S H SCHUTTE: (sworn states)
CHAIRPERSON: Please be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Chairperson, just to remind you, you must now look at the Botswana Bundle at page 224 to 232, where this applicant's amnesty application appears. He deals with the incident at page 226.
Mr Schutte, you have made a written application for amnesty, and it has been submitted, is that correct?
MR SCHUTTE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: In your amnesty application, you sketched your lengthy career in the Police which stretched from the 4th of February 1947 to your retirement with pension on the 31st of October 1988?
MR SCHUTTE: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: The content of your amnesty application, do you confirm this to the best of your knowledge as being true and correct?
MR SCHUTTE: Yes, that is correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: What was your position in - I beg your pardon, before I come to that. You have also studied Exhibit A, that is the general background document?
MR SCHUTTE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Do you confirm according to your knowledge and information, that this is in line with your experience and knowledge of the struggle of the past?
MR SCHUTTE: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Similar to this, Exhibit B?
MR SCHUTTE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: I would like to begin in 1964. What was your position in 1964?
MR SCHUTTE: I was a member of the Security Police.
MR VISSER: And in 1964, did you already have information regarding MK activities in Botswana?
MR SCHUTTE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: How did this come about?
MR SCHUTTE: We had an information source in Francistown who reported information to us at intervals.
MR VISSER: And your awareness was still going on till 1985 regarding reports, regarding what was going on in Botswana?
MR SCHUTTE: That is correct.
MR MALAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Schutte, Mr Visser, I apologise for interrupting you. Mr Schutte, you say that in 1964 you already had information regarding MK activities in Botswana?
MR SCHUTTE: Yes, that is correct.
MR MALAN: According to your application, in 1964 you were Mr Vorster's bodyguard?
MR SCHUTTE: Yes, I think that those dates are not entirely correct Chairperson. You will recall that Dr Verwoerd was murdered and a year later, after Dr Verwoerd's murder, I took over with Mr Vorster, so that date cannot be correct.
MR MALAN: Where were you in 1964 when you had this information regarding Botswana?
MR SCHUTTE: I was attached to the Security Branch.
MR MALAN: You see, Mr Visser, perhaps you should just elaborate for us because this is somewhat confusing. It states that you joined Graaff-Reinet and then you went to Pilgrims Rest and then in 1964 you were the bodyguard of Mr Vorster, where was your Security Branch involved?
MR SCHUTTE: In approximately 1958 I was in command of security on the Goldfields and from that point onwards, I went to Johannesburg and the following date ...
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Schutte, in 1985, were you involved with the Security Police?
MR SCHUTTE: Yes, that is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know anything about the meeting to which the other witnesses have referred?
MR SCHUTTE: Yes, I know about it.
CHAIRPERSON: Let us discuss that.
MR SCHUTTE: I will explain to you how my knowledge came about. I was contacted by Kat Liebenberg, he said that he was coming to the meeting, and he wanted to know whether or not I wanted to accompany him. I said that it would be completely impossible for me at that day. The following day he contacted me again, I told him that it was in order, that I could accompany him, and I did so.
I went with him to Ottoshoop. We travelled by helicopter.
CHAIRPERSON: Very well. Mr Visser, can we proceed from that point?
MR VISSER: Who and what were you in 1985?
MR SCHUTTE: I was the Head of Security.
MR VISSER: And were you informed by someone at Ottoshoop?
MR SCHUTTE: Gen Steyn and Brig Loots informed me.
MR VISSER: What were you told?
MR SCHUTTE: Please repeat?
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
MR SCHUTTE: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRPERSON: In 1985 you were stationed in Pretoria?
MR SCHUTTE: Yes, I was in Pretoria, that is correct.
MR VISSER: What were you informed of?
MR SCHUTTE: Brig Steyn told me that the Defence Force had an operation that they were preparing for, that would take place in Botswana.
MR VISSER: Did he say what was expected?
MR SCHUTTE: Chairperson, I told Gen Steyn that with the exception of what was expected of them, they would not act on a cross border level.
MR VISSER: But you approved the fact that they had provided information?
MR SCHUTTE: Yes, I approved the fact that they had provided information which was available regarding this matter, to the Special Forces.
MR VISSER: Did you later become aware that there had indeed been an action?
MR SCHUTTE: Chairperson, it is difficult for me to answer that precisely because I was not specifically informed by Gen Steyn because they had crossed the border and it was a reconnaissance action, they did not inform me because it wasn't a Police matter.
MR VISSER: Would you accept then that the facility was exploded and that two persons were injured?
MR SCHUTTE: After the evidence that I have heard here, I doubt within myself precisely what happened there.
MR VISSER: And that it took place on the 13th of February?
MR SCHUTTE: Yes, that is more or less as my thoughts lead me, but I cannot give you the precise date.
