CHAIRPERSON: Good afternoon everybody. I believe people are suffering under this heat and under those circumstances, whoever feels very hot is free to take his jacket off, but not blouses.
We are about to hear the applications in respect of an incident described as the Arson attack at Khanya House on the 12th of October 1988. The applicants are as follows: Messrs Eugene Alexander de Kock, application number 0066/96, Robert Peter McIntyre, application number 3584/96, Dow Gerbrand Willemse, application number 3721/96, David Jacobus Brits, application number 3745/96, Willem Albertus Nortje, application number 3764/96, Izak Daniel Bosch, application number 3765/96, Jacobus Kok, application number 3811/96, Jacob Francoise Kok, application number 3812/96, Paul Jacobus Hattingh, application number 3916/96, Johan Hendrik Tait, application number 3922/97, Larry John Hattingh, application number 4076/96, Hendrik Christoffel du Plessis, application number 4129/96, Nicolaas Johannes Vermeulen, application number 4358/96, Leon William John Flores, application number 4361/06, Marthinus Dawid Ras (Jnr), application number 5183/97, Wybrand Andries Lodwikus du Toit, application number 5184/96, Willem Riaan Bellingan, application number 5283/96, Hendrick van Niekerk Kotze, application number 5451/97 and George Francois Hammond, application number 5452/97. For the record the Panel which will hear these applications, it's myself Motata, who would chair this hearing and on my right I have Adv Bosman and on my left I have Adv Sandi. I would request the legal representatives to be helpful and place yourselves on record and for which applicant or for whom you are appearing.
MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. My initials are P A and my surname is Hattingh and I appear on behalf of Mr de Kock.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Hattingh.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you Mr Chair. Francois van der Merwe. I appear on behalf of Jacobus Kok, Jacob Francois Kok, Paul Jacobus Hattingh, Johan Hendrik Tait, Wybrand Andreas Lodewikus du Toit and Wilhelm Riaan Bellingan.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van der Merwe.
MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairman. My name is Christo Nel and I appear on behalf of Larry John Hanton.
CHAIRPERSON: You made it in time for your flight.
MR NEL: Thank you Mr Chairman. Thank you for waiting for me.
CHAIRPERSON: And we welcome you.
MR WAGENER: Jan Wagener, Mr Chairman. I appear for the applicant du Plessis.
MR JANSEN: Thank you Chair. Adv C R Jansen. I appear for applicant Ras on instruction of Julian Knight attorney.
MR JOUBERT: Thank you Honourable Chair and Members of the Committee. H B Joubert on behalf of Brig McIntyre.
MR LAMEY: As it pleases you. Chairperson, the surname is Lamey. I appear on behalf of applicants Willemse, Nortje and Bosch.
CHAIRPERSON: And Bosch?
MR LAMEY: Yes, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Lamey.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, Roelof du Plessis. I appear on instructions of Strydom Britz attorneys, for Hammond and Kotze.
MR CORNELIUS: Thank you Mr Chair. Wim Cornelius, I appear on behalf of applicant David Jacobus Brits, Nicolaas Johannes Vermeulen and Leon William John Flores.
MS CAMBANIS: Chair, thank you. I'm Chrystal Cambanis. I appear for the seven persons who were in Khanya House at the time of the incident, namely Bishop Nkomise, Bishop Verstrate, Sister Flanagan, Bridget Flanagan, Mrs Rosemary Cook, Mr Roddy Nunes, Dr Rob Lambert and Mr Jonathan Williams. I also have a brief from the Catholic Bishops' Conference who are represented by Father Richard Menatsi, the present Secretary-General of that conference and the past Secretary-General who was in office at the time of the incident, namely Brother Jude Peterson. Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Cambanis. Ms Patel, who are you appearing for?
MS PATEL: Well no one specifically Honourable Chairperson. My capacity is Leader of Evidence here today. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: You are the only neutral person.
MS PATEL: It seems that way.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll rely on you. Just coming back to you, I see there are implicated persons and there is an indication, I don't know if you hold a brief for that as well Mr Wagener, for Gen Engelbrecht.
MR WAGENER: Chairman yes, although in terms of the present police of the South African Police Services, we are not formally allowed to appear on behalf of implicated persons. I am here and I will represent his interests insofar as it is necessary.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wagener. Mr Cornelius, Blackie Swart, you know nothing?
MR CORNELIUS: I didn't receive instructions, but I am here, on the same basis I'll represent his interests if necessary.
CHAIRPERSON: Before I speak about the others I see here, Ms Patel, I've seen Brig Schoon referred to, I could say the application of Mr de Kock, he says they received the instructions and he cleared them with Brig Schoon. What is the position with him?
MS PATEL: Mr Wagener is his legal rep Honourable Chairperson, perhaps he can assist.
MR WAGENER: Thank you. Mr Chairman, yes, Brig Schoon received no notice in terms of Section 19(4) that I'm aware of. It is usually faxed to my office, but I did speak to him in this regard even as late as this morning, so for what it's worth, I will also appear on his behalf.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Wagener. And then there's Kendle and Boil, there's nothing according to the documentation we have before. Have they been served with notices or what is the position?
MS PATEL: Unfortunately, according to my instructions from the office, they were not traced Honourable Chairperson and if I may just go further down the line, Piet Snyders was represented by an advocate Botha, who has corresponded with our offices and has indicated that they will not be present.
ADV BOSMAN: Have both Kendle and Boil not been traced?
MS PATEL: That is correct.
ADV BOSMAN: Don't we have a similar situation here as we had in the previous matter with Brig Human, Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: I'll ask Mr Benado to do a double check for us, Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Please do that we should at least by tomorrow morning know what their position is.
MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just come in here? As far as Maj Kendle is concerned, a colleague of my firm has represented Mr Kendle for purposes of amnesty applications. However, I'm not aware that there's been any notice issued to him in terms of this as an implicated person. I don't have instructions to appear on behalf of Mr Kendle for purposes as far as he is implicated, but I'm sure I'm entitled to have a watching brief at least at this stage, or I can assume that that is that I will check with my colleague Paulson, whether we should get instructions in that regard. As it pleases you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Would you be in the same position as Mr Wagener? But at least he has had communication and what he has just said to us is that normally these notices would be sent to his office, but in this instance, nothing and you wouldn't know until you speak to your colleague.
MR LAMEY: Yes, well I'm sure my colleague would have said that to me, had he received that notice because he's aware that I am also involved in amnesty applications. I believe that no notice has been ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I see there's a frantic shake of head.
