Amnesty Hearings

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, I think it was your turn.

MR VISSER: I believe that Mr Hattingh is still busy Chairperson.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman and in fact you gave the witness an opportunity to read through his statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Quite correct. His statement is in volume 2.

ELVIS VINCENT McCASKILL: (s.u.o.)

CHAIRPERSON: I gave you an opportunity to check your statement. You can make whatever amendments you wish to and tell me about them. It's not normally done, but I thought it best in the interest of getting everybody clear on what you're actually saying that we do that. Are you in a position to tell me what amendments you want to make?

MR McCASKILL: What I did, I read through my statement and I left out what I was not sure about and I added what I thought was left out of the statement.

CHAIRPERSON: Alright then paragraph 1 as it stands here on page 68, besides the change of Lesotho to Bloemfontein, is there anything else you wish to add to that?

MR McCASKILL: Nothing... (indistinct)

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, paragraph 2?

MR McCASKILL: Wouldn't it be better if I read out what I - like I arranged it?

CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me?

MR McCASKILL: Wouldn't it be better if I read it out like I arranged it?

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm asking you and I explained to you yesterday, the basis of your statement, testimony is contained on that statement starting at page 68. There are certain issues I've given you an opportunity to change, that's why we're going to go through paragraph by paragraph. All these gentlemen sitting here have gone through this and they've prepared whatever they want to ask you on that basis and ever so now and then you were wanting to change certain aspects of your statement and in order to avoid you doing it on a piecemeal basis, I've given you this opportunity and that's why I want you to tell me what you disagree with, or what you want to change in this statement. Do you understand?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Now you said you're happy with paragraph ...(intervention)

MS PATEL: Sorry Chairperson, it seems that he's prepared a handwritten statement.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm quite aware of that. I'm not too interested in that, I'm not going to give him a second chance to give me another statement. Paragraph 2, are you happy with that? Mr Joubert, was this done in consultation with you, or did he do it on his own?

MR JOUBERT: No, Mr Chair, there was no consultation. He's under cross-examination. I have not assisted him at all.

CHAIRPERSON: What about paragraph 2? Did you not read this statement?

MR McCASKILL: I did, but what I did I arranged it out.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh have you got any objections to him reading what he has written?

MR HATTINGH: I have no objection Mr Chairman. If perhaps we could be given a copy of the handwritten statement at a later stage?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser have you got any objections?

MR VISSER: No, Chairperson, but I would agree that if we can have a copy of that, one could possibly ...

CHAIRPERSON: That goes without saying. I'm just inquiring about the procedure. I mean, I'm not too comfortable with it, but...

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I'm not really affected, so I don't have grounds for objecting.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Lamey?

MR LAMEY: No, I'll go along with Mr Hattingh's submission, Chairperson.

MR NEL: It doesn't affect my client either, I've got no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: We have no objection.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms Patel?

MS PATEL: Same here, thank you Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Well let's hear what you've got to read out there. Ms Patel would you see to it that that's photostatted and handed out?

MR McCASKILL: I'll start from paragraph 3.

"Kobus contacted me again in September 1985 and I continued to give him false information. He then stopped contacting me. In November 1985 while applying for a six months pass to enter South Africa, I was assisted by a man called Dick, who lived in Riverside Lodge on the South African side of the border. I finally got my pass and was told by Dick that a man by the name of Willie Coetzee fixed my pass. I was introduced to Willie by Dick. In return Willie wanted information about the ANC and the PAC. I later learned that he was with the Security Branch. I gave him false information for a few times, thinking that he would stop when realising that I was lying. He then approached me and told me that I was lying to him and he knew that I was living in a house near the border post. He also mentioned the names of the people that I was living with. He advised me to collaborate with them in order to be out of danger as they had a lot of informers within the ANC and the ...(indistinct) I then started giving true names and addresses of the people that I knew, of the ANC people that I knew.

I was then introduced to de Kock, Joe and Adamson by Willie. They asked me a few personal matters and if I had anything that would make them trust me. I told them about hand grenades and a bayonet which belonged to my sister's boyfriend. They asked me if it was possible for me to show them and I said yes, but they would have to arrange for my car not to be searched at the border post.

The same day, or maybe even a few days later, they arranged with the border post for my car not to be searched. I can't remember if it was Willie, de Kock or Adamson that I gave the things to, but whoever it was left with the things for about half an hour and then came back and asked me to take them back.

On the next meeting I was given the detonators, I was given two detonators and told to remove the original ones and replace them with the ones given to me. I did not do what I was instructed to do. The next meeting, I was asked to identify Leon and his wife from the photo albums. I can't remember if Jackie's photo was in the album, but Leon's was, even though it was from a much earlier age, a much younger age. They wanted to see what he looked like then, so I invited him to the bar and arranged with the Security Police to be there too. That's how they got to know him.

The next meeting we had the braai. De Kock, Adamson and other Security Police were present. De Kock said if I assisted them to kill Leon and his wife, they would give me R5 000 for each and any other terrorist. I told them I am not prepared to help - I am prepared to help them in any way, but not to kill. That's when de Kock threatened me by saying he can go to my house and kill me and my family at any time that he wanted to.

Then paragraph 9 and 10, I'm happy with. I carry on with paragraph 11.

I then gave the gun to Leon and told him that I would take him to the spot where I found that one, as there were more guns there. I did not take him there as I panicked. I lied to de Kock saying that Leon didn't come for the appointment. In fact I lied to Leon and said I went to the spot and found the guns missing. When that plan failed, Joe said they were getting fed up with my excuses. De Kock asked me if I knew about a small annual gathering that was going to be held by the ANC. I told him I would find out. In fact I did find out but this time they came saying the place was too far from the border post.

The next plan was the party at my house. They mentioned marked Black Label beers and sleeping pills, but I can't remember if the beers were supplied with the other unmarked ones, I only remember the beers were supplied. The afternoon of the raid, Teddy brought a message that Leon and other comrades wanted to see me. I went to see them. They wanted me to take them to Bloemfontein on the Saturday morning. I was supposed to meet them at the spot about 3 kilometres from the border post on the South African side. I then went with them to a certain coloured man's place, who then put his luggage into my car and then to Leon's place for his luggage. By then I thought I had a plan of stopping the raid by telling de Kock about the next day's trip to Bloemfontein.

I went to meet de Kock at the post office as arranged. i told him about the trip and I said we can cancel the raid because they can arrest the two guys on the South African side the next morning. De Kock said they have to go through with the plan as they were here and ready. He then said I should go back to the party and come back, I think he said in an hours time. At the party I did not have the chance to dose the people as most of them were drinking beers, except for one guy, David, who requested me to give him a brandy and coke. There were about ten people at the party, except my family and the ones that I asked to leave. Then it was almost time to go back to the post office.

Paragraph 17, I'm happy with.

When I went back to my place there were more uninvited guests. That's from paragraph 18. I asked them to leave. I took my brother who was already dosed, to the outside room. Before I left I reminded my girlfriend to take care of my sister and the child within the next half hour. I also realised that Leon and family had already left. By then it was almost 11 o'clock. I went back to de Kock and told him Leon and family had left the party. He told me to follow them to where the other car was parked. That's where we were split. The other group went to my house. Joe Adamson followed me to my workplace where I left my car and joined them as instructed. We then left for Leon's place. I was told to knock on the door. When the door opens I should go to the car and get it ready. They came back and we left and then from, I'm happy with the paragraphs from 20."

CHAIRPERSON: You're happy with?

MR McCASKILL: From paragraph 20 it's okay.

CHAIRPERSON: Right through?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, have you got any questions as a result of this?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, Mr Chairman, yes, I have several questions so might I request that we be given a copy of the statement first, I have not been able to take down everything that he said and I'd like to peruse it before I commence with my cross-examination or proceed with my cross-examination?

CHAIRPERSON: How long?

MR HATTINGH: Probably about 15 minutes Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ELVIS VINCENT McCASKILL: (s.u.o.)

MS PATEL: That's all we have, Honourable Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: Can anybody help me here, what number Exhibit are we at now?

MR VISSER: L.

CHAIRPERSON: L. Thank you Mr Visser. Shall we call this Exhibit L then? Yes Mr Hattingh.

MR McCASKILL: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (cont) Mr McCaskill yesterday you indicated that you prefer to testify in Afrikaans.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Before we continue with your statements which are now before us, with regard to the first one, may I just ask you, the one that you have now amended, where was this statement of yours taken, the English statement.

MR McCASKILL: It was in Durban.

MR HATTINGH: How did it come about that you were in Durban?

MR McCASKILL: One of the TRC investigators found me in Bloemfontein and he took me down to Durban.

MR HATTINGH: So he took you down to Durban just to go and make a statement?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And there in Durban, who took the statement from you?

MR McCASKILL: It was an Investigator, I think his name was Pule.

MR HATTINGH: Was it just the one person who was present when you made the statement?

MR McCASKILL: No, there were two other persons, it was a Judge, I cannot recall the name and two other persons.

MR HATTINGH: One of them you think was a Judge.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the other one, male or female?

MR McCASKILL: They were two males.

MR HATTINGH: And the statement which you made was then typed?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, as I was asked, the one investigator would sit on a small computer and type as the Judge was asking questions.

MR HATTINGH: I'm not following you. Are you saying that the statement was typed as you were talking, or did they first take notes?

MR McCASKILL: They first took notes and thereafter, I cannot recall whether the both of them asked questions or just the one and the Investigator was busy typing.

MR HATTINGH: And was the statement typed, the one that we have now in bundle 2 from page 68?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And after it was typed, you said yesterday you read it?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you were satisfied to sign it as such?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, to me it looked right.

MR HATTINGH: And was the statement attested to? The copy that we have does not indicate that it was signed by a Commissioner of Oaths.

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Was it not attested to?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: And thereafter you consulted with your present legal representative who is sitting next to you with regard to this statement, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did he go through this with you paragraph by paragraph?

MR McCASKILL: That's right.

MR HATTINGH: ; And did he ask you for your comment or ask you to say whether what is written there is incorrect, or not?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I indicated a few mistakes that I saw there.

MR HATTINGH: You say during consultation you pointed out a few mistakes?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were these the mistakes that you rectified yesterday?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: While you were led by Mr Joubert?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And in cross-examination you came to point out a few more mistakes?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you were given the opportunity by the Chairperson to go back and to read the statement properly and to see where there are more mistakes?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And this statement, Exhibit L that you handed in today, you are saying that that is the correct version?

MR McCASKILL: As I know, yes.

MR HATTINGH: As you recall today?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: I would just like to ask also, is it correct when I say that yesterday you said the reason why you want to make these further corrections is because during the evidence that you have listened to, this assisted you in remembering.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Are you certain thereof?

MR McCASKILL: I am certain.

MR HATTINGH: And that is the reason why you made these corrections?

MR McCASKILL: That is one of the reasons yes.

MR HATTINGH: So what are the other reasons? What helped you to recall what the truth is?

MR McCASKILL: Yesterday I was asked whether I saw here that there were other bits and pieces that were not in here.

CHAIRPERSON: Listen to the question. Your initial statement was made and you say that you were satisfied with it and you signed it?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You went through that statement with your attorney?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And you thought it was correct and the corrections that you effected.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Back then with your attorney?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And now you come and say that there are further corrections which you would like to effect and the reason for this is because now that you have heard the evidence of all the applicants you recall now that there are certain things that are not entirely correct?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that and I will remember that. Is there any other reason that causes you to remember that there are certain omissions or incorrect facts?

MR McCASKILL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: It is just what they had given evidence about that made you remember what was right then?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. Mr McCaskill, Mr de Kock had already a long time testified about this incident, is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And he spoke about the whole incident, is that so?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did he say anything that joggled your memory?

MR McCASKILL: Certain things.

MR HATTINGH: And since our last sitting in this matter up till before we started yesterday again, you must have consulted with your attorney, Mr Joubert again, is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you had the opportunity to tell him: "Listen Mr de Kock joggled my memory about this and that and there are certain corrections which I would like to effect to my statement."

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Well further ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Sorry Mr Hattingh. Except for two of the applicants everybody has already testified up to the end of the last sitting, so in the same manner, whatever you might have recalled from the evidence of all the applicants, except for the last two, what Mr Hattingh says about Mr de Kock's evidence is also applicable to the other evidence, is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct yes.

MR LAMEY: Chairperson, may I just enter here? Mr Nortje on a previous occasion also gave evidence, it was just his cross-examination with regard to Mr Berger that was completed yesterday.

CHAIRPERSON: And in the favour of the witness, I will leave him out. Best for him is without the last two witnesses.

MR HATTINGH: Now Mr McCaskill, you were present when Mr Nortje was cross-examined during the course of this week by Mr Berger and other persons and you were also present when Mr Bosch gave evidence and was cross-examined, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And there were adjournments for lunch and tea in between during the course of the evidence, is that so?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And if they ad refreshed your memory with regard to certain incidents, you've had the opportunity of indicating those facts to your attorney.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Before you could give evidence.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when you came to give evidence yesterday, you had already listened to all the evidence that had joggled your memory and you had the opportunity of fixing your attorney's attention on any amendments or corrections which you would like to effect and then amendments were brought about in your statement, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And under cross-examination there were more amendments.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And now it would appear - I did not have enough time to study your statement and to compare it with what you had said previously, but looking at it for the first time, it would appear that there are new amendments in the new statement in contrast with those in your old statement, other than the ones that you had mentioned yesterday?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So why weren't these corrections made, not when you were led by your advocate in your evidence -in-chief and you had effected the amendments paragraph by paragraph, that you had wanted to?

MR McCASKILL: There were a few things that yesterday, that I could remember correctly that this gentleman had asked me, the meeting with Mr de Kock.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, let us for the present leave the differences between the statements there. We shall deal with your version. You first supplied information to the Ladybrand branch.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you still say that you initially gave them false information?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, initially.

MR HATTINGH: Now in the new statement you say that you were confronted or the man came to tell you that the information you were giving was not true, was that Mr de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: No, it was not. It was not Mr de Kock.

MR HATTINGH: Who was it then?

MR McCASKILL: It was Mr Coetzee. Mr Willie Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: He comes to you and says: "Listen here, we have many ANC sources and so forth and we know the information that you are giving us is not correct and did he threaten you then?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Not at all? he didn't threaten you and say that: "If you don't give us the correct information, this or that will happen to your family"?

MR McCASKILL: He just told me, gave me advice, I will not take it as a threat.

MR HATTINGH: Why were you then prepared to give correct information?

MR McCASKILL: Because I found out that they knew of everything that was going on.

MR HATTINGH: They found out that you were lying to them?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But at that stage you had not been threatened yet?

MR McCASKILL: No, not yet.

MR HATTINGH: In other words, you voluntarily worked with them?

MR McCASKILL: I would say that, but after the advice I decided...

MR HATTINGH: So while you, initially you were not willing to give correct information and gave them false information, why later were you prepared to be willing and without having to be influenced or threatened to do so and supply them with correct information?

MR McCASKILL: I saw that it would not help me with anything and that they knew what was going on and I may be endangered if I do not play along.

MR HATTINGH: But you were in danger when you gave the false information.

MR McCASKILL: I thought that - the first time I thought that if I give them false information they would leave me, like Mr Kobus had.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: ; Why did you think you were in danger? They had not threatened you?

MR McCASKILL: No I didn't think I was in danger.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I thought that's what you said.

MR McCASKILL: I said I did it because I saw it was not helping me, they knew everything.

CHAIRPERSON: You spoke of danger.

MR McCASKILL: Mr Willie gave me advice that my life would be in danger.

CHAIRPERSON: So now we are back at the danger now. So what is the truth? Either you were threatened or you were not threatened.

MR McCASKILL: I did not take it as a threat.

CHAIRPERSON: Sir, I am not asking how you interpreted it. Were you threatened or not?

MR McCASKILL: I will say I was threatened.

CHAIRPERSON: No, don't just say, I am asking whether you were threatened or not?

MR McCASKILL: I was not threatened.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: ; Are you changing what you've stated also in your amended statement? In your statement you say that you were advised by Mr Coetzee to collaborate in order to be out of danger. This is the statement you've just handed to us a few seconds ago.

MR McCASKILL: That's what he said to me.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: ; So did you co-operate because you thought you were in danger?

MR McCASKILL: Because I took his advice.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Pursuant to him having said to you: "If you do not co-operate we will do something to you"?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I'll take it ...

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: What did he say he would do to you if you didn't co-operate?

MR McCASKILL: He didn't tell me what he will do, but he just told me that if I didn't co-operate I'll be in danger because they knew, they had a lot of ANC informers and Lesotho informers.

CHAIRPERSON: What would the ANC informers have done to you if they found out that you were giving information to the police?

MR McCASKILL: They would have killed me probably.

CHAIRPERSON: But why? You were supplying false information.

MR McCASKILL: I think that what I should have done, I should have told them initially when the thing was right in it's initial stages that I would not.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McCaskill, we are not playing games here. This will begin in two weeks time in Australia. I am asking you simply why do you think that the ANC cadres would have killed you if they found out that you were feeding false information to the Security Police?

MR McCASKILL: I think so, because they wouldn't have trusted me and they do not like people who sell them out.

CHAIRPERSON: But according to your evidence, you were not selling them out.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I just supplied false information.

CHAIRPERSON: Ja, well that's not selling out. That's in fact doing them favours. Not so?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now where was the danger then?

MR McCASKILL: I think I took Mr Willie's advice because I was, I don't know ...

