MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, you will note that I have handed a document up to you, if you will allow me to, which is an affidavit of Mr Strydom. You would have seen in his application, his affidavit in his application was very short and I felt it prudent to deal with some of the issues. So I would request you to regard this affidavit as part of his application. I can either let him read it to you into the record, or just confirm it. You obviously haven't had a change of reading it, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: We haven't had the chance to read it, but have your colleagues been afforded an opportunity to go through the affidavit?
MR DU PLESSIS: We have presented them with copies a while ago, during this morning. I don't know if they've had an opportunity.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, have you had an opportunity to have sight of the affidavit, the supplementary affidavit that is being handed up to the Committee?
ADV PRINSLOO: I've gone through it briefly, I'll be able to proceed, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Ms van der Walt?
MS VAN DER WALT: That is correct.
MR JOUBERT: I will be in a position to proceed, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Jansen, will you be in a position to proceed? Have you had sight of the affidavit handed up?
MR JANSEN: Yes, I've read the affidavit, thank you Madam Chair.
MR VAN HEERDEN: I will also be able to proceed, thank you, Madam Chair.
MR DU PLESSIS: Mr Strydom, will you put on your headphones and tune into the Afrikaans channel. The application of Mr Strydom in this incident you will find on page 414 to 415.
Mr Strydom, do you confirm the general information which has been set out in your application - I beg your pardon he has not been sworn in.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, you probably are proceeding a little bit faster than the Committee, we have to swear him in. Oom Struis, will you please rise to be sworn in.
JOHANNES JAKOBUS STRYDOM: (sworn states)
MR MALAN: Thank you, please be seated.
EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Strydom, you application has been set out from page 396 to page 428. Do you confirm the correctness thereof?
MR DU PLESSIS: And the particulars have been set out with regard to this incident, from page 415 to 416. Do you confirm the correctness thereof?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then you have also submitted a supplementary affidavit just to clarify certain aspects and to place the matter in better perspective. Do you confirm the correctness of the affidavit which you have submitted?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.
MR DU PLESSIS: And then you say in paragraph 22 of the affidavit - if I can just take you there, Madam Chair. You state
"I just wish to mention that my memory has really been affected through the years, among others, due to the use of alcohol and ageing and that I have achieved better clarity of the matter after having read the applications of other applicants. My memory was refreshed to such an extent that I felt it necessary to compile this affidavit in order to supplement my original application."
Did you have contact with any of the other applicants when you set up your original affidavit and application which appears in the bundle?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct, I did.
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you have detailed contact with them?
MR STRYDOM: No, I simply listened to their evidence.
MR DU PLESSIS: No, listen carefully to my question. When you compiled your application on page 415, at that time, two years ago, did you discuss this with any of the other applicants?
MR DU PLESSIS: Did you compile this on your own?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, I compiled it by myself.
MR DU PLESSIS: And you state now that your memory has been refreshed.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, my memory has been refreshed.
MR DU PLESSIS: And the version in this affidavit is what you can recall.
MR DU PLESSIS: And if you cannot recall something, you have stated that you could not recall it.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, I could not recall it.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR DU PLESSIS
MR JANSEN: No questions, thank you Chair.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY ADV PRINSLOO: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Strydom, this incident took place quite some time ago, is that correct?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.
ADV PRINSLOO: And it has often been said that women's memories fail them, but men's memories also fail them.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.
ADV PRINSLOO: You were not as involved in this matter ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Be careful, Mr Prinsloo.
ADV PRINSLOO: I did qualify it, Madam Chair.
Is it correct Mr Strydom, that you were only involved on the last day?
ADV PRINSLOO: So you were not involved in the investigation of this matter?
ADV PRINSLOO: Apparently you were merely a person who accompanied Mr Prinsloo.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, can you recall specifically that Prinsloo bought beers at Pienaarsrivier, or was this elsewhere?
MR STRYDOM: It was at Pienaarsrivier.
ADV PRINSLOO: Why do you recall this so specifically?
MR STRYDOM: Because I drove with him and because he stopped there at the hotel and the off-sales division of the hotel and that is where we bought the beers.
