: But what you did tell the Chairperson is that what information you did give to the police, is that the late Mr Hani dropped his wife off at 8 o'clock in the morning. Do you recall that? You told the Chairperson that.
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, Ma’am. Yes, I gave that kind of information.
MS CAMBANIS: And you were aware that in the mornings when Mr Hani left his resident, at least his wife would have been in the car with him?
MR RAMATOLO: Correct.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Were Mr de Bruin and Mr Prinsloo aware of that?
MR RAMATOLO: They knew it very well.
CHAIRPERSON: How do you know they knew that very well?
MR RAMATOLO: I recall very well that this issue of occupants in the car was once discussed with them, it was myself and them.
CHAIRPERSON: And you heard them testify here, you've heard it, not so?
MR RAMATOLO: I heard them testify, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And I don't know if one or both of them said in their evidence, that it would be Hani and his driver come bodyguard that would have been in the car, and I think it's Mr Prinsloo who said, yes he expected both of them to die. Do you recall you heard that?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, I heard that evidence but I really don't know anything about the bodyguard.
CHAIRPERSON: Now, I think before Mr Prinsloo finished his evidence, your representative called you from the gallery to enquire from you, probably, if there was anything else you wished to raise, or you wanted him to raise with Mr Prinsloo, correct? Do you remember that?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: Why didn't you tell him about the occupants of that car? Because it's important, Mrs Hani would have been in the car also, and his two children and you say you don't know about the two children, fine, but you say that you knew about Mrs Hani. Why didn't you tell your legal representative to raise that issue with Mr Prinsloo?
MR RAMATOLO: When Mr Prinsloo was testifying I was sitting down there without the headphones, I could follow a little bit, I catch bits and pieces of Afrikaans. I could only follow to a certain point, that's why I only raised two issues. I don't really understand this language. I was still down there with no headphones.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Cambanis.
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.
And at that time, did you also see Mrs Hani, at the time of this placing of the bomb, around Lesotho, Maseru? Do you remember seeing her at that time?
MR RAMATOLO: Before placing the bomb or after?
MS CAMBANIS: Before. Do you recall - I'll tell you why, Sir, she was pregnant with their third child, do you remember that?
MR RAMATOLO: I do not know her being pregnant, but she was a housewife and she was supposed to be at home.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, I understand that, that's right. What is that, that she would have been pregnant and at home? What is your point, Mr Ramatolo?
MR RAMATOLO: What I'm saying is, that was her house and she was supposed to be at home as a housewife, I don't know, maybe she had gone somewhere, but any housewife would be at her house.
MS CAMBANIS: Alright, Mr Ramatolo. Let's go back, that's very important, that was her house. The place where this happened was the Hani family home, where Mr and Mrs Hani and their two daughters resided. That's where the bomb was placed, is it not?
MR RAMATOLO: That is so.
MS CAMBANIS: It was not at a house where he lived with some bodyguards.
MR RAMATOLO: I would really not confirm the occupants of the house. I don't know about the bodyguard, but there were always people at that house.
MS CAMBANIS: In fact, Mr Hani at the time, did not have a bodyguard or a driver. Can you comment?
MR RAMATOLO: I believe so. Yes, during the day you would see him alone and he was walking even in the yards and the tight security was only applied after the attempt.
MS CAMBANIS: Precisely. Then you spoke about the difficulty with the dogs, you spoke to the Committee, what was the difficulty with the dogs that you'd been prepared on? We're talking only about the placing of the bomb, Mr Ramatolo. You said there was a difficulty with dogs, do you remember? In the yard of the late Mr Hani.
MR RAMATOLO: The issue of dogs cropped up relating to the firearm. When I was next to the house the dogs barked at me, but to them I said I can't get into the house with the bomb because of the dogs. That's what I told them.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, and then what solution was made about getting into the house with the bomb?
MR RAMATOLO: They asked me what kind of dogs they were and I told them it was a small dog, a puppy, and a big dog and they told me "You must step five feet and then stop and sit a little bit down and the small dog will go back and the bigger one will follow it". And that's what I did.
MS CAMBANIS: So when you entered the yard to plant the bomb there was no difficulty with dogs, because all the dogs did what they were supposed to do?
MR RAMATOLO: I had a strategy to avoid the dogs.
MS CAMBANIS: Alright. Do we now agree that the car in which the bomb would have been placed, or against which it would have been place, was a Stanza? Do you agree?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
MS CAMBANIS: And if I tell you that in addition to being a housewife, Mr Hani owned that car and worked. It was her car, the Stanza.
MR RAMATOLO: When I said she was a housewife, I did not mean she was staying at home, I was saying it was her house.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes. I understand that, because you've already told the Committee that he dropped her off at work every morning at 8 o'clock, we know that, but the car, if I tell you that that car in fact belonged to Mrs Hani, Mr Hani did not have a car at that time, you can't dispute that?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, it was a family car, it was the Stanza and a bakkie, but really I would not know that this was the wife's car and this was the husband's car.