CHAIRPERSON: No, the advice as you understood it, that they would leave you to the cadres of the ANC and they would possibly injure you or kill you, that was the danger. But at that stage you were giving false information to the police so there was no danger that the cadres would have killed you or have injured you.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So what advice did you follow then?

MR McCASKILL: Then I would take Mr Coetzee's words as a threat.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr McCaskill for how long had you been supplying Mr Coetzee with this false information before you had given this ...

CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't for a long time.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, approximately?

MR McCASKILL: I think maybe two or three times.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Which spanned over which period? I mean your first contact with him was around November.

MR McCASKILL: Yes. Maybe two or three days or so, not a long time.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Three days in succession.

MR McCASKILL: I'd say two or three days.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: In November.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And this is early November?

MR McCASKILL: I can't remember.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You can respond to me in Afrikaans because that's the language you feel most comfortable in.

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall whether it was in the middle of November or the beginning of November.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, but it was after you had supplied false information for about two to three times?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Hattingh.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh I think the King is in the middle of the Chess board. Please continue.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. Mr McCaskill what do you mean in paragraph 2 with the words

"he told me..."

Exhibit L: , not paragraph 2 Chairperson, I beg your pardon. Paragraph 4 where you say

"he then approached me and told me I was lying to him and he knew that I was living in a house near the border post. He also mentioned the name of the people I was living with."

What did you understand by that? What did you think he meant when he said that: "I know where you live and I know all the people who live with you there"?

MR McCASKILL: I understood that, I didn't expect that he would know where I lived and he may know people who are with me who are ANC members.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not regard this as a threat towards you and your family that you should collaborate because we know where you are and where you family is?

MR McCASKILL: It could be.

MR HATTINGH: But did you regard it such, Mr McCaskill?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall, I really cannot remember.

MR HATTINGH: And then you started giving him correct information. I would just like to take Judge Khampepe's question a little further. For how long, I'm not asking how many times, but over what period did you give them correct information?

MR McCASKILL: This was before I met Mr de Kock?

MR HATTINGH: Before you met Mr de Kock.

MR McCASKILL: It could be two or three weeks.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. May I then ask you now, during those two or three weeks, approximately how many times were you in contact with Mr Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot - I will estimate ten, about ten times.

MR HATTINGH: I will not hold you to that, I just want an estimation. How did you manage to contact each other? Did you go to him when you had information or did he call you and tell you: "Come and speak to me", or what happened?

MR McCASKILL: I think from the time I met him the first time, we always had an appointment, they didn't want to call to my place.

MR HATTINGH: So every time he agreed on a time with you that you would meet?

MR McCASKILL: Or he asked me when I would come through so that I could come to him, or every time when I come through - I cannot recall how it worked.

MR HATTINGH: And where did you go to speak to him?

MR McCASKILL: I beg your pardon?

MR HATTINGH: Where did you go speak to him?

MR McCASKILL: In Ladybrand.

MR HATTINGH: But where in Ladybrand?

MR McCASKILL: There was a place in between the trees there at the Group 36 army base in Ladybrand.

MR HATTINGH: In the field?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So there must have been an agreement that you would meet each other there?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the reason was that he did not want and you also did not want other people to see that you had liaison with him?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct yes.

MR HATTINGH: And the information that you gave to him, what information was this?

MR McCASKILL: It was mostly names and pointing out people in the photo album, or the address of someone whom they were looking for.

MR HATTINGH: But all of this, the pointing out of photo albums, you could have done that once, you couldn't have done that all the time when you came there.

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: So you must have given other information as well.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, like maybe when they would ask where certain persons lived.

MR HATTINGH: They knew that you were friends with some of these people.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And that you had regular contact with them.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And that is why they believed that you knew what they were busy with.

MR McCASKILL: No I explained to them right from the start that I did not know what they were busying themselves with, but I knew some of these people and I knew where some of them lived.

MR HATTINGH: How did you know that some of these people about whom you were supplying information were members of the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: I knew.

MR HATTINGH: But I'm asking, how did you know?

MR McCASKILL: There was a man by the name of Dick, he was my sister's boyfriend. We spoke about this, but I would have, if this thing did not happen.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking whether you were a member of the ANC.

MR McCASKILL: No, I was not.

MR HATTINGH: I think you added that you would have been a member of the ANC if this thing did not happen.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: This Dick, is this the person who went out with your sister?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was he a member of the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was he a member of MK?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is that what he told you, or is this what your sister told you?

MR McCASKILL: No I did not discuss anything with my sister.

MR HATTINGH: So you discussed this with Dick himself?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So he told you he was MK?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What about the other people, did they also tell you that they were members of the ANC, or that they were trained MK members?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know for example what Mr Joe Meyer was?

MR McCASKILL: Yes I knew.

MR HATTINGH: Was he a member of MK?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: How did you know that?

MR McCASKILL: I heard this from Dick.

MR HATTINGH: From Dick? Not from Mr Meyer himself?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: And the other persons whom you supplied information about, how did you know that they were all members of the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: There were certain times that they met in the house and then they would have something like a meeting.

MR HATTINGH: How did you know about these meetings?

MR McCASKILL: I saw that they would get together and talk.

MR HATTINGH: At whose house would they have these meetings?

MR McCASKILL: At my house.

MR HATTINGH: At your house? And were you then present during these meetings?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: So why would they hold these meetings at your house?

MR McCASKILL: Because Dick and I lived in one house. We shared the rent every month. It was not my house alone.

MR HATTINGH: So they regularly met there?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you could see who came to the meetings?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And did Dick tell you that it was a meeting of the MK or ANC?

MR McCASKILL: No, that's what I thought myself.

MR HATTINGH: And did you know these people who attended the meeting?

MR McCASKILL: Most of them, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Were you friends with them?

MR McCASKILL: A few of them, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Amongst others, Mr Meyer and his wife?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you visit their houses and they visited your house?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you knew them well?

MR McCASKILL: Reasonably well, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Meyer, what was he doing in Lesotho? Did he have a fixed job?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know how he earned an income?

MR McCASKILL: Dick told me that it was an allowance that they received every month.

MR HATTINGH: From the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know if his wife knew about this allowance that he received every month?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: You would not know. Do you know whether his wife knew that he was a member of MK?

MR McCASKILL: I would not know.

MR HATTINGH: But were these things never discussed?

MR McCASKILL: I beg your pardon?

MR HATTINGH: Were these things never discussed whenever you visited each other?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Why not?

MR McCASKILL: No, we did not discuss the ANC we just discussed things that we knew about.

MR HATTINGH: But earlier on you indicated that you would probably have become a member of the ANC.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you were sympathetic towards them.

MR McCASKILL: Before Dick had left the country, he was busy recruiting me before he left the country.

MR HATTINGH: Who?

MR McCASKILL: Dick.

MR HATTINGH: Dick was busy recruiting you?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you want to be recruited, you were willing to be recruited?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you told Dick this?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And one could probably accept that Dick may have told his colleagues?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: When did this happen, that Dick found out that you were willing to become a member of the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: This was before he left the country.

MR HATTINGH: Which year was that?

MR McCASKILL: It was in the same year, 85.

MR HATTINGH: Did he ever discuss it with you again?

MR McCASKILL: We did not see each other again.

MR HATTINGH: Never again?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So nobody came to ask you to sign a form or sign a card so that you could prove that you were a member of the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: So you never attended a meeting again?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: So here we have a person that Dick knows is willing to become a member of the ANC and this is not taken any further?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: If he had asked you to join and to pay your membership fees and become a card carrying member of the ANC, would you have done so?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And it would appear to me Mr McCaskill that you in any case had the trust of these people, they trusted you.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Otherwise they would not have asked you to take them out of the country.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh when you are at a convenient point, we can adjourn for tea.

MR HATTINGH: They would not have asked you to take them out as they asked you to take them out that night or the following day?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

RECORDING STARTS HERE AFTER ADJOURNMENT

ELVIS VINCENT McCASKILL: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (Cont)

... and I assume that while it was your house, they certainly would not have prohibited you from entering your house while they were busy with meetings.

MR McCASKILL: No, they always told me when they were going to have meetings.

MR HATTINGH: And then you were not supposed to be there?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you married or were you living with anyone?

MR McCASKILL: I was living with a woman.

MR HATTINGH: Did you have a child or children with her?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Was she also supposed to leave the house when these meetings took place?

MR McCASKILL: It was a big house, there was a lot of room. She may have been busy in another part of the house.

MR HATTINGH: Then you yourself could also have been in a different part of the house while the meetings were underway.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Were you sometimes in the house when meetings took place?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And to such an extent you were a confidant, that you even knew that Sizwe had weapons in the house.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you certainly must have known that they were involved in attacks which were described at that stage as acts of terrorism?

MR McCASKILL: No, not at all.

MR HATTINGH: Not at all? Then what did you think they were busy with if they were members of MK?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't know and I didn't think about it.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't you really think about it? Then where in the world were you living?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't know anything about the people I was living with.

CHAIRPERSON: Proceed Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chair. You have MK members who are busy with meetings, one lives in the house with you, he has weapons. Didn't you think that they were involved in attacks?

MR McCASKILL: No, I didn't.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't you ask?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Let us restrict ourselves to Sizwe for the time being. He didn't have a permanent job either?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: He also received a similar allowance?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did he sometimes leave the country?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Alone or with any of the other MK members?

MR McCASKILL: I wouldn't know.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know where he went upon the occasions that he left the country? And when I refer to the country I mean Lesotho.

MR McCASKILL: I only know about the last time that he went away.

MR HATTINGH: Do you know where he went?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Where did he go?

MR McCASKILL: He said he was going to Zambia.

MR HATTINGH: Where to?

MR McCASKILL: Zambia.

MR HATTINGH: What was he going to do there?

MR McCASKILL: He didn't tell me.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't you ask him?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: But he is your friend, living with you in the house. Were you that uninvolved in his life that you didn't even ask him what he was going to do in Zambia?

MR McCASKILL: He said that he was going to a conference. I didn't ask any other questions.

MR HATTINGH: They trusted you and you yourself were interested in becoming an ANC member, but you didn't ask them at all regarding what they were busy with?

MR McCASKILL: No, I didn't.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How long did you live with Dick in the same house?

MR McCASKILL: I think it's maybe a year or so.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: A year?

MR McCASKILL: Ja.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And during that period you saw people coming to meetings with Dick?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And he had already formed a relationship with your sister?

MR McCASKILL: They were already living together, ja.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Your sister was also living in the same house?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman. Now what about Mr Meyer, did you know whether he left Lesotho upon any occasions?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Not at all?

MR McCASKILL: Not at all.

MR HATTINGH: And did you know if any of the other members who were having meetings there ever left the country?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: There was evidence that the police in Ladybrand obtained information from the Meyer side which indicated that they were planning to enter the Republic over the festive season to commit acts of terrorism. Did you know anything about that?

MR McCASKILL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Hattingh, what was the date?

MR HATTINGH: Of what, Chairperson?

CHAIRPERSON: When he heard that they would be entering. Did you mention a date?

MR HATTINGH: No, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Very well.

MR HATTINGH: I simply said that they were planning on entering the country to launch attacks over the festive season. You didn't know anything about that?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know many ANC and MK members were in Lesotho?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know of more than those who held meetings in your house?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: How many people attended meetings in your house?

MR McCASKILL: It wasn't always the same ever time. Sometimes it would be seven to ten persons, another it would be eleven.

MR HATTINGH: So it would be anything from seven to twelve on various occasions.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So you knew that there was a large number of persons active in Lesotho?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Who asked you to bring Mr Meyer to the Republic that night?

MR McCASKILL: He himself.

MR HATTINGH: Did he say what he was going to do?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ask?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did he tell you that it was a secret mission?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did he say what time you would be departing?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What time did he say you would be departing?

MR McCASKILL: Just as soon as the border post had opened.

MR HATTINGH: Would he have gone through the border post?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Would he cross the border illegally?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know, but he told me he would meet me on the other side.

MR HATTINGH: You would have to go through the border post and meet him on the other side?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You must have deduced that he'd be crossing illegally?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And he would be on an illegal mission?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you know that?

MR McCASKILL: No, I didn't know.

MR HATTINGH: Were any of the other persons who attended these meetings at your house, armed upon the occasions that they arrived there?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Were there not any pistols or guns or anything like that in their possession?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Before I digress too much from the point of your acquaintance with Mr Coetzee, you said that a certain Dick told you that it was Willie Coetzee who assisted you in obtaining the pass.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: It was the six month pass?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is that a document that enabled you to travel freely between Lesotho and the Republic, or what sort of document was it?

MR McCASKILL: It was a document that made it possible for me not to have to fill in the necessary forms every time.

MR HATTINGH: So you would show the document and you'd have passage?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: You would just go to the gate and show the document? And you said it was Dick who told you that it was Willie Coetzee who had assisted you?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And according to your written affidavit, Exhibit L, you state that he, Dick, introduced you to Willie Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And where did this introduction take place?

MR McCASKILL: At the Riverside Lodge.

MR HATTINGH: Did Dick or is that where Dick resided?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did he ask you to go there?

MR McCASKILL: I went there regularly.

MR HATTINGH: Was Dick a friend of yours?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Then what were you doing at the Lodge?

MR McCASKILL: There was a sports bar of sorts.

MR HATTINGH: So you were there socially?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And at the Riverside Lodge, you were introduced by Dick to Willie Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: If I may return to your affidavit in Bundle 2 on page 68, paragraph 4, you state the following

"On a particular day in the late 1985, as I was crossing the border post, I was approached by Willem Coetzee"

this you later changed to Willie Coetzee.

"I later learned that he was a Security Branch Police at Ladybrand."

Is that false, or incorrect?

MR McCASKILL: I have amended it.

MR HATTINGH: So that version is totally incorrect?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Well how could you have made such a tremendous mistake, Mr McCaskill, because you went to this Lodge socially quite often and that's where you were introduced to Mr Coetzee, yet in your other statement you stated that he approached you while you were crossing the border and those are really two completely contradictory versions.

MR McCASKILL: It is a mistake that I made.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but my question is how did you make this mistake?

CHAIRPERSON: Even then, how could you have made the mistake?

INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the response of the witness.

CHAIRPERSON: Could you repeat your response for the interpreter?

MR McCASKILL: My last answer was that I simply must have forgotten.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McCaskill as your evidence progresses, I find it all the more difficult to understand your evidence because that response doesn't make any sense in terms of the question that was put to you. The question was how is it that you could have made such a mistake and your answer is that you simply must have forgotten and that doesn't make any sense to me.

MR McCASKILL: I don't know how it came to be that I made so many mistakes.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we are referring to that particular mistake. It is a totally different version regarding how you came to meet Willie Coetzee and that is what the advocate has put to you. We accept the difference, the question is how could this have happened that you would provide two different versions regarding the same point? It is not a question of the wrong date, or the wrong name, or a spelling error, the entire event in itself is different. Are you in a position to explain that?

MR McCASKILL: I really cannot say how this came to be.

CHAIRPERSON: He cannot explain it.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chair. Very well, Mr McCaskill, let us return to the meetings. These meetings that were held at your house, did I understand you correctly, because I'm not certain whether I heard you correctly, these meetings took place for approximately a year long before the incident itself took place, in other words for a year the people would meet in your house?

MR McCASKILL: No, I didn't say that.

MR HATTINGH: Then how long before the incident did these meetings take place at your house?

MR McCASKILL: I would say from the point that we moved into that house.

MR HATTINGH: Then how long before the incident was that?

MR McCASKILL: Probably three months.

MR HATTINGH: Approximately three months, it may even have been somewhat longer?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, we may have stayed there for even longer.

MR HATTINGH: And so for that period of time the meetings were held in your house?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: When you conveyed the information to Mr Coetzee during these rendezvous with him, did you tell him about these meetings?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: You did?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell him who was present during these meetings?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you mention all the names that you knew?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But you couldn't tell him what they had discussed?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But didn't he ask you to try and find out or hear what they were discussing?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in which room in the house did they hold the meetings?

MR McCASKILL: In the lounge.

MR HATTINGH: And I'm assuming that they did not lower the speaking volume of their voices?

MR McCASKILL: No, they did not.

MR HATTINGH: So if you wanted to, you could easily have eavesdropped on what they were saying?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And now you were asked to do so, and did you do so?

MR McCASKILL: No,I never did so. Upon an occasion they mentioned that they were going to give me something that I could place in the house which would ...

MR HATTINGH: Would it have been something like a tapping device that you would conceal?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But that never happened?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: But then they asked you to eavesdrop and then tell them what was said?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but I was somewhat afraid of doing that.

MR HATTINGH: Why were you scared?

MR McCASKILL: Because they always asked me if it would be appropriate for them to meet in the house. They always asked me in a very polite manner.

CHAIRPERSON: This must have been in Lesotho?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: I thought it was Ellis Park.

MR HATTINGH: So they would ask you very politely if they could meet there?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: They would ask you to excuse them during the meetings and they trusted you.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And one of them asked you to become a member of the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then why were you afraid of eavesdropping on what they said?

MR McCASKILL: It wasn't easy to do so.

MR HATTINGH: Why wasn't it easy?

MR McCASKILL: Because they would sit in the lounge and I couldn't stand in the room and try to listen, I would have to stand by the window, I would have to hold my ear to the window.

MR HATTINGH: But weren't there any other rooms leading off the lounge?

MR McCASKILL: No, the lounge and the kitchen were open plan and then there were two rooms on the other side.

MR HATTINGH: Did these rooms lead off from the lounge?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So from the lounge you would enter a bedroom? So if you were in the bedroom and the door was open, couldn't you hear what was going on in the lounge?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did you explain to these people why you couldn't tell them what had happened?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I did, that's why they said that they were going to give me a device to put in the house.