MS PATEL: The notice is still in my file without an address, Honourable Chairperson, so it was definitely not sent off to anybody, but if Mr Lamey would care to accept service thereof on behalf of his colleague, I'd appreciate that.
CHAIRPERSON: Could you have that private arrangement after we adjourn today? I don't want to be witness to anything. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, are you going to start once more, as it is the practice now?
MR HATTINGH: I believe not, Mr Chairman, I believe we're starting with McIntyre.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, thank you.
MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson unfortunately we're not, I would like to place some matters before this Committee.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, certainly.
MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, after receiving instructions in this matter, I communicated with the Evidence Leader regarding the docket of the police investigation in this matter. From the bundle it appears that that case number is MR356/10/88. I assume it would be a Pretoria docket. My instructions are that we would have wanted sight of the docket and the statement which includes statements taken by the seven persons who were present. Investigations done by the fire department and other evidence. At this stage I have not received copies of the docket and I would like to place on record that we need to peruse that docket in order to be fully prepared for this ...(indistinct). That's the first, perhaps Ms Patel would like to answer.
CHAIRPERSON: But may I ask you this without that record, you wouldn't ask even a single question, without - I know the preparation. If supposing I were to call on you and say: "You wouldn't be able to because you are not fully prepared.
MS CAMBANIS: I am not fully prepared without that, no, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Cambanis. Ms Patel.
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. My instructions from the office are that the original docket in fact went missing at some stage. That the A-G's office had at some stage reconstructed tat docket which is now also missing.
CHAIRPERSON: I thought you said at some stage it must have resurfaced.
MS PATEL: ; Apparently it did - well it was reconstructed at some stage. I've been told that they allege that it was sent to our offices together with two other dockets which we definitely received, but this one, we did not receive Honourable Chairperson and where it is at this stage, no one can say. I unfortunately can't take the matter any further than that.
CHAIRPERSON: I take it that any office wouldn't send all the documents in their possession, they must keep copies of such documents.
MS PATEL: Well I asked Capt Benado to check as late as last week again and they doubled checked with the office and there is definitely no copy of that docket.
CHAIRPERSON: No probably the documentation, the docket, you can take another one and just place it over the documentation. We have no copies of the documentation which was contained in that docket, in other words.
MS PATEL: Yes, now that's correct. It's was kept, so ...
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, it's somewhat an impasse.
MS CAMBANIS: No, Chairperson, its not an impasse at all. The docket was in someone's possession, that person has a name. It can't just be someone at the A-G. Who last at the A-G had the docket and what did they do with it? At the very least we need that explanation in order to pursue the matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you be of assistance with the names?
MS PATEL: I don't have the names of who Capt Benado dealt with at the A-G's office. I'll have to refer to him to get a full report on exactly who they spoke to and what the person had exactly said to them, Honourable Chairperson, but who specifically had dealt with the docket last, I can't say.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis, when you say the statements given by the people who were present at Khanya House, you need their statements, didn't you take statements from the clients?
MS CAMBANIS: Chair, that was a poor example, I beg your pardon. The reports of the forensic reports and reports of police officers who were involved in the investigation, would be of great assistance in testing the versions of these applicants, in fact I would assume that some of the applicants may have made statements that are in that docket.
CHAIRPERSON: It was a covert operation.
MS CAMBANIS: It was a covert operation, but Chairperson, at least one of the applicants was on the scene that morning investigating, as I remember, for example Mr Hammond, I think it is, was involved in the investigation himself and I would assume that Mr Hammond, as part of the investigation, has something to say, has made statements and those statements are in the docket.
ADV SANDI: Who was saying what?
CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that you want to compare that with what is contained in his application?
MS CAMBANIS: For example, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: But would that be of assistance, I'm thinking aloud, that here we are dealing with what we term illegal operations and there has been cover-up. Whatever was investigated wouldn't bring out the true position. He may for instance say, I'm thinking aloud again, that I was part of the team that investigated. We could not find who the culprits were, whereas he was the culprit.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Chairperson, but there are many issues in this matter. There's the smears against the Catholic community continuing these applications.
CHAIRPERSON: Pardon?
MS CAMBANIS: The allegations against the Catholic Bishops Conference continuing these applications, I think everyone knows to what I refer. That hasn't been retracted or varied by the majority of applicants and it would be of assistance to us to know what is in that docket. We find it very strange that this docket has disappeared. I don't mind saying that we find it sinister that this docket has disappeared.
CHAIRPERSON: Could I suggest this, that you speak to Ms Patel and see what arrangements you could reach because I'll tell you what my concern is, is that, which you may well know, that this application should finish this week, there is no other date on which we can hear this application because our life comes to the end at the end of October and we have a full schedule. There won't be any other hearings after October, at least that's what I'm informed by the Cape Town office. Why I'm suggesting that we stand down for five minutes and see what we can do or what sort of arrangements you can reach and I'm not excluding anyone here and I would say Mr du Plessis should be involved in that because he represents Mr Hammond and see what arrangement you can come to that whilst we are again going to make efforts and this time they should be serious efforts Ms Patel, of at least knowing in whose hands this docket is. Will that satisfy you?
MS CAMBANIS: That will satisfy me in the interim Chair, but may I raise my second concern, before we need to take a second adjournment?
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MS CAMBANIS: My learned friend, Mr Lamey, I believe acts for a Mr Douw Willemse.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja and Nortje and Bosch.
MS CAMBANIS: He has handed me a letter dated the 10th of July 2000 in which he appears to indicate that the applicant will not be present at these proceedings. If I could have an indication whether, in the first place, all the other applicants will in fact be giving evidence, if it only is limited to Mr Douw Willemse.
CHAIRPERSON: He hasn't, from my part, made an indication, hence I read out all the applicants and I don't remember any legal representative saying: "I appear for so and so, but he won't be here".
MR LAMEY: Chairperson sorry, I must have, I didn't expect my learned friend to raise it now. I do represent Mr Willemse, if I can just place that on record, in as far as he's an applicant. Chairperson, you will recall that a letter in the previous hearing was handed to the Committee regarding his psychiatric condition. It is with that view in mind that I actually also, before we start, gave a copy of that letter to my learned friend who represents the victims, as well as to legal representatives that might perhaps not have sight of that document beforehand and I discuss the rationale for that and the position is, that is my instruction, that as far as Mr Willemse is concerned that his position is still unchanged and as far as the other applicants that I represent is concerned, certainly they will testify, Chairperson. My thoughts along the line were subject to the ruling of the Committee that we continue with the matter and see were there any parties prejudiced towards the course of the week, by virtue of the fact that Mr Willemse does not testify and if some issue arise as far as his application is concerned, that we try and deal with that in a similar matter as was dealt with in the Nersden matter, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: For proper records, I think that should come up front because we might have made a ruling of that nature within the past two weeks, but what should be appreciated is that this completely new application with numerous interested parties, so to say because we ruled, which was an understanding we reached with all legal representatives, it does not per se mean it obtains in this incident.