ADV PRINSLOO: Is his evidence correct when he says that he had six beers on him?
ADV PRINSLOO: You heard his evidence in that he said that he gave a beer to the deceased and that he himself had a beer.
ADV PRINSLOO: And you don't have any problem with that because he couldn't have expected the deceased to have a beer by himself and him just sit there. If he had done that to someone, it would have looked very suspicious firstly, and secondly, it would have been very impolite.
ADV PRINSLOO: There would never have been a case of the one having a drink and the other one not having anything.
MR STRYDOM: That's correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: We accept this knowledge, Mr Prinsloo.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, your evidence is not that at that stage you were having beers with them.
MR STRYDOM: No, not at that stage. To which stage have you referred to?
ADV PRINSLOO: No, we are referring to the stage when Mr Prinsloo would have given the deceased a beer and that he himself would have had a beer as well.
ADV PRINSLOO: Are you saying that at that stage you had a beer or was it later?
MR STRYDOM: At that stage I also had a beer.
ADV PRINSLOO: There with Mr Prinsloo on the veranda or wherever it took place?
ADV PRINSLOO: Did you stand there with him having a beer?
MR STRYDOM: All of us were standing there.
ADV PRINSLOO: Who is all of us?
MR STRYDOM: Some of the other members, but I cannot recall who they were.
ADV PRINSLOO: But you have heard Mr Prinsloo's evidence in that he said that he had a beer with the deceased and not the others.
ADV PRINSLOO: And you could not have been standing aside ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: May I just come in here. The last portion of the question has been very unclear, could you please repeat it. May I ask that, Madam Chair, please. He asked the question and he said - "Capt Prinsloo had a beer and that the others never had a beer", but the last section was very unclear.
ADV PRINSLOO: I will do so, Chairperson.
The evidence of Capt Prinsloo is that he and the deceased each had a beer, is that correct?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, I agree with that.
ADV PRINSLOO: But what is not clear is the stage at which you had a beer and where and with whom.
MR STRYDOM: At the house on the veranda all of us had beers. I just want to state it clearly for the Committee, that Prinsloo gave the deceased an Amstel beer and the other members did not have Amstels, neither did I, it was Lion beer.
ADV PRINSLOO: I didn't hear you.
ADV PRINSLOO: Who did you say provided that beer?
MR STRYDOM: Those were the beers that we bought at Pienaarsrivier.
ADV PRINSLOO: That "we" bought, or who bought?
ADV PRINSLOO: So you yourself bought beers?
MR STRYDOM: We bought it together.
ADV PRINSLOO: So are you saying that beer was jointly purchased?
ADV PRINSLOO: You bought beers and Prinsloo bought beers?
ADV PRINSLOO: So if Prinsloo says that he had six beers and that these were Amstel, would you agree with it?
ADV PRINSLOO: Would you then also agree that he used one of those Amstels for himself and one for the deceased?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, I agree with that.
ADV PRINSLOO: So you are not saying that he gave the remaining four Amstels to you or any of the others?
ADV PRINSLOO: But that's not what you've said, you haven't put that as a fact. Did Prinsloo give the four other beers to the others?
MR STRYDOM: I'm saying that it is possible that he may have handed the other four.
ADV PRINSLOO: Is that a fact or are you speculating?
MR MALAN: He is making a concession, if I understand him correctly, Mr Prinsloo. He is saying that it is possible.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, are you saying that there was drinking in the vehicle before you arrived there at the farm?
MR STRYDOM: Do you mean while we were travelling?
MR STRYDOM: I'm not certain, I don't believe so.
ADV PRINSLOO: Because I have just very briefly studied your affidavit and I just wish to be certain about this ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: May I just assist with this? Paragraph 9, I don't know if I should refer you to this, paragraph 9, the final sentence.
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone.
ADV PRINSLOO: In paragraph 9 it is stated that there was no consumption before the time. Thank you, I have seen this now.
Inasfar as it involves the persons who, according to you on page 3 in paragraph 8, were at the unoccupied house, Dos Santos, Bester and Putter and then Jerry and Smuts, this other person de Pino, are you certain that he was there or are you reconstructing the fact that he was there?