MR HATTINGH: And why didn't they give you such a device?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Was this at the stage when you were giving the correct information to the police?

MR McCASKILL: Yes

CHAIRPERSON: Possibly they thought it wasn't necessary to plant anything there.

MR McCASKILL: I don't know why the didn't give the device.

CHAIRPERSON: I wanted to ask you this later, but you can tell me now. How is it that you were in a position to tell them the truth, if you didn't eavesdrop on these people?

MR McCASKILL: To tell the truth to the Security Police?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, there was a stage that you lied to them.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And then you decided that you would tell them the truth.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: As your evidence has progressed, some of the information that you gave them that was the truth was about these meetings which were taking place in your house, isn't that correct?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that is.

CHAIRPERSON: And you've just told Adv Hattingh that you never eavesdropped on them.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And there were certain reasons for this. But how then were you capable of telling the truth to the police and providing facts if you didn't eavesdrop on them?

MR McCASKILL: I simply told the police what I knew, I couldn't tell them what I didn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but how did you determine what was going on in the meetings?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't know what was going on in the meetings.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that you never informed the police regarding aspects of those meetings?

MR McCASKILL: Never.

CHAIRPERSON: Then what was your information about?

MR McCASKILL: All that I gave them were names and addresses, that's all and I also made identifications in the photo albums.

CHAIRPERSON: That's all?

MR McCASKILL: That's all.

CHAIRPERSON: Nothing further?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct. That is all that I knew of these people.

CHAIRPERSON: Your entire career of betraying the ANC members never involved the provision of any other information with the exception of names and addresses?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you certain?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Because it is very significant.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I am certain.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you the person who told them that there would be a certain number of ANC persons infiltrating South Africa?

MR McCASKILL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Did they hear this from another source?

MR McCASKILL: Most probably.

CHAIRPERSON: I beg your pardon?

MR McCASKILL: Most probably, but not from me.

CHAIRPERSON: So you found out from the police that there were people who were going to come back to the RSA?

MR McCASKILL: I never heard this.

CHAIRPERSON: But the party was aimed at bringing these people together at your house?

MR McCASKILL: Not that I know of.

CHAIRPERSON: Then how did you know who you were supposed to bring to the party?

MR McCASKILL: They told me about Leon and the others, and the other ANC members, they didn't say the Leon Meyer group or anything like that.

CHAIRPERSON: That's not what you said in your affidavit, but in any event , continue.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chair. Mr McCaskill, you also added that you told them about the meetings, that meetings were taking place in your house.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you also told them who attended the meetings.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And later you said that it would always be different people.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr Meyer ever present at any of these meetings?

MR McCASKILL: One or two, a few of them.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon?

MR McCASKILL: A few of them, not all of them.

MR HATTINGH: And do you know whether such meetings were held in any other places in Lesotho?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: You don't know anything about that?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Are you saying that you don't know, or that there weren't? I'm not certain if I understood your answer.

MR McCASKILL: I don't know if there were meetings held at other places.

MR HATTINGH: But there was no reason why they couldn't hold all their meetings at your house?

MR McCASKILL: I beg your pardon?

MR HATTINGH: There were not any reasons why they couldn't have their meetings at your house?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: How did you know who attended the meetings?

MR McCASKILL: I beg your pardon?

MR HATTINGH: How did you know who attended the meetings?

MR McCASKILL: As they arrived for the meetings I could see it was Leon and this one and that one.

R HATTINGH: But where would you be when the people arrived for the meetings?

MR McCASKILL: This would be if I was at home.

MR HATTINGH: Okay. You're at home. Would you be in the lounge, at the gate, where would you be positioned so that you could see who was going to be attending the meeting?

MR McCASKILL: If the meeting began, I would be in the house perhaps, or go and meet some of them, or be introduced to some of those that I didn't know.

MR HATTINGH: So you state that before the meetings began, you went in and chatted to those that you knew and they introduced you to those that you didn't know.

MR McCASKILL: Or perhaps they would encounter me in the house.

MR HATTINGH: Or they would encounter you in the house. Very well. In other words they did not try to prevent you from seeing who was arriving for these meetings. On the contrary you were introduced to those that you didn't know. Were you asked to leave the meetings subsequently?

MR McCASKILL: If I saw that they were ready to begin, I would leave of my own accord.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't they ask you to leave?

MR McCASKILL: No, I already knew when they would be having their meeting because they asked me if they could use the lounge at a certain time for their meeting.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but did they ever tell you or ask you to leave the room when they were beginning with their meetings?

MR McCASKILL: Not in such a direct way.

MR HATTINGH: Then why did you leave the meeting.

MR McCASKILL: Because that is how I understood it. They asked if they could use the room for a meeting.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but they allowed you to enter the room to chat to them before the commencement of the meeting, they introduced you to everybody else there, why did you think that they wanted you to leave the room?

MR McCASKILL: That's just what I thought.

MR HATTINGH: So they didn't ask you pertinently to leave the room?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: The people who attended the meetings, were some of them Lesotho citizens?

MR McCASKILL: Not that I knew.

MR HATTINGH: Do you or don't you know?

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McCaskill, I just want to ask you because I'll forget the question otherwise, you stated just now that you could not sit in on the meetings, despite the request for you to obtain information. Do you recall that you said this?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if you expressed it as such, but I definitely had the impression that the reason why you did not sit in on those meetings, was because you were asked to leave. Isn't that so?

MR McCASKILL: No, that is not so.

CHAIRPERSON: Then why didn't you try, as the police asked you, to remain in those meetings so that you could obtain information?

MR McCASKILL: It didn't occur to me to do that.

CHAIRPERSON: But it was mentioned to you that they would give you something to plant in the house.

MR McCASKILL: The Security Police told me to be very careful in the event of the others discovering that I was providing information.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr McCaskill.

MR HATTINGH: Let me just return to the question of the Lesotho citizens. So it was not only the persons from South Africa who lived in Lesotho who were ANC members, were there also Lesotho people, or Lesotho citizens who were ANC members?

MR McCASKILL: No that I know of.

MR HATTINGH: Were there people who were sympathetic towards the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't know some of them.

MR HATTINGH: I'm going to jump ahead a little bit. The night of the party at your house, did you at some stage go and tell Mr de Kock that you family had left now?

MR McCASKILL: No, it had already been arranged that my girlfriend would take my family out.

MR HATTINGH: And who would remain?

MR McCASKILL: It was Leon Meyer and the other members who came there.

MR HATTINGH: Members of the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And did you hear afterwards who had all been shot?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And were those the people you had left behind?

MR McCASKILL: Some of them were.

MR HATTINGH: Were they not all there?

MR McCASKILL: No they were not all there.

MR HATTINGH: I'm not following you now. You heard who the people were who were shot in the house?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Now I'm asking you, are those the people who were then when you left to go and report to Mr de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: Some of the people who were killed were the people I left there.

MR HATTINGH: So you are saying that other people came there after you left?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: That were not there when you left?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: How do you know that?

MR McCASKILL: Because I knew the people I left there.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, and the people who were killed who were not there when you were there, did you know them?

MR McCASKILL: The people who were killed?

MR HATTINGH: Yes, you say that there were people killed in the house that were not there when you were there. Did you know them?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did some of them attend the meetings?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So they were at least supporters of the ANC? MR McCASKILL: The Lesotho citizens who were killed there, I did not know them.

MR HATTINGH: But I asked you whether you knew the people who were killed there. And the Lesotho people who were killed there, you say you did not know them?

MR McCASKILL: No, they were not there.

MR HATTINGH: No, listen to the question. Did you know them?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Not at all?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: So these were just strange people that you did not know who just came to your party?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. I'll get back to this matter. Let us return back. You now met Mr Willie Coetzee, you gave him information. I want to put it to you that you probably gave information longer than the period of six months that you have testified about and I want to put it to you that you received money for this information.

MR McCASKILL: Not that I can recall.

MR HATTINGH: Is it possible that you received the money, but that you have forgotten about it?

MR McCASKILL: I wouldn't not know.

MR HATTINGH: But why would you not know, Mr McCaskill?

MR McCASKILL: What do you mean?

MR HATTINGH: The Security Police at Ladybrand paid you for the information that you supplied to them.

MR McCASKILL: No I was not paid yet.

MR HATTINGH: You were not yet paid, but did they promise you?

MR McCASKILL: Maybe they would tell me that I should come to Ladybrand and they would pay me for the petrol. They would pay the petrol that I would use. I would say they paid me for that.

MR HATTINGH: Did they give you money for petrol?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Only for petrol?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So in return they worked out how far you drove and then they just gave you money for petrol?

MR McCASKILL: No, but it was not very far. If I could drive to Ladybrand, it's about 15 kilometres, they would give me R20 for petrol at that time, yes.

MR HATTINGH: And no other remuneration?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: So why do you betray your friends, people who live in your house, people who meet in your house, people who ask you to join them, why did you go and betray them?

MR McCASKILL: As I have said, I was threatened.

MR HATTINGH: But that is what you did not say. You were pressurised and eventually you said that you must have regarded this reference to your family as a threat, but before that you conceded that you were not threatened.

MR McCASKILL: I may have been frightened when they told me about this and that is why I played along.

MR HATTINGH: And you are saying that is the only reason why you did this?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So now you met Mr de Kock. How did that come about? How did it happen that you met Mr de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: Through Mr Coetzee, Mr Willie Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but where and when did this happen and how did it happen?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall the place, but Willie Coetzee arranged for me to meet Mr de Kock.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Coetzee introduce you to Mr de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall where?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Not at all?

MR McCASKILL: It was always where the group was. It could have been at the Riverside Lodge or at the border post.

MR HATTINGH: And how was Mr de Kock introduced to you, as whom?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall, but it was not his proper name.

MR HATTINGH: Not his proper name?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But was it told to you that he was a member of the Security Police?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Can I get back to your statement in Bundle 2 where you had said

"On a particular day in late 1985 I was crossing the border post. I was approached by Willem Coetzee. I later learned he was a Security Branch Police at Ladybrand. He asked me to follow him. He took me to a certain place outside Ladybrand. It was an open space in the veld. At that spot we then met Eugene de Kock"

Is that entirely wrong then?

MR McCASKILL: No, that could be right, but I cannot recall whether that was the place.

MR HATTINGH: You are saying now that it could be right, but you cannot recall.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Haven't you conceded not too long ago Mr McCaskill that you remember that this was the correct place and that it was next to the military base which was known as Group 36?

MR McCASKILL: I said that the facts that I am not sure about I left out because I'm not sure about it, so I was not sure whether this was the place where I met him the first time.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But were you not meeting Mr Coetzee next to this military base all the time when you were supposed to supply him with information?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but sometimes if I go through to Bloemfontein, then he would have a quick talk with me next to the border post on the road which leads to the Lodge, or something like that. It was not specifically there at that place, at our rendezvous point.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But when you had to meet him in Ladybrand, didn't you meet all the time next to the military base?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So why should it be so difficult for you to remember whether this meeting took place at that same spot or not because this is where you frequently met?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot say it is not correct, but I cannot recall. It could have been at another place.

MR HATTINGH: Who else was present when you were introduced to Mr de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: It was Adamson and Joe Coetser.

MR HATTINGH: Adamson and Joe Coetser. Did you know them?

MR McCASKILL: That was the first time that I met them.

MR HATTINGH: It was the first time that you met Adamson and Coetser?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: By what names were they introduced to you?

MR McCASKILL: I think Adamson was introduced by his proper name.

MR HATTINGH: Adamson his proper name. And Coetser?

MR McCASKILL: And Coetser and Mr de Kock gave false names.

MR HATTINGH: Very well. May I just for a moment jump ahead? After this operation was completed, you were taken to Vlakplaas, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you stayed there for a long time?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, a few months.

MR HATTINGH: A few months. And did you work for the Vlakplaas unit?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you received R400 a month for it?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And what work did you have to perform?

MR McCASKILL: We just drove around with the other people.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon? You must talk a little bit louder.

MR McCASKILL: We drove around and if they went looking for people then I just drove with them.

MR HATTINGH: So would you be able to know some of them? Would it just be the few that you met or that you knew in Lesotho?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So that is when you got to know Vlakplaas members, is that not so Mr McCaskill?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: That is when you got to know Blackie Swart?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot say where I got the name of Blackie Swart.

MR HATTINGH: No, but I am asking, when you arrived at Vlakplaas and you lived there and you worked there, is that when you got to know Blackie Swart?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: So you never got to know him?

CHAIRPERSON: Somewhere int he Security Branches where we walked around I heard Blackie Swart's name, but I do not know whether it was at Vlakplaas, if I can put it that way.

MR HATTINGH: So how did it come about that you involved him as a person who was involved in this operation as a person with whom you dealt?

MR McCASKILL: I may have probably just - maybe because the other people I did not see that evening, only after the attack I met some of them and I thought that Blackie Swart was also there.

MR HATTINGH: but if you now told the Committee that Marthinus Ras or Wouter Mentz or Willie Nortje or lets mention names who were not there, Paul van Dyk, those people were there, then I could understand because you got to know those people at Vlakplaas.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: But now you are saying that you never even got to know Swart at Vlakplaas.

MR McCASKILL: No, not at Vlakplaas. I think I was working in Bloemfontein, but not at Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: And on that basis you are saying that he was involved in this operation?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I may have confused him with somebody else.

MR HATTINGH: Our information is and I think someone could assist us here, Mr Kock's recollection is that Blackie Swart only came to Vlakplaas in 1989.

MR McCASKILL: I would not know when he came to Vlakplaas.

MR HATTINGH: So why do you mention him as a person who was involved in the operation?

MR McCASKILL: As I have said, I only got to know these people, I may have mistaken him with somebody else who was there, like I did with Ras, the same could have happened with him.

MR HATTINGH: Later you got to know people and when you made this statement, you just mentioned names of people from Vlakplaas, is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: No, I did not just mention names. I mentioned names of people whom I thought were involved in the operation.

MR HATTINGH: Very well, Mr McCaskill. You met Mr de Kock and he asks you - what did he ask you?

MR McCASKILL: He asked a few questions tome.

MR HATTINGH: He asked you questions about yourself, what type of questions?

MR McCASKILL: Where was I born? What was I doing there? Things like that.

MR HATTINGH: And did he ask you why you were giving information about the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Did he ask you what information you had available?

MR McCASKILL: He already knew.

MR HATTINGH: How did you know that?

MR McCASKILL: Because Mr Coetzee must have said so.

MR HATTINGH: So you just accepted that he already knew?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So he asked you to do something, what did he want you to do?

MR McCASKILL: I had to give him something, or information, so that they could trust me because they did not trust me at that stage.

MR HATTINGH: Did Mr Coetzee at that stage have any reason to distrust you?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, because I started lying.

MR HATTINGH: But in the beginning you were lying, but later you gave them correct information.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, but he still did not fully trust me.

MR HATTINGH: So then Mr de Kock asked you to bring something to prove that they can trust you?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So how did he know that you would be able to bring something that would prove?

MR McCASKILL: He did not say that I must bring something, even if it was important information, something to cause them to trust me. He did not say specifically that I must bring something.

MR HATTINGH: But if it was information, why could you not have given him the information right there and then?

MR McCASKILL: As I have said I told him I can bring the hand grenades and the bayonet so he can see I can speak the truth.

MR HATTINGH: So you went and fetched these items?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Are you certain that it was Mr de Kock who asked you to bring these things?

MR McCASKILL: I'm not sure.

CHAIRPERSON: Why is it so important for you to have them trust you? Why didn't you tell them: "If you don't trust me then that's it"?

MR McCASKILL: They were looking for it like that, it was not important for me.

CHAIRPERSON: No listen. You told us that you felt threatened and that is why you collaborated. Now there is a stage when the people say: "Listen here, do something for us so that we can see that we can trust you."

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So why did you not walk away and say: "Well you don't trust me, end of the story"? Why didn't you do that?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't want to do it because I saw that if I did not co-operate that I would be in danger.

CHAIRPERSON: No, it's not a matter of not playing along. It's not your fault that they did not trust you. Was that not a good reason to walk away?

MR McCASKILL: The whole reason why I wanted them to trust me was that because initially I did lie.

CHAIRPERSON: So you wanted them to trust you?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: And that was a decision that you made willingly?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So at least from that stage, you were with them?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: You wanted to be with them?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, at that stage I wanted to be with them.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. Because you wanted to keep receiving these payments?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: So why did you want to be with them? Did you want to be with the Security Police and in the process betray your friends?

MR McCASKILL: Because it was clear what would happen to me, I knew already.

CHAIRPERSON: You have just now conceded that you wanted an you willingly took that decision.

MR McCASKILL: because I knew what would happen.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that is not what you said, then it was not voluntarily. You were still under the threat, if it was not willing. That is why I repeatedly asked you, you decided yourself, you willingly decided and you wanted to be with them because at least then and you said yes. Is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: That is so.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. Are you sure it was Mr de Kock who asked you to bring something to prove that they can trust you?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And to whom did you give the arms and ammunition when you brought it back?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Why can you not recall?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know, it could have been Joe or Adamson, or someone.

MR HATTINGH: But why not Mr de Kock? He asked you.

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall who it was.

MR HATTINGH: Could it have been de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, it could have been him, but I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: In your original statement which appears in bundle 2, paragraph 5, I know it has been corrected later, but in your initial statement you said

"I gave these hand grenades to Eugene de Kock and his team"

That's in paragraph 5. That is what you said in your original statement.

