Amnesty Hearings

MS CAMBANIS: Chairperson, while Mr Hammond is taking the seat, may I just draw your attention to the fact that we are in the process of distributing statements from the victims in this matter, and Ms Patel has compiled a bundle.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Did you want us to give it a number right away, or could we just keep it until ...

MS CAMBANIS: We could keep it, but I just wanted to place it on record that that has been placed before you.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we have received the bundles and I saw Ms Patel walking around, I suppose she was doing precisely that. Thank you, Ms Cambanis. Mr du Plessis, in what language is Mr Hammond going to testify?

MR DU PLESSIS: Afrikaans, Mr Chairman.

GEORGE FRANCOIS HAMMOND: (sworn states)

ADV BOSMAN: The applicant is duly sworn, Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Advocate Bosman. Mr du Plessis?

EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Hammond, your application is in the bundle from page 377 to 391, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the correctness thereof?

MR HAMMOND: Correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Do you confirm the political motive therein?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And while we are busy with the political motive, may I just ask you as follows. Did you during this action believe that you were acting on behalf or to the advantage of the National Party and the National Party's policy at that stage?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And did you believe that you were acting against communism and against the liberation movements?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, you have also heard the evidence of Mr Kotze.

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Is there any aspects in Mr Kotze's evidence which you would like to differ from?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Can we then accept that the evidence of Mr Kotze, with regard to the incidents where you were together, you agree with that?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, unless you want me to repeat that evidence, I don't intend to repeat the evidence to Mr Hammond too.

CHAIRPERSON: No, no.

MR DU PLESSIS: I'm just going to lead him on those parts, the separate parts where he was involved separately.

Mr Hammond, you were a Lieutenant, you were under the command of Capt Kotze, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And your viewpoints were also in this operation that you were under the overhead command of Col de Kock, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: The gathering or the preparation that you conducted, where exactly were you involved and what did you do? This is now with reference to the gathering or obtainment of the petrol.

MR HAMMOND: Chairperson, I went to buy the petrol at various petrol stations, so as not to create suspicion. It was collected in containers which we received from Mr de Kock, from Technical. The paraffin which we mixed with the petrol is known in English as "chopper fuel", it is helicopter fuel and when they fill a helicopter, in the bottom of the container they would leave some of this paraffin to prevent any dirt getting into the petrol tank of the helicopter, and it is this specific paraffin that we used. It was approximately 60 litres which we mixed with approximately 100 litres of petrol.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. So insofar as your application refers to a lower quantity, that is not correct.

MR HAMMOND: That is not correct where I refer to 50 litres.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, can you recall who was present at the planning meeting at Vlakplaas, the night before this action?

MR HAMMOND: I was present, Hennie Kotze was there, Col de Kock was there, the Kok brothers were present, as well as other members, I cannot recall all their names.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. Can you recall whether you were armed that evening?

MR HAMMOND: I was not armed, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you carry a radio?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Very well. And do you have any recollection in which vehicle you drive there?

MR HAMMOND: I went in one of the kombis, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you have heard the evidence of Mr Kotze with regard to the laying of the ignition cord, how it happened, where it was laid, do you agree with that?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, I agree, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: You were responsible for the handling of the ignition cord in the building, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Will you please explain to the Committee what you did about that.

MR HAMMOND: I took the ignition cord into the building, at the back door on the northern side and I took it across the ground floor to the first steps and I rolled it down, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Was the ignition cord laid with the length of the first floor?

MR HAMMOND: No, I do not believe it was the whole length of it.

MR DU PLESSIS: Did you do anything else in the building, is that all you did in the building?

MR HAMMOND: I also assisted with the pouring of the petrol, specifically on the first floor.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, Mr Kotze testified that the back door was open, when he ignited the ignition cord you were already gone then?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, I was already gone and the door was open when I had left.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you were not in the vehicle of Mr de Kock, which at the end stayed somewhat longer there?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, you were along with Capt Kotze back to the scene the next morning, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Where exactly at the scene were you?

MR HAMMOND: I went in at the back door where we had gone in the previous evening and I walked around on the ground floor, not exactly to the back of the steps which went up to the first floor.

MR DU PLESSIS: Can you recall whether the building was wet in any way?