MR STRYDOM: I am reconstructing his presence, I'm not one hundred percent certain that he was there.
ADV PRINSLOO: Because according to Capt Prinsloo he was not present there, he was involved in other investigations. As he recalls de Pino was involved with stockpiles.
MR STRYDOM: It is possible that de Pino was not present there.
ADV PRINSLOO: You have heard the evidence of Prinsloo, when it was put to him he said that he did not purchase beers at Pienaarsrivier. Then we get to the assault and you state that you did not see the deceased being assaulted yourself.
MR STRYDOM: No, I did not see that he was assaulted.
ADV PRINSLOO: You state that you saw scars or injuries on his person.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, I saw that there were injuries to his face.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, can you recall precisely what sort of injuries these were?
MR STRYDOM: His eyes were swollen. They were not swollen completely closed, but it was clear to me that he had been assaulted. There were marks on his face, there were points of swelling on his face.
ADV PRINSLOO: So if I understand your answer correctly, Mr Strydom, his face was swollen but not lacerated.
MR STRYDOM: There were no open wounds, there was light swelling, as I have indicated.
ADV PRINSLOO: You did not know this person previously?
MR STRYDOM: No, I did not know the person previously.
ADV PRINSLOO: Therefore you would not know what his appearance would have been, how his eyes would have appeared under usual circumstances?
ADV PRINSLOO: Therefore you are assuming that his eyes were swollen?
MR STRYDOM: No, I could see clearly that the man had been assaulted, due to fact that his face was swollen. His face did not appear to be normal, as the face of another.
ADV PRINSLOO: Could you clarify that, what do you mean?
MR STRYDOM: I could see when someone had been assaulted.
ADV PRINSLOO: Because nobody here has testified that the man had any injuries or a swollen face. There was evidence about an assault, but nothing of injuries or a swollen face. No-one has mentioned anything about that, you are the first to state anything about that. Can you clarify this?
MR STRYDOM: I have just stated ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Is that correct, Mr Prinsloo?
ADV PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon?
CHAIRPERSON: Is that correct? I recall Mr Mathebula saying that he didn't have any open wounds, but he didn't go as far as saying that the face was not swollen.
ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, what I put to the witness is that there was no witness that said that his face was in fact swollen, as Mr Strydom's now testifying. But it's also correct on the opposite side, Mr Mathebula didn't qualify that. He never said there were any open wounds.
CHAIRPERSON: He said there were no open wounds.
CHAIRPERSON: That does not mean that the face wasn't swollen.
ADV PRINSLOO: Yes. But on the other hand, with respect Madam Chair, there was no, it wasn't his version that his face was swollen. Just a moment please, Madam Chair.
Mr Strydom, I have noted in your affidavit on page 5 in paragraph 15, that you state that you yourself helped to dig the hole. I beg your pardon, that is not paragraph 15, or yes, it is paragraph 15. That you helped to dig the hole ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: May I just come in there, Madam Chair. Just for record purposes, my learned friend put that he said that he also dug the grave and he says
"I cannot recall who dug the grave. As far as I can recall, the members who drove with the bakkie to the grave were Prinsloo, Dos Santos and me."
ADV PRINSLOO: So you do not say that you helped to dig the grave? Because I do not understand precisely what you have put there. Could you explain to the Committee.
MR STRYDOM: I myself did not help to dig the grave.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, you also do not say that you were under the influence of alcohol on that day when these incidents took place. ...(transcriber's interpretation)
MR STRYDOM: No, I don't say that, Chairperson.
ADV PRINSLOO: And you also do not wish to say that the other members who were present there were under the influence.
MR STRYDOM: I wouldn't say that we were under the influence, but beers had been consumed.
ADV PRINSLOO: That is a very broad idea. If a person has had a beer, he could be under the influence. You are an experienced policeman.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct. Well whether you've had one or two beers, regardless of that, you are under the influence of alcohol.
ADV PRINSLOO: Well I'm glad that you are not testifying against somebody in Court on that basis, that he would be under the influence of beer. Did you see any person who appeared to be inebriated in your opinion, except that you saw a person having a beer.