MR McCASKILL: That is why I corrected it, as I remembered it.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but when you made this statement, you did not correct it. Why did you say then that you gave it to de Kock and his team?

MR McCASKILL: Because I did not recall correctly.

MR HATTINGH: So who could you have given it to possibly?

MR McCASKILL: It could have been de Kock, Adamson and Joe or Willie, one of the four of them.

MR HATTINGH: So when it was corrected your advocate said to Mr de Kock on page 2154 of the record

"You have already testified that the hand grenades were not handed over to you personally. Mr McCaskill is of the opinion that he cannot recall whether the hand grenades were handed to you or to Mr Coetzee, who was his handler at that stage."

So is this still your evidence? You cannot recall whether you gave it to de Kock or Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: No Joe or Adamson, or even Joe Coetser.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. So and now you are saying they gave it back to you?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: After they went away for a while, if I understand correctly?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Where did they go to Mr McCaskill?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot say.

MR HATTINGH: Where did this meeting take place? Did this meeting take place when you handed over these things?

MR McCASKILL: At Group 36.

MR HATTINGH: You must please speak up because I cannot hear. At Group 36, there in the field where you would usually meet?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did they walk away from you with these things?

MR McCASKILL: It was only the one who walked away, but not all of them. There was somebody there with me, but I cannot recall who it was, but one of those persons left and the other one stayed there.

MR HATTINGH: So the one walked away with these things and the other one stayed with you?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: So the one who walked away with these things, is the one who received it?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So it could have been either Mr de Kock or Mr Coetzee or Mr Coetser?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

MR HATTINGH: So he walked away with these things. Where did he walk to?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know.

MR HATTINGH: But you were in the field, you could see where he walked to.

MR McCASKILL: He walked in the direction of town. No he drove.

MR HATTINGH: So he climbed into a vehicle and he drove away and he came back?

MR McCASKILL: After half an hour.

MR HATTINGH: After half an hour? So what did you do while he was gone, you and the person who remained with you?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall whether there were more photo albums, I cannot recall what we were busy with.

MR HATTINGH: And then did this person return? Is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: With the hand grenades?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And what did he tell you then?

MR McCASKILL: I had to take it back.

MR HATTINGH: You had to take it back and place it where you found it?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Which you then did?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when was the next meeting?

MR McCASKILL: The day when they gave me the detonators.

MR HATTINGH: Where did this meeting take place?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Who gave you the detonators?

MR McCASKILL: I think it was Mr Coetzee.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr de Kock present?

MR McCASKILL: No, he was not present. I cannot recall exactly, but I think it was Mr Coetzee who gave me the detonators.

MR HATTINGH: In paragraph 6 of your statement, in your original statement, you say

"Eugene de Kock left me with some of his men and after 30 minutes he came back."

Do you see that?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you say that?

MR McCASKILL: That is why I amended it, it wasn't correct, I couldn't recall precisely who it was.

MR HATTINGH: But yesterday during your evidence-in-chief when your advocate took you paragraph for paragraph through your affidavit, according to my notes, when you arrived at paragraph 6 you simply stated that the paragraph was correct and that there were no amendments.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Then why didn't you state at that point that you couldn't recall whether it was de Kock who left with the grenades and then returned with them later on?

MR McCASKILL: I really don't know. I didn't know.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McCaskill, I'm going to ask you a few personal questions. I'm just trying to understand your position exactly. Are you suffering from any kind of condition which affects your memory?

MR McCASKILL: No, but this whole thing has caught up with me somewhat in recent times.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that's the case for most of us. Some more than others. Some of us aren't getting paid for it, but with the exception of that, at that stage did you use alcohol?

MR McCASKILL: Alcohol?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, such as Whisky or Brandy or something like that.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And when you spoke to Mr de Kock and the others, were you inebriated?

MR McCASKILL: They drank a lot.

CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm referring to you, not to them.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, it may have been over a few beers.

CHAIRPERSON: But with regard to the times that you spoke to them.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And did you make use of any drugs?

MR McCASKILL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Not at all?

MR McCASKILL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: So you were not so inebriated when you spoke to them or when you dealt with them?

MR McCASKILL: Not that I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Then why is it that you have forgotten everything that is relevant?

MR McCASKILL: To tell you the truth Chairperson, I don't know how it happened, but when I read through my statement yesterday again, I saw that there were many mistakes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, but today upon numerous occasions you have told Mr Hattingh and me that you cannot recall. Then why is it that you cannot recall such important aspects?

MR McCASKILL: What I cannot remember I cannot remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Hattingh.

MR HATTINGH: Now when they returned the hand grenades to you, was any time or place fixed for the next meeting?

MR McCASKILL: It could be.

MR HATTINGH: You cannot recall?

MR McCASKILL: It can be.

MR HATTINGH: You're saying it can be, but you're not certain. Because in your original statement in paragraph 6, you say

"They called me the following day"

Is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: I have amended it, I have stated that it could be the same day or a few days later but I'm not certain.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but the question is whether it is correct that they put a call through to you, that they actually called you.

MR McCASKILL: I am not certain whether they called me in or whether they made an appointment or whether they called me on the phone.

MR HATTINGH: And then you state,

"on the next meeting"

Exhibit L: paragraph 6,

"I was given two detonators and told to remove the originals and replace them, or the ones given to me"

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever have any training in the use of hand grenades?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Who trained you?

MR McCASKILL: These things were in the house and Dick went away and he showed me.

MR HATTINGH: So Dick instructed you in the use of hand grenades?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Why?

MR McCASKILL: It must have been interesting.

MR HATTINGH: I beg your pardon?

MR McCASKILL: I must have asked him to show me.

MR HATTINGH: Then what did he show you? What about the hand grenades did he show you? Did he show you how to pull the pin and throw it?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Is that all?

MR McCASKILL: And how to remove it.

MR HATTINGH: How to remove what?

MR McCASKILL: The detonator.

MR HATTINGH: Then why did he show you this?

MR McCASKILL: He showed me how to operate a hand grenade, also how to pull out the detonator, yes.

MR HATTINGH: I should think that if someone doesn't know anything about a hand grenade and one wanted to know something about a hand grenade, all one really needed to know was how to pull the pin out and how long to wait before the explosion?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but he might also have showed me more about the detonator and the pin.

MR HATTINGH: And did you tell Mr Coetzee and Mr de Kock and the others that you have received such basic training? That Dick had taught you how to remove and replace the detonator of a hand grenade?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: When did you tell them this?

MR McCASKILL: During this times that we rendezvoused.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you tell them this? Why was it important?

MR McCASKILL: Because on a certain occasion they thought that I was a trained ANC/MK member.

MR HATTINGH: They thought that you were a trained MK soldier?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what did you tell them?

MR McCASKILL: I told them that I wasn't.

MR HATTINGH: Then why did you tell them about the training that you had received with the hand grenades.

MR McCASKILL: I beg your pardon.

MR HATTINGH: Why did you tell them about the training that Dick gave you with the hand grenades?

MR McCASKILL: I told them that I could work a little bit with hand grenades.

MR HATTINGH: And when they gave you the hand grenades, were these hand grenades the same as those that you had taken from Dick to show them?

MR McCASKILL: The detonators?

MR HATTINGH: No the hand grenades, were they the same type as those that you had taken from Dick to show de Kock and the others.

MR McCASKILL: Those that they brought back?

MR HATTINGH: Yes.

MR McCASKILL: I would say that they were the same.

MR HATTINGH: Are you not certain?

MR McCASKILL: They looked the same.

MR HATTINGH: And upon the next meeting, they gave you two detonators, only the detonators?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And they said that you had to replace the detonators on Dick's hand grenades with these new hand grenades? Who told you to do this?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall precisely but i spoke only to those four persons, so it could be any one of them.

MR HATTINGH: Whoever said this to you, did he know that you would know how to operate the detonators?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So they didn't show you again?

MR McCASKILL: No, they knew that I would know how.

MR HATTINGH: And you don't know whether Mr de Kock was present upon this occasion?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: How long before the attack on the house did this incident take place?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Not even nearly enough?

MR McCASKILL: No, I cannot.

MR HATTINGH: You stated that you didn't do it. You said that you didn't replace the detonators. Why not?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know why not, but the hand grenades were in Dick's room. My sister was there. I was a little afraid. Perhaps my sister would accidentally be involved. The one detonator was the type that, as soon as you pulled the pin, the grenade would explode.

MR HATTINGH: Is that what they told you?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And you were afraid that your sister could be injured?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you report back to them? Did you report to Mr de Kock or Mr Coetzee? Did they ask you whether or not you replaced the detonators?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And what did you tell them?

MR McCASKILL: I said yes.

MR HATTINGH: You said yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Didn't they ask for the detonators that you had removed?

MR McCASKILL: No, they didn't.

MR HATTINGH: Not at all?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR HATTINGH: Regarding the firearm which was given to you, who gave it to you?

MR McCASKILL: Adamson.

MR HATTINGH: Who?

MR McCASKILL: Adamson.

MR HATTINGH: Was Mr de Kock present?

MR McCASKILL: No, it was in Maseru. I can recall that it was Adamson himself.

MR HATTINGH: What did he want you to do with it?

MR McCASKILL: He wanted me to give it to Mr Meyer.

MR HATTINGH: You had to give it to Leon Meyer?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: What was he supposed to do with it?

MR McCASKILL: I should tell him that I picked it up along the border fence and that there were many others like that.

MR HATTINGH: And then?

MR McCASKILL: Then I was supposed to take him there.

MR HATTINGH: And what would happen then?

MR McCASKILL: Then we would have shot him dead.

MR HATTINGH: Do you think so, or do you know so?

MR McCASKILL: I think it was stated as such.

MR HATTINGH: That they were going to shoot him dead?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So all you had to do was lure Leon Meyer to a fictitious arms cache, so that they could shoot him dead?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Didn't they ask you earlier on to assist in killing Leon and his wife?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: When did they ask you this?

MR McCASKILL: I beg your pardon?

MR HATTINGH: When did they ask you this? No perhaps I didn't hear your answer, because you're speaking quite softly. I'll pose it again. Didn't they ask you to assist in the killing of Leon and his wife?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And when did this take place?

MR McCASKILL: Before they asked me to take Leon to the river for the firearms.

MR HATTINGH: That is before you were asked to give the firearm to him?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And while they wanted to kill both Leon and his wife, they asked you to lure only Leon to this place where they could shoot him dead, does that make sense?

MR McCASKILL: I think that they did speculate on how it would be possible to get both Leon and Jackie there, but later we abandoned that plan, because we saw it wasn't possible to get Jackie there as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Well on that point, I would have asked you later, but I'm simply going to ask you now. Your initial statement indicated that you were informed that the Security Police wished to kill Leon Meyer. Later you changed it and you said that they wanted to kill both Leon Meyer and his wife.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I said so.

CHAIRPERSON: However, you also told me that the changes that you brought to your statement as a result of recollections that you had upon hearing the evidence of the other applicants.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Now I am not really certain whether any of them said that Mr Leon Meyer's wife was on the list of targets. Now if I am correct, I have not read the record, but if I am correct, how did you cultivate recollections about that?

MR McCASKILL: Because I remembered.

CHAIRPERSON: That's why I asked you. The evidence of the applicants, would that be the only factor in assisting you to recall the real truth, because none of them, if I recall correctly, mentioned that they ever wanted to kill Leon Meyer's wife, or ever requested that she be killed. Then how did you remember this?

MR McCASKILL: I think there was a point where it was said.

MR HATTINGH: When? Who said it? You see it was never put to anyone that these are the facts.

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall anymore.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, it is quite insightful - you wanted to say something Mr Berger?

MR BERGER: What you put to Mr McCaskill is not absolutely correct, with respect, because I asked Mr de Kock at one stage, in his evidence, whether he had given an instruction to Mr Coetser to kill Jackie Quinn and his answer was yes, he did. That's in the midst of a whole lot of other evidence that he gave, but that was his one answer and then you'll recall, there was a whole lot of cross-examination about why would he have given that instruction when Jackie Quinn was not a target.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't intend to argue the matter.

MR HATTINGH: If I may come in here Mr Chairman, that must be put into the proper perspective. I'm not sure that Mr de Kock said it exactly in the way Mr Berger has now told you. I'm prepared to accept it, I'm not sure, but Mr de Kock made it clear that the idea to kill her only arose when they became separated from the group of people in the house. Originally there was no instruction for Ms Quinn to be shot and killed.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you happy with that Mr Berger, the context? Otherwise I'll leave the matter for you people to argue.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, we can leave it for argument. The point was when Coetser, Adamson and McCaskill were sent off to Leon Meyer and Jackie Quinn's house, one of the answers that de Kock gave to a question which I asked

"Did you give Coetser an instruction to kill Jackie Quinn?"

He said:

"Yes, I did."

CHAIRPERSON: Then there's no dispute between what you and Mr Hattingh says.

MR BERGER: On the context of that answer, that is correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. We agree that at the time referred to by Mr McCaskill in both his statements, that would not have happened in your context?

MR BERGER: No, but Chairperson, you said to Mr McCaskill that it was never mentioned by any of the applicants and it was not put to any of the applicants that there was an instruction to kill at any time, to kill Jackie Quinn and I'm suggesting that that's not correct.

CHAIRPERSON: It was never put to any of the applicants that when it was mentioned to you that the Security Police wished to kill Leon Meyer, that they also included his wife? Do you understand what I have said?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: When it was planned to kill Leon Meyer, none of the applicants testified and it was never put to them that when the planning took place, it was ever mentioned that his wife was also a target. You have also omitted her name from your affidavit, but at the very last stage, you have included it. How is that possible, because there was no evidence that could have assisted you in recalling that during the planning phase of this entire operation, her name was ever mentioned. You are the only person who has mentioned that her name was included on the target list throughout the entire planning stage.

MR McCASKILL: I recalled it but I do not know by what process.

MR BERGER: Chairperson perhaps I've got it wrong, but it is in Mr McCaskill's original statement, that he was asked, it's in paragraph 8

"They said that if I could assist them to kill Leon and his wife...

I thought Mr Joubert would have pointed that out.

CHAIRPERSON: I'm sorry, I missed that.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chairperson. And then in your new statement which is Exhibit L, you reiterate in paragraph 8, you say

"In the next meeting we had a braai. De Kock, Adamson and other Security Police were present and de Kock said if I assist them to kill Leon and his wife they would give me R5 000 for each and any other terrorist. I told them I'm prepared to help him in another way, but not to kill."

So there you also state that they asked you specifically to assist in the killing of Leon and his wife.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you confirm the correctness of paragraphs 9 and 10 of your original statement, where you refer to the firearms that were handed over and this is subsequent to this request for you to assist in the killing of Leon and his wife.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And now they are trying to get Leon to a place where they could shoot him dead, alone. I put it to you that this version of yours is not true. Mr de Kock and the others were not interested in killing only Leon Meyer, they had to wipe out an entire group of people.

MR McCASKILL: That is true. de Kock and the others were interested in anything that they could get.

CHAIRPERSON: We should just put this in context because Mr Berger states that at a certain stage Mr de Kock conceded that he gave an instruction for him to be killed.

MR VISSER: Could I help? Could I perhaps be of assistance Chairperson? It's page 2319, the evidence is cross-examination by Mr Berger continued.

"Mr de Kock, would it be fair to say that your instructions to Adamson and Coetser were that they were to go to Leon Meyer's house and kill both Leon Meyer and his wife Jackie Quinn?

MR DE KOCK: Yes."

I think that's what he was referring to. Page 2319, but then I must tell you Chairperson that it starts at about page 2300 and it goes for many, many pages where throughout, and I've checked the record, this is the only passage in which reference is made or a ...(indistinct) is made regarding Ms Quinn, for the rest your statement was absolutely correct that nobody ever said that she was a target. That's what the record shows.

CHAIRPERSON: You people can argue it at the end of the day. The fact of the matter is that there was a positive response to what - Mr Berger's proposition.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, Judge Leverton used to say that evidence given once is good enough, it doesn't have to be repeated many times.

CHAIRPERSON: Well it would be helpful if people could remember.

MR HATTINGH: May I proceed, Mr Chairman?

CHAIRPERSON: You can stop at a convenient time.

MR HATTINGH: Just clear up this one point which you raised with me Mr Chairman. The point that I put to the witness was not - there was no instruction to kill Ms Quinn. I put to him that his version that they only wanted to kill Mr Meyer is incorrect, because Mr de Kock had instructions to kill a group of people.

CHAIRPERSON: I didn't want, at the end of the day, people to take it out of context and I accept what you say. Are you - is it a convenient time to adjourn, or are you finished? You're not finished yet? There's no harm in being hopeful.

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS

ON RESUMPTION

ELVIS VINCENT McCASKILL: (s.u.o.)

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I'm sorry to interrupt the proceedings but I've asked my colleague Mr Hattingh if we could possibly break his cross-examination of Mr McCaskill at this point and interpose Ms Jane Quinn as a witness to give evidence on behalf of the victims. The reason being that Ms Quinn is on a flight to Durban this evening and won't be able to give evidence tomorrow and Mr Hattingh has graciously agreed that his cross-examination be broken, so if it pleases the Committee, we would ask that Ms Quinn be sworn in to give evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps there'll be something that pleases us today. Are there any objections to that arrangement? Yes, Mr Berger, then we can proceed with her.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH STANDS OVER

MR BERGER: Chairperson, Ms Quinn needs to be sworn in. Her full names are Jane Wilhelmina Quinn.

CHAIRPERSON: Ms or Mrs?

MR BERGER: Ms, M-S.