MR HAMMOND: It was Chairperson, because of the fire brigade that had come to extinguish the fire.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, you were also involved in Khotso and Cosatu House, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you had also applied in other cases for amnesty, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And Khotso and Cosatu House took place before this incident?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And were you under the impression, or did you form any opinion that this operation was not authorised or not justified under the circumstances?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Were you ever aware that there were people in the building, or that there would be people in the building?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: What would your approach have been to the operation if you knew that there would have been people in the building?

MR HAMMOND: I would have had us withdraw, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: While you were in the building did you see any signs of any persons in the building?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Hammond, there is talk of weapons that were found on the scene and Mr de Kock testified that it was weapons that came from Vlakplaas and that the weapons had been placed there but he doesn't know by who, do you have any knowledge about that?

MR HAMMOND: I know of the weapons, Chairperson, I saw that someone took it in there, but I cannot think who it was. I walked past the room and the door was open and someone was standing next the cupboard and placing the weapons in the cupboard, and up to today I cannot recall who it was.

MR DU PLESSIS: Now Mr Hammond, these particular weapons, if I can just refer you - if you'll just bear with me for one moment, Mr Chairman, these particular limpet mines, they did not have any detonators, according to the report that we have, the limpet mines were without detonators and the defensive handgrenades were without detonators, so it would not have had any danger for anyone in the fire.

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Would you agree with Mr Kotze's evidence with regard to that, that if there were detonators, what the affect of the fire would have been on it?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: And you would you agree with Mr Kotze's evidence with regard to the length of the ignition cord?

MR HAMMOND: More-or-less yes, Chairperson, I cannot recall whether the roll was shorter than 25 metres, I suspect it was two 50 metre rolls.

MR DU PLESSIS: Two 50 metre rolls?

MR HAMMOND: I suspect so, yes Chairperson.

MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Mr Hattingh?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Hammond, you said the following day when you arrived at the building you did not go higher up than the ground floor, did I hear you correctly?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you also said it was too dirty, what was too dirty?

MR HAMMOND: Chairperson, I was wearing neat clothes and the whole place was under water and it was burnt black and there were pieces of the building and furniture lying all over the place and I did not want to dirty my clothes in the building.

MR HATTINGH: A previous witness, Mr Kotze, was questioned about when this ignition cord burns would it leave any residue where it burns, did you hear that?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: If there was a residue left behind in the building, would you have expected to see it there, in the light of the fact that the floors were wet and would this not have washed away?

MR HAMMOND: It possibly washed away because of the fire that had been extinguished by the firemen, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So it would have been a very thin layer, thinner than the ignition cord, that would remain behind, is that not so?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson. The ignition cord that had burnt outside, that had led into the building and into the printing, I could still see that.

MR HATTINGH: And it was just a very fine powder ash that would be disturbed easily if water came across it.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: While you mention it now, it has been suggested to the pervious applicants that the outside door had been locked, to raise the impression there that it had been an inside job. Did you hear those statements?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, I heard those statements, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You say that the ash residue that was caused by the ignition cord, you say that you saw it clearly outside the door?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So any person who came there could have seen that the fire was started outside the building?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: I don't know how realistic the scenes are that we see in the movies, but we usually see in the movies that when petrol is poured in a room and he would pour it around and then leave a trail of the petrol leading the outside the door and then he sets it alight and then when it runs into the building, it's just one big woof and the whole building is set alight, how quickly would the fire run along that petrol line?

MR HAMMOND: Chairperson, in the movies it's not so realistic. I have already done special effects in movies and one would use other substances and mix it so that it would not ignite immediately, but when one pours out petrol in the building and the petrol mixes with the oxygen and the atmosphere, it would burn much quicker than in the movies.

MR HATTINGH: You say you were of assistance with the pouring of the petrol on the first floor?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Did you also pour petrol down the steps to the ground floor?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you have now explained the speed of the ignition cord, that it burn metres per second, not so?

MR HAMMOND: That is what Mr Kotze testified, yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Does petrol not burn quicker than the ignition cord?

MR HAMMOND: Much quicker, yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: So the moment when the fire is touched by the petrol, then that fire would spread much quicker than what it would have with the ignition cord?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And if petrol was poured on the first floor and it was poured down the steps, then it was not necessary to run an ignition cord to the first floor, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Because the fire would have, in the wink of an eye it would have spread with the petrol up to the first floor, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And if petrol was poured down the whole corridor of the second floor, then that whole corridor would have been on fire in the blink of an eye.