MR STRYDOM: Well as I've stated, I saw that there were persons having beers, but I didn't observe that anybody was drunk.
ADV PRINSLOO: And you cannot tell the Committee who specifically had a beer or not.
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall specifically who had beers.
ADV PRINSLOO: But you recall that you yourself had a beer.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, you have heard the evidence that there were two explosions, first the primary explosion during which the person's body had to be destroyed and was destroyed and afterwards remnants were picked up and these were once again blown up.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, Chairperson, the first explosion I can recall and I recall that after the first explosion, remnants of flesh and hair lay about, but I cannot recall a second explosion.
ADV PRINSLOO: Mr Strydom, you would agree with me that the whole purpose behind this exercise was to completely destroy the body of the person, so that nothing would remain. Is that correct?
ADV PRINSLOO: And if one had caused an explosion and if one picked up remnants and tossed them into a hole and did not destroy these remaining pieces, somebody may have been able to find this and then scientifically it could be proven who the person was who had been killed and that would have destroyed the ends of this exercise. Is that correct?
ADV PRINSLOO: And that is what took place there.
MR STRYDOM: The first explosion, as I have already stated, went off and there were remnants of flesh with hairs which remained, but I cannot recall the second explosion.
ADV PRINSLOO: But Mr Strydom, the idea was to completely destroy the body of the person. There is a person who was particularly involved with this. For example Dos Santos, Prinsloo, Crafford and Bester and certainly efforts would have been made to ensure that absolutely nothing remained because it was a very serious matter, isn't that so?
CHAIRPERSON: Wasn't this within his knowledge, Mr Prinsloo?
ADV PRINSLOO: I beg your pardon, Madam Chair?
CHAIRPERSON: Was the reason why Mr Lubane had to be blasted within Mr Strydom's knowledge and the fact that his remains were to be completely obliterated within his knowledge?
ADV PRINSLOO: I respectfully submit, Madam Chair, that must have been within his knowledge because he was present when he was blown up and according to his own version there were pieces collected. He says it's only his memory, he can't recall exactly as to whether there was a second explosion or not.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, isn't that sufficient?
ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, what I'm putting to the witness is that the whole purpose was to destroy all evidence completely, otherwise it would be futile to blow up the person and certain remains remain, where traces could be found and later be linked to this particular person, to a human that was blown up there.
CHAIRPERSON: Was the objective explained to him? Because I still don't know whether he is answering a question that is within his personal knowledge.
ADV PRINSLOO: Well I'll ask him whether it was within his personal knowledge, Madam Chair.
Mr Strydom, did you know that the entire purpose was for this person's body to be completely destroyed, so that there would be no remains which could indicate that there was any evidence of someone having been blown up there at a later stage?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct. But I will reiterate, I cannot recall a second explosion.
ADV PRINSLOO: I have nothing further.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY ADV PRINSLOO
ADV MOTATA: But Mr Prinsloo, when he says in paragraph 17
"... en die gat is toegegooi."
Is it not also destroying the evidence of any remains?
ADV PRINSLOO: With respect, Madam Chair, with regard to the question of Mr Motata, that will be futile if you merely cover it up, because the hair will still be traced there and you could link it later on.
ADV MOTATA: I suppose it's a question of argument, we cannot take ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I think this is a question for argument.
ADV MOTATA: It is a question for argument, we cannot take it over with Oom Struis.
MR DU PLESSIS: I wanted to suggest that we swear in Mr Prinsloo now.
CHAIRPERSON: No, it's a question to be argued when you do your submission, Mr Prinsloo. Ms van der Walt?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Strydom, you have submitted a further affidavit which you have presented to the Committee as the result of having read the other applications and having heard the other evidence and that your memory has been refreshed as a result of this.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: But isn't it true Mr Strydom, that your evidence and the statement which you submitted is completely different to your application which is embodied in bundle 1?
MS VAN DER WALT: Yes, because I just wish to point out to you, on page 414 it is stated that
"Above-mentioned members were interrogating a terrorist who was involved in terrorist activities. I cannot recall the matter specifically and I cannot recall the names specifically."