JANE WILHELMINA QUINN: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Ms Quinn, is it correct that Jackie Quinn was your sister?

MS QUINN: Yes.

MR BERGER: And you have prepared a statement, you've written out a statement which you wish to read into the record and you've also informed me, is it not so, that you are prepared to be cross-examined on the evidence that is contained in your statement? Alright. Will you proceed to read your statement into the record?

MS QUINN

I participated in this TRC process because I want South Africans to know and remember that my sister was murdered by order of the previous South African Government. I want South Africans to know that her murderers, those that actually shot her and those that gave the orders and those that set the whole operation in motion, chose to kill Jackie and they're still carrying on with their lives as South African citizens while she and her husband are dead and her daughter lives all but one year of her life without them. All this we know.

I came to these hearings to reconcile myself to the truth about the manner of her death, but I need the whole truth in order to be reconciled with it. Before I go any further, I do want to acknowledge the efforts of the Truth Commission towards exposing the truth. We as family of victims have at least been able to draw in people with political culpability, even though they were not applicants and there has been support in terms of accessing some documentation as well as some pertinent inquiry from the Panel, but I haven't got the whole truth and I want that to be recognised.

Jackie's killers applied for amnesty, or didn't as in Coetser's case, because they were involved in covert operations that resulted in other peoples deaths. This step presumes guilt as killers, the cover nature also implies the hiding and/or obscuring of the truth and yet this process has seemed to put the onus on us, the families of the victims, to prove that the amnesty applicants are not telling the truth. It seems that we are supposed to accept the shaky memories, conveniently coincided dates from already less than honourable human beings. I don't accept that Jackie was killed by mistake and she wasn't a so-called target, in terms of their definition of setting out to kill those who were carrying out operations in South Africa. I think Jackie was killed because apartheid operatives hated a white woman who married a brown man, who was ANC. That's personal motivation. It is based on emotion, not on political motivation.

The argument that she had to be shot because she grabbed the silencer, doesn't was with me. Two armed men, trained in combat, enter a house in the middle of the night in which there are two adults and a one year old baby. How is it that one of the trained combatants couldn't manage an unarmed woman? He could have hit her over the head and knocked her unconscious if he wanted her out of the way, while they carried out their murderous pursuit of Leon, their so-called target.

A glaring untruth though is this lie about the nanny who they claim to so kindly have left alive to look after the baby they were busy orphaning. There was no nanny in the house at the time of the killing of Jackie and Leon. How can I be so sure of this when I wasn't there? Firstly, remember that Jackie was my sister. There were views which she and I held strongly in common, some of which were our attitudes to our employees and also to our ways of raising our children. My second daughter is just three months younger than Phoenix and when Jackie visited me when Phoenix was six months old and May three months old, we spent a lot of time talking about the mechanics of our lives with babies and how we managed our work, social lives and children. Jackie discussed with me the process of her day, how she got up at 5.30 and prepared for the day so that she could have time to snuggle back in bed with Phoenix to wake, breast feed and play with her before Lucy her nanny arrived and Jackie left for school. When Phoenix was younger, Lucy brought Phoenix to school in the lunch period to be breast fed and after school Jackie went home to Phoenix and Lucy went home to her own house. Jackie had Phoenix because she wanted a child to love and care for. She only had a nanny to care for Phoenix while she was unable to herself, because she was teaching.

MR BERGER: Can I just stop you there? What work, you say she was teaching, what work was Jackie doing in Maseru?

MS QUINN: She was a school teacher at Maseru High.

MR BERGER: Teaching which children?

MS QUINN: She was teaching English to High School pupils.

MR BERGER: High School pupils. And was she a member of the ANC?

MS QUINN: No, no Jackie was never a member of the ANC.

MR BERGER: Was she a member of MK?

MS QUINN: No.

MR BERGER: Okay. Oh, one other question I want to ask you. You say that you had conversations with Jackie.

MS QUINN: Ja.

MR BERGER: Where was that, in South Africa or in Lesotho?

MS QUINN: The conversations I'm referring to here occurred when Jackie came and stayed with me, when she came to South Africa, she drove down with Phoenix when Phoenix was about six months old, ja, July school holidays.

MR BERGER: Okay.

MS QUINN: Alright.

There's a lot more evidence apart from where Lucy would have been expected to sleep, if she was kept at work all night. Was she supposed to have shared the double bed mattress on the floor of the only bedroom with Jackie and Leon and Phoenix? Remember that Jackie and Leon believed passionately in the right of dignity of all people, they just were not of the mind set to make a maid stay away from her family all night and sleep on a sack on the kitchen floor. Plus, there's the evidence of all the people who were around when Jackie and Leon were killed. There's the neighbours, a woman and her three daughters who lived in the adjoining apartment. They told us how they'd heard unfamiliar noises, screeching car tyres and loud knocking on their door, which they were too afraid to respond to. This turned out to be Leon who then broke through the plate glass of their sliding door to get into their living room where he then told them that: "The Boers have killed my wife".

The neighbours left after a while to get help from the police and to get the ambulance. When they returned Joe was dead. The ambulance men from the hospital came to the house, they took the bodies of Jackie and Leon and they took Phoenix with them, back to the hospital. They described her desolate, hysterical crying and when my family were arranging to fetch Phoenix from the hospital where she was kept under armed guard, they were told to bring fresh clothes for her as her's were so blood soaked. Lucy, Phoenix's nanny, found us, the family, in Maseru after a day or two. Together we talked over the whole series of events. Lucy hadn't been there. She was trying to get the whole picture from anyone who might know what happened that evening.

MR BERGER: Did you actually speak to Lucy?

MS QUINN: Yes, I spoke to Lucy, amongst others in the family, but I also spoke to her myself and to the neighbours.

MR BERGER: And she was asking you for information about what had happened at the house that night?

MS QUINN: Ja and it was a bit of - you know there was a lot of talk around Maseru and Lucy had picked up stories and she had also spoken to the neighbours and it was this business of like comparing information and trying to build a whole picture for ourselves of what had actually gone down there.

MR BERGER: Thank you, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: Ms Quinn have you been listening to all the evidence so far?

MS QUINN: I wasn't here for the one session, but right now I have been, ja.

MR HATTINGH: So far we haven't heard a single witness testifying to the fact that your late sister and her husband, they took their baby child with them to the party.

MS QUINN: Well, we were told by people who were around at the time and Leon's brother was also told, that Phoenix, that Jackie and Leon left early, partly because Jackie wanted to get Phoenix home and in fact, Mr McCaskill when he was talking earlier, he said that the family left the party.

MR HATTINGH: Well he didn't mention the child.

MS QUINN: Well I presume by the family he meant not just the couple.

MR HATTINGH: Alright we can ask him about that, but if they didn't take their child with them, then naturally they would have asked somebody to look after the child whilst they were at the party.

MS QUINN: That might be natural in some families. It isn't natural in Jackie's family to have left her baby. The kind of parties that we all went to, was you took your children with you, it was expected. Nobody expected to leave the babies at home with a baby sitter, it wasn't formal dinner type situation where the noise of a baby might interrupt or something.

MR HATTINGH: But if she wanted to, she could have done that.

MS QUINN: Who would she have left her with? Her maid did not stay over.

MR HATTINGH: Well she could have left her with the maid if she wanted to.

MS QUINN: But her maid worked until 4 or 5 o'clock, she didn't work in the evenings.

MR HATTINGH: She could have made special arrangements with the maid.

MS QUINN: I presume anybody could make special arrangements.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. Can we go on to something else please, Ms Quinn? You say Jackie was not a member of the ANC?

MS QUINN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Are you aware of the fact that Joe was a member of the ANC?

MS QUINN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: That he was a member of MK?

MS QUINN: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: That he was involved in attacks in the Republic?

MS QUINN: At the time of their death I was not aware of that. I didn't want to know any specific details, it wouldn't have been safe to know any information more than I had to know.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, but knowing that he was a member of MK, surely you must have accepted that he was part of the armed struggle?

MS QUINN: Well, I accept that MK was part of the arms struggle, but there are plenty of roles that people play within MK. Some people worked behind a desk.

MR HATTINGH: Did you not ask you sister what the role was...?

MS QUINN: No, I didn't ask my sister about it. At South Africa in that time, especially if you were involved in the left, you did not ever want information that other people who you didn't want to have that information might be able to get from you.

MR HATTINGH: Was there any reason why you would have asked your sister whether she was a member of the ANC?

MS QUINN: No, because my knowledge of her would be that she would not be a card-carrying member of a political party and that was confirmed by the ANC at the time of her death.

MR HATTINGH: But you never asked her?

MS QUINN: No, just I wouldn't have expected her to ask me that.

MR HATTINGH: Did you ever ask her whether she sympathised with the ANC?

MS QUINN: I knew that she did.

MR HATTINGH: That she went along with the arms struggle?

MS QUINN: We did not discuss in detail what we thought about the arms struggle, but we were, her and I, were definitely both sympathetic to MK.

MR HATTINGH: Yes. And she was of course aware of the fact that her husband was a member of MK?

MS QUINN: Of course.

MR HATTINGH: And she must have been aware that he was involved in, or she must have been aware of what he was involved in.

MS QUINN: Yes, I'm sure. Whether she ever asked specifics, I doubt, because for the same reason that she came into South Africa on an off and she didn't want to have information to give away either when she was questioned, as she had been on occasion, by Security Police.

MR HATTINGH: And did she tell you that on occasion her husband left Lesotho and entered the Republic of South Africa?

MS QUINN: Ja.

MR HATTINGH: And did she tell you what the purposes of those visits were?

MS QUINN: No, as I say, we wouldn't discuss information that could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Thank you Mr Chairman, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr Hattingh, just to put things in perspective, if you check the original statement of Mr McCaskill, there is an indication that Mr and Ms Quinn attended the party that was to be held at his house with the kid. That appears on page 70, paragraph 17.

MS QUINN: Thank you.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I missed that. I apologise for that, but I will ask Mr McCaskill about that then.

MR VISSER: I have no questions thank you Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

MR LAMEY: No questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR LAMEY

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

NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS

MR JOUBERT: Mr Chairman, I'm in a position where my client is under cross-examination, I'm unable to take any instructions from him. With your permission ...

CHAIRPERSON: Take instructions from him.

MR JOUBERT: Thank you Mr Chair, we have no questions for Ms QUINN.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR JOUBERT

MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, I have no questions either.

NO QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: I have no re-examination.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER

ADV BOSMAN: I have no questions, thank you Chairperson.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: I have none.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you Ms Quinn.

WITNESS EXCUSED

MR BERGER: Thank you very much Chairperson. We can continue now with Mr McCaskill.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Mr Chairman.

ELVIS VINCENT McCASKILL: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR HATTINGH: (Cont)

Mr McCaskill, I am going to put certain statements to you on behalf of my client, Mr de Kock. Mr de Kock testified that he did not give him hand grenade which he gave back to you and that he did not give you detonators to attach to other hand grenades. You stated today that you are not certain of his involvement with this.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: At what stage did you know for the first time that they were planning on killing people there at your house?

MR McCASKILL: After they asked me.

MR HATTINGH: After they asked you what?

MR McCASKILL: After they asked me about the party.

MR HATTINGH: Was that the arranged party?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So from that point onwards you knew that the idea behind the party was to shoot people dead there?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And at a certain stage you stated that your girlfriend was also aware of what was going on.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, she knew everything.

MR HATTINGH: She knew that people would be coming to kill the people at the party?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: When did you tell her?

MR McCASKILL: It must have been after it was arranged.

MR HATTINGH: Yes, so she knew prior to the incident that the people coming to the party would be shot dead?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock also testified and I'm not completely certain of what his evidence was regarding this, so I am speaking subject to correction, but he testified about the beer, the fact that the beer was given to the Ladybrand police in order to enable them to use it and that the beer was not give for the purposes of this party.

MR McCASKILL: I don't understand.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock denies that the beer was given for those people who would be at your party on the night of the incident. Do you state that it was?

MR McCASKILL: That Mr de Kock gave the beers?

MR HATTINGH: No Mr de Kock denies that beer was given to you which you were supposed to give to the guests at your party that evening, to Leon Meyer and so forth.

MR McCASKILL: Someone gave it but I did not purchase the beer from my own money.

MR HATTINGH: And you do not know whether the beer was among all the other beers?

MR McCASKILL: The marked or unmarked beers?

MR HATTINGH: The marked beers.

MR McCASKILL: No, I stated that I could not remember.

MR HATTINGH: How was it marked?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know. I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: Then how would you have known?

CHAIRPERSON: But you must have known, you were supposed to be able to distinguish.

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall whether I saw the beer. There was mention of the beer that I would be given, that's all that I can remember.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But that's what you say in your statement. You say you were given three cans of marked Black Label beers. That's what you state.

MR McCASKILL: Yes and I changed it to my other ...(indistinct) because I wasn't sure.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But didn't you say, before we broke for lunch, during your viva voce that you were given marked Black Label beers?

MR McCASKILL: I said I wasn't sure if I was give the beer or not, that's what I said.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now if you were sure that you were given marked beers in 1996 when the facts were much fresher than they are today, why should you change the statement?

MR McCASKILL: I changed the statement because I wasn't sure that I received the beer, that's why I changed the statement.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: What made you to write the statement as it is in 1996 when the facts were much fresher?

MR McCASKILL: Because I remembered something about the Black Label ...(indistinct)

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now what has caused you to decide that what you stated in 1996, is not entirely correct? What is it that has made you to change?

MR McCASKILL: It's because my memory was refreshed here when they mentioned the beer.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How was it refreshed to a point where you've got to change, that you cannot remember whether you were given the marked beers or not? Are you able to say?

MR McCASKILL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McCaskill would you use that head phone please because that way the interpreter can tell you whether she's heard everything or not. Thank you.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Just bring the speaker closer to you because they are finding it difficult to pick up everything that you are saying. At times you speak a little softer. It's difficult for the interpreters to pick up everything you say.

MR HATTINGH: Paragraph 17 in your original statement, or at least paragraph 16 in your original statement. On what channel are you Mr McCaskill? Can you hear me in Afrikaans or in English? Can you hear me now?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Paragraph 16 of the original statement, page 70, there you refer to the Black Label that was given to you and the fact that it was marked and so forth. In the evidence-in-chief yesterday you stated that they would give you cans of beer which were marked. You don't know if it was among other beers, do you recall that?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: So you don't really have the recollection that you even received the beer?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: So they told you that they would give it to you, but you don't know whether it was among the rest of the beer that you received?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I remember that we discussed it, but I do not remember taking receipt of it.

MR HATTINGH: In Exhibit L, paragraph 11 you state in the last paragraph on that page

"The next plan was the party at my house. They mentioned marked Black Label beers and sleeping pills but I can't remember if the beers were supplied with the other unmarked cans. I only remember the pills were supplied."

Is that your recollection?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And you also do not know who gave the liquor?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: What do you mean in paragraph 18 of Exhibit L where you state

"When I went back to my place, there were more uninvited guests. I asked them to leave. I took my brother who was already dozed to the outside room."

What do you mean by that? What do you mean by the words "dozed"?

MR McCASKILL: With Brandy and Coke and pills.

MR HATTINGH: The pills as well, did you give him some of those?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: Is that Richard McCaskill?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: And when you say that he was already dosed, you could you already see that he had been affected by the combination of liquor and pills?

MR McCASKILL: He was fast asleep.

MR HATTINGH: You know that he later made statements to journalists regarding what had taken place, according to these newspaper reports?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And in these reports he described how the six persons entered and opened fire and so forth and he would not have been able to do so in his condition?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Was your brother a target?

MR McCASKILL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Why was he "dosed"?

MR McCASKILL: I wanted to get him out of the way.

CHAIRPERSON: But I thought that these pills were intended for those persons who were targets, it was intended to put them to sleep.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: But if your brother wasn't a target, why was he dosed?

MR McCASKILL: I just wanted to get him to sleep so that I could get him out of the way so that he wouldn't be injured.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You really took a big chance dosing your brother with the pills that you didn't know whether they were really intended to make you drowsy or kill you.

MR McCASKILL: They explained to me that they were regular sleeping pills and nothing further.

MR HATTINGH: Thank you Chair. Mr McCaskill, then you knew that they wanted to shoot these persons dead in the house and you went to Mr de Kock at the Post Office at a certain stage to inform him that there were others in the house as well. Is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then he told you to return and then to come back to that point in an hours time.

MR McCASKILL: It happened a number of times. I cannot determine which time you are referring to.

MR HATTINGH: But did he send you back to get those uninvited persons out of the house?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell him that Mr Meyer and his wife and his child were also there?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know if I told him that the child was there, but I definitely told him that Leon and Jackie were there.

MR HATTINGH: And you knew that they were coming to kill them?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: If there had been a child, would you not have told them?

MR McCASKILL: Perhaps, but I cannot remember.

MR HATTINGH: Because if you didn't tell them there would have been 100% certainty that when they stormed in there with guns blazing, the child would have been shot dead.

MR McCASKILL: They stated prior to the incident that they would not harm the child.

MR HATTINGH: Who told you that they did not intend to harm the child?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall who it was, I don't know if it was Mr de Kock or someone else.

MR HATTINGH: Are you therefore saying that you told them that there was a child?

MR McCASKILL: They knew that Jackie had a child.

MR HATTINGH: But did they know that Jackie would be in the house with her child?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot respond to that.

MR HATTINGH: May I ask you this? Was Jackie's child there?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR HATTINGH: Did you tell them so?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall.

