Amnesty Hearings

WYBRAND ANDREAS LODEWIKUS DU TOIT: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Thank you, Mr du Toit, you may be seated. Thank you, you may go ahead, Mr van der Merwe.

EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

Mr du Toit, your application appears in the bundle in front of the Committee, from page 25 up and to page 66, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: It is once again a complete application with the background of the Technical department, as it appeared in yesterday's application, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Your application for this specific incident is also a duplication of yesterday's application, because you also dealt with the pen incident and the manuscript incident at the same time. Do you also then confirm concerning the details of this incident, that it is on page 68 of the record?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You've heard the evidence of Mr de Kock, where he testified that he contacted you with a request to assist in the building of this bomb, can you confirm that?

MR DU TOIT: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Can you also confirm if he told you whether it was cleared with Brig Schoon?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, he did, he told me that it was an authorised, approved operation from Head Office.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr du Toit, in circumstances as these, Mr de Kock will give you a framework in which you must operate, what he expects from you and what the target of this bomb would be.

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And today you cannot recall all the details, but as Mr de Kock testified, can you confirm that it is more-or-less the information that he conveyed to you?

MR DU TOIT: Yes, I will agree with that.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Do you have any recollection concerning the way in which this package or parcel has been sent?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson, I've got no recollection.

MR VAN DER MERWE: After you had received this instruction from Mr de Kock, you once again tasked Japie Kok to deal with this situation and you were not involved with this any further, is that correct?

MR DU TOIT: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You also then confirm that as far as your knowledge goes you were under the impression that this was a political authorised operation of the identified enemy of the government at that stage, and your role in this incident was that you lent support to the field workers, as you also mentioned in your introduction and the background section.

MR DU TOIT: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Is there anything else that you would like to add?

MR DU TOIT: No, Mr Chairperson.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr van der Merwe. Mr Hugo, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HUGO: Yes, thank you Mr Chairman.

Mr du Toit, can you recall how powerful, or in the request that was directed to you, was there any indication or instructions concerning the power of the explosion or the bomb?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, I do not have a very clear memory concerning the restrictions, what I know is that there were certain restrictions because of the size of this manuscript. I think Mr Kok will be able to elaborate more on that. We definitely had to scale down in terms of the power of the bomb, we had to in order for us to package it. The purpose was however to kill the target.

MR HUGO: No further questions, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HUGO

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hugo. Ms Patel, any questions?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson, just one.

Mr du Toit, were you approached by, or had any dealings with Mr Bosch in this incident, in terms of either him being possibly with Mr de Kock when you were instructed or handing the manufactured device back to Mr de Kock or a member of Vlakplaas?

MR DU TOIT: Chairperson, no, the initial discussion took place between myself and Mr de Kock. The documentation was brought to my office, we discussed it. I do not have a clear recollection, I cannot say that he was not there or that he was there, but I believe with the initial discussion he was not necessarily there. I think it was just myself and Mr de Kock and from then on I delegated this instruction to Mr Japie Kok.

MS PATEL: And did Mr Kok then hand the - or was there a report to you as to how the document then, or the manuscript bomb then find its way back to Vlakplaas?

MR DU TOIT: I have no recollection concerning this.

MS PATEL: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: Mr du Toit, the question is more out of personal interest, was this bomb less powerful than the Parker pen one?

MR DU TOIT: I would say it was more-or-less the same or maybe it was a little bit stronger.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you, Chairperson, that will be all.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: I don't have a question, Mr Chairman, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Toit, when you are given instructions like in this instance, that you are advised that the purpose of the manufacture or the lacing of this manuscript with a fatal device, would you have a discretion how much you should put into the device? For instance, how much should you put in? Like they say for instance, this manuscript has got to go back to the person who is the author and the purpose is to kill him, would the discretion of how much you put in be entirely in your knowledge as a technical person?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, yes, I think I have mentioned that you are restricted in terms of the given, for example the size of the document, it mustn't be too heavy. As Mr de Kock testified, you are restricted with what is presented to you and you have to work within that framework and you have to then create this device, create something that will not look suspicious, something that will be effective and relatively safe.

CHAIRPERSON: Yesterday you testified about the Parker pen, what would the difference be between that kind of device, where you use a Parker pen holder, and a manuscript that had to be put into an envelope? Would there be a big difference between the two?

MR DU TOIT: Not necessarily in terms of the power of it or the explosives in it, but in terms of the detonator and the material with which you are working, you are once again restricted to a certain action or material used. For example, in the case of the manuscript there was not plastic or very hard material used, we had to make certain adjustments to add a sheet that would prevent it from bending, otherwise it would make it more dangerous, where in the case of the pen case you had to work with more firm material and we used a different type of detonator.