That is entirely incorrect because you were not involved in any interrogation.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, I was not present.
MS VAN DER WALT: Then in the same paragraph at the bottom ...(intervention)
INTERPRETER: The speaker's microphone is not on.
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, may I just perhaps come in here. In his affidavit now he explains in paragraph 20, he says the following - ...(intervention)
MS VAN DER WALT: I just wonder if the witness couldn't perhaps answer the question under cross-examination himself, because otherwise we'll just have to swear Mr du Plessis in.
MR DU PLESSIS: Ag Madam Chair, please, I'm not going to go to level of responding to that. I'll leave it there and let Mrs van der Walt just carry on with her questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr du Plessis. Ms van der Walt, you may proceed.
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
"At that stage we had had many beers and had also given beers to the activist. This man had been gravely assaulted by all of our members during interrogation."
What do you say about the fact that beers were given to the activist?
MR STRYDOM: I refer to the beers which Capt Prinsloo had given him.
MS VAN DER WALT: Just that one beer?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And what do you say about the fact that "The man was gravely assaulted by all the members during the interrogation"?
ADV MOTATA: But Ms van der Walt, is that not cured by paragraph 20 of the supplementary affidavit?
MS VAN DER WALT: I deal with that if I may.
So what appears here is actually incorrect, which appears in your application, page 415?
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, that is exactly the point. If you read that as saying "The man was assaulted by all of our members during the interrogation", meaning an interrogation that happened there when they arrived there where he was present. Then her question is valid, but that's why I pointed to paragraph 20, where he says ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: We are aware of what paragraph 20 ...
"My verwysing na aanrandings is ...(onduidelik) na aanrandings wat plaasgevind het gedurende die tydperk tydens ondervragings en op grond van die toestand van Lubane wat ek waargeneem het toe ek daar aangekom het."
With the greatest of respect, that can be interpreted in different ways.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, will you afford Ms van der Walt an opportunity to conduct her cross-examination.
MR DU PLESSIS: As it pleases you, yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: Thank you, Honourable Chairperson.
Mr Strydom, I just wish to read that sentence to you again, and I'm not trying to argue with you here, but there are certain aspects of my client's evidence which will be placed before the Honourable Committee, which differ from yours. What I'm reading to you is this -
"The man was gravely assaulted by all of our members during interrogation."
And that is correct in the sense that you do not know who it was or whether he was assaulted by one or ten persons, or by your members. Is that correct?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
MS VAN DER WALT: Then why have you inserted this there?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, as I have stated, since I made this statement up to now, my recollection has recovered completely and what I said at the stage when I made the initial affidavit, has occurred to me now as being incorrect.
MS VAN DER WALT: You see, I understand if your recollection was faulty, but here you state a specific action which took place and you state, or you do not state that you don't know whether an assault took place because you cannot recall, you state that the man was gravely assaulted by all of your members. And what I mean is that I don't understand how you can simply recall this or not recall this, because you are making specific allegations here. Why?
MR STRYDOM: When I made the affidavit I was incorrect in what I wrote in the affidavit at that stage.
MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you include incorrect facts?
CHAIRPERSON: Ms van der Walt, will there be any point in pursuing this line of cross-examination, bearing in mind that he has already conceded that he was incorrect in his application, pertinently in relation to this issue, because of his faulty recollection. And having also given evidence right at the beginning that he has since had an opportunity to confer with the other applicants and in so doing his memory was refreshed. Isn't this a matter to be argued when you present your legal argument?
MS VAN DER WALT: May I just over to the new affidavit and what he says on page 4, paragraph 10.
Now after you have read all the statements and recovered your memory you have said that you could see quite clearly that he had been assaulted during interrogations, due to the fact that he had marks and lesions which appeared to indicate a serious assault. Now I want to know, did you compile this affidavit yesterday, because this is quite fresh in your recollection? Is that correct?
MS VAN DER WALT: Which marks did you observe?
MR STRYDOM: There were marks of swelling.