MR HAMMOND: I beg your pardon?

MR HATTINGH: If petrol was poured on the second floor and the fire spread to there, then that whole floor would have been engulfed in flames in an instant.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: It is not like one could look back and see the fire coming, it comes as quickly as one can see it, is that correct?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Just with regard to the explosive devices which were left there, we know that it was landmines and ...(intervention)

MR HAMMOND: Limpet mines, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: ... or limpet mines - are you sure it was limpet mines?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, it was limpet mines.

MR HATTINGH: And handgrenades that were not supplied with detonators.

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: You have heard the evidence of Mr Kotze, that if such weapons were not supplied or provided with detonators, it would not burn in the fire.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, Chairperson, I emptied it myself and I used it during training to secure it and one of the methods that I used was to burn out the explosives in the device to secure it.

MR HATTINGH: Is that to make sure that it was entirely empty and it is not dangerous?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So a fire is used to get rid of the explosives without it exploding?

MR HAMMOND: That's correct, Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: And you say you have personal experience of that.

MR HAMMOND: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: On many occasions?

MR HAMMOND: On many occasions, that's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you, Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hattingh. Mr van der Merwe?

MR VAN DER MERWE: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Nel?

MR NEL: No questions for Mr Hammond, thank you.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL

MR WAGENER: I've got no questions, Chairman.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR WAGENER

CHAIRPERSON: Counsel?

MR BUNN: Thank you, Mr Chair, I have no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR BUNN

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Another counsel?

MR JOUBERT: Thank you, Chair, no questions.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: I have no questions, thank you Mr Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Cambanis?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Chair.

Mr Hammond, the person with the explosives, just describe, what did you see?

MR HAMMOND: I saw a person standing in front of the cupboard with a bag in his hand, the items in the bag were placed in the cupboard and I assumed that these were the weapons because that is where they were found.

MS CAMBANIS: You saw someone place a sack into the cupboard?

MR HAMMOND: Yes, that is correct, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: In which room was this?

MR HAMMOND: A small room just before one takes the stairs up to the first floor, on the right-hand side.

MS CAMBANIS: And did you know what was in the "sak"? In the bag, I beg your pardon.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, I knew what was in the bag, because Col de Kock arranged for someone to bring the weapons from Vlakplaas. Who it was, I cannot recall.

MS CAMBANIS: That was a specific task given to someone by Mr de Kock?

MR HAMMOND: I assume so.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes. Sir, do you remember how many - at the planning meeting, how many people were tasked to enter the main building of Khanya House?

MR HAMMOND: I cannot recall precisely, I think it was nine or ten, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: Sorry, are you including the side building with the printing press? I was talking directly into Khanya House.

MR HAMMOND: I think for the main building it was approximately nine or ten, but I'm not entirely certain.

MS CAMBANIS: And does that include the Kok brothers?

MR HAMMOND: That is correct, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: Please Sir, if you can just assist us, besides the two Kok brothers, and I assume that includes yourself, who are the other six or so people that were tasked with entering Khanya House, the main building?

MR HAMMOND: I can recall Dawid Brits and Snor Vermeulen, I cannot recall the others.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, have you looked at the list, the list of applicants on the ...(end of Side A of tape)

MR HAMMOND: Chairperson, it is difficult for me to say who was inside, based upon this list of names. If I study the list I think back to what took place that evening on the scene of the incident and I cannot recall everybody who was in the building.

MS CAMBANIS: But are you sure that Mr Brits and Mr Vermeulen were inside the main building with you?

MR HAMMOND: I am certain, because Snor Vermeulen assisted me with the ignition cord on the first floor.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, the next ...(intervention)

MR HAMMOND: I beg your pardon, not on the first floor, on the ground floor.

MS CAMBANIS: I'm sure you've said this, I haven't got my note, was the ignition cord on the second floor? On the first floor, I beg your pardon.

MR HAMMOND: Please repeat.

MS CAMBANIS: Was the ignition cord placed on the first floor?

MR HAMMOND: Igniter cord.

MS CAMBANIS: Igniter cord, I beg your pardon.