MR LAMEY: No, I understand that Chairperson, it was for that view that I actually gave it to my learned friend. I have - I don't know there might be one or two legal representatives appearing on behalf of the applicants that I have not yet spoken to, but those that I've spoken to gave their indication to me that as far as they are concerned, they don't have any objection, but I don't know whether we need to deal with it at this point, Chairperson or whether we should deal with it during the course of the week, I'm in your hands, Chairperson.
MR JANSEN: Mr Chair, sorry, if I could maybe just add, or come in at this stage. It's Jansen on behalf of Ras. I don't want at a later stage to be confronted by me not having placed my position on record. Mr Ras, although he has some serious difficulties in availability this week, will avail himself for evidence, but what I have advised him of, is that depending on the facts that come out here in this case and depending on whether, what the basis of opposition is, it may be that we, at the end of the hearing or at some stage during the hearing, are faced with the situation that it may not be inappropriate for some of the applicants to seek a ruling that they're not testifying. There are previous examples in other cases where cases that could have been dealt with in Chambers were dealt with on the basis that some of the applicants testify and in order to save time at the end of the day, rulings were made that the applications be dealt with as in terms of the written application, but I understand that that would, to a large extent, be in the hands of the representatives for the victims, to decide whether they require the evidence. As I understand it, the applicants must testify at the moment, so subject to that rider, we are certainly available. Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Jansen. Ms Cambanis.
MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, I agree with my learned friends that we shouldn't delay the proceedings because Mr Willemse is not present today. I agree that we can proceed today, but to place on record that we do not accept this letter which appears to indicate that he suffers from post traumatic stress syndrome and that is the reason. With the greatest respect, many of the applicants who will be giving, suffer from the same condition, according to the bundle, and they are able to attend. In the absence of our medical knowledge, or psychological knowledge, we would require something more than this letter to explain the absence of Mr Willemse later in the week.
CHAIRPERSON: Could we say for now, let's just deal with what - we've got to come to an agreement with Ms Patel and say we revisit Willemse tomorrow morning?
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for - will five minutes suffice?
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, Chair, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We adjourn for five minutes.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
CHAIRPERSON: What's the position Ms Patel?
MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson. Well, the position unfortunately is that there is no agreement between the parties in terms of the - what would have been contained in the docket and there was a discussion between Adv du Plessis and Ms Cambanis. Adv du Plessis has confirmed to Ms Cambanis that, on behalf of his clients, that they would not have made statements which would have formed part of the docket and unfortunately the matter is where it is now. There is a report that is currently being faxed through from our offices in terms of our efforts in trying to locate the docket. The report hasn't arrived yet, but should be here fairly soon and also in respect of Douw Willemse, it is agreed that Mr Lamey will attempt to locate a proper or a full psychological report on behalf of his client and I believe that Ms Cambanis will decide once she has had sight of the report, what her view would be in terms of him testifying. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Ms Cambanis.
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you Chair. I accept that the information is coming from - being faxed from Cape Town. Regarding the access of the docket, I will leave that for argument in due course, I will leave the matter there and I confirm that Mr Lamey has undertaken to let us have an updated medical report and we will review our position after receipt of that. Thank you very much.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, thank you. Mr Joubert ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously)
MR VAN DER MERWE: Mr Chairman, may I beg your pardon? Before we proceed, it has become customary in these hearings, usually at pre-hearing conferences for the victims to indicate whether they are opposing these applications and if so, on what grounds. Now I know that my learned colleague did not have instructions at this stage, when we had the pre-hearing conference and it was indicated to us that it was not opposed at that stage. Could she maybe place on record, just for our own clarity, what the position is currently, so that we can know how to deal with the matter henceforth? Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr van der Merwe. Ms Cambanis.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes, thank you Chair. My instructions are that the victims oppose on the grounds of political objective in as much as Khanya House was not a legitimate target, if we can use that phraseology, which I believe we do use at the TRC Amnesty Hearings. More importantly on the question of full disclosure, specifically the Conference would not have opposed this application, had they been satisfied that the entire uncontradicted truth had been told. On the papers before this Committee, which they have also perused, it's my instructions, that the propaganda against the Conference continues and it will be contested that Khanya House was never - the evidence is that Khanya House was never used to harbour members of the Liberation Struggle. The evidence will be that arms and ammunition and explosives were never housed at Khanya House. It will be the evidence that ANC or other Liberation Movements' documentation was not printed on the premises of Khanya House. It will also be argued that the applicants knew or at the very least ought to have known that there were people present at the time of the incident and that they have been dishonest in disclosing that fact. So in summary Chairperson it relates both to political motive and to full disclosure. Thank you Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: This full disclosure is as contained in the present documents we all have?
MS CAMBANIS: That's correct, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: However, the purpose again is that why there are these hearings is that that should be further probed, it might just be a pendulum at this stage, depending on what evidence would be adduced.
MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson it goes a bit further. My instructions are specifically that it's the attitude of the Conference and the other victims that had they been told the entire truth, there would be no question of them opposing this application. That is their view. They support the amnesty process, they support the process of reconciliation and had they been satisfied on the papers, there would have been no question of opposing.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Ms Cambanis.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I perhaps, and I don't know if this is the right time to come in here. I've heard with quite a degree of surprise, the fact that the question of political motive is also going to be in dispute in this matter. I was involved, and so were some of my colleagues, in the application relating to Khotso House. I don't think any of the Committee Members were involved there, but I wish to state and place on record that extensive evidence during that hearing was led about the role of the Churches in the whole struggle on both sides. Various documents were given in as exhibits and the whole issue was transgressed in much detail there and I am just concerned that if the evidence that was presented there, has to be repeated here in the detail and the length to which it had gone at that hearing, that we're going to run into a matter that's probably going to take much longer than we thought. I'm raising that point because I don't know if you would expect from us to lead the same evidence as was led during that hearing in respect of those issues, or if you can give us an indication that you would accept the evidence that was presented to the Committee at that hearing for purposes of this hearing and I'm raising these issues before we start the hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm not aware that there is a decision about that, but this is how it was approached by the entire Amnesty Committee. Like, I don't know if or if even having regard to this document, this bundle, that you would see it's written, "de Kock Cluster, 7 hearings". They were divided into 7 and because of the time constraints, it was agreed that the political motive should be argued separately, that when we do the actual incidents, we would busy ourselves just with those incidents or offences or crimes, that we would not rehash the political motive because several people came forward, I nearly said led by Mr de Kock, I'm not going to say that Mr de Kock, I would rather say you were present, when you gave the political motive and there extensive evidence was covered about how Stratcom worked, how the Security Police worked, how Vlakplaas was the operational base for all these attacks. Hence you find in this incident that my reading of the documentation before me is that when a decision was made, Vlakplaas was approached and that this attack on Khanya House should be led by Col de Kock, I don't know if he was a colonel then, but it had to be led by Col de Kock, so I agree with you that probably when we deal with full disclosure and the manner in which Khanya House was identified, probably in those parameters you can say you had no reason to attack Khanya House. We could probably, in our decision, but as you quite rightly point out, Mr du Plessis, we need a month to do that and unfortunately we don't have that luxury of time on our hands.