MS VAN DER WALT: Now when you refer to marks it wouldn't really be correct, this would have to be swelling as such.
MS VAN DER WALT: And which scars did you observe?
MR STRYDOM: Well if one had hit someone in the face with the fist there would be swelling which would lead to scarring or lumps.
MS VAN DER WALT: What form of scars? You will have to tell the Committee, because it is quite important. Marks are now swellings, and what is the difference between a swelling and a lump?
MR STRYDOM: Well there isn't really a difference I suppose.
MS VAN DER WALT: But then what do you mean by scars?
MR STRYDOM: I would say according to my information and my experience, swelling would be the result of a fist blow or a slap which had been dealt to the face.
MR STRYDOM: A scar would be an open wound.
MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Now what open wounds did he have on his face?
MR STRYDOM: I've already stated that there were no open wounds.
MS VAN DER WALT: But you have just said that scars are open wounds.
MR STRYDOM: You asked me for an example.
MS VAN DER WALT: No, I wanted to know what you said here. What did you see?
MR STRYDOM: There were no scars, there was swelling and lumps, as I have stated.
MS VAN DER WALT: So you are also mistaken with what you stated in your affidavit? Because you state that this assault took place during the interrogations.
MR STRYDOM: It was before my arrival and I suspected that that was when the assault took place.
MS VAN DER WALT: So it is also not correct that it took place during interrogation, because you cannot say this.
MR STRYDOM: Not in my presence.
MS VAN DER WALT: Why did you put this in your affidavit?
MR DU PLESSIS: May I just know precisely to which affidavit and which sentence she has referred?
MS VAN DER WALT: The new affidavit.
CHAIRPERSON: Paragraph 10, page 4.
MS VAN DER WALT: If you do not know that this took place during interrogation, why did you put this in your new affidavit of we have received half an hour ago?
MR STRYDOM: Chairperson, it could have been assault during interrogation before I arrived there.
MS VAN DER WALT: But you don't this.
MS VAN DER WALT: Very well. Because I put it to you ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: May I interpose, Ms van der Walt.
Did you put that in paragraph 10, that he must have been assaulted during interrogation because you assumed that was the whole reason for abducting and keeping him on a farm? It would be for no other reason except to interrogate him.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. You may proceed, Ms van der Walt.
MS VAN DER WALT: You see Mr Strydom, I put it to you that Mr Bester was, from the very first day when Mr Lubane arrived on the farm, Mr Bester was tasked to guard Mr Lubane. He was with Mr Jerry Matjeni. It was the primary task of the two of them. Mr Bester will testify that he has absolutely no knowledge of the slaps which Capt Prinsloo dealt to Mr Lubane. But he states that during the entire period of time that he was present on the farm there was no assault on Mr Lubane that he observed. But Mr Lubane had no marks on his face or on his body, that he sustained no injuries, that he would definitely have observed this because he slept in the same room as Mr Lubane. Do you have any commentary about that?
MR STRYDOM: I have no comment for that because I was not there. I was only on the farm at one stage.
MS VAN DER WALT: But do you have any comment regarding the assaults which you observed?
MR STRYDOM: I have no ...(intervention)
MR DU PLESSIS: He did not observe any assaults.
CHAIRPERSON: He didn't observe any assault, Ms van der Walt. That's not his evidence.
MR MALAN: Your microphone is not on.
MS VAN DER WALT: I beg your pardon. I refer to the injuries.
CHAIRPERSON: He has already said he can't comment on Mr Bester's observations.
MS VAN DER WALT: Then I would like to take you to page 5, paragraph 15. And I want to put it to you that Mr Bester cannot recall whether or not you were present when the grave was dug, but that he will testify that he and Mr Putter and Mr Botha dug the grave. Any comment?
MS VAN DER WALT: And then I would also like to put it to you that Mr Bester will also testify that there was a second explosion. And you have already stated that you cannot recall this.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, yes.
MS VAN DER WALT: You mention in your amnesty application on page 416, that you departed from the farm - that is the inference that I have drawn. Perhaps you could tell me whether or not I am mistaken
"After that we departed for a farm near Hammanskraal, where we found a Cortina vehicle."