CHAIRPERSON: Just returning to the discretion again, that they say to you, we need this kind of device and again this person has got to be killed when he opens, that's the intention basically, would you have a discretion to say whoever is a bystander or whoever is next to the person who would be opening this manuscript, would you take that into consideration that it is only aimed at the person who opens, in this instance, the envelope?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, I would just like to confirm the following, with explosives there are no guarantees, it's always a very unsafe or dangerous set-up, but depending on the explosives and the way in which it is opened, one can have a relatively clear anticipation of what could happen. If you would have asked me if I could give guarantees if a bystander can be injured, I would say no, there's no guarantees. In terms of the manuscript bomb, it has been testified by Mr de Kock that there was no shrapnel and that makes this device safer in terms of bystanders or people who stood close to this person when this person opened the parcel.

CHAIRPERSON: Why I'm asking you this, it does not per se mean that if I receive a letter, I would necessarily go home to open that letter, it depends also on my curiosity in the contents of what I'm receiving, so I may just open it anywhere. Now I'm asking you is that, say my curiosity is so high and in this instance of the manuscript, that it is well typed, I might open it in the post office and those are not the enemy, are precautions taken in those instances, because we cannot assume? Because I understand that your duties entailed technical duties to manufacture whatever devices you've been requested to, but if this has to be sent off, do we bear in mind that other people might just be hurt when it's opened in public, like in the post office?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, I do think that somebody, or one has some control over it. If you would have handled it in a different way and if you sent a parcel as big as a shoe box, you would have been able to kill half the people in the post office, but this was very selective, it was restricted to the person opening the parcel. But once again there's danger that somebody else can open it, we do not have control over that. We do not even have control from our side, from our technical point of view to who this parcel is sent, but our instructions were and it was always our objective as well, to do with as little as possible explosives and cause as much damage to the target as possible.

CHAIRPERSON: Would you, in that instance, ask before doing that, "For whom is this intended??

MR DU TOIT: If they have given me a name it wouldn't have meant anything to me, they will tell me though that it is a target that's creating problems and their decision has already been made that this target had to be addressed, so I never really had insight or input in terms of the justification of a target, and I've mentioned that in my application as well. A decision had already been made by a planning group, concerning the merits of this target, but when this request comes to us, that process has already been completed and we supported the operation that had to be executed.

CHAIRPERSON: I do appreciate that your recollection may not be that good or that you may have recollection in respect of this manuscript, but what I want to find out from you, in the instances of a manuscript of this nature, what time delay mechanisms, so that no other people are injured you know, like yesterday I think you testified that we should have regard when we spoke of the Parker pen, the situation within a post office, the manoeuvres and all that, you recall that, that in a manuscript of this nature, how would we have those delay mechanisms to cater for probably delays in collection.

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, if my recollection is correct, no battery was used, it was a mechanical detonator, so once again this parcel could for years remain in a passive state without it detonating. The explosives used in it were military explosives that would remain stable over a long period of time, so it held no danger for anybody if it's not opened, but the person who opens it will be affected by it.

CHAIRPERSON: The indeterminate time I recall, I can't recall the person, but a letter was sent, I think to Dirk Coetzee, he did not take delivery and it was sent back to sender which killed sender, would it be something of that nature?

MR DU TOIT: Except that in this case there was a mechanical action, but if it's two years later and it's sent back to the sender and he opens it, it will detonate. In the case of a battery you are restricted to the shelf life of a battery and it can be that if the battery is flat, the mechanism will not detonate or ignite.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Toit. Oh, Advocate Sandi wants to ask you something.

ADV SANDI: Yes, sorry about that, Mr Chairman, I said I don't have any question, but I now realise that I do in fact have a question.

I hear you say "in my recollection", if you say "if my recollection is correct", that is in response to one of the questions that were asked by the Chair, you say no battery was used, do you have any ideas to perhaps when you had this discussion with Mr de Kock?

MR DU TOIT: Mr Chairperson, it's very vague, I've got no idea, it was in the late '80s, but I cannot really connect it to anything else that will assist me in getting to a date.

ADV SANDI: Thank you. Thanks, Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Toit. Any re-examination, Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chair.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE

CHAIRPERSON: Are you calling any other evidence in support of Mr du Toit?

MR VAN DER MERWE: No, Mr Chair, that will be Mr du Toit's application.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Mr du Toit, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Mr Chair, the next applicant and which is the last one in this matter, is Mr J F Kok.

CHAIRPERSON: They got it right this time.