MR VISSER: Very well, and do you confirm the political motivations that played a role in your mind when you took the decision?
MR SCHUTTE: That is correct Chairperson.
MR VISSER: Thank you Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
MR KOOPEDI: No questions for this witness, thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR KOOPEDI
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions Mr Chairman.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV STEENKAMP
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, you are excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman, I have a difficulty today in the sense that Brig Willem Schoon, who is the last witness of the six witnesses, of the six applicants, is ill in bed today, and apparently had to consult with his doctor.
He telephoned my Attorney early this morning and my Attorney in turn telephoned me and we said to each other, well, if that is the case, that is the case, there is nothing we can do about it. The problem is Chairperson, that he is not here to give his evidence today. We are hopeful that he will be here tomorrow morning. He also is involved in the arms cache matter, so Chairperson, we have one of two possibilities, at the moment.
It is not unknown that Amnesty Committees have said in the past "well, there is nothing he can contribute, it is not necessary to call his evidence", either that or we can call him tomorrow morning, first thing, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What is your attitude, Mr Koopedi?
MR KOOPEDI: I was not prepared on this Chairperson, I must say it comes as a shock to me. My knee-jerk response to it would be to ask you to strike off his application.
CHAIRPERSON: I do have his application, I cannot strike it off. One of two things happen, my immediate reaction also, and I haven't thought it through is either I grant it or I don't grant it, or the panel grants it or it doesn't grant it. I don't think there is a question of striking it off.
The issue here is that if he is unable to testify, what should, or what is your attitude?
MR KOOPEDI: I still think ...
CHAIRPERSON: ... quite fair to you, I have in the past ruled that in such circumstances, and I have gone into the Act, where it involves a gross human rights violation, the Act demands that an applicant testifies in public, failure to do that, I have ruled in the past, is fatal to the application. It is not a question of striking it off the rule, but refuse it, because he hasn't complied with one of the formalities of the Act. Do you follow what I am saying?
MR KOOPEDI: I follow what you say Chairperson, and perhaps just to add on it, I, unless my learned friend would indicate otherwise, I do not see him changing the evidence. I do not see him giving a different type of evidence to the evidence that we have been given. I see him coming, that is if he does, to tell us that he was present at the plannery meeting and that is it.
But I would leave it in the hands of the, the capable hands of this honourable Committee to make a decision on that fact.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I think it would be better for everybody if I adjourn this matter till tomorrow morning, even if his evidence is going to have a mundane effect, at least he would have complied with the formalities of the Act.
MR VISSER: Two things Chairperson, the one thing is if you look at page 83 of his, I am not batting that he mustn't give evidence, but all he says is he has looked at Steyn's application, and he confirms it as far as he is concerned, that is what he is going to come and tell you tomorrow. But be that as it may Chairperson, may I respectfully disagree with you on one issue. There is nowhere in the Act which places any obligation on an applicant to give evidence. There must just be a full disclosure.
If that full disclosure comes from the evidence of others, as it often does with the footsoldiers who come to this amnesty applications ...
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, like I say, whether you agree with the previous ruling or not, is irrelevant to me, the fact of the matter is that there is a precedent for it, that I have created. I think it would be best suited for everybody that we rather adjourn till tomorrow and that he can come and say what he wants to say.
MR VISSER: I don't disagree with that ruling at all Chairperson, not at all. In fact, we accept that.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it possible for us to finish another matter that would have taken an hour or so?
MR VISSER: There is one matter, the matter of Naledi in which there is only one applicant, Brig Loots.
If you don't mind, Chairperson, to interpose that matter, we could deal with that matter now. I am not sure what the position with victims and so on is.
CHAIRPERSON: What is the possibility, Mr Steenkamp?
ADV STEENKAMP: Chairperson, Adv Makhubele was here earlier today and she will be appearing for one of the victims.
CHAIRPERSON: She is not here any more?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, no, she left a bit earlier, she was waiting to see what was going to happen with this matter, she was outside, doing consultations. I think she was under the impression that this matter would probably be rolled for tomorrow morning early.
CHAIRPERSON: There is no other matter involving any of the applicants present, where there are no victims?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, there is the position of the Mnisi matter. I just need some confirmation quickly, it will take me a minute probably or two. Certain of the applicants are here present, but I think there are two of them who are not present here.
I had already just briefly mentioned to Mr Wagener, but that matter can surely be rolled, I just want to confirm whether or not we have received any feedback from our notices, then we can proceed.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, there is no other matter, except Naledi with which we, that is the short answer, with which we can proceed now.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, then I suppose we've got no choice then, if we are not able to proceed with the matter. We will adjourn till tomorrow, half past nine, but I would like to see the representatives in chambers now.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