Is that what you have stated there, that you departed from the farm where the incident took place?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: And then you went to another farm.
MS VAN DER WALT: Now I put it to you that Mr Bester will state that the yellow Cortina vehicle was on the farm where the incident took place. Do you have anything to say about that?
MR STRYDOM: I have no comment.
MS VAN DER WALT: Is your version correct?
MR STRYDOM: I wouldn't say that my version is one hundred percent correct, but it is possible that I may be mistaken.
MS VAN DER WALT: Because you do not address it in your new affidavit.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that is correct.
MS VAN DER WALT: Nothing further, thank you Chairperson.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MS VAN DER WALT
MR DU PLESSIS: Madam Chair, sorry. May I just point out, the last paragraph would have remained the same and for some reason my secretary didn't retype that paragraph into this affidavit and that is why it's not in this affidavit.
MR JOUBERT: I have no questions, thank you Madam Chair.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VAN HEERDEN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr Strydom, how many times had you been on this specific farm?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall where the farm is situated?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall at all where the farm is situated.
MR VAN HEERDEN: This hole which was dug, how deep was it?
MR STRYDOM: I don't know how deep the hole was, because I was not as close to the hole so that I could observe the depth of it.
MR VAN HEERDEN: How far away were you?
MR STRYDOM: Approximately four to five metres.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And did the man's body fit comfortably into this hole?
MR VAN HEERDEN: So you could see the hole? Or let me put it like this. How long was the hole?
MR STRYDOM: It was approximately two to three metres long.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall its width?
MR STRYDOM: No, Chairperson, I cannot recall how wide it was.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And the depth?
MR STRYDOM: I also cannot recall the depth.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And after the explosion you returned to the hole and remnants of the remains had been picked up.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you participate in picking up the remains?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Can you recall how the remains were picked up?
MR STRYDOM: By means of shovels.
MR VAN HEERDEN: And these remnants were then tossed back into the hole.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Was the hole any deeper after the explosion than before the explosion?
MR STRYDOM: No, it wasn't deeper than before.
MR VAN HEERDEN: Did you see when the hole was filled up again?
MR VAN HEERDEN: I've no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VAN HEERDEN
CHAIRPERSON: Are you through with your cross-examination, Mr van Heerden?
MR VAN HEERDEN: Yes, thank you Madam Chair.
ADV STEENKAMP: No questions, thank you Madam Chair.
MR MALAN: Just with regard to your final answer to Mr van Heerden's question. You state in your affidavit on page 6, paragraph 17
"... and the hole was filled up after the flesh, bones and hair had been picked up and tossed back into the hole."
MR MALAN: How do you know this?
MR STRYDOM: Well I assumed that the hole would have been filled up.
MR MALAN: I don't understand your answer. Did you leave immediately after the explosion?
MR STRYDOM: No, I did not leave the farm immediately after the explosion.
MR MALAN: No, what I mean is the hole.
MR MALAN: Then how do you know that remnants of flesh, bone and hair had been picked up?
MR STRYDOM: Because I saw it. Just after the flesh and the bones had been picked up I left the scene.
MR MALAN: You saw how it was tossed into the hole?
MR MALAN: Did you depart on your own?
MR MALAN: But you did not see them fill up the hole, you just saw them toss the remains into the hole with a spade.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, and I assumed that they would have covered the hole or filled it up.
MR MALAN: And you also state that you have no recollection of a second explosion.
MR MALAN: Can you recall whether the black members returned upon the retrieval of the remnants of flesh and bone and hair?
MR MALAN: You cannot recall when they returned?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall when they returned.
CHAIRPERSON: But did you see if they also participated in the retrieval of the remnants?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall that, Chairperson, I cannot recall whether they participated.
MR MALAN: And then, when did Prinsloo tell you that the activist would be eliminated?
MR STRYDOM: When we arrived on the farm.
MR MALAN: So all the way in the car when you were travelling with him, absolutely nothing was said, he simply said that you were to travel with him to the farm?
MR STRYDOM: That is correct. We chatted, but I cannot recall what we chatted about.