MS CAMBANIS: And I'll just put to you briefly, Sir, that that family car, the Stanza, was the car in which, had the bomb gone off, the pregnant Mrs Hani, the two daughters as well as Mr Hani, would have been there when the bomb detonated.
MR RAMATOLO: I agree.
MS CAMBANIS: And when the bomb did detonate and you hurt yourself, tell the Committee who helped you as you lay in the yard.
MR RAMATOLO: I was still coming to that point and I was being rushed and I even - it's Mr Chris Hani who picked me up and he put me inside the house and he took something like a blanket and he wrapped me, because it was cold and my clothes were torn and some parts of the trousers were torn. He himself assisted me.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, and Mrs Hani and the daughter was also present and they also saw you, is that correct?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, Mrs Hani was present, she was very - she was reprimanding me and the husband was saying "Please, just stop it." Yes, she was present.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes. And so in other words by the that your identity would have been know to the Hani family, they knew exactly who you were. After the incident.
MR RAMATOLO: After the incident?
MS CAMBANIS: Yes.
MR RAMATOLO: Or before the incident?
MS CAMBANIS: After the incident.
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, they knew me after the incident, because we went to the court and she was very harsh on me and the husband still was calming her down.
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair, no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you.
Mr Ramatolo, didn't Mrs Hani consult with you before you came to before you came to testify?
MR RAMATOLO: Not at all.
MS VAN DER WALT: I want to put it to you - I'm not going to be long, Mr Prinsloo on whose behalf I appear, made an application which was made available to all the parties, he also testified, and you were assisted by an able legal representative, you sat here, you're an intelligent person, you saw other people wearing these headsets, if it is true that you had no headset, the evidence of Prinsloo was never disputed when he was busy testifying. And now just listen very carefully. It was never disputed that he got confirmation from you that you had personal knowledge of Mr Hani before the incident, or before the time. That was not disputed. Do you want to comment on that?
MR RAMATOLO: Mr Prinsloo is not informing you properly. To know a person does not mean to know a person in contact, it could mean to know a person at a distance.
MS VAN DER WALT: Mr Prinsloo also testified that you gave him a sketch of the house of Mr Hani, and that was also not disputed. Do you want to comment on that?
MR RAMATOLO: Mr Prinsloo says they got information from many sources. I had long received the Hani sketch from de Bruin. Mr Prinsloo got involved in this issue in 1988 and I knew this man from 1978.
MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, if you, as you testified initially, and I want to put it to you that your evidence, you tailored your evidence as you saw fit. You initially testified that the information which you got about Mr Hani, you got from Mr de Bruin, you got all the information from Mr de Bruin. When Mrs Hani's legal representative asked you about this, you confirmed that you knew she was a housewife and that you knew that she lived in that house, that you knew she was a passenger in the car. So your evidence makes absolutely no sense, because on the one hand you're saying you knew nothing about Mr Hani, that Mr de Bruin gave you all the information, on the other hand you confirm all the information which the legal representative of Mrs Hani puts to you. I am putting it to you that your evidence makes absolutely not sense whatsoever. Do you want to comment on that?
MR RAMATOLO: Let me respond. Knowing a person does not mean you have to know the person's bedroom, I said I knew that she was a Lesotho citizen, do you understand that, and I knew her to be his wife. It was known, there was no dispute about that.
MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, when you started working at Vlakplaas after you had returned from Lesotho, after the incident, how much money did you receive at Vlakplaas, for this incident?
MR RAMATOLO: Nothing, not even a cent.
MS VAN DER WALT: But you were in the employ of the Police, correct?
MR RAMATOLO: At the time of the incident?
MS VAN DER WALT: I was not given money for this incident, what I did, when I was already at Vlakplaas, after a long time I was a policeman and I noticed that it was 1989. Once I realised that there are some ways of getting money ...(indistinct), and I wrote a letter, I wrote a letter to Mr Smith in Bloemfontein who was the Head of Bloemfontein and I said to him - I still remember, "When you send a child and he gets injured, there is a way of compensating your child, what about the injury that I sustained?" Should I carry on? Mr Smith made a plan and he said Mr Fouche in Ladybrand should come up with a plan because I was injured. It was then that Mr Fouche gave me R5 000. It was 1989.
MS VAN DER WALT: Sir, I'm not going to revisit your evidence with you, because I think the record will speak for itself, but I want to tell you that Mr Prinsloo's evidence was not disputed, except for the fact that your training, your firearm training which you received, well that Mr Prinsloo disputed, and Mrs Hani's version was also not put to Mr Prinsloo.
No further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR NORTIER: Just one or two aspects, Chair.
This application, the bundle in which the application was contained, was also made available to you, is that not so?
MR RAMATOLO: I did not get it, it was handed to my legal representative.
MR NORTIER: But certainly it was gone through with you?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, he went through it, it's in Afrikaans.
MR NORTIER: On page 46 of the application, reference is made to the fact that you as the informer, identified the car and that the car was used exclusively by Hani and his bodyguard. That's the first paragraph, page 46. What I want ask you, if you had this bundle at your disposal, and where this specific allegation was contained, why was this not taken up during cross-examination of the applicant ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: And it's also in his evidence.