MR DU PLESSIS: That is exactly my concern, Mr Chairman. If the question of Khanya House being a legitimate target, whatever that may mean, and the question of the political motives of the applicants pertaining to the Church and pertaining to the involvement of the Church in the struggle and all those matters comes into play, it may cause the applicants difficulty, because we're not going to know how much evidence we must present. I can guarantee you that I've got a wealth of documentation and the evidence that I can present will keep you busy for a week on that issue only, which I have already presented to the previous Committee at the Khotso House hearing, so I'm raising that point because I don't want to run into a situation where my clients are suddenly cross-examined on these issues and where we do not lead evidence on that issue, so either that issue should be in dispute at the commencement of the matter and we should know how much evidence we should lead on the matter, with respect Mr Chairman, or otherwise we need some sort of direction from the Committee to what extent the Committee requires evidence in this matter.
CHAIRPERSON: If I may ask Ms Cambanis, but have a prelude to that, is that I'm not saying this is what we are going to decide, but let's look at this scenario, that the Security Police, let's call them in their entirety without putting them in cells and say we know as a fact that they had this big enemy which was the ANC, PAC and the Black Consciousness Movements and in that respect they again said they were aided by certain people within the country, hence their job was becoming difficult. Reading some of the documentation and I would tell you up front that that whole political background in respect of Col de Kock, it's not included again here, but everybody says: "We worked for the State, we believed that the State was under attack" and some say: "We were raised in that belief that the ANC Alliance with the SACP, the PAC are going to destabilise the country and we have been employed to do precisely that, to gut against the interests of the State". If one were to say that because I look at all the applicants here, they are all police or have been police, very few are still in the South African Police Services, we know it today, and say: "You had no reason to be so politicised", let's look at it with a fine toothcomb once more, how far can we go?
MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, the evidence previously led, I must confess this is the first time I understood that we were not dealing with political objective at these hearings and that that had already been decided in the de Kock hearings, I was not aware of that.
CHAIRPERSON: I know the Chairperson was my brother Judge Wilson was the Chairperson of that hearing.
MS CAMBANIS: Yes. Chairperson ...
CHAIRPERSON: And he took not less than a week, would I be right Mr du Plessis?
MR DU PLESSIS: Yes, I think it was longer than a week, Mr Chairman.
MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, I will take instructions. I am aware that evidence was given at the Khotso House bombings relating to what I understand the role of the Church, as far as the South African Council of Churches is concerned. The Catholic Bishops Conference was not a member of that structure and in fact only became a member in 1995, but I do not, as I say I did not know the political objective had already been decided. I will take instructions from my client regarding that and we can then proceed, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: What do you suggest? We stand down for a few minutes?
MS CAMBANIS: No, Chairperson, I do not suggest that. I will do that after the conclusion of today's hearings.
CHAIRPERSON: I would put it this way Ms Cambanis, to make your job easier, that we hear the first applicant who would testify today, Mr McIntyre and he is not cross-examined and then you take instructions, would that make it a lot better?
MS CAMBANIS: Thank you very much Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. We would revisit that probably in the morning, but we are continuing now, no concerns.
MR JOUBERT: Judge, only one issue if I may. If I understand you correctly, only evidence-in-chief will be led today so I can reserve the right to lead political objective evidence, if Ms Cambanis’ instructions are to proceed on that issue.
CHAIRPERSON: We have heard that and I was party to that decision of the Amnesty Committee, that that is not going to be revisited because it would have meant, I'll be honest here, that what we do not understand is that our life within the Amnesty Committee is decided by people who are not involved in the hearings. They tell us they initially gave us 18 months and there's no money to see us through, but what is forgotten is that there was a first cut-off date that would have been manageable, then they had debates in Parliament and decided to extend the cut-off date, that brought in 5 000 applications, hence now it's final, I can tell you for a fact, it's not a secret, we were invited to the Justice portfolio where the budget of Justice was decided and we had a fair cut of our budget, hence the decision that we're having no hearings beyond October. It's not of our own making because I must be honest to you, is that everybody must understand this, that this is a process, the first of its kind in the world and if it had been properly, or it had to be properly done, I would spend my lifetime within this process because we say we want to bury everything that happened, but we are also controlled by budget constraints which we don't have control over. So that is the position, hence we came with that. I am not going to go back to a decision I was party to.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Judge, I may have expressed myself ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Inelegantly.
MR JOUBERT: Inelegantly, yes. I am in accordance with Mr du Plessis’ version and where the finding of the evidence has been led that Ms Cambanis still has to take further instruction. Now if I understood correctly, we would only be leading the evidence-in-chief this afternoon, there would be no cross-examining of Mr McIntyre until she has taken her instructions and the issue has been finalised as to what her approach is going to be regarding the political objectives.
CHAIRPERSON: I think she's quite right because clients would not understand the legal process as you and I do and it's only fair enough that she carries her clients with, during this, not that we gave you instructions, you never came back, but you just went your own way. She's got to leave that, they must come back tomorrow and that she does her job properly. Okay Mr Joubert.
MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr McIntyre has no objection to taking the oath, he'll be testifying in Afrikaans.
ROBERT PETER McINTYRE: (sworn states)
MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Before you commence I see there's a document before me. I'm not certain what it is. I tried all skills I had to avoid it in prejudging what this document's purpose is.
MR JOUBERT: Mr Chair, the purpose thereof, it's a supplementary to the application which was filed initially.