MR HATTINGH: But wasn't it important to you because they only wanted to have ANC members there, that was the target?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR HATTINGH: And the child was not an ANC members.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: The child was but a baby. But why didn't you tell them that there was a child and that they should beware and not to shoot if there was a child there?

MR McCASKILL: I might have told them but I cannot remember.

MR HATTINGH: Mr de Kock differs from you regarding the number of times that you rendezvoused with him at the post office, but I will not dispute this matter with you. At a certain stage you went to him and you told him that there were these uninvited persons who had been there, but were no longer there. Is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: And then you told him that the people who were at the house at that point in time were the ANC people.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR HATTINGH: Mr Chairman, I - there are other issues on which his evidence is disputed and has been disputed by Mr de Kock. I don't intend to put all those aspects to him, as long as it's not taken that we're admitting it by not cross-examining him on that and then I have no further questions. Thank you Mr Chairman.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR HATTINGH

MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Chairman.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Mr McCaskill, it is not my intention to repeat any section regarding which my learned friend Mr Hattingh has examined you. There are just a number of aspects that I must ask you about, the first being whether or not you knew in 1985 that there were many ANC or MK members in Lesotho?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And in the vicinity of October 1985, did you hear of a large group of new MK members who had arrived there?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR VISSER: Did you tell this to Mr Willie Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: I may have, but I cannot recall.

MR VISSER: Well, you would have told him because you gave him the correct information.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And did you also tell him at a certain stage that you had seen weapons with the Meyer group?

MR McCASKILL: No, I cannot recall.

MR VISSER: Did you ever tell him that you had seen round metal objects?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR VISSER: AK47 guns?

MR McCASKILL: I never saw AK47 guns.

MR VISSER: How many times did you bring hand grenades out to show to people, once or twice?

MR McCASKILL: Only once.

MR VISSER: Was that to the Vlakplaas group or to the Ladybrand group? Was it to either one of these groups to whom you showed the guns? Can you recall?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall, but the Vlakplaas group was also there.

MR VISSER: Very well. If you look at bundle 2 page 70 paragraph 15, this is your first affidavit and there you state

"On that Friday Teddy and ANC man came to my place."

And then you state that you went to Leon and other comrades and that they requested you to take them to Bloemfontein. My first question to you is how many persons were you supposed to take to Bloemfontein?

MR McCASKILL: Two.

MR VISSER: Therefore the aspect of the other comrades is incorrect, it was just supposed to be one comrade?

MR McCASKILL: When they asked me, there were not one or two, there were about four or five.

MR VISSER: And were you under the impression that you had to take all of them to Bloemfontein?

MR McCASKILL: No, I knew that I had to take only two.

MR VISSER: Did they tell you so?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR VISSER: And did they tell you on the Friday? But that cannot be correct, it had to have been on the Thursday.

MR McCASKILL: It was on the same day after the party.

MR VISSER: And the party was on the Thursday evening.

MR McCASKILL: So then it must have been the Friday.

MR VISSER: You stated upon Mr Hattingh's questions, that there were meetings at your house. We know that there were also hand grenades there because Sizwe trained you in the use of these hand grenades and you state that different persons would be there from time to time, that the meetings would amount to 7 to 12 members and were there Lesotho citizens there from time to time? That is what he asked you.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR VISSER: What was your response?

MR McCASKILL: I said that I didn't really know about Lesotho citizens.

MR VISSER: But what do you say now? Did Lesotho citizens ever attend these meetings?

MR McCASKILL: My answer would be no, I don't know.

MR VISSER: The reason why I am putting this to you is because on more than one occasion you were sent by Mr de Kock to ensure that the right people were at the house because whoever was at that house would be shot.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And you state in paragraph 16, the final sentence there, you refer to

"10 people at the party."

Now which stage are you referring to, when there were 10 persons at the party? Is this the last time that you saw de Kock and you told him that the people were there?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VISSER: And that is when there were 10?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, with the exception of my family and the people that I set aside.

MR VISSER: Yes, that is just the Meyer group.

MR McCASKILL: If you want to refer to it that way, yes.

MR VISSER: You see, that's what I don't understand because we know that Jackie and Leon had left and you told this to de Kock, so two of them have already left, then there are 10 persons remaining, but we know that only 7 persons were in the house when de Kock and the others arrived there, so there might have been 3 persons or so who had left in the meantime.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VISSER: But the fact of the matter remains that 3 of those persons were Lesotho citizens.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VISSER: Did you know that they were part of these 10 persons?

MR McCASKILL: They were not there when I made my final check.

MR VISSER: Are you saying therefore that 6 people of the Meyer group left and that 3 new people joined while you were with de Kock, is that what you're saying?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, it must have been.

MR VISSER: But that is highly improbable don't you think?

MR McCASKILL: It happened that way.

MR VISSER: Haven't you previous heard of these Lesotho citizens, or ever known their names before you read about them subsequently?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR VISSER: Chairperson, I have no further questions thank you.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN DER MERWE: Thank you, Chairperson.

Mr McCaskill, when you were at Vlakplaas, I infer from your statement, the first statement that you made, that you came to know Marthinus Ras?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You know who that is?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Because there is a reference in a number of paragraphs on page 72, paragraph 27 and other places, there are references to Marthinus Ras also in paragraph 28 and then I also see in paragraph 20 you also refer to Ras as one of the persons who was involved in the operation.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And that is an error that you made?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: The same with Blackie Swart?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Because Mr Hattingh asked you about Blackie Swart and you were clear that somewhere you heard of Blackie Swart and that you possibly thought that the name was obtained from there somewhere, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But regarding Marthinus Ras there can be no doubt because you knew him well at Vlakplaas?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: How did it happen that you attached his name to your statement?

MR McCASKILL: I might have mistaken him for somebody else who was involved. Later through time I learned that he was not involved.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But you saw the people who were involved that evening.

MR McCASKILL: Not all of them.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But you were at the river when they crossed, you saw them later and before the time you saw Coetser, Adamson and de Kock.

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: You saw the rest of the team when you crossed the river back to the RSA.

MR McCASKILL: Not all of them.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Who did you not see?

MR McCASKILL: When we went through the river I saw Snor.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Well you mentioned Mr Vermeulen's name in the affidavit so you are correct there.

MR McCASKILL: Yes and Adamson and Mr de Kock and Joe. I am certain of them, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And you also mention Nortje. You also mention Mr Nortje's name in your statement.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Are you certain that you saw him?

MR McCASKILL: I saw him yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But with the knowledge that you had afterwards from Vlakplaas and knowledge that you had of Mr Marthinus Ras, how on earth could you have thought that he was there if you didn't see him?

MR McCASKILL: As I have said, I must have made a mistake.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And with regard to paragraph 8, I see that you initially mentioned that there was a braai to which you were called and during that occasion you were told and you refer in your initial statement

"They said that if I could assist them to kill Leon and his wife."

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And in the following statement you say

"De Kock, Adamson and other Security Police were present."

In other words, you remove the names of Nortje and Blackie Swart there. So in other words I infer from your second statement that you were not certain about Nortje's presence.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Because I want to put it to you, it was not put to Mr Nortje that he was present there when he gave evidence there and my instructions in that regard are that he has no knowledge of the discussion during which, or that he was party to a discussion in this context, that they had requested you to kill Leon and his wife, Jackie.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And I deduce that in the second statement, without mentioning any names, when you refer to they, then you are not certain of any names, you refer to a group of people without referring to a name.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And does this not refer to the applicants here?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Then I would just like to ask you with regard to the pills that you had to mix with the liquor, were you told that - may I just ask you, what did these tablets look like?

MR McCASKILL: They were whitish.

MR VAN DER MERWE: How many tablets did you have to mix with each drink?

MR McCASKILL: Just one.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And how would you do this without being seen?

MR McCASKILL: Probably stand in some corner.

MR VAN DER MERWE: How many drinks did you doctor with these pills that night?

MR McCASKILL: Just one for my brother.

MR VAN DER MERWE: And one for who?

MR McCASKILL: One for a man by the name of David and one for my brother, that's all.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Now this man David, who was he?

MR McCASKILL: He was also an ANC member who attended the party.

MR VAN DER MERWE: He was not one of the victims?

MR McCASKILL: No, as I heard, he was at the party, but he was only injured, that is what I heard.

MR VAN DER MERWE: In other words you have no recollection of the beer that was given out, the beer that was marked?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Did you at any stage report to Mr de Kock that "Listen here, this plan with these tablets to put these people out of action did not work", when you had contact with him? Most of the people were still walking around inside and they were not sleeping.

MR McCASKILL: No, but the tablets did work.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But you said only for two people.

MR McCASKILL: Only two.

MR VAN DER MERWE: The other people were awake.

MR McCASKILL: I couldn't give the other people, because they did not drink Brandy, they were drinking beer.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But the point was they were not sleeping.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Did you report to Mr de Kock: "Listen here the idea that you had advocated here, that these people" - we had to find these people asleep so that when Mr de Kock and his people hit.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Did you tell Mr de Kock: "Listen, there are only two people to whom I could give these pills, the others are still walking around"?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I must have told him.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Did you tell him?

MR McCASKILL: I must have told him that most of these people were drinking beer, so I must have said that these people drink mostly beer. I'm not certain, but I must have told him.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Did you tell him that the other people were not sleeping?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I did.

MR VAN DER MERWE: So why did you never testify about this? Why have you not mentioned this in your evidence? This was an important aspect of the whole operation.

MR McCASKILL: I don't know why I did not mention it.

MR VAN DER MERWE: Did you understand that the tablets were given, that these people had to be put out of action and then they would be shot when they were out of action? Is that how you understood it? Do you understand the question?

MR McCASKILL: I don't understand.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I will repeat it. Did you understand that the idea with the pills that had to be mixed with the drinks was that these people had to be put to sleep and then they would be shot when they were sleeping?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But if that was so, why did you give your brother a sleeping tablet?

MR McCASKILL: Because I didn't want him to give me any trouble when I was getting out of the house.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But when Mr de Kock and his men got there and found the man sleeping, then they would shoot him.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, in the house yes, but he was not in the house, he was in the outside room.

MR VAN DER MERWE: But they could have gone in there.

MR McCASKILL: But I told them about the outside room, they knew about it.

MR VAN DER MERWE: I have no further questions, thank you Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN DER MERWE

MR NEL: No questions thank you Chair.

NO QUESTIONS BY MR NEL

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Mr McCaskill, I'll ask questions in English, you're free to answer in Afrikaans. I just want to say at the outset, Mr McCaskill that I understand that 15 years is a long time for you to be expected to remember every detail of what happened and I understand if you can't recall who said what to you when and who gave what to you when and who met you where and when. I understand all of those things. I can't remember what I did in December 1985 either, but if I was planning to murder someone, that I would remember. So I want to ask you details about the plans for the murder, not who said what when, but just the big plans and if you can try and just limit yourself to that. The big plan which is common cause it seems with everyone is that there was going to be a party and you were going to arrange for people to be at a party, ANC people, in fact Leon Meyer and his group, to be specific, so that they could be killed at that party, that was the final plan. Am I right?

MR McCASKILL: That's right.

MR BERGER: Now in your first statement, well, let me just stop there. Mr Visser is correct when he says that the party was on the Thursday night and not the Friday night as you say in your statement and you've conceded that. Now in your first statement you talk about another party which was held before the final party. Now is it your evidence that that, let me call it the first party, that that party was in fact held?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but it wasn't a party, I was mistaken, it's an annual gathering that they have, I don't know, some kind of annual gathering that they do every year.

MR BERGER: And you told de Kock about that gathering as well?

MR McCASKILL: No, he asked me to find out about it.

MR BERGER: Would you prefer to speak Afrikaans?

MR McCASKILL: He asked me to find out about it.

MR BERGER: Now can you remember whether that gathering was held on a weekend or whether it was held during the week, or was it held on a specific day because it commemorated something?

MR McCASKILL: I can't remember, but I know that it commemorates something but I can't remember when it was held, on a Saturday, Monday or Friday.

MR BERGER: Can you remember whether a number of days passed between that gathering and the final party at which the people were killed?

MR McCASKILL: Only a few days.

MR BERGER: Could it have been a week between the two?

MR McCASKILL: Not two or three weeks, but less.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: May I interpose please, Mr Berger? Was the commemorating party held over a weekend, or was it during the week?

MR McCASKILL: I can't remember.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Now was it your understanding that the attack was going to take place initially at that first gathering, that de Kock and his men were going to attack at the first gathering?

MR McCASKILL: As I understood it, yes.

MR BERGER: You see, if you look at page 70 paragraph 13 of your statement, well, let me go first to paragraph 11 on page 69. This is where you talk about the plan where you were going to lure Leon Meyer to a spot where de Kock could then kill him. Your evidence is that - you stand by that, that was still the first plan, to kill Leon Meyer?

MR McCASKILL: That's right.

MR BERGER: Then at the bottom of that page you say

"De Kock asked me as to when do these MK people come as a group to my place and I told them that they never come as a group to my place. They told me that there would be a party for ANC people and I should find out as to where will that party be held."

Now am I correct that there you are referring to the commemoration that you said de Kock told you about?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

MR BERGER: Then you say in paragraph 12

"Jabu an ANC man, came to inform me about this coming party and asked me to fetch him, since he did not have transport, but he never told me about the venue. He promised to inform me. The following day I met Eugene de Kock at the place near Ladybrand and told him that I know there will be a party but I do not know the venue. They instructed me to try all means to find out about the venue."

And then in 13 you say how Jabu informed you about the party which would be held at George Kapedi's place and then you told de Kock about the party and the venue. Is that still your evidence?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

MR BERGER: And then in 13 you describe how in fact you took de Kock, Nortje, Vermeulen and others to the venue where the commemoration was being held, but there was no attack at that stage.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: Did that happen? In other words, can you recall, if you can't, say so, but can you recall taking de Kock and his men to this venue where the commemoration was being held?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I did go and show them.

MR BERGER: So according to you, that would have been the second plan to kill Leon Meyer and this time some of his soldiers?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

MR BERGER: And then as you know, there was a - well according to you there would have been a third plan which was the final part?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: Now I want to go a little bit back in time as well. There was a time when you were asked by de Kock and some of his men to look through a photograph album and to point out Leon Meyer and other MK soldiers that you knew.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: You pointed out Leon Meyer, but you said no, that's an old picture of him and then you arranged for the meeting in the bar.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Did that happen?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, it did.

MR BERGER: How long before the first attempt, you understand when I refer to three attempts, the first attempt is the one where Leon Meyer would be killed on his own, the second attempt is where Leon Meyer would be killed at the commemoration and the third attempt is where Leon Meyer would be killed at the party? You're with my terminology?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: Okay. How long before the first attempt, if you can say, was the meeting in the bar, a day, two days, a few days?

MR McCASKILL: It was a few days, I cannot recall exactly when it was.

MR BERGER: How long between the first attempt and the second attempt? Can you say?

MR McCASKILL: Really not.

MR BERGER: And again you said between the second attempt and the third attempt, you say it could have been a week?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: But you're not certain of these dates?

MR McCASKILL: I'm not certain.

MR BERGER: Okay. No, I understand that. Now when was the first time that de Kock asked you about Leon Meyer? When was the first time you were asked anything about Leon Meyer?

MR McCASKILL: It was - it started with Mr Willie, he was the first guy who asked me about Leon Meyer.

MR BERGER: I beg your pardon?

MR McCASKILL: I said the first person who asked me about Leon Meyer was Willie Coetzee.

MR BERGER: Just to go back, were you in Lesotho during 1982?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: Do you remember the raid on Maseru in 1982?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: Do you remember when that was?

MR McCASKILL: I think it was also in December.

MR BERGER: ; Round about the 10th or the 12th of December?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Could that have been the commemoration?

MR McCASKILL: It could be, yes.

MR BERGER: Now when Willie Coetzee was asking you about Leon Meyer, you hadn't yet met Eugene de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

MR BERGER: Subsequent to that you met Eugene de Kock. Now was that in South Africa or in Lesotho?

MR McCASKILL: In South Africa.

MR BERGER: In Ladybrand?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: And was that when you were asked to look through the photo album?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall whether I looked through the album on that specific day, but I have gone through the album along with Mr de Kock.

MR BERGER: From the time that you met Eugene de Kock in Ladybrand, until the time of the attack, is it correct that you went in and out of Lesotho a number of times to Ladybrand and back?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

MR BERGER: And all the time going back and forth, back and forth, the point of those meetings was to give more and more information on Leon Meyer and his group?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

MR BERGER: For the purposes of launching an attack on them?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: And this went through from the time you looked at the photo albums through to the first attempt, the second - I beg your pardon, the photo albums, the meeting in the bar, the first attempt, the second attempt and the final attempt?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Do you know if anyone survived the attack?

MR McCASKILL: I'm not sure. I just heard that someone had survived.

MR BERGER: Do you know someone with the name Wanda?

MR McCASKILL: Maybe by some other name, not that name.

MR BERGER: Do you know whether the information that you were giving through to de Kock was being confirmed by any other informer?

MR McCASKILL: At that stage I did not know, but later I learned that it was so.

MR BERGER: ; Who was that informer?

MR McCASKILL: I do not know, I really do not know.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you find out that your information was confirmed?

MR McCASKILL: Somebody told me at the Security Branch.

MR BERGER: Mr McCaskill, is it still your evidence that right from the beginning you were asked by de Kock whether you could assist him to kill Leon Meyer and his wife?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: Were you asked to look for her photograph in the photo album?

MR McCASKILL: I think so, but I cannot recall whether her photo was in the photo album.