MR NORTIER: That's correct. Why I'm trying to take this point further is because he gave the explanation that he at some point, didn't have the earphones on his head, so he couldn't hear the evidence, so my submission is that the bundle had been gone through with him and that covers that point.
MR RAMATOLO: That the car was only used by Hani? May you repeat your questions, maybe I don't understand you well.
CHAIRPERSON: It was put in evidence and it is contained in their written applications, that that car was specifically used by Mr Hani and the driver, or whatever he was, a bodyguard or something.
MR RAMATOLO: What I know is that the car was used by him.
MR NORTIER: I'm not going to take the matter further, Chairperson. In conclusion I want to put it to you that Mr Coetzee has stated that they were quite adamant about the fact that Mrs Hani and the children should not be injured during the incident.
That is all, thank you Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR NORTIER
MR RAMATOLO: Can I respond to that? Should I respond to that? If ever I saw Mr Coetzee, it was just once. When I saw him it was during a braai. I had crossed to come and report back as to what happened and that's when I spoke with Mr Coetzee and that was all. The planning, the money, everything else, he was not - I have never seen him.
MR PRINSLOO: Just a singular question, Chairperson. I beg your pardon, Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: I hope it is as you have promised, one question.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR PRINSLOO: Mr Ramatolo, you testified that you received informers fees from Mr de Bruin for information that you had provided, information regarding Mr Hani, is that correct?
MR RAMATOLO: No. I want to put it straight so that you understand it, the monies that were paid out by Mr de Bruin, were done before the planning of this incident. They never got information, no other information they got from me. He might have given me R20/R30 for petrol purposes. You had to sign a paper after receiving money, even R40.
MR PRINSLOO: Chairperson, I will not repeat what my colleague has already stated.
I put it to you that you provided information with regard to Mr Hani in Lesotho, and that all the information came from you as has already been testified to.
MR RAMATOLO: Information about Chris?
MR PRINSLOO: And furthermore, Mr de Bruin denies that he took you to Bloemfontein for the training of use of a firearm, so that Mr Hani could be shot with that.
MR RAMATOLO: Let your gentlemen speak the truth, he took me to Bloemfontein. I went to Bloemfontein twice. The first time it was in connection with the firearm and with the issue of the bomb, I went to Bloemfontein. Please talk to them, I am not implicating them on anything, they know that what I'm telling here is the truth. Mr de Bruin might be getting old, but he knows what is happening, he knows that I'm telling the truth. He even took me to Vlakplaas. Will he also refuse that one as well?
MR PRINSLOO: I'm not going to repeat it. Furthermore, Mr de Bruin has confirmed in his evidence that you provided all the Hani information to him.
I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR PRINSLOO
MR RAMATOLO: I would love to respond to that. If you had listened to Mr Prinsloo's evidence, the decision for this person
to be eliminated it has been taken from the Headquarters here in Pretoria. Now a mere informer, I did not have matric then, my information ...(indistinct) sole one that you can use for somebody like that one. I don't believe that, there was somebody else who was providing the same information for the same purpose. Please don't put me deep into this now, let's talk the truth.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Richard, have you got any re-examination?
MR RICHARD: No further questions, no re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR RICHARD
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Honourable Chairman.
NO QUESTIONS BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, you were charged with that attempted murder in Lesotho.
MR RAMATOLO: Can you repeat again.
CHAIRPERSON: You were charged in a criminal court for attempted murder or the bombing of Mr Chris Hani.
MR RAMATOLO: Yes, yes, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And you were let out on bail?
MR RAMATOLO: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: How much? R6 000?
MR RAMATOLO: It was about R200.
CHAIRPERSON: And that was paid by the South African Police?
MR RAMATOLO: I have never seen the money, but I heard from Court that the money for the bail has been paid. I was being represented by the lawyer, I have never even paid a cent for that lawyer, everything was being organised from across the border, but today it's funny if really I was the man who handled the finances, I handled this alone.
CHAIRPERSON: No well all we're interested in is who handled the bomb, and you've answered that. Thank you, you're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR RICHARD: Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other witnesses?
MR RICHARD: No other witnesses. May I make arrangements with the TRC staff for the witness' return to his home? May be excused for that now, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, have you got any witnesses? None. Is that the end of the evidence then? Ms Cambanis, I just want to find out what your client's attitude it ...(indistinct - no microphone)
MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, you would have noticed that my client left at an earlier stage, I really would ask for five minutes to telephone.
CHAIRPERSON: Please, because I need to know whether it's being officially opposed or not.
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair. May I be excused to do that now?
CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for about - are you scheduled to be here tomorrow?
MS CAMBANIS: No, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Well then we'll adjourn for five minutes.
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: We are informed that Mrs Hani's indicated that she doesn't wish to call any witnesses or place any further evidence before us.
In the circumstances, that's the end of the matter. We will reserve judgment and hand it down in due course.
We'll adjourn till tomorrow morning.
MR RICHARD: As the Committee pleases.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