It places everything more into perspective. The initial application was very ...
ADV BOSMAN: Sketchy, the word you're looking for?
MR JOUBERT: Sketchy is the word I'm looking for and there are also certain aspects therein which are not correct and they need to be addressed. This is merely a supplementary affidavit, putting it into perspective, giving all the information and making a full disclosure as far as possible, as far as Mr McIntyre can recall the events. After having the advantage of seeing the documentation, this is his only application, he has not been involved in any other applications prior to this. The attorney who dealt with the matter initially also had no experience in this and the documentation was, as Adv Bosman pointed out, very sketchy. It has been supplemented. During the pre-trial I also indicated to Ms Patel that I would be providing a document setting it out in proper sequence.
CHAIRPERSON: Are the other legal representatives privy to the document?
MR JOUBERT: Copies were dealt out prior to the hearing, during the lunch hour break.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry to do this, but I will ask each one of you personally.
MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman, I have received a copy.
CHAIRPERSON: No objection?
MR HATTINGH: No objection, thank you.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Chairman, van der Merwe on record, I received a copy, I have no objection, thank you.
MR NEL: Mr Chairman, I have no objection.
MR WAGENER: Chairman, Jan Wagener, I have a copy, no objection.
MR JANSEN: Jansen on record. No objection Chair.
MR LAMEY: No objection Chair. I have seen the copy, thank you.
MR DU PLESSIS: It's Roelof du Plessis, no objection Mr Chairman.
MR CORNELIUS: Cornelius for the record, no objection Mr Chair.
MS CAMBANIS: Cambanis, no objection.
MS PATEL: Ramula Patel, no objection thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. May we mark it A then?
MR JOUBERT: As you please, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: So that if one has got to refer to the original application and this document, our records must show precisely what we are talking about.
MR JOUBERT: As it pleases, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you endeavour to do that whilst you are leading Mr McIntyre?
MR JOUBERT: I will do so Mr Chair and may I just inquire, must I get Mr McIntyre to read out the full statement on record, or can I consider it to be handed in?
CHAIRPERSON: I'm not going to suggest to you how you lead your witness, the ball is entirely in your court.
MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Play it back as best as you can.
MR JOUBERT: Will do so, Sir.
EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT: Mr McIntyre, you have submitted an application for amnesty which is embodied from page 12 onwards in the bundle of documents. Is that correct?
MR McINTYRE: Yes, that is correct.
MR JOUBERT: And this is from page 12 to page 18?
MR McINTYRE: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: Was this document completed in your own handwriting?
MR McINTYRE: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: Did you have any assistance when you completed the document? Any legal assistance?
MR McINTYRE: None, Chairperson.
MR JOUBERT: On page 13, paragraph 4, which deals with the nature and particulars, you wrote
"I suggested, discussed, hinted, proposed that Khanya House be damaged by fire"
Is this statement entirely correct as it is embodied on that page?
MR McINTYRE: Chairperson I am not certain - I wasn't certain what the precise nature of my order was, so it is not entirely correct.
MR JOUBERT: When you say that it is not entirely correct, in your statement which has been marked as Exhibit A and submitted as such you indicate ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you should commence with this Paragraph 9(a) (iv). What is it that is not entirely correct in that paragraph?
MR McINTYRE: Chairperson, when I compiled my application I attempted to think of what precisely I had said, what precisely my orders were. After I had sight of the other applications of my fellow applicants, it would appear that I was referring to damage of property and I was not certain to whom I conveyed the order.
MR JOUBERT: When you say that you suggested, discussed or hinted that Khanya House be damaged, did you indeed give an order for Khanya House to be damaged, or did you just sketch the broader circumstances?
MR McINTYRE: Chairperson, I was merely sketching the circumstances in general, I really wasn't certain initially to whom I issued the order or what the precise nature of the discussion was with regard to the damage of Khanya House.
CHAIRPERSON: Before you proceed, just for this omission that whoever wants to benefit from these hearings, there is this device, its got I think four channels and you would follow the proceedings when you have this device. You may proceed.
MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr McIntyre, I have just asked you briefly, it might be more comfortable for you to read your application as you have compiled it. Could you read it?
MR McINTYRE
I the undersigned, Robert Peter McIntyre state herewith under oath as follows
I am an applicant in the amnesty application regarding the arson attempt at Khanya House on the 12th of October 1988. I have already submitted an initial application dated 25 November 1996, pages 12 to 18 of the bundle and subsequently in response to a letter from the Amnesty Committee, I supplied further information as embodied on pages 20 to 22 of the bundle.
I wish to indicate to the Honourable Committee ... (intervention)
ADV BOSMAN: Just a moment please Mr McIntyre, I am following the interpreter and she would like to keep up with you, if you could just go somewhat slower.
MR McINTYRE: I beg your pardon Chairperson. I will try to go slower. Do you want me to begin again?
CHAIRPERSON: ... (indistinct)
ADV BOSMAN: ...(indistinct)
CHAIRPERSON: No continue.
MR McINTYRE
"I wish to indicate to the Honourable Committee that the initial application was completed by myself without proper assistance from a legal representative and that I simply completed this document to the best of my own abilities. At that stage I had never before been involved with any amnesty applications and I had never had any such applications in my sight. My legal representative who assisted me subsequently, is also not very experienced regarding amnesty applications and he simply provided further information upon the request of the Amnesty Committee, as embodied on pages 19 to 22 of the bundle of documents. In the meantime I have had the benefit of sight of the other applications which have been served before the Committee and have also been advised that my initial application was insufficient. However, I wish to indicate at this stage already, that the insufficiencies appearing thereon, are not the result of any attempt not to make a full disclosure, but merely follow from ignorance, lack or experience and poor memory.
Therefore I request humbly that the Amnesty Committee would accept the content of this statement as well as my viva voce evidence in supplementary to the preceding applications.
I was born in Alice on the Eastern Cape on the 21st of October 1942. I completed my primary schooling in Alice and completed my high school career in Fort Beaufort. I matriculated during 1960. After leaving school, I joined the police in 1961 and began my basic training at the Pretoria Police College. After completing this training, I was transferred in 1962 to Durban to the uniformed branch as a constable.