MR HAMMOND: Yes, it was on the first floor as well.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, the next day when you went into the building, did you go and inspect each and every floor of the building? Of the main office.

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson, I didn't even visit the printing room. I went to the ground floor, I walked into the building, some distance on the ground floor.

MS CAMBANIS: Why did you - is there a reason why you didn't inspect the building, Sir?

MR HAMMOND: I cannot really give a reason, I didn't see the necessity of it.

MS CAMBANIS: You weren't interested to see what a good job you had done?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: And to learn from experience and mistakes?

MR HAMMOND: No, Chairperson.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, I think it's Mr Brits that referred to the fact that he had doused the documentation room with petrol, but there was in fact not as much damage as one would expect in the documentation centre. Now as an expert, is it possible that you douse a place but fire has a life of its own, it does what it wants to do?

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, may I just perhaps come in here. I'm not sure that Mr Brits did testify that he had doused the document centre. I may be wrong in this regard, but I'm not sure about that. I can't recall that evidence. He was in the room, but he didn't testify specifically that he had doused the whole room with petrol. I know, maybe Mr Cornelius can assist me here.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you assist us, Mr Cornelius?

MR CORNELIUS: Yes. He said he was in the room and he removed the computer component there from that room.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but the dousing of the documentation?

MR CORNELIUS: As I can recall he didn't testify to dousing the room with petrol.

CHAIRPERSON: Will you grant me a moment?

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, I will retract that part, what I really want to ask is whether fire acts in a predictable way. That's actually all I wanted to ask, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, thank you.

MR HAMMOND: I cannot recall whether petrol was poured into that room, the room where the weaponry would have been, I cannot recall whether petrol was poured into that room.

MS CAMBANIS: Yes Sir, I'm retracting that part, I'm just asking you whether fire behaves in a predictable way. For example, we've heard that maybe evaporation occurs or ...

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I'm not sure what the question is, maybe my learned friend could rephrase the question right from the beginning, so that we can understand.

CHAIRPERSON: May you do that, Ms Cambanis.

MS CAMBANIS: Sir, as I recall, then I have put previously questions relating to why certain parts weren't burnt and it has been said, for example, a reason has been given why the damage hasn't been done, was because petrol may have evaporated, for example, because it evaporates very quickly.

MR HAMMOND: I don't believe so, Chairperson, because the 10 minutes that we used to work in - I think it was actually more than 10 minutes that we went into the building and then withdrew again, the petrol could not have evaporated to such an extent by that stage. I don't believe that petrol was even poured into that room, that is why it didn't burn as severely.

MS CAMBANIS: Thank you, Mr Hammond. Thank you, Chair.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS CAMBANIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Cambanis. Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: No questions, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Bosman?

ADV BOSMAN: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Advocate Sandi?

ADV SANDI: No questions, thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Any re-examination, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: No re-examination, thank you Mr Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Hammond, you are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: That is the case for Mr Hammond, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: That is the case for Mr Hammond, thank you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: Would that complete the witnesses you have, Mr du Plessis?

MR DU PLESSIS: I have no further witnesses, thank you Mr Chairman, I believe it's Mr Lamey's turn now.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey, I see now you would be left with two.

MR LAMEY: Yes, yes, Chairperson, Mr Nortje and Mr Bosch.

CHAIRPERSON: Why I'm asking you, and this is directed to every legal representative, the Evidence Leader, Ms Patel, informed me that people were trying to adjust their flights tomorrow and it would appear to be packed, that we sit a little later and probably just finish the evidence of the applicants. I wondered if that would be in order with everybody? I think we can go up to five.

MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Chairman, I'm the only person who has a problem, but I think I can be excused, my attorney can be here this afternoon, so I don't think that will be a problem. Are you referring also to the evidence of the victims too?

CHAIRPERSON: We'll see how far we take it with Mr Bosch and ...

MR DU PLESSIS: I see, alright. Well Mr Chairman, may I perhaps then, if that's the possibility, may I be excused for a minute then just to make arrangements so that I can be here?

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, and the other thing is that I wanted to give my Interpreters a breather for 10 minutes, then we can all stretch our legs and come back within 10 minutes.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, we can proceed. I must thank you for having thought of the people in those hot boxes, that they had to catch some fresh air. I hope they caught enough to take them through this hearing. Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: Thank you, Chairperson, I call applicant Nortje.