MR MALAN: And the first that you knew was when you saw the activist and you saw that he was swollen and you spoke to Prinsloo and he told you that the activist was going to be eliminated?
MR STRYDOM: He was a Sergeant who worked with us at that time in our unit.
MR STRYDOM: Yes, in C-Section.
MR MALAN: Very well. Thank you, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Malan. Mr Motata?
ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Chairperson.
Mr Strydom, paragraph 19 of the supplementary affidavit, you say -
"More, Mathebula and Matjeni during this period were sent away to buy beers."
ADV MOTATA: Who sent them away to buy more beers?
MR STRYDOM: If I recall correctly it was Capt Prinsloo who sent them away to buy more beer.
ADV MOTATA: Was it the order that they were to go and purchase more beer?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, that was the order.
ADV MOTATA: Did they return with the beer?
MR STRYDOM: Yes, they returned with the beer.
ADV MOTATA: What happened to the beer, was it consumed or what happened?
MR STRYDOM: Some of the beers were consumed.
ADV MOTATA: Who on the farm had the beer?
ADV MOTATA: No, who? Because we only know that More, Mathebula and Matjeni were there. Did others, such as Bester, Putter, Dos Santos, also participate in the consumption of the beers?
MR STRYDOM: Everybody had beers.
ADV MOTATA: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
ADV MOTATA: Madam Chairperson. I beg your pardon.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, earlier on in your testimony you evidenced that on your way to the farm you stopped at Pienaarsrivier Bottle Store, where you bought some beers and Mr Prinsloo bought Amstel. Can we infer that you bought Lion? Did I understand your evidence incorrectly?
MR STRYDOM: I just wish to correct something. I had no knowledge of those Amstel beers, I did not see them in the car. Both of us bought Lion beers at Pienaarsrivier.
CHAIRPERSON: So you both bought Lion beer at Pienaarsrivier.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Were these cans or bottles?
CHAIRPERSON: To your recollection the drink that was given to Mr Lubane, was it an Amstel beer to your recollection?
MR STRYDOM: According to my recollection it was an Amstel beer.
CHAIRPERSON: And were the other members who were around the veranda at the time of Mr Lubane drinking this Amstel beer, also having Amstel?
MR STRYDOM: I cannot recall precisely whether or not they drank Amstels.
CHAIRPERSON: What kind of beer did you drink?
CHAIRPERSON: But your recollection is that whilst Mr Lubane was drinking his beer, other members also were drinking beer around the verandah where Mr Lubane was.
MR STRYDOM: That is correct, Chairperson.
MR MALAN: Mr Strydom, I suppose I should have asked Mr Prinsloo this question because I cannot recall whether this evidence was specifically led. But if it is in correlation with his practise that beer must have been prepared beforehand because he knew what he was going to do, he put the sleeping drug into the beer. I don't think he gave specific evidence. If Mr Prinsloo wishes to assist me, Mr Harry Prinsloo, then he can do so. Can you recall that you were told, because you do not say anything about it in your affidavit, that you were told that there was a sleeping drug in the deceased's beer?
MR MALAN: You just recall that he drank the beer and that it affected him and rendered him unconscious.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Prinsloo, counsel, would I be correct if I encapsulate my memory of Mr Prinsloo, the applicant's evidence, as having been to the effect that the pills were ground on the farm and a portion was inserted inside the beer on the farm? I thought Mr Prinsloo's evidence was quite clear in that regard. That's how I recall the evidence.
ADV PRINSLOO: Madam Chair, I was just looking now to find that place, but my colleague indicates that there was evidence that the beer was, it was placed at the farm, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, that's how I recall his evidence. In that regard you don't need to recall Mr Prinsloo.
ADV PRINSLOO: I don't think so, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr du Plessis, do you wish to conduct any re-examination?
MR DU PLESSIS: No re-examination, thank you Madam Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR DU PLESSIS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Strydom, or should we say Oom Struis, you are excused as a witness.
MR DU PLESSIS: Thank you, Madam Chair.
MS VAN DER WALT: We just need to switch the microphones please, Chairperson.