During 1963 I was once again transferred to Johannesburg and I completed a detective course. At the end of 1963 I was transferred to Port Elizabeth where I performed duty at the detective branch. In approximately 1966 I was transferred from the detective branch to the Security Branch in Port Elizabeth, bearing the rank of Detective Sergeant, seeing as I was proficient in Xhosa. My duties involved that I should read, write, translate and deal with correspondence in this language. In approximately 1971 I was transferred with the rank of Captain to the Security Branch of Pretoria, where I was attached to the Intelligence Collection Unit. During 1977 I performed three months border duty as a Unit Commander in Ovamboland. During 1981 I was transferred to the Security Branch in Middelburg in Mpumalanga and at that stage I bore the rank of Major.
During 1983 I was seconded to the Transkeian police with the specific objective to institute a course at the university of Transkei, that being a BA degree in Police Sciences. At that stage, I gave lectures at the University in some of the subjects. During 1985 I was once again transferred back to the Security Branch of Pretoria and at the beginning of 1986 on the 1st of January, I served at the Branch National Interpretation, which was a sub component of the State Security Council. The purpose of this component was to discuss, evaluate, interpret and convey information to the State Security Council from which point it would be provided to the Cabinet. Approximately in the middle of 1987 I was called by Maj-Gen Malan and I was appointed as the new Commander of the Division Strategic Communication Stratcom. In my capacity as head of Stratcom at a certain stage, I received a letter from the State Security Council, via my direct Commander, Gen Joubert in which the intelligence community was tasked to address specific areas and in which general authorisation was also given to any member of the intelligence community to perform so-called ad hoc actions which would in effect neutralise the ANC, limit their influence, oppose them and undermine them. Seeing as this letter was significant to me, I kept it in a safe place and it was only at a later stage, after I left the service of the police, that I handed it over to Deputy Commissioner Tim Williams. In the meantime I have attempted to re-obtain this letter and Deputy Commissioner Williams, informed me that the documentation that I gave him was handed over to the National Intelligence Agency. However, he undertook to attempt to obtain this document and if it comes into my possession, I shall submit it to the Committee during the hearing of this application.
During approximate 1987, I was promoted to the rank of Colonel and in approximately November 1988, Brig Erasmus took over from me as the Commander of Stratcom. I went on leave and early in 1989 I attended an approximately six month long course after which I was transferred back to the Security Branch Head Office, Pretoria. At this stage I was deployed to the unit which dealt with detentions, exiles and so forth. From 1990 onwards, I served on the Committee which was known as Return of Exiles Committee.
At the end of August 1991, I left the police service, due to medical disability. After this, however, I served the ANC as well as the current government in various capacities, after which I resigned in 1996 and accepted a position as lecturer at the University of Transkei. Currently I have the following tertiary qualifications" BA Criminology, BA Honours Criminology, MA Criminology from the University of Zululand. Currently I am busy with a PhD in Criminology and I expect to obtain this qualification within the foreseeable future.
I grew up in a very strict Christian household and my mother was a fiery supporter of the National Party. As I grew up in a rural community where there was a tremendously high premium on membership of, or support of the NK Church and the National Party, I was influenced from a very early age to support the Government of the day at all costs. Within the milieu that I grew up, members of the South African Police were regarded as heroes and the majority of my fellow scholars joined the police after school. During my entire career in the police, which spanned over a period of approximately 30 years, I found myself in an environment where I was constantly informed regarding the black danger as well as the red danger. I was consistently brought under the impression that any action that we as police officers were to execute against so-called opponents of the Government of the day, was justifiable. The so-called revolutionary onslaught against the Government, was consistently presented to us. In this regard I confirm that I have read the other applications as they have been contained in the bundle and that I associate myself with the summaries embodied therein, in as far as it is indicative of the circumstances during 1988. In this regard I also refer specifically to the submission made by Gen van der Merwe as embodied from pages 160 to 200 of the bundle of documents and I also confirm that I associated myself with the version embodied therein.
Consequently I request that this Honourable Committee would incorporate the content of these statements in as far as it indicates the political motive that I acted with, as well as my thought patterns, with my application regarding this incident. I have taken note of the applications of the other applicants, with regard to this incident and I confirm that I agree with the content thereof in broader terms, with the exception of those points where I will indicate differently in my evidence.
As indicated in the applications of the other applicants in this incident, it was generally accepted that all conceivable methods should be used in the struggle in order to combat the revolutionary onslaught against the RSA successfully. It was general knowledge that we were involved in an undeclared state of warfare.
Due to the position that I occupied, the information came to my knowledge which indicated that Khanya House was being used in promotion of the objectives of the liberation organisations in their struggle against the Government and the people of the RAS. The information indicated furthermore that there was a printing press on these premises, which was used to generate mass propaganda in the forms of banners, pamphlets and other documents. The information further indicated that various meetings were led by the liberations movements in Khanya House and that activists were often harboured there. In this regard, I submit with respect that it appears clearly from the submission made by the Catholic church, dated the 15th of August 1997, which forms part of the documents currently served before the Committee, that the Catholic Church was actively involved in the support of the liberation movements. Consequently Khanya House was identified as a definite target for action.
Seen in the light of the letter to which reference has been made above and the general impression that all actions were permissible, if they were aimed at protecting the Government of the day as well as the South African public, I decided that an action should be launched against Khanya House. However I cannot recall with certainty to whom I issued the order, but I suspect that it was to Col Hattingh. I am also not capable of recalling my precise wording of the order, but it boiled down to the idea that Khanya House should be damaged to such an extent that the support structure or infra structure should be incapacitated and the printing press destroyed. I regarded it as my task to do my bit within the framework of my training and position in order to undermine the arms struggle and the liberation movements. I must just state that there was disapproval at that stage of the numerous murders and acts of terror which confronted the country at that stage and seeing as the judicial process failed largely and could not deal with the consequences of the so-called revolution, I was of the opinion that cover action under these circumstances, was justifiable, although I did not receive any direct order to initiate this action, I indirectly enjoined the necessary authorisation for such action when viewed in the light of the general circumstances, as well as the aforementioned letter.
I must just state that at that stage, there was a reasonable level of jealousy among the various intelligence organisations and that the South African Police, which was responsible for the maintenance of law and order, as well as stability within the Republic, was of the opinion that the National Intelligence Service, as well as the Military Intelligence Services, were unreliable. Furthermore, we had serious doubts regarding the executive capacities of the National Intelligence Services. In the light thereof, the decision was taken by me that the South African Police should launch the action against Khanya House. I cannot recall specifically at what stage I issued the order, but I would recall that it was approximately one to two weeks before the incident. After this I did not have any further involvement with any planning of the action and I read in the papers that Khanya House had been damaged by fire. I did not receive any official feedback in this regard and furthermore I did not provide any official feedback to any person. It is generally known that the Intelligence community, among others, made use of the press in order to convey information. These processes were necessitated by the need-to-know principle.