MR BERGER: This is the so-called terrorist album that we hear so much about.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: How many of those photos did you recognise?

MR BERGER: Only those of the people whom I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: How many?

MR McCASKILL: Approximately 15 or so.

CHAIRPERSON: And how many times were you asked to look through that album?

MR McCASKILL: I cannot recall, but I will guess. Approximately 5 times or so.

CHAIRPERSON: And all the people whom you recognise from there, were they all members of the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: The fifteen people?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: How did you know?

MR McCASKILL: They were people I knew, I knew they were ANC members.

CHAIRPERSON: But how did you know?

MR McCASKILL: I knew them, they came to visit my house sometimes.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chair. Can you remember the names of any of the people other than Leon Meyer or Joe, who you pointed out?

MR McCASKILL: Teddy ...(indistinct)

MR BERGER: Sorry, just go a bit slower.

MR McCASKILL: Teddy.

MR BERGER: Terry?

MR McCASKILL: Teddy.

MR BERGER: Who's Teddy?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know his other name, I only know him as Teddy. He was also killed in that ...(indistinct)

MR BERGER: Okay. He was killed the night of the attack?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: Okay, who else? You said Mary Mini?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: And who else?

MR McCASKILL: Moses and there was a David.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger these are names of people whose photos he pointed out in albums?

MR BERGER: Names of people he pointed out in the photo album, yes.

MR McCASKILL: There was also a Sizwe.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Would that be the same Sizwe who is known as Dick?

MR McCASKILL: That's right.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: You sister's boyfriend?

MR McCASKILL: That's right. And I can't remember the others.

MR BERGER: You pointed out your house mate who was also your sister's boyfriend.

MR McCASKILL: My house mate, my sister's boyfriend.

MR BERGER: Your sister's boyfriend is Dick. Who were you sharing a house with?

MR McCASKILL: Dick.

MR BERGER: Is that not the same Dick.

MR McCASKILL: The same Sizwe.

MR BERGER: Yes, you were sharing a house with him and he was your sister's boyfriend and you pointed him out to the Security Police as an ANC member.

MR McCASKILL: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you think what's going to happen to him once you pointed him out?

MR McCASKILL: They knew that I knew him, so I had to point him.

CHAIRPERSON: What did you think was going to happen to him?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't know at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you sure?

MR McCASKILL: I'm sure.

CHAIRPERSON: You were oblivious of the workings of the Special Branch of South Africa. You didn't know they go out and kill people?

MR McCASKILL: I knew there were some people who went out killing, but I didn't know it was the Special Branch.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: When did you start staying in Maseru, Mr McCaskill? I know you previously stayed in Bloemfontein.

MR McCASKILL: It was in - I think I started working in Maseru in 1980 or 81.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you knew quite well what was happening inside the country, the Government's attitude towards the ANC, that you knew?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you were aware that when you were pointing out these people you were not pointing them out to enable the police to take them to a Sunday School, were you not?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So you must have known that there were dire consequences as a result of your pointing them out to the Security Police.

MR McCASKILL: I'd say yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes and it's not true that you did not know what consequences would follow as a result of your pointing out.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: Mr McCaskill what were you doing in Maseru?

MR McCASKILL: I was working for the ...(indistinct) Hotels.

MR BERGER: As what?

MR McCASKILL: I was a maintenance manager.

MR BERGER: Now who did you think was responsible for the 1982 raid?

MR McCASKILL: I honestly don't know.

MR BERGER: No, at the time, you didn't know?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know, even now I don't know.

MR BERGER: Did you finish school in South Africa?

MR McCASKILL: No, in Lesotho.

MR BERGER: What standard did you get up to?

MR McCASKILL: I got up to standard 9 and then went to a ...

MR BERGER: You can speak Afrikaans.

MR McCASKILL: I went to a trade school.

MR BERGER: Now when Mr de Kock said to you that he would pay you R5 000 per - well he said he would pay you R5 000 for Leon Meyer and R5 000 for Jackie Quinn, am I right?

MR McCASKILL: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: It goes further, and any other terrorist.

MR BERGER: R5 000 for any other MK soldier, well he didn't use those words, he said ANC - what words did he use?

MR McCASKILL: Any other ANC member, or terrorists, I think he said terrorists.

MR BERGER: Well what did he say? Can you remember?

MR McCASKILL: I think he said terrorists.

MR BERGER: You'll have to speak into the microphone.

MR McCASKILL: I think he said terrorists.

MR BERGER: ; R5 000 a head?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: But at the end of the day, you only got R2 000 a head.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: So you were short-changed R27 000, 9 times R# 000.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: What reason were you given for being short-changed?

MR McCASKILL: He did not give me a reason he only told me that the people were only prepared to give me R2 000 a head, that's all.

MR BERGER: But didn't you ask him why? The promise was R5 000 a head, now you're only getting R2 000 a head, that's quite difference.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but I didn't ask.

CHAIRPERSON: But you had been robbed, is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: Yes. I said yes.

CHAIRPERSON: But you were in this thing completely, you were a paid informant for the Security Police. It's almost like a contract I would say. You have to assist and you must do this and that and you will receive R5 000 a head. So why did you not argue this? You were in this thing now.

MR McCASKILL: He said that he would speak to them, but I didn't argue.

CHAIRPERSON: Were you satisfied with R18 000?

MR McCASKILL: I was not satisfied because I wasn't after the money.

CHAIRPERSON: You wanted more?

MR McCASKILL: But in the first instance I wasn't after the money, but at that stage I didn't have anything, I didn't have a job, I lost my car and all my other things.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Berger.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson. Mr McCaskill, didn't it have anything to do with the fact that some of the people who were killed were neither ANC members nor so-called terrorists?

MR McCASKILL: He brought it up that they had said that three people were there, they will not pay for three people there, who were Lesotho citizens.

MR BERGER: Is this what Mr de Kock said?

MR McCASKILL: That's right, yes.

MR BERGER: And that's why the amount was reduced?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know whether that was the reason but he told me they would only pay R2 000 a head. They were only prepared to pay R2 000 a head.

MR BERGER: Who is the "hulle" that are not prepared to pay more than R2 000 a head?

MR McCASKILL: It was the people who dealt with the money, I suppose.

CHAIRPERSON: I don't understand now. There were 9 people who were killed, is that right?

MR McCASKILL: That's right.

CHAIRPERSON: They came to you and said that: "Listen, they will not pay for the Lesotho citizens"?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

CHAIRPERSON: So according to your definition and they worked it out that they only have to pay for 6 people, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, that's how I understood it initially.

CHAIRPERSON: So they gave you R3 000 per person, per head.

MR McCASKILL: That could be, but as I understood it, he went and told his superiors that the other three persons were persons who had received crash courses, so that I could get the money for these people, so I understood that I received R2 000 per head from de Kock.

CHAIRPERSON: And then later ...?

MR BERGER: According to your evidence you say that Mr de Kock told you that they were not prepared, his or the people who dealt with the money were not prepared to pay for the three Lesotho citizens who were killed?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: And that's why, well you say it wasn't linked, but you then got R18 000?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but there was some stage when he told me that he will go and speak to them, but if they can ask me, I should tell them that the other three Lesotho citizens were people who had received crash courses.

MR BERGER: Mr Nortje says that he heard that you were paid R25 000.

MR McCASKILL: No, that's not correct, that's a lie.

MR BERGER: And that would have been R5 000 for the five ANC soldiers.

MR McCASKILL: No, I was only paid R18 000.

MR BERGER: You accepted the money?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I did.

MR BERGER: You used the money?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I did.

MR BERGER: You said that you weren't sure what Mr de Kock's intentions were. You weren't really sure that he was coming to kill the people at your house, is that right?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, at first I wasn't certain.

MR BERGER: This is after he's promised you R5 000 a head, you didn't take him seriously?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: Then there are a number of attempts on Leon Meyer. You still didn't take him seriously.

MR McCASKILL: They refused a number of times during the planning, such as the evening of the annual part of the ANC, they pulled out themselves.

MR BERGER: Okay, but now the last attempt, the third attempt, now you had to know that he was serious because he's now in Maseru, waiting at the Post Office, he sends you back to the house to get rid of people who shouldn't be there. You yourself take precautions to get your brother out of the way, to get your sister out of the way, you take all of those precautions. At that stage you must have known that he was coming to kill the people at your house?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, and I saw the firearms as well.

MR BERGER: Ja, so now there's no doubt?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: Alright. Why on earth didn't you warn Leon Meyer and his comrades of this pending attack?

MR McCASKILL: I was already in too deep and I didn't know what they would do if they found out that I had sold them to such an extend.

MR BERGER: Mr McCaskill, they could have laid an ambush for Mr de Kock and his men, they could have wiped Mr de Kock and his men out when they came to attack them and you would have been hailed as a hero. Why did you not do that?

MR McCASKILL: As I have stated, I knew that the South Africans had more power, so to speak, so I was actually more concerned with my own safety.

MR BERGER: Well ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it a fact that you didn't do anything because you were on their payroll?

MR McCASKILL: No, I wasn't on their payroll by then.

CHAIRPERSON: You must have been because they promised you money. It must have been arranged.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I was paid for that but I wasn't on their payroll before that.

CHAIRPERSON: You were on their payroll schedule, if this a success, you're going to get paid, not so?

MR McCASKILL: Okay.

CHAIRPERSON: And that's the reason you didn't go tell Leon about this impending attack. Not so?

MR McCASKILL: In actual fact I was more concerned with my own safety than anything else.

MR BERGER: Okay. If that is the reason, why didn't you apply for amnesty?

MR McCASKILL: Nobody advised me to do so. I didn't know anything.

MR BERGER: You didn't know about the amnesty process?

MR McCASKILL: No, when we went to Durban to make our statements, no one advised us to make application for amnesty.

MR BERGER: You weren't aware of the fact that there was an amnesty process in operation?

MR McCASKILL: Nothing.

MR BERGER: And when you were contacted to come and give evidence here, what was your attitude?

MR McCASKILL: Before I found out about the amnesty applications, there was someone whom I can no longer recall, but someone who was with the investigator.

CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that it was too late for you to apply?

MR McCASKILL: I made inquiries as to whether or not it would be necessary, after I heard of the amnesty process. Then someone told me that I would not be able to apply for amnesty because whatever action I committed, I committed for profit, it was not politically motivated. Someone explained it to me as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Well that is indeed so, is it not, that you did draw profit?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I took the money, I accept that.

MR BERGER: Now Mr McCaskill, when you were located and asked to come and give evidence here, did you do so voluntarily?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I came as soon as I was contacted.

MR BERGER: And you came to give evidence voluntarily?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

MR BERGER: I want to ask you about the events at Leon Meyer's house. De Kock sent you, Adamson and Coetser to that house.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: The two murderers, Adamson and Coetser, of them Adamson is dead and Coetser couldn't even be bothered to apply for amnesty, so unfortunately you're the only person who can tell us what happened at that house. Well anyway, in these proceedings you're the only person who can tell us. So I'm going to ask you please to try and remember as much detail of what happened as possible. You were the person, am I correct, who directed Coetser and Adamson to that house?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: Because you knew where the house was.

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: Because they were your friends?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: Now did you see that Adamson and Coetser were both armed?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: You were then sent to the front door of the house, am I right?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: And who gave you instructions?

MR McCASKILL: Adamson.

MR BERGER: And where was Coetser when he gave you those instructions?

MR McCASKILL: He was there.

MR BERGER: And what did Adamson instruct you to do?

MR McCASKILL: He told me to know on the door and that as soon as the people opened the door, I should start the car and be ready for them when they return.

MR BERGER: And what were you told to say at the door?

MR McCASKILL: I had to say that it was me. I had to say my name.

MR BERGER: Well you see you didn't give this evidence. The only evidence you've given so far is that you knocked on the door and you went back to the car. So please try and elaborate.

MR McCASKILL: I knocked on the door and then she asked who it was and I said that it was me.

MR BERGER: I'm sorry, apparently I've been unfair to you. Well if my learned friends are going to shake their heads ...(intervention)

MR VISSER: Well, Chairperson, he gave evidence that I heard, not that I have anything to do with it, to say that he knocked on the door, she asked who it was, he said it was him, he then left, he was then told to go away. That was his evidence.

MR BERGER: Then I apologise Mr McCaskill.

MR McCASKILL: No, I can say it again if you want.

MR BERGER: Please.

MR McCASKILL: I knocked on the door, then she asked who it was. I said it was me. She began to open the door, then I walked away and went to start the car.

MR BERGER: So you said it's Elvis.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I said it's Tiny, because they knew me as Tiny.

MR BERGER: And it was Jackie Quinn who came to the door?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

MR BERGER: And you said nothing more? Did you run away or did you walk?

MR McCASKILL: No, I just walked away.

MR BERGER: And at the time when you knocked on the door, where were Adamson and Coetser?

MR McCASKILL: They were just behind me.

MR BERGER: So when she opened the door and she saw you, would she have seen them standing right behind you?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, I would accept it as such. She probably expected to see me, but she didn't see me, instead she saw Adamson and Coetser. They were very close to the door.

MR BERGER: So did she not see you? Did you not see her?

CHAIRPERSON: I don't know if he can say so. What I understand from his evidence is that he moved away before the door was completely open. She might have seen him.

MR BERGER: And then you just moved away?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

MR BERGER: And you didn't hear a thing of what was happening in the house?

MR McCASKILL: Nothing.

MR BERGER: You didn't hear any shots being fired?

MR McCASKILL: Nothing.

MR BERGER: I take it if a silencer had been pulled off a gun, you would have heard the shots being fired?

MR McCASKILL: Yes. I mean between the house and the car, because I climbed into the car and started it. I didn't hear any shots.

MR BERGER: How far was your car from the front door?

MR McCASKILL: The car was parked near the gate. There were a few trees in the yard and the car was parked outside the yard, near those trees. It must have been about 30 metres.

MR BERGER: The point I want to make is if it was normal gunshots without the benefit of a silencer, you would have heard the gunshots?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: So can we assume that both guns were fired with silencers?

MR McCASKILL: I know that Joe had a gun which was fitted with a silencer, but Adamson just had a pistol. I don't know whether the pistol was fitted with a silencer.

MR BERGER: When you say Joe, you mean Coetser?

MR McCASKILL: Adamson ...

MR BERGER: No, Adamson had a pistol, but Joe had the gun - Coetser had the gun with the silencer?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: And as far as you say, the pistol which Adamson had, did not have a silencer.

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: So can we assume that the only person who did the shooting, was Coetser?

MR McCASKILL: I wouldn't know, but I do recall Adamson said something to the effect that he gave him one in the head and Joe said that he gave her two in the chest.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McCaskill you have just been asked to describe who had firearms and who had silencers and then it was put to you whether or not it is correct that they were the ones who killed them and you said that you could not answer, you would not be able to say.

MR McCASKILL: What I heard ...(intervention)

CHAIRPERSON: But who else could have shot them?

MR McCASKILL: I'm trying to explain that I do not know whether Joe shot Leon or whether Adamson shot Jackie. That is what I am trying to explain.

MR BERGER: No that's correct, Mr McCaskill, I know that you're not disputing that it's either Coetser or Adamson or both.

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: I know that and you are correct, I was trying to determine from you whether it was Adamson or whether it was Coetser. Your evidence, if I can summarise, is that you saw Coetser having a silencer, not Adamson.

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: You didn't hear any gun shots?

MR McCASKILL: Nothing.

MR BERGER: You would have heard gun shots if a silencer hadn't been used.

MR McCASKILL: I would accept that a pistol without a silencer makes quite a noise.

MR BERGER: You would have heard a pistol being shot without a silencer?

MR McCASKILL: I think so, yes.

MR BERGER: But what you also know is that after the fact, when they reported, when Adamson and Coetser reported back to de Kock, Adamson said words to the effect that he had shot Leon Meyer once in the head and Coetser reported that he had shot Jackie Quinn twice in the chest.

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: Did you hear anything else that Coetser said as to why he shot Jackie Quinn?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR BERGER: You wouldn't have expected an explanation from him because you expected Jackie Quinn to be killed, is that correct?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: Did you hear any screaming coming from the house?

MR McCASKILL: No, nothing.

MR BERGER: You didn't hear any sounds at all?

MR McCASKILL: Nothing.

MR BERGER: How long did they spend in the house?

MR McCASKILL: It could not have been more than three to four minutes.

MR BERGER: Did they mention anything about a baby sitter?

MR McCASKILL: No, they simply said that they left the child on the bed.

MR BERGER: When Leon Meyer and Jackie Quinn came to your house for the party, did they come with or without their baby?

MR McCASKILL: The child was with them, yes.

MR BERGER: And when they left to go home, did they go with or without their baby?

MR McCASKILL: They went with the child.

MR BERGER: And when you referred, earlier in your evidence, to Leon and family coming to your house, to the party and leaving the party, whom were you referring to as family?

MR McCASKILL: When I said family, I was including Jackie and the kid.

MR BERGER: Did you know whether Jackie Quinn was a member of MK, a solider?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR BERGER: Did you know whether she was a member of the ANC?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR BERGER: Did you tell either de Kock or any of his men or Willie Coetzee that Jackie Quinn was an MK soldier?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR BERGER: Did you tell de Kock or any of his men, or Willie Coetser that Jackie Quinn was an ANC member?

MR McCASKILL: No.

MR BERGER: And the three Lesotho citizens who were killed, you say you had never seen them before?

MR McCASKILL: I don't know who they are, I haven't seen pictures of them.

MR BERGER: When you left the final time to go and to report to de Kock that the coast was clear, and the attack could begin, were there any Lesotho citizens attending the party?