Shortly after the incident, during November 1988, I left on leave, after which I attended a course for approximately 6 months. After this, I was then transferred to the Security Branch Head Office and more specifically the unit dealing with detentions and exiles and so forth. Consequently I did not have any further involvement with Stratcom. I do not have any knowledge of any other person who was connected to Stratcom, I beg your pardon Chairperson - I do not know whether any other person who was connected to Stratcom gave any feedback regarding this incident to the State Security Council.
Political Objective. The primary objective with this action was to damage the infrastructure of the revolutionary powers. By damaging Khanya House and by destroying the printing press, the revolutionary powers would have suffered a tremendous blow and further actions by them would have been combated effectively, so doing, the interests of the Government of the day and the public, would have been protected. Furthermore the action would have prevented the ANC and other liberation movements from spreading any negative propaganda which could contribute to the intimidation of other persons. I gave the order for the commission of this act within a purely political context and with the objective or protecting the legal Government of the day against the political and military onslaught of the respective liberation movements and in particular the ANC, PAC and SACP.
I did not draw any financial advantage or any advantage from this action. The action was executed purely in the execution of my duties and in correspondence with my task as I understood it from the circumstances. I cannot comment on the working method of the members who executed the operation and I left the execution completely to those who would be tasked with executing the action. I truly believe that what I did was expected of me as a Stratcom Commander and that I acted in the execution of my duties and that my actions fell within my implied or express authorisation.
In conclusion I must just state that the South African Police had the obligation to maintain internal security and to combat crime. Furthermore it was the Security Branch which was at the fore point of the struggle against the revolutionary onslaught. The Security Branches, with the Security Branch of the South African Police at the spearhead, did everything in order to protect the State dispensation against the violent revolutionary onslaught. It was also the general policy of the South African Government at that stage.
I request humbly that amnesty be granted to me for any offence or unlawful deed which may emanate from my involvement with this incident.
Without depleting the general nature of the aforementioned request, I request amnesty particularly for arson, malicious damage to property, conspiracy, aiding and abetting as well as attempted murder. During the hearing of my application I would like to make use of the opportunity to express my apologies to the victims."
MR JOUBERT: Before we come to the apology, there are just certain aspects that I will have to discuss with you in detail. This document that you refer to and that was submitted to the Commissioner, Tim Williams, you say that you attempted to get hold of it. Can you maybe just elaborate on that. Did you try again? Were you successful?
MR McINTYRE: Mr Chairperson, I contacted Deputy Commissioner Williams. I spoke to him the day before yesterday and he said that the documentation under which this letter may fall, was handed over to the National Intelligence and he said that he will request his colleagues at the National Intelligence to go and look for this letter and he also said they would contact me again if they do find this letter. Up to date I haven't heard from him again.
MR JOUBERT: Did you try more than once to get hold of it?
MR McINTYRE: Yes, various attempts were made by myself.
MR JOUBERT: Do you have access to ...(indistinct)
MR McINTYRE: No, no access.
MR JOUBERT: This document which you referred to, can you just maybe give us more details and what information contained in it?
MR McINTYRE: This document that I'm referring to is a letter from the State Security Council with an instruction to the Intelligence community in which certain target areas were appointed to some of the different sectors within the Intelligence communities and the Security Branch of the South African Police was the working area, as well as the tertiary institutions were also given to the police. National Intelligence Service also mentioned churches and Military Intelligence had to deal with the youth. It also mentioned that the Intelligence community, apart from these identified terrains, that certain ad hoc actions had to be launched that had the purpose of the neutralisation and the depleting of the enemy in these areas.
MS CAMBANIS: Sorry to interrupt here. I didn't get the translation. You've referred to youth and I didn't hear the other list. I'm sorry, Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, certainly. Could you repeat that for our translators to get it over?
MR McINTYRE: Certainly Chairperson. Military Intelligence got the youth for actions and as a target area.
CHAIRPERSON: You may proceed now Mr Joubert.
MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chair. Mr McIntyre, if I understood you correctly, that you decided to launch this action against the Khanya House?
MR McINTYRE: That is correct, yes.
MR JOUBERT: On page 16 of the bundle of documents, paragraph 11(a) where it is asked if this deed or act was committed on the instructions of anybody, you answered no. What did you refer to here? Did you refer to a specific person who gave you the instruction, or what was the position?
MR McINTYRE: Mr Chairperson, in the specific paragraph, I interpreted it as if anybody, an individual, gave me this specific instruction and that is why I wrote no.
MR JOUBERT: But you now testified that, or this document that you referred to at ...(indistinct) that gave a broader instruction or authorisation to launch these actions?
MR McINTYRE: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: It is also so that in your evidence or in a reaction on your initial application for amnesty, there was a document from the Amnesty Committee that asked certain questions. It's unfortunately not available to us, but you also answered it and that is contained on page 20 and 21 of the bundle of documents, is that correct?
MR McINTYRE: Yes.
MR JOUBERT: Was this document written by yourself or by your attorney?
MR McINTYRE: It was done by the attorney, I C Clark from East London.
MR JOUBERT: I would just like to look at this document. On page 20 you say there
"I had a casual discussion with, as far as I can remember at this stage, a Maj Kendle and Capt Boil"
Is that correct? Can you recall when such a discussion took place with these people?
MR McINTYRE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot recall if I truly mentioned it to them. The problem was also when I submitted my application, I could not recall with whom I discussed this incident. Because they were my colleagues at the unit, I thought that yes I would have discussed it with them.
MR JOUBERT: But after you had insight into some of the other amnesty applications and received more information, can you tell the Committee today if you did discuss it with them or if you discussed it with Col Hattingh.
MR McINTYRE: It is very clear, Chairperson, that I did discuss it with Col Hattingh and not with Maj Kendle and Capt Boil.
MR JOUBERT: You then continue in paragraph two of this same page, you say that information was received
"The South African Bishops Council had been aiding detainees"
In what context, or what assistance was given to the detainees?
MR McINTYRE: Chairperson, it was material assistance, moral support, this information.
MR JOUBERT: Where did you receive this information?
MR McINTYRE: Mr Chairperson, if I can just go back a few years. With my arrival in Pretoria in 1971 as part of a unit that collected information, one of the targets that we focused on, targets to get information from was the Catholic community. There were various activists, not terrorists, but activists at the SACVC, who openly criticised the then Government. This information that I'm referring to on page 20 is information that was gathered over several years and not only in 1988.
MR JOUBERT: You then continued, in paragraph 3 of the same page you say that as far as you can recall, Kendle and Boil were not involved.
"I only heard that Khanya House had been fire bombed when I read about the same in the Citizen Newspaper the morning after"
Is that correct?
MR McINTYRE: Yes.
MR JOUBERT: You then continue in the same paragraph
"I was totally unaware that an attack was going to take place and I do not know who took part in the attack"
Is that sentence correct as it stands there in the sense that you say that you were not aware of the fact that there would be an attack?
MR McINTYRE: Mr Chairperson, it's not correct. I was aware. I gave the instruction, so I was aware that there would be an attack. What is true is that I did not know when or who will execute this operation.
MR JOUBERT: And then on page 21, paragraph 5, you once again make the ...
"I was not involved in the attack, nor in the planning of the attack"
Is that correct?
MR McINTYRE: Yes, that is correct.
MR JOUBERT: Then you continue
"and was not aware that the actual attack was going to take place"
Is that correct?
MR McINTYRE: Mr Chairperson I think the wrong choice of words in the "was going to take place" it is not correct.
MR JOUBERT: Was it a situation that you knew that there was going to be an attack and you knew exactly when it was going to happen?
MR McINTYRE: Yes, that is correct.
MR JOUBERT: Mr McIntyre, this instruction you conveyed as far as you can recall, to Col Hattingh?
MR McINTYRE: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: Did you take, or were you involved in it any further, or did he deal with it onwards?
MR McINTYRE: Mr Chairperson, as far as I can recall, he dealt with it from then on.
MR JOUBERT: Then the statement of Col Hattingh. Mr Chairman, this is also a further affidavit which was handed to us today. I presume we could probable mark it as Exhibit B for ease of reference.
CHAIRPERSON: It shall be so marked.
MR VAN DER MERWE: Excuse me Mr Chair, if I may just come in here? I filed that further affidavit on behalf of Mr Hattingh. There's just two typographical errors with the date. It should be 1988, not 1998, then it would have been clairvoyant if it would have been 1998.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, certainly.
MR VAN DER MERWE: So if we can just alter. It's in paragraph, on page 5(iii) the first paragraph and the 6th paragraph under (iii). Every time the incident is referred to as October 98, it should be October 88. Thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Have you taken note of that, Mr Joubert? You may proceed. I've identified three of them. I don't know if there are more.
MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chair. I have also identified three on the same page. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR JOUBERT: Mr McIntyre, you've also seen this supplementary affidavit of Hattingh and more specifically page 5 where he discusses the nature and details of this incident. You did have insight into it?
MR McINTYRE: Yes.
MR JOUBERT: In the second paragraph, you will see that
"In this mentioned time I was called to Headquarters in Pretoria where a meeting took place. I can recall that Brig McIntyre was at this meeting"
Do you know if there was any formal meeting or was it just a meeting between Col Hattingh and one or two others?
MR McINTYRE: Mr Chairperson, I cannot recall if it was a formal meeting that took place, or if other people were present. I cannot recall.
MR JOUBERT: Then in the next paragraph he refers to information that says that there were members who were part of this revolutionary struggle who were accommodated at Khanya House or that people just moved through the house at certain times.
MR McINTYRE: Well the information that we had was that activists did visit Khanya House from time to time and at a certain time or opportunity we had to go and arrest an activist whom the West Rand branch looked for. I do know that it was a lady that we met at the Khanya House and that she was in the house itself, so yes, activists did have access to the house, but I cannot say that they were harboured there or not.
MR JOUBERT: In the same paragraph two sentences further on
".....on the instruction of McIntyre"
and he then refers to the Co-ordinator of Stratcom National, was that correct, or did you have a different post?
MR McINTYRE: Chairperson, I was the unit Commander of the Security Branch, from the Stratcom Unit.
MR JOUBERT: Then in the last paragraph of that (iii), that during the next meeting where the top management was present he reported back. Were you present there?
MR McINTYRE: No, not as far as I can recall.
MR JOUBERT: But with the rest of his affidavit, you do agree with that?
MR McINTYRE: Yes, that is correct.
MR JOUBERT: Mr McIntyre you also indicated that you would like to apologise to the victims. Is there something that you would like to say at this stage?
MR McINTYRE: Chair, I would like to make use of this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies to the Members of the Catholic Bishops Conference for the pain and the injury caused by the incident and especially to those individuals who were present on the premises on the night of the incident. My sincere apologies and to my fellow applicants and to my former colleagues too, my sincere apologies for placing you in this predicament. Thank you Sir.
MR JOUBERT: That is all, thank you Chair.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Joubert.
You say in 4.8 you left the police service because of medical reasons, "mediese ongeskiktheid", what were those, because if I look at the next paragraph, you proceeded with distinction to acquire further educational qualifications.
MR McINTYRE: Mr Chairperson these qualifications, the BA Criminology and the BA Honours, I already got in the Police. The MA I got at the end of 1994, so the reason why I left the police was because of medical disability, I was for three days in the intensive care of the Unitas Hospital because of blood pressure and I had an ulcer and I still have to take medication for these conditions.
CHAIRPERSON: You refer to where you grew up and that is Alice in the Eastern Cape. What I know of Alice is that there is this huge first Black University, if I may call it that, and adjacent to it, not like you sitting next to Mr Joubert, but adjacent to it we had Lovedale institution which produced most of the people who are obviously older than myself, you can see I'm a toddler, how could you say - describe it as the "platteland", whereas we have an area which produced most of the most educated people in this country? Even our former President comes from that institution and you call it the "platteland" and next to it was the Seminary for the priests, so there was, according to me, but I want to hear you, not just intellectual activity.
MR McINTYRE: Mr Chairman, it is so, many intellectual activities took place there but Alice, the area is a rural community, there is mainly a farming community, there are no great industrial areas and according to my knowledge or the way I see it, it is a rural area. If it wasn't for Fort Hare and the people from that community, I do not believe that Alice would have appeared on the map.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr McIntyre. As I ruled when, before you started testifying that we would hear your evidence-in-chief and afford Ms Cambanis an opportunity, after your evidence, to consult with her clients. Unfortunately Mr McIntyre, you will have to be cross-examined tomorrow. Is that understood?
MR McINTYRE: That's quite understood. Thank you Sir.
CHAIRPERSON: We adjourn formally for the day. We will commence with this hearing at nine-thirty tomorrow, the 29th of August 2000. We adjourn.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