MR McCASKILL: I had already put everyone out.

MR BERGER: Tell me Mr McCaskill is it so unusual for people to come to parties uninvited?

MR McCASKILL: No, it isn't.

MR BERGER: At the time in Maseru 1982, 83, 84, 85, was it unusual for people from the neighbourhood to come to parties uninvited?

MR McCASKILL: No it wasn't, I also did so regularly.

MR BERGER: It wasn't unusual?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MR BERGER: I'm sorry Chairperson, could I just have a moment please? Thank you. Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS PATEL: Thank you Honourable Chairperson, just one aspect I'd like clarity on Mr McCaskill. Regarding the people that you were supposed to gather for the party, how did you know who was supposed to be at that party?

MR McCASKILL: We went through them in the album, so we know who would be at my house.

MS PATEL: Okay and out of the ten people whom you say you had left there the last time you were at the house, were they all meant to be there, according to your identification from the albums?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

MS PATEL: Right. Thank you Honourable Chairperson.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS PATEL

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Joubert.

MR JOUBERT: I have no re-examination thank you Chairman.

NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR JOUBERT

ADV BOSMAN: Just one question, thank you. Mr McCaskill, you stated that the people who were there were persons who had been identified. How had they been identified? As MK members? As ANC members? As person who were infiltrating the country? In other words, how was the group that you were supposed to gather together described?

MR McCASKILL: I didn't know who was ANC, or who was MK, I simply knew ANC members.

ADV BOSMAN: But when you were instructed to arrange the party, what was said to you, what sort of persons did you have to have there?

MR McCASKILL: We spoke primarily of ANC members, any ANC members.

ADV BOSMAN: Thank you.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Mr McCaskill, how far was your house from the post office where you had various meetings with de Kock shortly before the attack took place?

MR McCASKILL: I am not completely certain, but I estimate that it was between three to five kilometres.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How long would it have taken you to drive from your house to the post office?

MR McCASKILL: A few minutes, between five and seven. It would depend on the traffic lights in the road and traffic, but between five and seven minutes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: This operation took place at about 11 o'clock at night.

MR McCASKILL: A bit later than that, I would say.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Your first meeting with de Kock took place at about 11 o'clock that night?

MR McCASKILL: No, not my first one, my last one.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Your last meeting?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Your first meeting?

MR McCASKILL: Round about 8 o'clock, I think.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Around about 8 o'clock?

MR McCASKILL: Or maybe a bit later on. I'm not sure if it was 8 or 9, but it was still early.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And the traffic is fairly smooth around that time? The traffic on the road is fairly smooth around that time?

MR McCASKILL: It's not very busy, if that's what you mean.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes. Now let's go back to when you were used as a source by Mr Coetzee. The thrust of your evidence is that Mr Willie Coetzee was your handler.

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did you ever have an occasion to be handled by Capt Fouche?

MR McCASKILL: No.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did you know him?

MR McCASKILL: Very well, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: But it was Mr Coetzee who handled you directly?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: How long had you been working for Mr Coetzee as a source, when you were introduced to Mr de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: Between the time that I gave him false information and correct information, I would say that it was approximately a month, it wasn't very long.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: It wasn't very long? Now your evidence has been that your first contact was around November of 1985, so one would be able to place the first introduction by Mr Coetzee of Mr de Kock to around December of 1985?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Would you say that was early December, or late December? It is important for me to know to be able to put time frames in view of what Mr de Kock has already testified on this aspect.

MR McCASKILL: I would say approximately two weeks before the raid, according to my estimation.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Two weeks before the raid?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So it would be around mid December when you were first introduced to Mr de Kock?

MR McCASKILL: Correct.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now your contact with Mr de Kock, did it involve Mr Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: After he introduced me to Mr de Kock, there were a few occasions upon which Mr Coetzee was with, but mostly it was Mr de Kock or Mr Adamson who came to me.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now for two weeks, what kind of information did you specifically provide Mr de Kock with?

MR McCASKILL: It was mostly, like I said, the names and like the time that they had arranged eg when I had to take Leon Meyer to the river and such things.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was there an occasion when you took Mr Meyer to the river?

MR McCASKILL: It should have been so but it didn't happen so.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was that the only information that you provided to Mr de Kock for two weeks?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, just names and pointing out people and giving addresses, but no specifics other, that's all.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did they tell you people's names and you had to put faces to those names? What was the procedure that took place?

MR McCASKILL: The whole thing was that they knew these people by other names and I knew these people by other names, so we had to go through this large book to see who is who and then I would say that this is him or this is not him, for example, let's say I know a Dick and he knows a Dick in the ANC, then we were going to look for that Dick in the album and we will try to see whether we are talking about the same person, something like that.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Was it the same process that you were involved with when you were being handled by Mr Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, more or less the same.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So Mr de Kock came and repeated basically the same thing?

MR McCASKILL: I did not go many times through the album with Mr de Kock, maybe once or twice. Most of the albums I had gone through with Mr Willie Coetzee.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Yes, that would be my understanding of the situation.

MR McCASKILL: Mr de Kock and I, I would say, we always met when I had to go and hear about a plan that he wanted to make for the raid, I will put it as such.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So with Mr de Kock, you were actually discussing the plan of the attack?

MR McCASKILL: Most of the time.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: This plan was discussed with you for about two weeks before the raid took place?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And you are sure about this time period, because it is important?

MR McCASKILL: I am certain.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Now the information that you provided to Mr Coetzee, what money were you paid for that?

MR McCASKILL: As I have said, I was not paid for any information, but when I perhaps came to Ladybrand, they would give me petrol money, but I was not given any specific amount of money for information, nothing.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Were you not assigned a particular number as a source for Mr Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: No.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And how was this petrol money given to you?

MR McCASKILL: Just so, out of his pocket by hand.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Were you always given petrol money for your meetings with Mr Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: If he called me, yes, not if he met me along the road, of if I would pass Bloemfontein tomorrow and he will meet me at the border post, but if he called me and he told me to come to Ladybrand the following day, then he would pay me.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And you considered yourself a source for Mr Coetzee?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McCaskill, you were supposed to arrange this party to gather all the people who were supposed to be killed, not os?

MR McCASKILL: That's correct, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Who were those people that you were told to gather at this party?

MR McCASKILL: I remember some of the names were like Leon was one of them.

CHAIRPERSON: Mr McCaskill, you're responsible for their deaths. I expect you to remember them.

MR McCASKILL: I can't remember all of them now.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR McCASKILL: It's a long time ago. I can't remember.

CHAIRPERSON: Who do you remember?

MR McCASKILL: I remember Leon, Jackie, I remember Mary Mini, I remember David, I remember Moses, Jabu.

CHAIRPERSON: How many were you supposed to gather at that party?

MR McCASKILL: The people who frequented my ...

CHAIRPERSON: How many people?

MR McCASKILL: It was plus minus ten people.

CHAIRPERSON: You've given me six names already, can you remember anybody else?

MR McCASKILL: I have really forgotten the others' names.

CHAIRPERSON: Was Teddy amongst them?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, it was Teddy as well.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you invite Teddy?

MR McCASKILL: Yes he was there and as I have found out, he was also killed that evening.

CHAIRPERSON: Sizwe?

MR McCASKILL: He was out of the country.

CHAIRPERSON: So from the ten, you can only recall seven names?

MR McCASKILL: That is correct.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you indeed invite them to this party?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, they were.

CHAIRPERSON: Some of these people that you have mentioned here, who was killed in your house?

MR McCASKILL: That I can recall is Teddy, that was killed in my house, it's Teddy, Mary Mini and David. David, as I understood it, he was only injured as I heard.

CHAIRPERSON: Moses?

MR McCASKILL: He was not there at the time.

CHAIRPERSON: Did he not attend the party?

MR McCASKILL: When the people attacked the party, he had already left, or something like that, as I understood it.

CHAIRPERSON: Jabu?

MR McCASKILL: We didn't get Jabu because we went looking for him the whole afternoon, me and Mary Mini.

CHAIRPERSON: And now do you know who was killed in your house

MR McCASKILL: I only recall Teddy and Mary Mini.

CHAIRPERSON: Who was found there dead?

MR McCASKILL: It would appear that seven were dead there. There was a guy by the name of Themba and the other coloured man, I didn't know his name. That is the one that I had to take to Bloemfontein along with Leon.

CHAIRPERSON: And who else?

MR McCASKILL: That's all that I can recall.

CHAIRPERSON: Teddy and Mary? So who's Themba? You say you didn't know him, or did you know him?

MR McCASKILL: I knew him, but I did not invite him, but he arrived there. The time that I was talking to Leon and the others with regard to the trip to Bloemfontein he was also present and it may have been there where he heard about the party, but he was not actually invited.

CHAIRPERSON: You didn't ask him to leave?

MR McCASKILL: No, I didn't.

CHAIRPERSON: Why not?

MR McCASKILL: Because he was an ANC member.

CHAIRPERSON: How do you know that?

MR McCASKILL: I knew him, as I have said.

CHAIRPERSON: So he was not on the list of people whom you were asked to invite to the party?

MR McCASKILL: The people who were on the list were persons that I could say I knew, it would be easier to get them to the party.

CHAIRPERSON: Unless I misunderstand you once again, were you not given names and told that "Listen here, make sure that these people are at the party"?

MR McCASKILL: Not specifically. I was not given any specific names, I was only given the names, we talked about these people, it was about the people who I could find easier, that's all, not specifically that you have to bring that one, but Leon and Queenie and Mary Mini, I was told those names specifically, that I can recall the best.

CHAIRPERSON: You know Sir when I started asking you questions, I asked you who were the persons whom you were told to invite and you said there were approximately ten and you can only recall seven and the names of the people I'd given and now you are saying you were only given two specific names, so what is the truth now?

MR McCASKILL: I was only told about Mary Mini and the others, they didn't worry about, they didn't care who it was as long as it was ANC members.

CHAIRPERSON: So this list of seven from approximately ten, how did you answer that?

MR McCASKILL: Because there were ten people at the party before I left the last time.

CHAIRPERSON: No, my question was who were you told to invite to the party and you said these seven. Can you recall? Approximately ten people.

MR McCASKILL: I probably did not understand the question properly. I can specifically recall that they told me about Leon and Mary Mini and Jackie.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Did they not identify people for you to invite from the photo album? I understood your evidence to crisply say, the people you invited were as a result of identification by the Security Police from the photo album and that's how you came up with the ten people who were invited.

MR McCASKILL: As we looked through, the people who usually visited my house, but there were no people whom I did not have much contact with that is what I am trying to explain.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: the number, the group of people you were supposed to invite was as a result of the identification made by the police from the photo album.

MR McCASKILL: No, it was not actually the case, their thing was the more the better as I understood it.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: That's not how I understood your earlier evidence.

MR McCASKILL: But that is how it actually was with them, the more people I could get there the better.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: So it didn't matter who it was as long as it was an ANC person? That person was welcome to be there and you knew that the person would be killed at the end of the day.

MR McCASKILL: That's correct yes.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: What then did you understand by the Leon Meyer group? Did you understand every ANC person in Lesotho to belong to the so-called Meyer group?

MR McCASKILL: No, I never said that I knew of a Leon Meyer group, as they referred to it, so I take it the Leon Meyer group, the people must have said that people who were with Leon Meyer, not to say that there was a specific group that was called the Leon Meyer group.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: Were these ten people persons who frequently were in the company of Mr Meyer?

MR McCASKILL: And myself.

JUDGE KHAMPEPE: And yourself?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Do you know, Mr McCaskill, I find it very difficult to understand you evidence. I'm being honest and I want to put something to you that you are changing your evidence and you are saying that you misunderstand questions every time when you are driven into a corner. Firstly, would you like to deal with that first? Do you want to or don't you want to?

MR McCASKILL: I'm trying to answer the way I recall, but I'm not trying to hide anything.

CHAIRPERSON: You see, most of your evidence actually I was under the impression that you were given a list, whether it was written or not I do not know, or whether it was pointed out to you in photo albums, I do not know, but you knew which specific people had to be at that party and furthermore, when you went to have a look whether there were people there, you asked the people who were not supposed to be there to leave.

MR McCASKILL: When I said that I asked the people to leave who were not supposed to be there, I referred to Lesotho citizens, the persons whom I knew were not ANC members.

CHAIRPERSON: But now I want to get to this man Themba. Themba was not in the list that you were given first of all, as a person who had to attend that party, is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: I was not given a list.

CHAIRPERSON: Or it was pointed out to you in an album.

MR McCASKILL: I agree he was not invited.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. And actually he also had to be asked to leave.

MR McCASKILL: Yes, but I did not ask him because I knew.

CHAIRPERSON: Was it not because there would have been R5 000 on his head and that is why you did not ask him to leave?

MR McCASKILL: No, it's not the case, it was told to me that the more ANC persons, I was not specifically told this one and that one.

CHAIRPERSON: And the more ANC people there were, the greater the amount of money you would have received.

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that so?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And that is why Themba was not asked to leave.

MR McCASKILL: I shall accept it as such.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, the money was attractive, is that not so?

MR McCASKILL: I shall accept that.

CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, did you know that people, during the Christmas time would return to South Africa?

MR McCASKILL: No, not before the time that Leon asked me to take him through.

CHAIRPERSON: When was that?

MR McCASKILL: On the same day of the attack.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you know what they were going to do in South Africa?

MR McCASKILL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Did Mr de Kock not tell you?

MR McCASKILL: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Did you ever find out what they were going to do in South Africa?

MR McCASKILL: I just took it that Leon was from the Cape province and maybe he wanted to go to his family, that is what I thought, I did not know that they would do something. That is what I thought to myself.

CHAIRPERSON: He asked you to take him to Bloemfontein?

MR McCASKILL: Yes, to the station.

CHAIRPERSON: And you drew the inference that he would go to Cape Town to his family?

MR McCASKILL: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is that how it worked?

MR McCASKILL: I thought he would just go and visit them, I didn't know he would go and do other things.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you. You are excused.

WITNESS EXCUSED

CHAIRPERSON: Is there any other evidence besides ...(indistinct)? Nothing? Mr Joubert do you have any further witnesses?

MR JOUBERT: Chairperson no, I would just like to hear, is Mr McCaskill excused from any other attendance because he has business commitments.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Mr Berger, how many witnesses have you got?

MR BERGER: Chairperson, I have essentially ten people who are going to make statements, it's not going to be evidence. I've explained to them that if they do not take the oath, their statement will not have the weight of any evidence and they understand that, so I don't anticipate that they will take very long. But Chairperson, before we adjourn, can I just ask in relation to Mr Coetser, you mentioned yesterday that the Committee has taken a decision that he is a necessary witness and that the Attorney-General is going to be informed accordingly. I just wanted to ask the Committee, in terms of Section 30(1) of the Act particularly, well section 30(1) says that

"a person who has been subpoenaed shall be compelled to answer any question"

and then (2) says:

"a person referred to in (1) shall only be compelled to answer a question if the Commission has issued an order to that effect after the Commission has (a) consulted the Attorney-General, (b) satisfied itself as to certain requirements and (c) satisfied itself again as to certain requirements."

Has the Committee, I know that we've already been told that the Attorney-General has been consulted, has the Committee made the findings in terms of (2) (b) and (2) (c) and was - well because ...

CHAIRPERSON: 2(c), in terms of (2)(c) his representative indicated that he was not willing to testify.

MR BERGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: And he was aware of the consequences of that.

MR BERGER: Yes. (2)(b) is that

"to require him to answer the question is reasonable, necessary and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on freedom and equality"

CHAIRPERSON: That justifies the subpoena, but carry on, I'll listen to you.

MR BERGER: Because yesterday you said that the Committee is satisfied that he's a necessary witness and I see the word necessary, but I'm not sure whether it's clear from your ruling whether you are satisfied.

CHAIRPERSON: Well if it's quite necessary, you must read in reasonable and justifiable.

MR BERGER: Chairperson, the only point I'm making is that, has the Committee now come to a decision that (a), (b) and (c) have been satisfied and that therefore Mr Coetser is obliged to answer a question which he has now refused to answer and therefore it's being referred? That is now the position. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Why? Is there any problem that you have with that, or you just wanted to clarify?

MR BERGER: No, Chairperson, because as I said, yesterday your ruling was that you find Mr Coetser to be a necessary witness and I wasn't ...

CHAIRPERSON: He's transgressed this section and therefore we've referred it to the Attorney-General for him to decide and deal with it as we expect him to do.

MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON: We'll adjourn for your witnesses to half-past nine tomorrow. Mr Berger do you think we'll be finished tomorrow?

MR BERGER: With the statements? With the evidence?

CHAIRPERSON: Well with evidence, yes.

MR BERGER: Yes, not with argument.

CHAIRPERSON: No, we're going to adjourn to the 25th.

MR BERGER: 26th.

CHAIRPERSON: The 26th. I'm not too sure, I think that Monday is a holiday.

MR BERGER: That's the 25th.

CHAIRPERSON: So we'll adjourn till the 26th for argument.

MR BERGER: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Is one and a half days enough? I'll depend largely on your written argument. I would imagine at worst we're going to sit here one and a half days for argument.

MR BERGER: Two days, I would have thought. I wouldn't make bookings for after lunch on the second day.

CHAIRPERSON: When should bookings be made for, after supper?

MR BERGER: After supper.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. You're pushing it Mr Berger. I've been told in the past that people have to sing for their supper, but this is ... Anyway we'll adjourn till 10 a.m. tomorrow. Is that suitable to everybody?

COMMITTEE ADJOURNS